Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 12/28/2018
-
Democrats Prepare to Haul These Trump Officials Into Hearings
Dec 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Opfer, Jon Reid, Madison Alder, and Dean Scott
Democrats, who take control of the House Jan. 3, want to chat with various Trumpadministration officials. Committee leaders are planning to step up their oversight of federal agencies by requesting information and ... -
New Drinking Water Limits On 4 PFAS Chemicals Due Out Jan. 1
Dec 28, 2018 | New Hampshire Public Radio
By Annie Ropeik
New state limits on four types of PFAS chemicals in drinking water are due out New Year's Day. The proposals, if approved, would create new treatment and testing requirements for all public water systems in the state. -
Film: The Devil We Know
Dec 28, 2018 | Chemistry World
By Katrina Krämer
In the early 1980s, Ohio farmer Wilbur Tennant started losing his cattle. One by one, the animals’ teeth turned black, they wasted away and died. Tennant had stumbled upon an environmental disaster: the chemical... -
Green New Deal Part 1: Disparate Viewpoints Over Impact on Oil & Gas Industry
Dec 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, the grassroots environmental organization behind a plan to have all of the nation's electricity generated by renewables in a decade, said the group doesn't believe the incoming Congress will... -
EPA Moves to Downplay Benefits of Environmental Rules
Dec 28, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Zack Colman
EPA on Friday proposed making it harder to justify the expense of future environmental regulations in what will likely become one of the most contentious environmental actions of the Trump administration. -
EPA Reconsiders Need for Mercury Pollution Standards at Power Plants
Dec 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday it will reconsider the reasoning behind mercury pollution standards for power plants. -
EPA Targets Obama-Era Basis for Mercury, Toxics Regs
Dec 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The cost of forcing power plants to further reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants they emit would far outweigh any additional health benefits, the EPA said as part of a proposal released Dec. 28. -
Mercury Limits on Coal Plants No Longer `Appropriate,’ EPA Says
Dec 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is proposing to reverse an Obama-era conclusion that limits on mercury pollution from power plants are too costly and no longer “appropriate and necessary,” a finding that could make it difficult... -
Democrats Establish a New House ‘Climate Crisis’ Committee
Dec 28, 2018 | The Atlantic
By Robinson Meyer
It’s official: When Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month, they will form a special new committee to examine climate change, Nancy Pelosi said in a statement on Friday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Democrats Prepare to Haul These Trump Officials Into Hearings
Dec 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Opfer, Jon Reid, Madison Alder, and Dean Scott
Democrats, who take control of the House Jan. 3, want to chat with various Trumpadministration officials.
Committee leaders are planning to step up their oversight of federal agencies by requesting information and documents and calling hearings after the new majority is seated. They can’t directly stop agencies from making regulatory and other moves, but they can slow the process down and make administration officials think twice about some agenda items.
“When you know you’re going to be called up in front of Congress, you’re going to be much more hesitant about trying to do anything controversial,” Randel Johnson, a Seyfarth Shaw LLP lobbyist who previously ran the Chamber of Commerce’s labor policy shop, told Bloomberg Law. “That puts a yellow flag of caution in front of everybody.”
Here are some of the officials likely to be near the top of House Democrats’ hearing invitation list.
Matthew WhitakerDemocrats want to know how Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker intends to oversee Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, given that Whitaker has been an outspoken critic of the investigation.
“President Trump installed Matthew Whitaker as acting AG for one purpose: to end the investigation,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters shortly after Whitaker was tapped for the acting job.
Whitaker will be the first witness called before the House Judiciary Committee come January, incoming chairman Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has said. The committee is also likely to probe reports that Whitaker falsified his credentials on his resume.
Kirstjen NielsenHomeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is still on the job, despite reports she’s planning her exit. If House Democrats catch Nielsen on the way out, they’re likely to ask about a wide range of immigration policies.
“As we move into the next Congress, I want to put you and your department on notice,” Nadler told Nielsen in a Dec. 20 hearing. “The time for accountability has arrived.”
The committee will look into what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to protect the safety of undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border, a concern highlighted by the death of a 7-year-old girl apprehended after crossing into New Mexico and an 8-year-old boy from Guatemala who died on Christmas Eve. The department’s recent announcement that it won’t allow immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to remain in the country while their legal cases are pending is also drawing questions.
Nielsen said following the second death that the DHS is taking a series of “extraordinary protective measures,” including requiring a “thorough medical screening of all children” in Customs and Border Protection custody.
“As a result of bad judicial rulings from activist judges and inaction by Congress, we are seeing a flood of family units and unaccompanied alien children, Neilsen said in a statement. “The unprecedented number of families and unaccompanied children at the border must not be ignored.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who will chair the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Nielsen earlier this month that he wants to know what the DHS is doing to address concerns of retaliation against whistleblowers inside the department.
Mick MulvaneyMick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, could be summoned to answer questions about what’s going on behind the scenes in the Oval Office because he plans to stay on as OMB director indefinitely.
Lawmakers also have plenty of questions about OMB’s role in shaping Trump budget requests and overseeing government regulatory action. The list includes a Labor Department rule on tip sharing cleared by the White House after an economic analysis showing the regulation could allow restaurants and other businesses to skim hundreds of millions of dollars from workers was omitted from the proposed rule.
“Assuming [Mulvaney] can still be brought up, he would be one of the most appropriate officials to testify” about the tip poll snafu, Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate for Public Citizen, told Bloomberg Law.
Mulvaney may look to skirt congressional hearings by saying he’s acting more as a figurehead at the OMB these days, Narang said. That could shift the questioning to OMB regulatory chief Neomi Rao, who’s still serving in that role while waiting for the Senate to take up her nomination to fill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’sseat on a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Alexander AcostaLabor Secretary Alexander Acosta kept a relatively low profile in nearly two years on the job. Then came a November Miami Herald report detailing the former prosecutor’s role in a deal that helped hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein escape significant prison time on accusations he abused teenage girls.
Democrats are waiting to see if the Justice Department’s inspector general takes a look at the case before calling for hearings and other investigations. Incoming House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) is among those who’ve asked the DOJ watchdog to step in.
“I assume the inspector general will look into it and hopefully make a report,” Scott told Bloomberg Law. “If action needs to be taken, it will probably be in the Senate that confirmed him. We will just see what the inspector general does. I would expect an investigation, and we will know what to do after that.”
In the meantime, Scott is likely going to want to talk with Acosta about a few other issues. The tip pool fallout and a DOL proposal to loosen restrictions on teenage workers in certain health-care jobs are priorities.
“The Department of Labor will continue to engage with members of Congress, including committees of jurisdiction,” a department spokeswoman told Bloomberg Law.
Andrew WheelerRep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the incoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said beyond Acting Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, he expects to bring top EPA officials before the panel.
Others include the yet-to-be confirmed head of the EPA office that oversees a federal chemical law revised in 2016.
Trump nominated Alexandra Dunn to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and she has not been confirmed by the Senate, though Senate Democrats have reacted favorably to her nomination. Pallone said if confirmed, Dunn is likely to be called before his energy committee to address complaints that the EPA has eased chemical regulatory requirements instead of strengthening them as required under the 2016 law.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the next chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he, too, will be bringing before the committee EPA and Interior Department assistant administrators and office directors, though he didn’t name specific administrators.
Alex AzarSkyrocketing drug prices, opioids abuse, Medicare funding, and insurance affordability were some of the top issues percolating during Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar’s Senate confirmation roughly one year ago. House lawmakers are likely to ask for a checkup.
The inquiries may start with gauging how the HHS will respond to a Texas court decision finding Obamacare unconstitutional. That includes what the decision means for the millions of people who signed up for insurance through the Affordable Care Act for next year.Cummings also recently sent Azar letters asking about the department’s involvement in family separation policy for undocumented immigrants and in preparing for hurricanes.
Ajit PaiFederal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is also likely to receive an early invitation to Capitol Hill.
Pallone has vowed to hold “regular oversight hearings” with all FCC commissioners. Pai leads the FCC, which regulates television, internet, radio, and other forms of communication.
Democrats are expected to scrutinize the FCC’s repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules, its easing of media ownership regulations, and efforts to expand internet access to rural areas, among other issues. They also have some concerns with the speed of Pai’s own communications, complaining that he has answered their inquiry letters slowly, if at all.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/democrats-prepare-to-haul-these-trump-officials-into-hearings
-
New Drinking Water Limits On 4 PFAS Chemicals Due Out Jan. 1
Dec 28, 2018 | New Hampshire Public Radio
By Annie Ropeik
New state limits on four types of PFAS chemicals in drinking water are due out New Year's Day.
The proposals, if approved, would create new treatment and testing requirements for all public water systems in the state.
The new limits will cover four chemicals from the broad class of nonstick, waterproof or otherwise resistant industrial substances.
PFAS chemicals are thought to cause serious human health problems, and they've turned up in some water supplies across the state.
Department of Environmental Services spokesman Jim Martin says it's been a scramble to meet the legislature's Jan. 1 deadline for proposing the new rules.
"[We’re] working very diligently to do so, with a lot of staff putting in a lot of extra time and effort to do so,” he says.
The new limits will account for existing health studies on PFAS and estimated compliance costs for water suppliers.
They'll require more public input and legislative approval once proposed.
Advocates also recently asked the Department of Environmental Services to consider regulating all PFAS together, rather than one by one.
Martin says they'll have to wait to discuss that idea during feedback on these forthcoming regulations, known as maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs.
"Undertaking the four PFAS chemicals and developing MCLs for those is quite an undertaking in and of itself,” he says.
Advocates hope the new limits will reflect research from the Centers for Disease Control.
Scientists there say PFAS chemicals may be harmful at far lower levels than the Environmental Protection Agency and state currently advise.
https://www.nhpr.org/post/new-drinking-water-limits-4-pfas-chemicals-due-out-jan-1
-
Dec 28, 2018 | Chemistry World
By Katrina Krämer
In the early 1980s, Ohio farmer Wilbur Tennant started losing his cattle. One by one, the animals’ teeth turned black, they wasted away and died. Tennant had stumbled upon an environmental disaster: the chemical company DuPont was dumping toxins into local rivers. And it turned out they did so knowing that the waste was detrimental to the environment and human health.
The toxins in question are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), called C-8 in the film. Discovered in the 1940s, perfluoroalkyl acids have since been used for making non-stick coatings such as Teflon, water-repellent sprays and textiles like Gore-Tex. PFOA in particular has an extremely long lifetime in the environment – even though it was phased out by 2015, it can still be detected in humans and animals everywhere.
DuPont became aware of the chemicals’ risks soon after discovering and commercialising them, but decided to keep this secret both from the Environmental Protection Agency and the public. The company continued to run off their C-8 wastewater into local rivers, slowly contaminating water supplies.
The Devil We Know follows residents and former DuPont plant workers in their efforts to expose the chemical company’s crimes. To pin down the persons responsible, the local community launches one of the largest human toxicity studies ever conducted. Over seven years, scientists evaluate 70,000 participants’ blood samples and medical histories, concluding that C-8-contaminated water supplies could be linked to diseases including cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and ulcerative colitis. Soechting and Siefert focus not only on the legal battle, but also on stories of individuals who live with disabilities and illnesses likely caused by C-8 exposure. The film is largely a mix of interviews with people affected by the disaster, clips from DuPont employees’ testimonies and snippets of news programmes. It is fast paced and well produced on the whole, although overlapping images and audio at times create an overdramatised atmosphere.
The story fascinated me and I enjoyed the powerful personal angle, however I couldn’t help but think that the film does not deliver on its promise. It frequently mentions C-8’s universal use in all sorts of consumer products, but ends up focusing entirely on a small community affected by industrial waste dumping. Questions about how much viewers outside this community should be concerned are left unanswered.
In my opinion, this film would have been an amazing opportunity to delve into the science of toxicity. I would have liked to see the directors pick apart the still uncertain and often contradictory evidence regarding C-8’s toxicity, explain exposure pathways, and principles of toxicity and dosage. It would have been a great opportunity to bring in scientists and medical doctors, and maybe even do some on-screen chemical testing.
Instead, the scientific content I saw consisted of dodgy chemical structures and cringeworthy stock footage of scientists staring at blue liquids under a microscope. Instead of informing and exposing, I felt the film was intended to (rightly) outrage and (perhaps not so rightly) scare. Despite being a story worth telling, the chemophobia in The Devil We Know left me with an unpleasant aftertaste.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/review/film-the-devil-we-know/3009822.article
-
Green New Deal Part 1: Disparate Viewpoints Over Impact on Oil & Gas Industry
Dec 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, the grassroots environmental organization behind a plan to have all of the nation's electricity generated by renewables in a decade, said the group doesn't believe the incoming Congress will adopt the plan, but it will play a key role in setting the stage for developing public and political consensus on combating climate change.
Meanwhile, a Heritage Foundation economist countered that the Green New Deal (GND) is "a very aggressive and costly plan" that would lead the federal government into adopting a national energy policy that "picks winners and losers."
Point: 'Shining a Light' On Climate Change
Debate over the GND has taken on renewed importance as Republicans prepare to relinquish control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats next week.
According to Sunrise, the GND calls for establishing a 15-member House Select Committee for a GND, which would have the authority to develop a national plan to transition the U.S. economy to becoming a neutral emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the select committee would have no authority to take legislative action on a bill or resolution, it could prepare draft legislation, hold public hearings and conduct its own investigations for the national plan.
The GND calls for the select committee to complete the national plan by Jan. 1, 2020, with draft legislation finalized by March 1, 2020. It also stipulates that within 10 years of the plan being enacted, 100% of the nation's power demand would be met by renewables, while construction of an energy-efficient "smart grid" would also be completed.
"We do not think that legislation of this nature would pass given the current makeup of Congress and the current administration," Sunrise political director Evan Weber told NGI. Part of the select committee's charge would be to bring in "experts and community leaders to testify on solutions, while shining a light on the severity of climate change and the opportunities in coming together to address it.
"The committee itself can play a role in helping to build the public and political consensus for transformative action at the scale that is needed. The plan and draft legislation could also serve as a platform for any candidate to run on in 2020 who wants to show that they are serious about stopping climate change while creating millions of good jobs."
But Weber disagreed with the characterization of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to a low-carbon future, and minimized investments that the oil and gas industry, especially the world's majors, have made in renewables.
"We believe natural gas is a bridge to a planet scorched," Weber said, adding "expanding gas is just delaying our transition to actual zero-greenhouse gas energy solutions that are ready to go." On the aforementioned investments, Weber said that Sunrise views "these investments, largely, as greenwashing. These investments do not make up significant portions of their portfolios."
Counterpoint: GND Support Could Wither
Heritage Foundation economist Nick Loris told NGI that "any policy that picks winners and losers and uses the tax code and taxpayers' money, or forces fuel onto consumers, is usually going to be good for a handful a special interests and ultimately bad for all of the energy-consuming households and businesses in the United States.
"If it's economically competitive, it shouldn't need special treatment from the government to compete with conventional sources of energy. There's a pretty clear reason why 80% of our energy needs come from coal, oil and natural gas, and that's because they are abundant and affordable."
Loris said if regulatory barriers were preventing renewables from competing in the electricity markets, he would be in favor of breaking them down. Doing so, he said, would promote competition, diversity and fuel choice.
"But if it's done through what's been done in the past, and what could be extended as egregious and aggressive subsidies -- whether it's things like the production tax credit, or extensions of the loan guarantee program, or a mandate to get to 100% renewables by 2030 -- that is taking our energy policy in the exact wrong direction."
Such strategies also amount to corporate welfare, Loris said.
"That's exactly what a GND is going to introduce -- more corporate welfare and more cronyism in the electricity sector," Loris said. "If you put those policies on steroids through a new green deal and a green bank, you're just going to have more and more corporate welfare and the government choosing who produces what."
While a recent poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 81% of respondents favored the GND, Loris predicted that support for the plan would turn to opposition once the public was asked to shoulder the cost.
"I think certainly this is all part of laying the groundwork for a bigger green agenda that has been in the making for years now," Loris said. "But even if that ultimately happens, it's still going to be very difficult to implement, just given what the proposed costs may be of such a plan.
"People are generally supportive of renewable power and taking action on climate change, but that support drops off fairly precipitously once you introduce how much it's going to cost to bring those policies forward. Even when you suggest that households would pay $5-10 a month additional to combat climate change, the support falls very quickly...
"We'll certainly have more hearings on the ideas, but ultimately this is a good thing. We should be having debates and conversations about different policy options. This is a good opportunity for conservatives, libertarians or people who are champions of the free market to make their case as to why subsidies and mandates are harmful both to taxpayers and ratepayers."
Part two of the series will examine the oil and gas industry's current posture toward a proposed Green New Deal, as well the reaction from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116920-green-new-deal-part-1-disparate-viewpoints-over-impact-on-oil-gas-industry
-
EPA Moves to Downplay Benefits of Environmental Rules
Dec 28, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Zack Colman
EPA on Friday proposed making it harder to justify the expense of future environmental regulations in what will likely become one of the most contentious environmental actions of the Trump administration.
The move is a major victory for fossil fuel interests and Republicans who have long argued EPA has downplayed industry costs for decades while inflating public health benefits. The change is a key policy goal for coal producer Murray Energy, for whom acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler lobbied before arriving at EPA.
But environmentalists and Democrats argue the regulatory change will unfairly tilt the field in favor of industries and against tens of millions of Americans suffering from poor air quality and climate change. Meanwhile, utilities across the country are concerned that EPA’s rollback could jeopardize their ability to recoup the costs of major investments made to comply with the mercury regulation.
The change is part of a proposal to revisit an Obama-era rule targeting mercury pollution from power plants.
The 2012 regulation — known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or the “utility MACT” — forced many of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal plants to close their doors rather than install expensive pollution-control technologies. It is seen as one of the most sweeping and successful environmental rules issued under the Obama administration.
The Supreme Court in 2015 said that EPA should have calculated the costs to industries at the point when it made the initial decision to regulate mercury, even though the agency did factor in costs later in the rulemaking process. But the Obama administration essentially sidestepped any significant changes to the rule by declaring it would have made the same decision to regulate even if costs were factored in at that early stage.
That fight over the cost calculation cracked the door open for the Trump administration to revisit the underlying process EPA uses to weigh most of its environmental rules.
At issue are “co-benefits,” also known as ancillary benefits, which are benefits that are side effects of regulating, not the main goal.
For the 2012 mercury rule, EPA calculated minimal direct quantifiable benefits from reducing mercury pollution, totaling just a few million dollars. But the agency said the co-benefits from coincidental reductions in soot pollution would provide tens of billions of dollars in health benefits for the public, far outstripping the $9 billion compliance bill for utilities.
Now, EPA is moving to reverse that interpretation, saying the Obama administration read the Clean Air Act wrong when it concluded that the law allows the agency to give the same consideration to co-benefits as the direct benefits of mercury reductions.
Nullifying those co-benefits to the public would tip the balance for the mercury rule, because its direct, quantified benefits "are not even moderately commensurate with the compliance cost," EPA said in a legal memo accompanying the proposal.
There are specific details of the mercury rule that could guide its future aside from the co-benefits issue. Utilities found far cheaper fixes that enabled them to comply with the rule that EPA had originally predicted, which provides more contrast with the benefits. And leading utility groups in July asked EPA to leave the mercury rule alone because many utilities and co-ops are seeking to recoup billions of dollars in compliance investments via rate reviews with their state regulators.
In addition, Harvard and Syracuse scientists this month said that the direct benefits can now be shown quantifiably to exceed the $9 billion price tag due to new research into population-level effects of mercury pollution around coal plants.
EPA did not address those more recent developments in its proposal, relying instead on the data EPA had in 2012 when it finalized the rule. The proposal specifically leaves the mercury rule in place for now, but it does ask for public comment on "whether the EPA has the authority or obligation" to remove power plants from the list of pollution sources regulated under that part of the Clean Air Act, a move that would effectively end the Obama administration's mercury rule.
The EPA proposal also said no changes to the underlying rule‘s specific emissions limits were necessary as part of a "risk and technology review," a statutorily mandated update on whether the regulation was stringent enough to eliminate cancer, heart and lung risks. Industry groups had hoped the Trump administration would finish that review, while environmental groups have argued more severe controls may be necessary to further curb emissions from the nation's most-polluting power plants.
Ultimately, if the Trump EPA is successful in removing co-benefits from its cost-benefit analyses, it eventually could affect a wide swath of regulations on pollutants emitted by multiple sectors of the economy.
EPA’s co-benefits move follows other similar efforts by the Trump administration to limit how the agency measures the benefits of regulations.
Last summer, the agency proposed a new rule for carbon dioxide pollution from power plants that ignored the foreign benefits of domestic climate regulations, significantly dampening a key justification for the rule despite the global threats posed by climate change.
Another rule rolling back auto emissions standards made new arguments that lower limits ultimately will save thousands of lives — a claim that drew significant criticism from outside experts and which the administration is already having to pare back, at least partially.
The proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. It is not clear how long that may take, however, with EPA expected to run out of operating funds at midnight Friday and the partial government shutdown potentially lasting well into January or later.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/12/epa-moves-to-downplay-benefits-of-environmental-rules-1052179
-
EPA Reconsiders Need for Mercury Pollution Standards at Power Plants
Dec 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday it will reconsider the reasoning behind mercury pollution standards for power plants.
The current standards, implemented under the Obama administration, restrict levels of toxic mercury pollution that has been linked to developmental delays in children among other health risks.
Plants in the past have met the restrictions by implementing on-site controls, but the fossil fuel industry has long lobbied that the standards are too strict.
The end-of-year rule review follows a number of other environmental policy rollbacks proposed by the Trump administration this year, including the weakening of vehicle emission standards, carbon releases from power plants and methane standards for oil and gas drillers.
The current rule on mercury pollution will remain in place as the EPA re-evaluates the government’s argument for the necessity of the Mercury Air and Toxicity Standards (MATS).
The agency said it would determine whether a regulation of the hazardous air pollutant emissions for power plants known as HAP is necessary under the law.
“The Agency proposes to determine that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate HAP emissions from power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,” EPA said in a statement Friday.
In its review, the Trump administration will also likely be testing whether the agency can skip consideration of the economic benefits of curbing the toxic pollutant when it provides its final reasoning.
The Obama administration, when determining its mercury rule, considered the economic effects of curbing mercury emissions against the societal savings that would occur from slashing other pollutants coming from coal plants that shut down.
The EPA under Obama determined that the costs to the economy ranged from $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually but the benefits from regulating the hazardous air pollutant ranged from $4 million to $6 million annually, according to EPA data.
The Trump administration’s new review may be testing whether it must continue to consider such “co-benefits” in future air pollution rules.
Doing so could make pollution standards appear overly costly compared to their environmental benefits.
“The Trump Administration is providing regulatory certainty by transparently and accurately taking account of both costs and benefits in the proposed revised Supplemental Cost Finding for MATS,” read the EPA statement.
Environmentalists and critics reacted harshly to the EPA review, which was released in the final days of 2018 during a government shutdown.
“In a move that’s both stunningly immoral and completely unnecessary, the Trump administration has formally proposed an attack on our nation’s vital protections against some of the most dangerous types of air pollution from coal plants,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Krupp said the proposal would undermine the foundations of the safeguards to reduce poisonous coal plant pollutants including lead, arsenic and acid gasses in addition to mercury.
He said the review was troubling because power plants were already largely in compliance with the Obama-era rule, which has lead to a more than 80 percent reduction in mercury pollution.
“Trump’s EPA claims they aren’t undermining the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards themselves, they’re just reconsidering the basis for them. No one can truthfully claim they are demolishing the foundation of a building but they still expect the building to stand. This proposal puts the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in danger, and we need the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards to keep our children safe,” he said.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the rule a rushed “egregious policy.”
“By releasing this proposal today, Acting Administrator Wheeler can only be attempting to rush an egregious policy before EPA staff are furloughed that is not only wildly unpopular, but also rolls back years of critical protections that keep toxic emissions out of the air we all breathe,” he said in a statement.
“With this action, EPA is also setting a dangerous precedent that a federal agency – charged with protecting the environment and public health – will no longer factor in all the clear health, environmental, and economics benefits of clean air policies, such as reducing cancer and birth defects.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/423115-epa-reconsiders-need-for-mercury-pollution-standards-at-power
-
EPA Targets Obama-Era Basis for Mercury, Toxics Regs
Dec 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In a move that could carry profound consequences for future attempts to limit air pollution, EPA is seeking to undo the justification for one of the Obama administration's crowning environmental achievements: the 2012 regulations on power industry mercury emissions.
In a draft rule released this morning, EPA proposes to revoke the agency's prior determination that it was "appropriate and necessary" to curb releases of mercury, arsenic and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.
While the proposal would leave the actual emission limits in place, it concludes that the Obama administration erred in heavily relying on "co-benefits" attributed to reductions in pollutants besides those targeted in the regulations to justify the expected compliance costs.
The proposal, which was immediately greeted with scathing criticism from industry, public health advocacy groups and a prominent Senate Democrat, takes its cue from a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that EPA should have considered compliance costs in making the "appropriate and necessary" determination to proceed with creation of what are formally known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
The agency responded the next year with a supplemental finding reaffirming its decision to regulate power plant emissions of mercury and other toxics in light of the health risks, but that analysis was "flawed" because of its reliance on the co-benefits expected from reductions in particulate pollution, according to the proposal released this morning.
EPA had previously forecast that the quantifiable annual health benefits of reducing power plant releases of mercury and other hazardous pollutants were $4 million to $6 million, compared with expected compliance costs of at least $7.4 billion, the agency said in an official summary today.
Despite tens of billions of dollars' worth of expected co-benefits, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler "has concluded that the identification of these benefits is not sufficient, in light of the gross imbalance of monetized costs and [hazardous air pollutant] benefits to support" the appropriate and necessary finding, the agency said.Widespread criticism
The proposed rule comes as no surprise; as early as this spring, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum had signaled his interest in revisiting the appropriate and necessary determination (Greenwire, April 19). But it also brings potential peril to the Trump administration, both because of mercury's well-documented role as a neurotoxin that can affect children's brain development and because the power industry is now in full compliance with MATS.
In July, a consortium of industry trade groups took the unusual step of publicly urging EPA not to tamper with the standards. Since MATS went into effect in 2012, electric companies have cut mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent, Brian Reil, a spokesman for one of those groups, the Edison Electric Institute, said in a statement today.
"EPA should leave the underlying MATS rule in place and unchanged, and should not finalize any action that would undermine the existing MATS rule," Reil continued.
In a separate statement, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) criticized both the draft rule and Wheeler's decision to make it public only hours before EPA is expected to suspend operations because of a lack of funding.
"By releasing this proposal today, Acting Administrator Wheeler can only be attempting to rush an egregious policy before EPA staff are furloughed that is not only wildly unpopular, but also rolls back years of critical protections that keep toxic emissions out of the air we all breathe," said Carper, the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In news releases, advocacy groups similarly assailed the proposed rule.
"Wheeler is doing this in spite of the fact that almost no one wants it done," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said. Despite EPA's assertion that the actual standards would be left untouched, "no one can truthfully claim they are demolishing the foundation of a building but they still expect the building to stand," Krupp said.
"There is no legitimate justification for this action," American Lung Association President Harold Wimmer said, adding that mercury can cause brain damage in babies.
Also watching with dismay were Obama-era EPA officials involved in MATS's creation. In a conference call last week held in anticipation of the proposal's release, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters that the Trump administration also wants to target the use of co-benefits more broadly, a step that could undercut efforts to justify future limits on air pollution.
"The main reason why they want to do this is to cut the legs off of EPA in terms of our ability to protect public health and the natural resources from toxics that are impacting our kids' lives today," McCarthy said. She also portrayed the planned rollback as another attempt to aid one of President Trump's favorite industries.
"I think it's no secret that the administration's agenda for EPA was really written by coal companies and in particular by Bob Murray," McCarthy said. "He's interested in making sure that this was relooked at because he saw it as a burden to the coal industry in terms of its ability to compete."
Murray heads Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., the nation's largest privately owned coal company. An enthusiastic Trump supporter, Murray last year unsuccessfully pressed the administration to suspend MATS, even though implementation by then was nearly complete. At the time, Wheeler was a contract lobbyist for Murray Energy.
In a statement today, Murray Energy welcomed what it called an "important development in reversing the illegal policies and programs of the Obama administration and the Obama-era EPA." In response to emailed questions from E&E News, company spokesman Jason Witt slammed McCarthy for undertaking those policies that "so divisively and decisively disadvantage the United States coal industry's ability to compete in energy generation markets."
Although the company has monitored the Trump-era rulemaking, Witt said, it has not actively lobbied for the proposed rule in recent months "because the vast majority of our utility customers have already come into compliance" with the standards.
The draft rule released today also encompasses the results of a legally required "residual risk and technology review," which found that no changes to the original 2012 standards are warranted. When published in the Federal Register, the proposal will carry a 60-day public comment period; EPA also plans to hold a public hearing.
Wehrum, who became EPA air chief in November 2017, previously worked as an industry lawyer and served in the air office from 2001 to 2007 under President George W. Bush. In 2005, EPA had previously revoked the "appropriate and necessary" determination in a bid to regulate power plant mercury emissions under a different section of the Clean Air Act. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voided that attempt.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/28/stories/1060110671
-
Mercury Limits on Coal Plants No Longer `Appropriate,’ EPA Says
Dec 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is proposing to reverse an Obama-era conclusion that limits on mercury pollution from power plants are too costly and no longer “appropriate and necessary,” a finding that could make it difficult to impose more stringent curbs in the future.
The Environmental Protection Agency is aiming to leave the 2012 standards in place, responding to a clamor from utilities that have already spent at least $18 billion complying with the requirements.
But in another reversal of former President Barack Obama’s environmental policies, the agency now finds that the mercury mandates cost far more than the potential benefits that would spring from paring emissions of the toxin. According to the new EPA analysis, the costs of complying with the rule are projected at $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually, while monetized benefits are estimated to be $4 million to $6 million annually.
That’s a sharp reduction from the EPA’s previous estimate that the requirements would result in widespread benefits, not just from paring mercury emissions but also by indirectly reducing nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, leading to fewer asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature deaths.
Under President Donald Trump, the EPA now is effectively ignoring those so-called co-benefits and focusing only on the direct potential benefits from slashing mercury emissions.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest U.S. source of mercury, a metal that is converted in soil and water into a neurotoxin that can lower IQ, cause motor function deficits, damage the nervous system, and lead to more heart attacks.
Armed with the new cost-benefit analysis, the EPA is proposing it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollution emitted from power plants under the Clean Air Act.
Environmentalists argue the two changes could limit the reach of the EPA, making it harder for the agency to ratchet up requirements for mercury pollution in the future.
The mercury standards have been the subject of litigation for years. After they were imposed in 2012, the coal industry sued, ultimately forcing the EPA to revisit its conclusions. The Obama administration reinstated the regulation in 2016 and coal miner Murray Energy Corp. sued to block it, but a federal appeals court delayed the case so the Trump administration could reconsider the rule.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mercury-limits-on-coal-plants-no-longer-appropriate-epa-says
-
Democrats Establish a New House ‘Climate Crisis’ Committee
Dec 28, 2018 | The Atlantic
By Robinson Meyer
It’s official: When Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month, they will form a special new committee to examine climate change, Nancy Pelosi said in a statement on Friday.
Pelosi, likely the next speaker of the House, also announced that the new committee will be named the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. It will be led by Kathy Castor, a seven-term representative from Tampa Bay.
“The American people have demanded action to combat the climate crisis, which threatens our public health, our economy, our national security and the whole of God’s creation,” Pelosi said in the statement. “Congresswoman Castor is a proven champion for public health and green infrastructure, who deeply understands the scope and seriousness of this threat.”
Castor, a longtime member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has already promised to decline all campaign contributions from coal, oil, or gas companies. Pelosi has not yet described exactly what the committee will do, but House committees of this type can hold hearings, write reports, and bring public attention to political issues.
With its formation, Pelosi makes good on her 2018 campaign promise to revive a special climate-focused committee. (After Republicans took control of the House in 2010, they shuttered the last special climate committee, which Pelosi established in 2007.) But the new committee arrives to a delicate family situation in the Democratic Party. A number of activists on the party’s left have greeted the news with frustration. They had hoped (and protested) for a more ambitious Green New Deal committee. Such a panel, they imagined, might finally draft a unified Democratic climate policy, a plan to improve the lot of American workers while massively overhauling the economy to prepare for climate change.
“It’s a big disappointment,” said Stephen O’Hanlon, a spokesman for the Sunrise Movement, a Millennial-led organization that championed the Green New Deal plan. “The select committee on a Green New Deal was put together based on a hard look at what the science demands, and we were hopeful that Nancy Pelosi—who says she wants to take serious action on climate change—would be willing to come to the table for it.”
“We’ll have to see what the actual mandate of the committee is,” he added.
The Climate Crisis committee seems likely to get a much narrower mandate than activists envisioned for a Green New Deal committee. It will probably not be allowed to issue subpoenas, as a permanent standing House committee can, nor will it be able to draft legislation. Overall, it will be less powerful than the last House select climate committee, which had subpoena power but not legislative authority.
Castor had been rumored to be Pelosi’s pick to lead the committee since last week. She gets high marks from the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a solid environmental record.
But in the past week, she has sometimes seemed ignorant of major disputes among climate activists. For instance, the Sunrise Movement initially sought to ban Green New Deal committee members from receiving donations of any kind from the fossil-fuel industry. When Castor heard that demand, she balked, claiming that the First Amendment made it impossible. Though she later walked back that comment, calling it “inartful”—and promised to forswear fossil-fuel donations herself—the episode suggested that she is unfamiliar with a constituency she will now have to entertain.
The demand should not have come as a shock: Fossil-fuel money has been a touchy subject for Democrats for years. As recently as August, climate activists warred with party moderates over whether it was appropriate to ban fossil-fuel donations for all Democrats, not just those on a climate-focused panel.
It’s not yet clear whether Castor will impose such a ban on all members of the Climate Crisis committee. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.
The most interesting aspect of today’s news may be the new committee’s name. Al Gore used the phrase climate crisis often, and even Hillary Clinton sometimes deployed it during the 2016 election. It feels tedious to unfurl its message—Democrats believe climate change is an emergency, obviously—but perhaps the name is a reminder of how much energy politics have changed in the last decade. In 2007, when Democrats last established a select committee on climate change, they chose a name much more fitting for an era of high oil prices: The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Now, the United States is just a few years off from exporting more energy than it imports. Thanks to fracking and renewable energy, we’ve solved the problem of American “energy independence.” Global warming, meanwhile, continues to get worse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/house-democrats-form-new-committee-climate-crisis/579109/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested