Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - February 27, 2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) More Than 200 Companies, Associations Form the 'USMCA Coalition' to Push the Deal's Passage
Feb 26, 2019 | Inside US Trade

A coalition professing to represent more than 200 companies and industry associations has formed to urge Congress to swiftly approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
EPA Enforcement Chief Defends Agency’s Record
Feb 26, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin

A top Environmental Protection Agency official on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s approach to enforcing the nation’s environmental laws, despite figures that show civil penalties for polluters and inspections of industrial facilities have dropped significantly.
Hearing Offers Glimpse of Democrats' Oversight Tactics
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly

EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine led off a House hearing yesterday with the expressed wish of starting "a dialogue" with lawmakers. What followed might not have been the conversation Bodine was hoping for.
EPA Policy of Asking ‘Bad Actors’ to Self-Report Gets Panned
Feb 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA’s efforts to get companies to disclose violations voluntarily came under fire from the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at a hearing on Feb. 26.
Top Environment Panel Democrat Throws Hail Mary to Delay Wheeler
Feb 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

The top Democrat on the Senate environment committee says he’s throwing a Hail Mary in what may be his party’s last hope for delaying Andrew Wheeler’s confirmation to be the EPA administrator.

TSCA News

EPA's PFAS Action Plan Highlights Risks and Uncertainties of Further PFAS Regulation
Feb 27, 2019 | Lexology
By Christopher H. Marraro and Matthew D. Thurlow

On February 14, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a comprehensive proposal for further study and regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a PFAS Action Plan.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Industry Emphasizes Uncertain Science To Fight Strict PFAS Limits
Feb 26, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

Industry advocates are welcoming EPA's recently released action plan to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), saying it provides an opportunity to consider uncertain science in any future drinking water or other regulations, which some say could result in weaker limits than what the agency has previously offered.
Eight US Sites Chosen for PFAS Firefighting Foam Contamination Studies
Feb 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will begin testing human exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in eight communities located near current and former military installations.
Bayer Faces Mounting Weedkiller Lawsuits Amid Sweeping Restructuring
Feb 27, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Ruth Bender

Bayer AG on Wednesday said the number of plaintiffs suing the German company over its weedkillers had risen by another 1,900 over the last three months.
EU Revision of Nanomaterials Definition Postponed to 2020
Feb 26, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel

The European Commission has again postponed the long-overdue revision of its Recommendation on a definition of nanomaterials, with a proposal not now envisaged before 2020.
EU Publishes Addendums to Opinions on Cosmetics Chemicals
Feb 26, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The EU has published addendums to two scientific Opinions from its Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) on substances used in cosmetics – zinc pyrithione and sodium, potassium and MEA o-phenylphenates (OPPs).

Energy News

$1 Billion Needed for Energy Innovation, Ex-Officials Say
Feb 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

The advanced innovation arm of the Energy Department needs to receive at least $1 billion in funding in the coming years so it can compete internationally, former directors told Congress.
Trump’s Energy Push Could Run Aground on Texas Coast
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee

The next bottleneck for the Permian Basin oil field in the Southwest is likely to be a lack of dock space to export the region's crude overseas.
White House Eyes Former DOE Lawyer for FERC Spot
Feb 26, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Darius Dixon and Andrew Restuccia

Former Energy Department lawyer David Hill has emerged as the Trump administration’s leading pick to fill the open seat at FERC, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.
As Energy World Focuses on Permian, Gulf Makes Its Own Comeback
Feb 26, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum

The attention of the energy industry has focused in recent years on the Permian Basin, the once tired West Texas oil field that roared back to life when hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling freed the vast reserves locked in its shale. But as the Permian gathers the attention, another aging oil field is making its own comeback.
Cheniere Energy Closes 2018 with $471 Million Profit as LNG Exports Grow
Feb 26, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa

Houston liquefied natural gas company Cheniere Energy closed 2018 with a $471 million profit as LNG exports continue to grow.
Greens Threaten to Sue Interior over Contentious Utah Project
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Scott Streater

A coalition of environmental groups have put the Interior Department on notice that they plan to sue, challenging the recent approval of pipelines and power lines across public lands that are needed to operate the nation's first oil shale production plant on private lands in Utah.

Chemical Security News

Citing Air Act, Exxon Seeks To Block CSB Subpoena For 'Potential' Releases
Feb 26, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Ariana Figueroa

Exxon Mobil is urging an appellate court to uphold a lower court ruling that barred the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) from enforcing document requests about chemicals that are stored on site but not released as a result of an incident, arguing the Clean Air Act does not provide CSB with power to subpoena for documents related to “potential” releases.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Infrastructure Is Bipartisan Concern, but House Panel Differs on Climate Change
Feb 26, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III

Everyone in Congress agrees transportation is a bipartisan matter. But a hearing Tuesday to discuss the impact of transportation on climate change caused sharp partisan discord.
Green New Deal’s Transit Revamp Comes Under Fire From GOP
Feb 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The Green New Deal would require a transformation of the transportation system that would undercut greenhouse gas cuts the airline industry is already making, several Republican lawmakers and an industry representative said Feb. 26.
'Green New Deal' Overshadows Hearing
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow

Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sought to put the spotlight on climate change and disaster mitigation yesterday.
DeFazio Signals Bipartisan Infrastructure Funding Push With GHGs At Fore
Feb 26, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) says he wants to craft bipartisan transportation infrastructure legislation, rather than a more progressive bill with only Democratic priorities, even though he will face pressure from environmentalists and others to include an explicit focus on greenhouse gas issues.

Environment News

House Democrats Try to Hold Climate Hearing — but Don’t Show up for It
Feb 26, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Kelsey Tamborrino

House Republicans managed to quash Democrats' hearing on climate change on Tuesday by outvoting the majority party at the poorly attended event, forcing it to adjourn only minutes after it began.
Walkout by GOP House Members Halts Climate Denial Hearing
Feb 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

It was over almost as soon as it began.
Trump's New Ambassador Sees 'Both Sides' on Climate
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick

In choosing Kelly Knight Craft as U.N. ambassador, President Trump is asserting White House control over the U.S. mission at a time of rising hostility by the administration to climate action.
Both Sides Plot Long-Haul Strategy for 'Green New Deal'
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk, Geof Koss and George Cahlink

Republicans signaled yesterday they're not in a hurry to bring the "Green New Deal" to the Senate floor, giving Democrats time to develop a counter-message on climate change.
Mcconnell Plans Vote on Green New Deal before August Recess
Feb 27, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he will force a vote on the progressive Green New Deal sometime before the August recess, arguing he thinks Democrats are trying to dodge the fight.
Feinstein 'Reworking' Resolution That Drew Activist Ire
Feb 26, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss and Nick Sobczyk

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said today she is "reworking" a draft climate change resolution that has been panned by progressive activists for being a weak attempt to derail the "Green New Deal."
US Keeps Air Pollution Standard Established Under Obama
Feb 26, 2019 | AP (In the New York Times)
By Matthew Brown

U.S. environmental regulators on Tuesday announced they are leaving intact an air quality standard for power plant pollution that can worsen asthma in children, despite calls by health advocates for a tougher rule.
The AOC Primary
Feb 27, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By James Freeman

With apologies to Oscar winner Lady Gaga, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) may be giving taxpayers 93 trillion reasons to run away from her Green New Deal to reorganize the American economy.
U.S. Among Nations Most Threatened by Warming, NASA Official Says
Feb 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

The U.S., along with India, China, and Saudi Arabia, may be the most vulnerable countries to rising temperatures and climate impacts, even as many northern nations may benefit, a NASA official told House appropriators Feb. 26.
5 Things to Watch in Kids' Climate Case Appeal
Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

Government lawyers and a group of young plaintiffs are busy trading legal barbs in what could be the final stage of the so-called kids' climate case.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) More Than 200 Companies, Associations Form the 'USMCA Coalition' to Push the Deal's Passage

Feb 26, 2019 | Inside US Trade

A coalition professing to represent more than 200 companies and industry associations has formed to urge Congress to swiftly approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
The USMCA Coalition includes groups representing “farmers and ranchers, manufacturers, service providers and technology companies,” it said in a statement.
Inside U.S. Trade reported in early January that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was leading the effort to form the coalition to fight for USMCA. It held an initial meeting in mid-December.
“Over the coming weeks and months, the USMCA Coalition will make the case for expeditious passage of the agreement to members of Congress, and it will work to educate the American public about the benefits of the new deal,” the statement adds. “The effort will harness the advocacy strength of a broad membership of companies, trade associations, and chambers of commerce, including many that operate outside of Washington, DC.”
Companies and groups that have signed up for the coalition include Cummins, Cargill, Citi, UPS and the American Chemistry Council.

Another pro-USMCA group, the Pass USMCA Coalition, on Tuesday announced a poll it had commissioned showed a majority of Americans “favor Congress passing USMCA.”
https://insidetrade.com/trade/more-200-companies-associations-form-usmca-coalition-push-deals-passage

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Enforcement Chief Defends Agency’s Record

Feb 26, 2019 | The Washington Post

By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin

A top Environmental Protection Agency official on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s approach to enforcing the nation’s environmental laws, despite figures that show civil penalties for polluters and inspections of industrial facilities have dropped significantly.
Susan Bodine, the EPA’s chief enforcement official, told lawmakers that the numbers from fiscal 2018 do not tell the full story of the agency’s efforts to crack down on polluters.
“Some are judging our work on a narrow set of parameters and then drawing the conclusion that EPA is somehow soft on environmental violators, that the EPA doesn’t care about compliance with the law. I’m here to tell you that is absolutely not true,” Bodine told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.
She said that “narrative” discredits the work of career enforcement officials at the agency and only makes their job more difficult. “If a company doubts our resolve, it will take longer to reach a settlement," she said.
Democrats were quick to press Bodine about why the EPA’s enforcement numbers have dropped so precipitously under President Trump. The agency’s own data shows that the number of civil cases the enforcement division started and completed in 2018 hit a 10-year low, and the $69 million in civil penalties it leveled is the lowest in nearly a quarter-century.
Referring to recent stories in The Washington Post about the drop in civil and criminal penalties, as well as inspections, panel chair Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said the lack of agency action had left a void.
“It’s hard to ignore the facts. So, if the EPA isn’t enforcing our environmental laws, who is?” DeGette asked. “The question is why? Why is the EPA sitting on the sidelines?”
Committee Republicans, by contrast, argued that numbers alone do not capture the breadth of the EPA’s efforts to get companies to adhere to federal environmental standards.
“I hope we don’t imply that one year of slightly lower penalties signals that EPA is not doing its job, or ensuring compliance with public environmental laws,” said the subcommittee’s top Republican, Rep. Brett Guthrie (Ky.).
And Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) noted that the EPA’s voluntary disclosure program experienced a 47 percent increase in self-reporting of violations in fiscal 2018 compared with the year before.
“The dramatic increase in self-reports is a good thing,” Walden said, noting that 532 companies voluntarily reported violations at over 1,500 facilities to the EPA.
“We do a lot of work that is not captured in these annual results,” Bodine told lawmakers Tuesday, even as she added that the agency’s numbers will rise in 2019 because the federal government recently reached a major settlement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles over emissions cheating.
She added that while it is difficult to measure overall compliance with environmental laws, the EPA has become more efficient about targeting noncompliance, thereby reducing the number of necessary annual inspections. She also noted that the EPA had opened more criminal enforcement cases during 2018 than the year before, reversing a downward trajectory in recent years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/02/26/epa-enforcement-chief-defends-agencys-record/?utm_term=.79f57e195cf7

Return to headline | Return to top
Hearing Offers Glimpse of Democrats' Oversight Tactics

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Sean Reilly

EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine led off a House hearing yesterday with the expressed wish of starting "a dialogue" with lawmakers. What followed might not have been the conversation Bodine was hoping for.
Instead, she found herself embroiled in a series of sometimes tense exchanges with newly empowered Democrats that could be a harbinger of stepped-up congressional scrutiny of EPA operations during the next two years.
"We're going to keep an eye on this," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said in a brief interview following the approximately three-hour session.
"The committee in general and me in particular — we're very concerned about the drop in enforcement at the EPA and how it impacts our constituents and our communities."
The hearing was the first in either the House or Senate since President Trump took office two years ago to focus on EPA enforcement activities. DeGette opened by accusing the agency of "sitting on its hands" and giving polluters a pass.
Recently released 2018 numbers showed facility inspections, Justice Department referrals and new civil enforcement cases at their lowest levels in decades, she said.
"So if the EPA isn't enforcing our environmental laws, who is?" she asked.
Bodine, who has headed the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance since December 2017, said it was "absolutely not true" that EPA was soft on environmental violators and blamed the news media for creating a narrative that discredits the work of agency employees.
"A strong enforcement program does not mean that we have to collect a particular dollar amount of penalties or take a particular number of formal actions," she said.
Her staff is not "sitting on its hands," she told DeGette after pointing to efforts to bolster state agencies that have long handled the bulk of the enforcement load. "They're working very hard."
But in response to questions from DeGette and Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Bodine conceded the accuracy of some of the latest numbers showing historic drops in OECA activity. The number of inspections was the lowest in a decade, she acknowledged, and she agreed that the amount of administrative and civil penalties obtained last year was the lowest since 1994.
After Castor pressed her to explain why civil case initiations dropped last year to their lowest level since 1982, Bodine called that yardstick "a narrow slice of the work that we do." Among other gaps, she added, it doesn't capture OECA's work with individual states, "where we may develop a case and they may take it over."
Republicans rallied to her defense. Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), for example, asked whether Bodine viewed fines and other statistical measures or improved environmental outcomes as the better gauge.
"Certainly the outcome," Bodine replied.
But the hearing's overall tenor was a stark turnabout from the preceding two years when Republicans controlled the Energy and Commerce Committee.
While ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) noted that the panel had then approved a bipartisan modernization of the brownfields program, GOP members also championed bills to delay or weaken EPA air pollution regulations on behalf of select industries. They showed scant interest in the nitty-gritty of agency operations.
Barely a month after the November elections handed Democrats control of the House, the Trump administration may have already been bracing for change, according to records obtained by E&E News.
In mid-December, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum's daily calendar showed an entry for what's described as a briefing by a Justice Department official on congressional oversight. While the roster of about 30 invitees did not include Bodine, it did list deputy enforcement chief Patrick Traylor, Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson and congressional liaison Troy Lyons.
"This is a very important meeting for all attendees to understand the rules of the road on these matters," another EPA staffer wrote. E&E News received the calendar last week through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Agency press aides did not respond to an email yesterday afternoon asking whether the briefing was prompted by the prospect of increased scrutiny.
At yesterday's hearing, Bodine testified solo for almost 90 minutes. Following her was a panel of six witnesses, five of whom were testifying at Democrats' invitation. All five voiced concern about the drop in formal EPA enforcement activity or its potential consequences.
Confidential interviews with EPA employees confirm the picture suggested by agency enforcement numbers, said Chris Sellers, a Stony Brook University professor speaking on behalf of the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, a network of academics and others that has been monitoring EPA activities since the beginning of the Trump administration.
Current and recently retired EPA staff "report on the many pressures applied by the agency's political staff that they see as contributing" to the drop in enforcement numbers, Sellers said in prepared testimony. Those pressures include "explicitly urging EPA employees to go easier on industry," he added.
The Republican witness was Ronald Tenpas, who headed the Justice Department environmental division during the final years of George W. Bush's presidency and is now an attorney in private practice.
The data used to report yearly enforcement figures are "incredibly 'noisy,'" Tenpas said in prepared testimony. While those data are not useless, he said, "one should be cautious in drawing strong conclusions based on such numeric reporting alone."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/27/stories/1060122537

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Policy of Asking ‘Bad Actors’ to Self-Report Gets Panned

Feb 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA’s efforts to get companies to disclose violations voluntarily came under fire from the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at a hearing on Feb. 26.
“Nobody here can really believe that the worst offenders of environmental laws would voluntarily come forward to disclose their violations,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), told Susan Bodine, EPA assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, at a hearing on the agency’s enforcement record.
Bodine defended the Environmental Protection Agency’s policy of self-disclosure and said that it would take action against a company that failed to disclose violations.
Self-disclosure isn’t a shield against enforcement, Bodine said. “There will be inspections.”
Her answer didn’t satisfy Pallone, who asked what incentive the EPA offered. After all, “it is human nature that bad actors don’t say they are bad,” he said.
Bodine said that companies that self-disclose violations in their entirety would be absolved of penalties.
‘Carrot and Stick’
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the committee’s ranking Republican, said the EPA was using a “carrot and stick” approach rather than letting bad actors off the hook.
Walden noted that the EPA in fiscal year 2018 saw a 47 percent increase in facilities self-disclosing violations over the prior year, with 532 plants at more than 1,500 facilities voluntarily disclosing violations due to this self-disclosure policy.
“The dramatic increase in these self-reports is a good thing, demonstrating that business owners are trying to comply with the complex laws and regulations enforced by the EPA,” Walden said.
The number of inspections and evaluations conducted by the EPA declined to 10,612 in 2018 from 11,941 the previous year. The number has been declining since 2012.
Voluntary disclosure can only go so far, and can’t be a substitute for enforcement, Eric Schaeffer, executive director for the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project, told the House panel.
“You get more voluntary disclosures if companies understand the consequences of not complying,” said Schaeffer who worked in the EPA enforcement office from 1990 to 2002, including as director of civil enforcement.
During his stint at the EPA, Schaeffer said the enforcement office got more voluntary compliance from companies only after they were threatened with action.
Self-Audit Policy Changes for Oil and Gas
In the oil and gas industry specifically, the EPA also is moving forward with reforms to its decade-old self-auditing policy to make it more efficient. In May 2018, it proposed changes to its self-auditing policy that would allow oil and gas companies that acquire multiple new drilling sites to have more time to identify and fix leaking storage tanks.
These changes would target the widespread problem of storage tanks located at drilling sites that are leaking volatile organic compounds because of poor vapor controls.
The self-auditing policy proposal for oil and gas companies, which was issued in draft form in May 2018 and is expected any day, isn’t designed to replace formal enforcement actions, according to the EPA. Instead it is meant to foster compliance among companies that agree to fix problems that cause environmental violations.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-policy-of-asking-bad-actors-to-self-report-gets-panned-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Top Environment Panel Democrat Throws Hail Mary to Delay Wheeler

Feb 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

The top Democrat on the Senate environment committee says he’s throwing a Hail Mary in what may be his party’s last hope for delaying Andrew Wheeler’s confirmation to be the EPA administrator.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 26 he’s been reaching out to Republicans who favor cuts in hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) largely because their states are home to manufacturers of more climate-friendly alternatives to the refrigerant.
HFCs, potent greenhouse gases, are set for global cuts under the 2016 Kigali Agreement.
Carper thinks delaying Wheeler’s nomination by two weeks would provide leverage to get the Trump administration to say whether it would back efforts to cut HFCs, as the Obama administration agreed to under the 2016 deal.
“What I’ve tried to do is convince Republicans who are uncertain about his nomination to provide a two-week extension,” Carper said, “so we can actually have the opportunity for the administration to take some positions on the Kigali treaty for HFCs.”
HFCs are often termed a “super pollutant” as they warm the Earth at a rate hundreds of times more than carbon dioxide.
No Interest in Delay
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), whose panel advanced Wheeler’s nomination on a party-line vote Feb. 5, said Republicans aren’t interested in talk of a delay and are moving forward with the confirmation this week.
“That’s the plan,” Barrasso told reporters Feb. 26.
Wheeler has served as the EPA’s acting chief since last summer when he was tapped for the post following the resignation of Scott Pruitt.
David Popp, spokesman for Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said the plan remains to confirm Wheeler and a pending judicial nominee this week.
In addition to the EPA nominee, Senate Republicans this week have been shepherding Eric Miller, who Trump tapped to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Miller was confirmed by the Senate Feb. 26.
Delay Possible
Not everyone is so confident Wheeler can be confirmed that quickly. Even some Republican senators suggested a vote next week is more likely.
“I don’t see how they are going to stuff it in,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and backs Wheeler, told reporters Feb. 26.
Carper said he had approached “more than the usual suspects” of Republican backers of curbing HFCs to suggest a delay but declined to name them.
He co-sponsored a pro-Kigali Treaty measure in 2018 (S. 2448) introduced by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) with other Republican cosponsors, including Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).
The Senate bill would have directed the EPA to issue rules to phase-down HFCs consistent with the Kigali deal, which was hailed as significant progress by the Obama administration toward reducing greenhouse gases. The deal was reached in Kigali, Rwanda.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/top-environment-panel-democrat-throws-hail-mary-to-delay-wheeler

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

EPA's PFAS Action Plan Highlights Risks and Uncertainties of Further PFAS Regulation

Feb 27, 2019 | Lexology

By Christopher H. Marraro and Matthew D. Thurlow

On February 14, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a comprehensive proposal for further study and regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a PFAS Action Plan.[1] The EPA’s PFAS Action Plan follows closely on the heels of a May 2018 National PFAS Summit[2] at which EPA agreed to consider further regulation of PFAS, a large class of chemicals with stain-, grease-, and water-resistant properties used in a wide variety of consumer, commercial, and industrial products.
EPA’s commitments in the new Action Plan include short-term and long-term study of PFAS and possible regulation under a host of federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).[3] Several of EPA’s proposed actions target the legacy chemicals perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which, with few exceptions, have not been manufactured or used in the United States since 2002 and 2015, respectively.[4] But EPA also plans further study and regulation of PFAS that are currently unregulated. EPA’s proposed actions include short-term measures already underway or to be completed within the next two years, and long-term studies and regulation of PFAS that are expected to take more than two years.[5]
Among the most consequential, and surprising, of EPA’s decisions, is EPA’s plan to move forward with evaluating potential regulation of PFOA and PFOS under the SDWA. EPA has committed to evaluating the need for maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) for PFOS and PFOA.[6] The decision is significant because EPA only regulates approximately 90 contaminants under the SDWA, and EPA has not regulated any new drinking water contaminants in more than a decade.[7] The process for setting drinking water limits under the SDWA is rigorous, and will require further analysis of the contaminants, their potential impacts to municipal water supplies, and a cost-benefit analysis of federal regulation.[8] In the Action Plan, EPA indicates it may propose draft MCLs as early as later this year.[9] But before EPA can issue final MCLs, EPA will have to issue draft and final rules, which will be subject to public review as well as potential court challenges from industry, states, and municipalities.
EPA’s decision to move forward with regulation of PFOS and PFOA under the SDWA is surprising because states have taken the lead in drinking water regulation in recent decades.[10] Only a few weeks ago, sources at EPA indicated that the agency was unlikely to move forward with regulation of PFAS under the SDWA.[11] Regardless of EPA’s decision, states are likely to continue to move forward with their own drinking water regulations for PFAS. Several states, including New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire, have already adopted or proposed PFOS and PFOA drinking water regulations as aggressive as or more aggressive than the 70 parts per trillion drinking water health advisory levels recommended by EPA in April 2016.[12]
Less unexpected, EPA also has decided to move forward with possible regulation of PFAS under CERCLA. EPA has agreed to evaluate potential regulation of PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, and EPA has tentatively agreed to develop groundwater cleanup standards for PFOA and PFOS at contaminated sites.[13] While regulation of the chemicals under CERCLA will provide EPA authority to order CERCLA cleanups or recover costs for agency-led cleanups at sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, EPA has already used its Superfund authority to require parties to address PFAS as a secondary contaminant at numerous sites.[14] In July 2017, EPA even added the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Site in Hoosick Falls, New York, to the National Priorities List (NPL) as the result of historic PFOA contamination.[15]
A final decision to list PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA or other federal environmental statutes, while still far from certain, could result in the addition of more sites with historic PFAS contamination to the NPL. Such listings could impose significant burdens on the parties held responsible for these cleanups, including retroactive and joint and several liability under CERCLA. Following designation of PFOS and PFOA as “hazardous substances,” parties also may face new liabilities under other federal statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and TSCA.[16]
In the Action Plan, EPA also agreed to finalize its evaluation of the toxicity of PFAS including the short-chain PFAS GenX and PFBS.[17] EPA released draft findings last summer indicating that these more recently developed PFAS alternatives pose less of a risk of toxicity than PFOA and PFOS.[18] Under the Action Plan, EPA plans to develop toxicity assessments for five additional PFAS within the next two years.[19]
EPA also committed to further evaluation of PFAS under TSCA to address potential regulatory gaps.[20] Only several hundred of the estimated thousands of PFAS approved for use in the United States are currently regulated under TSCA.[21] Finally, EPA agreed to additional long-term PFAS regulatory measures, including new sampling techniques to detect PFAS, study of PFAS transport mechanisms and treatment options, and the potential for increased enforcement actions.[22]
As discussed throughout the Action Plan, EPA faces the continuing challenge of coordinating its efforts with a large group of federal, state, and local stakeholders with strong interests in any regulatory outcome involving PFAS.[23] As only one example, the United States faces significant potential liability stemming from the release of PFAS-containing foam at its military installations.[24] Many states also appear eager to finalize their own regulations for PFAS, and several– including Ohio, Minnesota, and New York– have already been involved in high-profile litigation against PFAS manufacturers. Municipalities are responsible for complying with federal and state drinking water limits and cleanup standards, and they may find themselves on both sides of litigation, as individual plaintiffs pursue lawsuits against them to enforce cleanup standards, and municipalities pursue product liability and indemnification claims against landowners, PFAS manufacturers and secondary users of PFAS.
While EPA’s PFAS Action Plan may increase the likelihood of broad-based federal regulation of PFAS in the future, much remains uncertain because many of EPA’s planned actions require long-term scientific study, public input, and final agency decisions. EPA indicates that it will take a cautious approach to risk analysis and risk communication, and EPA will emphasize public transparency during the regulatory process.[25] These remain important goals because there is significant disagreement within the scientific and legal communities regarding the alleged toxicity of PFAS, and the potential benefits of additional regulation.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=185962b2-92fc-4af0-9798-3b206b354834

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Industry Emphasizes Uncertain Science To Fight Strict PFAS Limits

Feb 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

Industry advocates are welcoming EPA's recently released action plan to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), saying it provides an opportunity to consider uncertain science in any future drinking water or other regulations, which some say could result in weaker limits than what the agency has previously offered.
“The Action Plan lays out many actions to improve our scientific understanding of PFAS and to assist states and communities responding to PFAS challenges,” the Responsible Science Policy Coalition (RSPC), a group that includes both manufacturers and consumers of the chemicals, said in a statement.
Still, other industry officials are warning that regardless of the stringency of any limit EPA sets, should the agency move forward with plans to list any PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, it will likely drive significant new cost recovery litigation.
“Statutory claims involving PFAS are likely to proliferate in both state and federal courts. This is especially so if PFAS are designated as hazardous substances under state cleanup laws or the federal Superfund statute(s),” Marten Law policy adviser Nathan Frey and senior associate Jennifer Hammitt write in a recent review of EPA's plan.
EPA's long-awaited PFAS action plan, which Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler unveiled Feb. 14, is a multi-media effort to address the widespread concern over PFAS contamination through a host of short- and long-term efforts. While it includes a series of steps to better monitor the extent of contamination and assess risks, the plan takes just initial steps on water and waste regulatory measures.
For example, the plan includes a goal of proposing a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulatory determination on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- the two most widespread PFAS -- by the end of 2019, which could eventually lead to an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the chemicals.
But while top EPA officials say they intend to set MCLs for the two substances, state officials and other critics charge the promise is not firm enough and that the chemicals are dangerous enough that EPA should act more quickly.
Wheeler also announced that under the plan EPA has already begun the regulatory process for listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law -- an action that will aid states and communities in cleaning up contamination and recovering costs from responsible parties.
The plan embraces some of the ideas pushed by the chemical industry last fall when it gave input to EPA on developing the action plan. For instance, EPA under the plan commits to working across the agency and the federal government to develop a risk communication toolbox on PFAS to communicate with communities, and will convene a federal interagency PFAS group to ensure collaborative actions and “consistent messaging on PFAS toxicity that is informed by the best available science."
Drinking Water Standard
As some states rush ahead to set advisories and standards for PFAS in the absence of federal standards, industry advocates appear to be pressing for EPA to follow a path that they argue the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) failed to follow when it developed risk levels much stricter than the risk estimates underlying EPA's 2016 drinking water health advisories for two PFAS.
States, EPA and ATSDR have used different “starting points,” as they have used differing safety and uncertainty factors in determining safe levels for PFAS, one industry attorney says.
The source says there is a “dilemma” with EPA setting an MCL for PFAS. While citizen groups and many states and municipalities want drinking water standards now for these chemicals, the source notes the deliberative process of developing such standards, and that costs and technical feasibility also have to be factored in.
In a Feb. 15 posting, lawyers with the Clark Hill firm note that if EPA sets drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, that standard could end up being less stringent than the advisory level EPA set in 2016 of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for those two PFAS combined in drinking water.
“Unlike an advisory, which only considers risk, the risk management decision of selecting a concentration for the standard and the technology that must be utilized to remove the PFAS is no trivial task and includes consideration of technical feasibility (e.g., are there feasible detection limits and can PFAS be removed from groundwater). As a result, a drinking water standard may be higher than an advisory level,” the attorneys, Jane Luxton, Amanda Tharpe and William Walsh, write in the alert.
Such a finding -- less stringent than 70 ppt -- would contrast sharply with the 1 ppt that community groups around the country and environmentalists have campaigned for as the safety level EPA should embrace for drinking water. It would also conflict with a general trend in which states have been eying drinking water levels stricter than EPA's non-enforceable health advisory levels.
While industry groups would likely welcome a weaker level, many are emphasizing the need for EPA and other agencies to use consistent scientific approaches when assessing PFAS risks and setting regulatory limits.
Such consistency is aimed in part at overcoming widespread confusion and anger that resulted when ATSDR released more conservative toxicity values for PFOA and PFOS than those EPA had used when setting its advisory levels.
Most notably, ATSDR's draft levels for "intermediate" duration oral exposures for PFOA and PFOS are between seven and 10 times stricter than EPA risk estimates underlying its health advisories for the two chemicals.
Industry is now applauding EPA's release of the plan, signaling it will focus on how EPA interprets the science when deciding on policy or regulatory actions -- something the chemical industry criticized when ATSDR last year derived the toxicity values for PFOA and PFOS that were much more conservative than EPA's underlying risk values.
In comments submitted last August on ATSDR's draft toxicological profile for the chemicals, RSPC criticized ATSDR for allegedly failing to follow National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) advice for conducting human health assessments.
And in its Feb. 14 statement, the group called for EPA “to conduct comprehensive and independent peer review of draft health guideline values, to follow the recommendations of the [NAS] on best practices to determine guideline values” as it sets standards for PFAS compounds.
RSPC offers to provide EPA with its members' scientific expertise on PFAS chemistries as part of the public processes outlined in the plan.
Similarly, the American Chemistry Council also backs uniformity among standards, saying a “science-based management plan will help states by providing access to a broader range of resources; ensuring uniform standards across the country to enable straightforward compliance; and minimizing the burden on states that are already short on resources.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-emphasizes-uncertain-science-fight-strict-pfas-limits

Return to headline | Return to top
Eight US Sites Chosen for PFAS Firefighting Foam Contamination Studies

Feb 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Lisa Martine Jenkins

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will begin testing human exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in eight communities located near current and former military installations.
These sites were chosen due to evidence that the use of firefighting foams containing PFASs at them have subjected surrounding communities to higher concentrations of the substances.
The study – which will begin this year and continue through 2020 – will inform a "future multi-site health study that will look at the relationship between PFAS exposure and health outcomes."
The CDC and ATSDR laid the groundwork for this research with a pilot programme in partnership with Pennsylvania and New York state. The continued research will assess exposure in eight additional locations in eight other states.
The study will select random people in each community to have their PFAS levels checked via blood and urine samples, and will used statistically based sampling to inform conclusions about community-level exposure.
According to the CDC and ATSDR, some studies have shown that exposure to the widely used substances – which are also used in non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, and other products that resist grease, water and oil – can have developmental, endocrinological, immunological and carcinogenic impacts.
While the EPA’s recently released PFAS action plan does not take significant steps to restrict use of the substances, certain states have begun to address them. Last year, Washington state largely bannedfirefighting foams containing PFASs and has also passed a law to block their use in food contact materials.
The NGO Environmental Working Group has pushed for urgent action on the "emergency" of PFAS contamination. EWG senior scientist David Andrews said the group is encouraged by the agencies’ efforts, but it "strongly urge[s] CDC and ATSDR to widen the program to include other places struggling with this growing crisis."
A recent ATSDR study on a group of PFAS substances was the subject of controversy, after information surfaced suggesting that the EPA and White House were working to slow its publication. The draft toxicological profile, which was released in June 2018, floats minimal risk levels (MRLs) far below those set by the EPA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74621/eight-us-sites-chosen-for-pfas-firefighting-foam-contamination-studies

Return to headline | Return to top
Bayer Faces Mounting Weedkiller Lawsuits Amid Sweeping Restructuring

Feb 27, 2019 | Wall Street Journal

By Ruth Bender

Bayer AG on Wednesday said the number of plaintiffs suing the German company over its weedkillers had risen by another 1,900 over the last three months.
The legal battle has cast a cloud over the chemicals and pharmaceuticals group’s prospects that analysts say could take months, if not years to dissipate.
Bayer said as of late January it faced a total of 11,200 plaintiffs claiming weedkillers containing the chemical glyphosate cause cancer, compared with 9,300 at the end of October. Bayer has rejected the allegations, arguing that there are numerous studies that demonstrate the safety of glyphosate and its products.
“We have the science on our side and will continue to vigorously defend this important and safe herbicide for modern and sustainable farming,” Chief Executive Werner Baumann said.
The latest increase in plaintiffs coincides with the second such case starting trial this weekin what is set to be a yearslong fight for Bayer to try to clear its name and the most expensive acquisition in its 155 year-old history.
Bayer splashed out $63 billion last year to transform itself into the world’s largest maker of seeds and pesticides from a predominantly pharmaceuticals company by acquiring U.S. agriculture giant Monsanto Co. But the company has been scrambling to win back investors’ trust since that takeover also plunged it into a large and potentially costly legal battle over the world’s most widely used herbicide.
Bayer’s share price has been caught in a downward spiral, losing some 30% since Monsanto in August lost the first case on trial, despite a judge later reducing the jury award to $78.5 million from $289.2 million. Bayer is appealing the verdict. Seven trials are currently scheduled for 2019, the company said Wednesday.
While all eyes are on the court cases as analysts and investors look for more clarity on the outcome of the litigation, Bayer is busy implementing a sweeping restructuring plan to shore up its finances and fix problems the company has been facing in its other divisions, namely pharmaceuticals and consumer health.
Bayer swung to a net loss of €3.92 billion ($4.46 billion) in the fourth quarter from a profit of €148 million a year ago, due mainly to €3.3 billion in impairment charges and write-offs for consumer health brands the company is in the process of selling and a pharmaceuticals plant in Germany they are closing, which were flagged late last year. Costs to finance the Monsanto acquisition also weighed down net profit.
Sales in the quarter rose to €11.06 billion from €8.6 billion a year ago. Sales were boosted by the integration of Monsanto into the crop-science division as well as pharmaceuticals and animal health while consumer health still dragged.
Bayer in November announced plans to cut 10% of its global workforce, sell its animal health unit and underperforming consumer brands Dr. Scholl’s foot care and Coppertone sunscreens. Management said the plans have nothing to do with the glyphosate lawsuits but people familiar with the company say the plan is also a way to demonstrate that the company has its operational business under control.
Shares in Bayer rose in early trade Wednesday as analysts said sales beat expectations. Analysts however predict shares will remain under pressure until more cases have been tried in court to give a sense of how big a financial burden the litigation could or couldn’t become for Bayer. Analysts say the current share price assumes a negative outcome of the litigation, with total costs projected to reach somewhere between €5 billion and €10 billion.
Bayer hasn’t booked provisions for potential plaintiff payouts for defense costs.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-faces-mounting-weedkiller-lawsuits-amid-sweeping-restructuring-11551257970?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Revision of Nanomaterials Definition Postponed to 2020

Feb 26, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Clelia Oziel

The European Commission has again postponed the long-overdue revision of its Recommendation on a definition of nanomaterials, with a proposal not now envisaged before 2020.
The process of revising the definition of substances in nanoform has already suffered severe setbacks. The Commission started the first public consultation on a new definition in 2017 after a three-year delay, and was expected to launch another consultation on the draft changes soon.
But the revision has now been deferred to the next Commission, "so not before 2020", a source at the Commission told Chemical Watch.
The public consultation on the draft changes will also take place "at a later stage", the source said. This is expected to involve major relevant stakeholder groups, including the Competent Authorities Sub-Group on Nanomaterials (CASG-Nano).
It is not certain when the next EU executive body will take the helm, after the current Commission's term of office ends on 31 October. Parliamentary elections are set for May and the EU Parliament and Council has to approve the new Commission.
The news of yet another delay to the definition is likely to deepen the frustration of many industry stakeholders, member states and NGOs which have for years called for more legal clarity to address the specific threat posed by nanomaterials.
But the writing was on the wall in December when the Commission postponed the non-toxic environment strategy, which was due at the end of 2018, until the new Commission is in office. This is expected to include action on nanomaterials.
The Commission's first Recommendation, agreed in 2011, defined them as substances with 50% of particles or more between 1nm-100nm. Critics have said this is too broad and does not differentiate between process-related and intentionally engineered nanomaterials.
Size is not always key in risk assessment and analytical tools struggle to measure nanomaterial size accurately, several industry players have said. Many also want a distinction made between 'nanomaterials' and 'nanoform'.Nano delays
Every aspect of regulating nanomaterials in the EU has been beset with delays and controversy.
After a delay of three and a half years, the Commission published an inventory of nanomaterials in cosmetics in 2017. It then faced an ombudsman complaint from an NGO that it does not contain information consumers need to identify products containing them.
Revisions to REACH annexes to include specific provisions for nanomaterials had also endured long delays before they were finally adopted last December. But their publication ahead of a new definition angered many in the industry, saying that the definition should have come first.
"Not one nano-related policy deadline has been met over the past few years," said David Azoulay, Geneva managing attorney for the Centre for International Environmental Law (Ciel). "This puts into question the political will to ensure a fair and balanced development of nanomaterials in the EU."
Meanwhile, the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) put out a report last week on how the 2011 Recommendation for a definition is being implemented.
The report mainly offers clarifications about the "constitutive elements" of the existing definition, Mr Azoulay said, "but does not really provide major value added in reflecting on a possible revision of that."
https://chemicalwatch.com/74646/eu-revision-of-nanomaterials-definition-postponed-to-2020

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Publishes Addendums to Opinions on Cosmetics Chemicals

Feb 26, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The EU has published addendums to two scientific Opinions from its Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) on substances used in cosmetics – zinc pyrithione and sodium, potassium and MEA o-phenylphenates (OPPs).
On zinc pyrithione, the SCCS confirmed the lowest observed adverse effect level of 0.5mg/kg bw/d that was derived in 2013 as a conservative value for risk assessment of ZPT. It is therefore considered safe when used at a concentration up to 2% as an anti-dandruff agent in rinse-off haircare products.
Meanwhile, due to lack of relevant information it was not able to conclude on the safety of the current use of sodium, potassium and MEA OPPs as preservatives with a maximum concentration of 0.2% (as phenol).
Following the SCCS Opinion, member states had raised concerns over the substances' risk to human health. In December 2017 the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment provided a document that compared their safety with o-phenolphenyl (OPP).
The committee has determined that the conclusion on safe use levels for OPP – 0.15% in leave-on and 0.2% in rinse-off cosmetic products as preservatives – cannot be applied to the substances. Based on the available information, potential risk to human health cannot be excluded, it says.
Although MEA OPP was not considered in its 2015 Opinion, it has a similar view that potential risk cannot be excluded from its use as a preservative in cosmetic products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74645/eu-publishes-addendums-to-opinions-on-cosmetics-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

$1 Billion Needed for Energy Innovation, Ex-Officials Say

Feb 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

The advanced innovation arm of the Energy Department needs to receive at least $1 billion in funding in the coming years so it can compete internationally, former directors told Congress.
“If you are to take this energy transition seriously, what we’re asking is for the budget to be on the order of $1 billion to grow within a few years,” Arun Majumdar, the first director of the Energy Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee’s Energy Subcommittee on Feb. 26.
Ellen Williams, the director from 2014 to 2017 echoed the call. “Going to $1 billion, and then assessing and evaluating the success of that project, would be an excellent target for the House,” she said.
The Energy Department’s program that invests in high-risk, energy projects was authorized by a 2007 law and received $400 million in its first budget in 2009.
Its budget hasn’t grown since, and it received $366 million in fiscal year 2019. Former directors and recipients of funds say it needs a dramatic surge in funding to attract more talent and grow the number of high-tech energy inventions.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who chairs the committee, told Bloomberg Environment that the full panel will consider the recommendation for more funding, saying she agrees the budget needs to be increased.
“ARPA-E has been very successful,” she said.
‘Within a Few Years’
The phased-in approach would be better, Majumdar, who led ARPA-E from 2009 to 2012, said, because to grow from the $300 million range to $1 billion in a year would be difficult for staff to handle.
ARPA-E was modeled after the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which has invented defense technologies, including GPS.
If Congress eventually allocates $1 billion, “the agency can then grow, bring in the talent, create new programs, create those public private partnerships, and then be at the level of the DARPA impact that it ought to have,” Majumdar said.
‘DARPA-Sized Budget’
DARPA received more than $3 billion in fiscal year 2019. Saul Griffith, CEO of Otherlab, which has received ARPA-E funding, says the program should be receiving $3 billion in funding as well.
“You have a really strong bench in this country in terms of the talent, and they’re sitting on the bench unfortunately not playing the energy game. They’re writing software to sell ads,” said Griffith, whose research lab focuses on innovative energy projects to address climate change.
On the other hand, DARPA had led to major achievements in technologies it invested in. For example, Griffith said, there is DARPA talent or funding in the DNA of “every single robotic company out there right now.”
“Those companies are doing all of the radical transformations in robotics,” he said.
“I think you can easily justify a DARPA-sized budget for ARPA-E to do the same work,” he said. “I think $1 billion is low, it’s not nearly aligned with the scale of the energy transformation challenge.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/1-billion-needed-for-energy-innovation-ex-officials-say-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump’s Energy Push Could Run Aground on Texas Coast

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Mike Lee

The next bottleneck for the Permian Basin oil field in the Southwest is likely to be a lack of dock space to export the region's crude overseas.
Easing constraints on oil transportation is a top goal for both the oil and gas sector and the Trump administration, which is aiming to make the U.S. the world's top energy producer as part of its "energy dominance" agenda.
The basin's oil output is growing so fast that it's outstripping the capacity of U.S. refineries. The solution in the Permian Basin, which covers parts of Texas and New Mexico, has been to export the oil to Asia and Europe.
But while there are enough pipelines to get the oil to ports like Houston and Corpus Christi, there may not be enough dock spaces, particularly for the biggest tankers. Most of Texas' harbors are naturally shallow and have to be periodically dredged to accommodate larger vessels.
"All these regions suffer from a lack of deepwater harbors," Sandy Fielden, an analyst for Morningstar, said during a webcast last week.
At least eight projects are underway to provide offshore buoys or deepwater docks to handle large tankers, but it could take until 2021 to build them, Fielden said.
The deepest ports in Texas, including Freeport and Corpus Christi, are only 45 feet deep, according to the Texas Department of Transportation. The largest class of tankers, known as very large crude carriers, or VLCCs, have a draft of 60 feet or more.
On the Texas coast, companies that want to load VLCCs are forced to anchor the ships offshore and shuttle oil to them in smaller vessels, a process known as reverse lightering.'It is a problem'
The administration was reportedly considering an executive order in January to speed construction of pipelines across the country, a move aimed at boosting output from the Permian Basin (Greenwire, Jan. 24).
But the Permian is expected to have adequate pipeline capacity for at least the next two years, Fielden said.
The bigger slowdown is a lack of federal funding to deepen the channels at Texas ports, said Jim Kruse, a researcher at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute's Center for Ports & Waterways. The Army Corps of Engineers has authorized some harbor-deepening projects, but Congress hasn't approved funding for them.
"It is a problem," Kruse said. "Traditionally, the government has lagged behind the need for dredging."
Houston and Corpus Christi accounted for more than 1 million barrels a day in exports in 2018, Fielden said, and the numbers are expected to grow.
U.S. oil exports hit an all-time high of 3.6 million barrels earlier this month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Overall, the U.S. is expected to produce 12.4 million barrels a day in 2019, with about 4.2 million barrels a day coming from the Permian Basin.
The port authorities in Houston and Corpus Christi are seeking funding to deepen their channels.
"We're still doing really well in terms of being able to receive the larger vessels," Lisa Ashley, a spokeswoman for the Port of Houston Authority, said in an interview. "We also anticipate and can see on the horizon as we're growing, the ship channel will need to grow as well."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/27/stories/1060122517

Return to headline | Return to top
White House Eyes Former DOE Lawyer for FERC Spot

Feb 26, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Darius Dixon and Andrew Restuccia

Former Energy Department lawyer David Hill has emerged as the Trump administration’s leading pick to fill the open seat at FERC, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.
A senior administration official also said Hill is "almost certain" to be tapped for the vacancy left by the death of Kevin McIntyre last month following a lengthy illness.
One source said that White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow has been lobbying for Hill to get the job, but all three said a final decision has not yet been been made.
Two of the sources said that a handful of other candidates are still being vetted by the White House: former Texas utility, oil and gas industry regulator Barry Smitherman, former Wisconsin utility commissioner Ellen Nowak, and former Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) aide Pat McCormick.
The four candidates, whose names have been floated for previous FERC leadership spots during the Trump administration, represent sharply different views about the role of regulators. Whomever emerges as the candidate may play a decisive role on the five-member commission in determining the future of power markets and whether FERC agrees to measures sought by the Trump administration to support an ailing coal industry.
“Given what we know about the Trump administration’s beliefs about what FERC should do,” said Travis Kavulla, director of R Street Institute’s energy program and a former Montana regulator, “it’s interesting that the administration would be considering such a wide range of potential candidates who have starkly different beliefs about what FERC should do.”
Hill served as DOE’s general counsel for most of President George W. Bush’s second term, after working as that agency’s deputy general counsel for three years. But like other Bush-era energy officials, such as former FERC Chairman Pat Wood, Hill publicly criticized a DOE regulatory proposal aimed at propping up money-losing coal and nuclear power plants, one of Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s earliest initiatives.
“I can make quick work of the DOE NOPR,” Hill said of the agency’s so-called notice of proposed rulemaking at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation in 2017 a few weeks after it was released.
“Do we think there is a problem [in the power markets]? Yes, we think there is a problem. We think it is not exactly the problem that DOE identified but we think there are significant problems with the wholesale markets of the United States,” Hill said. “Do I think it is the solution that DOE proposed? No. It’s absolutely not the solution that DOE proposed.”
Hill also blasted a suggestion by FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee that the agency impose an “interim” final rule that would largely reflect Perry’s plan, saying it would be a "disaster."
“From the perspective of companies that have to allocate at-risk capital and have to make investments and have to figure out the market rules, the idea of putting in place an interim final rule that is what DOE proposed … would be a bad, bad outcome. We are absolutely opposed," said Hill, who was at the time an executive vice president and general counsel at NRG Energy.
Hill, an expert in the Federal Power Act worked with Sidley Austin's global energy practice group from 2009 until 2012, when he joined NRG. He resigned from both NRG posts last spring but stayed on in an advisory capacity.
At the same 2017 event, Hill lamented how FERC had not addressed the state subsidies for nuclear power that "threaten competition," and allowed renewable energy sources to be exempt from some market rules that other fuel types had to abide by.
FERC ultimately struck down the DOE proposal unanimously early last year. And the White House also shelved a more aggressive DOE plan to invoke national security to force power companies to keep what it called “fuel-secure” generators like coal and nuclear plants open.
Hill and Smitherman are both seen as strong advocates for greater competition in electricity markets, but the latter, a former chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission and the Public Utilities Commission of Texas during Perry’s governorship, is a vocal climate change skeptic. Smitherman resigned from the law firm Vinson & Elkins in 2017 and was briefly on the NRG Energy board of directors.
Nowak was reappointed to be chair of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in December during the waning weeks of the Walker administration. She first joined that commission in 2011, and has served as head of the Wisconsin Department of Administration since March.
McCormick started working for Murkowski at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2011, serving as special counsel before being promoted to chief counsel in 2013. Prior to joining the panel, he spent 20 years in the private sector as a partner at Hunton and Williams. He left Capitol Hill last year to become a regulatory executive with fuel cell firm Bloom Energy.
Although his name has been floated for FERC leadership spots since 2015, he drew opposition from former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who retired after the 2016 election.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/02/white-house-eyes-former-doe-lawyer-for-ferc-spot-1210915

Return to headline | Return to top
As Energy World Focuses on Permian, Gulf Makes Its Own Comeback

Feb 26, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Jordan Blum

The attention of the energy industry has focused in recent years on the Permian Basin, the once tired West Texas oil field that roared back to life when hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling freed the vast reserves locked in its shale. But as the Permian gathers the attention, another aging oil field is making its own comeback.
The Gulf of Mexico is producing a record of almost 2 millions barrel of crude oil a day and expected to increase its output each year over at least the next five years as new projects begin operation and new discoveries in deeper waters are made. After struggling in the aftermath of the oil bust as investment shifted onshore, the Gulf has found new life as oil companies have succeeded in lowering costs, and market dynamics have made the heavier crude produced in the Gulf more valuable and sought after by refineries from the Gulf Coast to Asia.
The energy research firm Wood Mackenzie projects Gulf drilling activity to jump 30 percent this year after four consecutive years of declines. The federal government forecasts production to grow another 15 percent next year to 2.3 million barrels a day as as oil companies, particularly the biggest players, find advantage in deepwater wells that deplete far more slowly than shale reservoirs.
“The quality of Gulf crude as well as the longer life of offshore wells make it just as attractive as shale to large producers today,” said Sandy Fielden, Morningstar’s director of oil and products research.
As in the Permian and other shale plays, producers that have found ways to make money with lower crude oil prices have opened the spigots. The Permian Basin and the Gulf of Mexico account for about half nation’s output, now at a record 12 million barrels a day.
Cutting costs
The average cost of extracting oil barrels from deepwater wells has plunged by more than 50 percent in five years, according to Wood Mackenzie, as companies have standardized project designs and equipment. They also focused drilling projects near existing platforms that can be connected to the new wells via underwater pipelines and umbilicals, which is far less costly than building and installing new platforms.
The breakeven price for profiting off of deepwater wells has fallen from about $70 a barrel a few years ago to closer to $40, according to the top Gulf producers BP and Royal Dutch Shell. As one measure of the vast gains in efficiency, consider this: Gulf producers are pumping twice as much crude with a quarter of the drilling rigs used in the mid-1990s.
“The deepwater is thought of as an expensive and difficult place to be,” said Starlee Sykes, BP's regional president for the Gulf. “Recent developments are changing that.”
The world’s biggest oil companies, including BP, Shell and Chevron dominate much of the Gulf, and other top global players such as the French oil major Total, Norway’s state energy company Equinor and The Woodlands’ Anadarko Petroleum als are investing more in the region. Asian energy companies, valuing the political stability of the United States over potentially bigger returns in more volatile regions such as Africa and Latin America, also are developing projects in the Gulf.
Those firms include include China National Offshore Oil Corp., called CNOOC, and the Japanese companies Inpex Corp., Mitsui Oil and Marubeni Oil & Gas.
Shell completed a series of smaller expansions last year and, this fall, will put its multibillion-dollar Appomattox platform in operation about 80 miles of the Louisiana Coast to target deep geologic layers believed to hold much on the undiscovered oil in the Gulf. Appomattox will be followed in 2021 with the Vito platform about 150 miles southeast of New Orleans.
After Vito, Shell expects to hone in on its Whale discovery — announced a year ago — in the southwest Gulf almost 200 miles south of Houston. Rick Tallant, Shell vice president for production in the Gulf, said a final decision for a multibillion-dollar development of Whale is likely in 2020.
“The industry in general is starting to reinvest back into the Gulf of Mexico,” Tallant said.
In January, for example, BP said it would spend $1.3 billion to expand its Atlantis development about 150 miles south of New Orleans. BP said it produces more than 300,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day from the Gulf and plans to exceed 400,000 barrels daily by the mid-2020s.
The Gulf also is attracting further investments from smaller players such as the Houston companies Talos Energy, Fieldwood Energy, W&T Offshore and Houston Energy.
Ron Neal, co-founder of Houston Energy, said these companies are taking a contrarian approach, targeting the Gulf when shale is all the rage and buying leases at significant discounts to acreage in the Permian Basin. The Gulf’s wells are costlier to develop up front, he said, but they can churn out high volumes of oil for many years, unlike shale wells, in which production drops sharply after the first year or so.
“The deepwater is healthy,” Neal said. “We just try to be consistent and not reactionary, and it’s worked pretty well.”
To Mars and beyond
Wood Mackenzie predicts the next big project to move forward could be Chevron’s and Total’s 2017 Anchor discovery more than 100 miles south of New Orleans. That development could trigger more than $10 billion in investments.. Last last year, Chevron’s new Big Foot platform came online east of the Anchor find.
In addition to lower lease costs and longer well life, another factor is driving increased activity in the Gulf of Mexico: premium prices for its oil. Gulf wells produce a medium grade crude and the benchmark, called Mars, is selling at $6 a barrel more than lighter crude produced in West Texas — a premium of about 15 percent and the highest differential for Mars sine 2013.
The reason: a global shortage of the heavier crudes preferred by refiners from the Gulf Coast to Asia. Several developments have cut the supply of heavier crudes on the market, including OPEC’s production cuts, U.S. sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, and OPEC-style output reductions put in place the government of Alberta, Canada to try to lift prices of the heavy crude produced in the province’s oil sands.
Analysts expect Gulf of Mexico oil to fetch higher prices at least though the end of this year.
“As the U.S. consolidates its position as one of the world’s largest producers and a major exporter,” said Fielden, the Morningstar analyst, “the long-term value and importance of offshore production shouldn’t be underestimated.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/As-energy-world-focuses-on-Permian-Gulf-makes-13645134.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Cheniere Energy Closes 2018 with $471 Million Profit as LNG Exports Grow

Feb 26, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Sergio Chapa

Houston liquefied natural gas company Cheniere Energy closed 2018 with a $471 million profit as LNG exports continue to grow.
Cheniere reported making $67 million of net income on nearly $2.4 billion of revenue during the fourth quarter of 2018. The figures are mixed when compared to the $127 million of net income on $1.7 billion of revenue during the fourth quarter of 2017.
The company's fourth quarter figures allowed Cheniere to close 2018 with $471 million of net income on nearly $8 billion of revenue, which represented dramatic growth over the $393 million loss on $5.6 billion of revenue during 2017.
Cheniere reported exporting 273 shipments of LNG during 2018, a 33 percent increase from the 205 cargos the company sent out in 2017.
"We look forward to leveraging forward momentum for continued success in 2019," Cheniere Energy CEO Jack Fusco said in a statement.
Cheniere owns and operates two LNG export terminals — one in Sabine Pass, Louisiana and the other in Corpus Christi Texas.
The company has been exporting from its Sabine Pass LNG facility since February 2016 and is bringing the first production unit at its Corpus Christi facility over the next few months.
Under its business model, Cheniere buys natural gas from shale basins around the United States that is pipelined to its facilities. Once there, the natural gas is supercooled and becomes a liquid, making it easier to transport.
Most of Cheniere's customers are a utility companies in Europe and Asia that use the LNG to feed natural gas-fired power plants.
Shipments of LNG from the company's two facilities have been delivered to 32 nations around the world.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cheniere-Energy-closes-2018-with-473-million-13645443.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Greens Threaten to Sue Interior over Contentious Utah Project

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Scott Streater

A coalition of environmental groups have put the Interior Department on notice that they plan to sue, challenging the recent approval of pipelines and power lines across public lands that are needed to operate the nation's first oil shale production plant on private lands in Utah.
At issue is the Bureau of Land Management's record of decision (ROD) last fall approving two transmission lines and three underground pipelines for water, natural gas and oil product to cross public lands from Enefit American Oil's long-planned South Project (E&E News PM, Sept. 26, 2018).
Enefit American — the Salt Lake City-based arm of Estonian-owned Eesti Energia AS — plans to build a 50,000-barrel-per-day oil shale production plant on private lands. Enefit American also owns the mineral rights underneath the private parcel in Uintah County, Utah.
Environmental groups fiercely oppose the projects, arguing that it will cause air and water pollution in the region.
Attorneys with Earthjustice, which is representing seven groups, yesterday submitted a 60-day notice of intent to sue acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and several other senior officials with BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
BLM and FWS violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to "adequately analyze" the impacts of the pipelines and power lines to federally protected animal and plant species, including the Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker, the groups said in the notice. The pipelines that will allow Enefit's oil shale plant to remove 3.5 billion gallons of water a year from the Green River would "severely harm four endangered Upper Colorado River fish species and their critical habitat," the notice said.
"In addition, the rights-of-way and Enefit's oil shale operations would destroy a significant portion of the remaining critical habitat for two imperiled plant species, the Graham's penstemon and White River penstemon (also known as beardtongues), which FWS has previously proposed for listing under the ESA," the notice said.
The groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, Living Rivers/Colorado RiverKeeper, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Utah Physicians for Healthy Environment and Waterkeeper Alliance — said they will file a lawsuit unless BLM and FWS "undertake a new consultation and halt all Utility Project activities until the agencies fully analyze whether BLM's action is likely to jeopardize" plant and animal species directly, "or destroy or adversely modify their habitat," the notice said.
"The BLM approved the rights-of-way to service the oil-shale development based on an utterly inadequate analysis of its potentially devastating environmental impacts," said Michael Toll, a staff attorney at the Grand Canyon Trust, in a statement. "Considering the rights-of-way are a public subsidy of an otherwise economically unfeasible oil-shale facility, the public has a right to know exactly how Enefit's project will impact the environment."
Among the other defendants named in the notice of intent are Margaret Everson, FWS's principal deputy director, and BLM's Mike Nedd, who is listed as the bureau's deputy director. E&E News reported last week that Nedd has been appointed BLM deputy director of operations, but the bureau has not made any formal public announcement (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
An Interior Department spokeswoman declined to comment, saying yesterday that the agency cannot publicly discuss matters pertaining to pending or ongoing litigation.
But Interior under the Trump administration has been a vocal supporter of the South Project. BLM Deputy Director Brian Steed, in announcing the issuance of the ROD last year, said that the bureau was "proud to do our part to move this important energy project forward."
Project supporters called the ROD a major advancement in an ongoing effort to extract vast oil shale reserves that could prove to be a major new source of domestic energy. But the process of extracting crude oil from shale rock is resource-intensive. Some have estimated that it could take three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced, because extracting crude oil from shale rock requires heating an organic material in the rock called kerogen to 650 degrees Fahrenheit or more, critics have said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/27/stories/1060122513

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Citing Air Act, Exxon Seeks To Block CSB Subpoena For 'Potential' Releases

Feb 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Ariana Figueroa

Exxon Mobil is urging an appellate court to uphold a lower court ruling that barred the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) from enforcing document requests about chemicals that are stored on site but not released as a result of an incident, arguing the Clean Air Act does not provide CSB with power to subpoena for documents related to “potential” releases.
In a Feb. 13 response brief in USA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, the company argued that CSB is unlawfully seeking to subpoena documents related to a “potential” release, though the statute only provides the board with such enforcement power to investigate actual releases.
The air act provides “no subpoena power and no open-door access to property” for CSB to research “potential” releases, the brief says.
This contrasts with lawmakers’ clear decision to limit CSB’s investigative authority to actual “releases,” the brief says.
The case, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, stems from a 2015 explosion at the company's Torrance, CA, facility that injured four workers and renewed national attention to refinery safety.
It prompted a letter from Reps. Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Maxine Waters (D-CA), who raised concerns that this was the third explosion at the Torrance refinery, which is located in parts of their districts.
“Due to the plant’s proximity to the surrounding community, the accident had the potential to cause substantial property damage and deaths and injuries among the general public,” the lawmakers wrote. “The Torrance plant was also the third U.S. refinery to experience an explosion this year, the latest in a trend of major incidents at petroleum refineries in recent years.”
Other local officials have also weighed in, including California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra (D), who submitted an Oct. 8 amicus brief in support of CSB’s request
The explosion was caused by accidental releases of catalyst dust. CSB's investigation found that a “combination of equipment malfunctions and weaknesses in Exxon Mobil's process safety management system” led to the situation that caused the explosion, which “shook the surrounding area with the force of a 1.7 magnitude earthquake” and sent ash filled with metals and other materials into nearby communities.
But the legal dispute focuses largely on CSB's request for documents pertaining to the company's on-site storage of modified hydrofluoric acid (MHF) as the explosion caused a 40-ton piece of debris to be propelled about 100 feet into the alkylation unit where it landed within five feet of a tank containing thousands of gallons of MHF.
During CSB’s investigation, the agency requested 329 document and subpoena requests, where Exxon disputed 56 of the requests that it viewed as irrelevant to, and outside CSB’s jurisdiction.”
“Many of the disputed requests--including the five requests at issue here--sought information related to the use of MHF,” Exxon says.
The district court granted a partial subpoena with 29 of the requests approved and 26 requests denied. But the lower court rejected CSB arguments that it had authority to subpoena documents related to MHF.
“The court concludes CSB has the authority to investigate the ‘facts, conditions and circumstances of the February 2015 accidental release but that its subpoena authority is limited to seeking information relevant to the investigation,’” Judge Consuelo Marshall said in his November 2017 ruling.
Sparring Briefs
In its opening brief, the Justice Department (DOJ) urged the appellate court to reverse the lower court's ruling, arguing, among other things, that section 112 (r)(6)(C)(i) in the air act grants CSB authority to issue subpoenas “to support its mandate to investigate not only the 'cause or probable cause' of accidental releases like the February 2015 explosion but also the 'facts, conditions, and circumstances' of those releases.”
It says the five disputed subpoenas and document requests seeks such information, “which may cast light on whether Exxon’s safety measures are adequate and may help the Board to identify ways to reduce the likelihood or consequences of future accidental releases.”
It says the information CSB is seeking is also “relevant” under the deferential standard governing judicial enforcement of administrative subpoenas.
But Exxon, in its response, argues CSB lacks power to subpoena for documents beyond the scope of the actual release.
While the company acknowledged that the board has authority to provide recommendations to EPA and OSHA for preventing potential releases, it argued that Congress stopped short of giving the board subpoena power to investigate.
While Congress, in section 112 (r)(6)(C)(i), provided CSB with subpoena power and other enforcement authority to investigate actual releases, its requirement in section 112(r)(6)(F), for CSB to research potential releases and recommend ways for EPA and OSHA to prevent them did not include similar powers, the company said.
“CSB’s narrowing of its requests for purposes of this appeal illustrates the undercurrent of the parties’ dispute: CSB wants to use its subpoena powers to embark on an MHF hazard study, an undertaking far beyond the scope of its statutory mandate,” Exxon attorneys say.
“As an agency dedicated to safety, CSB can study hazards associated with MHF,” the motion says. “What it may not do is co-opt the limited subpoena power Congress granted for root-cause accident investigations and apply it to a separate, more expansive study of hazards that did not materialize.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/citing-air-act-exxon-seeks-block-csb-subpoena-potential-releases

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Infrastructure Is Bipartisan Concern, but House Panel Differs on Climate Change

Feb 26, 2019 | The Washington Post

By Ashley Halsey III

Everyone in Congress agrees transportation is a bipartisan matter. But a hearing Tuesday to discuss the impact of transportation on climate change caused sharp partisan discord.
“We don’t need sweeping mandates that ignore economic reality,” said Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “The heavy-handed approach, envisioned by the Green New Deal, doesn’t work.”
Two other Republicans also questioned whether action at the federal level was required, expressing discomfort with a hearing called by Democrats who wanted to investigate how infrastructure policy might evolve in the face of climate change.
“It looks like companies and industry are already being environmentally conscious,” said Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.). “Why do we need a top-down approach to environmental regulation?”
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) waved a research paper, saying the science of climate change was “a bit murky.”
But Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown University Climate Center responded that, “The scientific record is . . . overwhelming.
“You can cherry pick and find a study that may make an alternative point, but we’re living in a world that everybody objectively knows is different from the world we were born into,” Arroyo testified. “We are seeing changes that are much faster and more severe than we had anticipated 30 years ago when I started looking at this.”
Democrats, on the other hand, accepted global warming as a given, as evidenced by Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D- Fla.), who represents the Florida Keys and the southern tip of the state.
“We are definitely Ground Zero for the effects of climate change and sea level rise,” she said. “In order to stave off the effects of climate change we need to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and we need to do it very quickly.”
The Green New Deal, which Graves mentioned, is a set of proposed economic proposals intended to address climate change and economic inequality.
In the decades since the industrial revolution, global temperatures have increased by one degree Celsius and are anticipated to increase by 1.5 degrees before 2052 unless steps are taken to prevent it from happening, according to United Nations projections.
[Where does your recycled plastic go? Perhaps into future highways.]
In October, a U.N. panel concluded there would by “unprecedented” consequences unless global warming were reduced within the next 10 years. That warning came as the United States, the world’s second-largest source of carbon dioxide, rolled back the work of previous administrations to control climate change.
Islanders in the Pacific worry they will be swallowed by the ocean, and authorities in California wonder whether to let beach houses on cliffs fall into the sea so barricades can be built to contain the encroaching surf.
The projected rising seas and extreme weather is anticipated to take a toll on the U.S. infrastructure. Both of them find vulnerable targets in roads, bridges, ports, rail lines, airports, transit and waste water systems.
The Environmental Protection Agency said that in 2017, various modes of transportation were responsible for close to 29 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas, surpassing electric generating plants, some of which have shifted from coal-fired to less polluting natural gas.
When the focus is solely on modes of transportation, cars and trucks contribute 83 percent of emissions, while airline traffic adds another 10 percent, the EPA said.
A white paper produced for the hearing by the committee’s Democratic staff underscored three things it said should be undertaken swiftly.
•Improve fuel efficiency standards
•Shift from fossil fuels to electricity and other sources
•Reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled
To achieve those goals would require Congress intercede to prevent the White House from its apparent intent to changed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which were established in 1975 after the Arab Oil Embargo.
The committee heard from nine witnesses, among them Daniel Sperling, a member of the California Air Resources Board, who counseled that Congress should “align transportation spending with environmental roles as well as with social goals.”
Arroyo said cities and states are working to concentrate the post-World War II suburban sprawl by building “more compact, livable communities.”
Thomas P. Lyon, a business professor at the University of Michigan, cautioned federal lawmakers about settling on a single new promising technology as the next great thing.
“This has sent confusing signals to make it hard for the U.S. auto industry to make long term investment plans for alternative fuel vehicles,” Lyon said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/infrastructure-is-bipartisan-concern-but-house-panel-differs-on-climate-change/2019/02/26/b4881a98-3923-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.fb10369694de

Return to headline | Return to top
Green New Deal’s Transit Revamp Comes Under Fire From GOP

Feb 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The Green New Deal would require a transformation of the transportation system that would undercut greenhouse gas cuts the airline industry is already making, several Republican lawmakers and an industry representative said Feb. 26.
Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sharply criticized the Green New Deal resolution led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and championed by progressive Democrats that calls for ambitious and rapid greenhouse gas cuts.
They seized on concerns the Green New Deal would seek to eliminate air travel—a point Ocasio-Cortez has disputed, but that has caught fire among Republican lawmakers and critics of the resolution as an example of how the policy would be unrealistic.
But some GOP members of the transportation committee also said the Green New Deal would threaten fuel efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas emissions reductions that the airline industry is undertaking.
“Who actually believes that we can make aviation ‘unnecessary’ by building some vast high-speed rail system?” Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), the committee’s top Republican, said in opening remarks. He cited recent funding troubles California has faced over its plan for high-speed rail in the state.
Transportation Overhaul
The Green New Deal resolution (H. Res. 109), doesn’t specifically call for changes to air travel. It urges an overhaul of U.S. transportation systems, including investments in zero-emission vehicles, public transit, and high-speed rail.
But a fact sheet initially released and then taken offline by Ocasio-Cortez’s office advocated a build-out of high-speed rail at a scale that would reduce the need for air travel. Ocasio-Cortez has walked back and sought to clarify some of the positions outlined in the fact sheet, including suggestions the resolution would seek to get rid of air travel.
Nonetheless, Nancy Young, vice president for environmental affairs with Airlines for America, suggested the industry shares Republican lawmakers’ concerns about the Green New Deal.
“We are already motivated and are doing a number of the things that are suggested as measures in the Green New Deal,” Young said.
The airline industry is working to develop and deploy sustainable jet fuel and investing in research for next-generation aircraft that would be more efficient and climate-friendly, she said.
“The market is driving this,” Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) said in response. “You don’t need the government to come in and tell you what to do.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-new-deals-transit-revamp-comes-under-fire-from-gop

Return to headline | Return to top
'Green New Deal' Overshadows Hearing

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Maxine Joselow

Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sought to put the spotlight on climate change and disaster mitigation yesterday.
But Republicans repeatedly tried to shift the focus by criticizing the much-hyped "Green New Deal" resolution, perhaps in an effort to expose fractures in the Democratic Party between moderates and progressives ahead of a high-profile Senate vote.
Vice Chairman Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), who was filling in for Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), said in his opening statement that the hearing's purpose was to examine how federal infrastructure policy could help mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Carbajal stressed that lawmakers were not there to debate the "Green New Deal" resolution from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to bring to the floor for a vote (Climatewire, Feb. 26).
"I suspect many on both sides of the aisle will want to spar over the 'Green New Deal,'" Carbajal said. "But it is not what we are here to do today. If you want to debate underlying arguments or ideas of the 'Green New Deal,' this is not the venue."
He added, "The authors of the 'Green New Deal' have an ambitious goal — one which I support — but their plan encompasses issues far beyond the jurisdiction of this committee. ... Rather than debate this resolution, our job is to provide pragmatic approaches to address the challenges of our changing climate."
But ranking member Sam Graves (R-Mo.) paid no heed to these instructions. He used his opening statement to blast the climate resolution as aspirational and out of touch with real-world conditions, echoing sentiments from his op-ed yesterday in Fox News.
"We don't have to live in a fairy tale, and that's where ideas like the 'Green New Deal' come from," Graves said. "There's no other way to describe this idea to completely make over our transportation network."
He added, "Who actually believes that we can make aviation unnecessary by building some high-speed rail system? Right here in the real world, the poster child for high-speed rail in California has simply run off the tracks right before our eyes. By the way, this massive shift would put 11 million people in the aviation sector out of jobs."
Graves was conflating the actual text of the "Green New Deal" resolution with an erroneous fact sheet that was initially circulated by Ocasio-Cortez's office and was later withdrawn.
The fact sheet stressed the need to "build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary," while the resolution stopped short of endorsing such a goal (Climatewire, Feb. 12).
It's unclear whether Graves was willfully conflating the two. But other GOP lawmakers on the panel also took aim at the proposal to eliminate air travel. And Republicans called as a witness Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs with Airlines for America.
"Airlines for America has a lot of concern about any plan where the rhetoric around it is saying that we're going to eliminate air travel," Young said in response to a question from Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio). "And we think that would be a bit concerning to the more than 157 million Americans who flew last year."
Democrats, for their part, invited a string of witnesses who highlighted the need to curb planet-warming emissions from transportation by encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles, investing in mass transit, and building out EV charging stations and other green infrastructure.
"As the fourth National Climate Assessment makes clear, the U.S. is experiencing serious impacts of climate change," said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "There is an urgent need to transition to a low-carbon transportation system."
Ben Prochazka, vice president of the Electrification Coalition, also testified about the importance of the federal electric vehicle tax credit.
DeFazio, the T&I chairman, was not present at yesterday's hearing. An aide told E&E News the lawmaker was stranded in his home state of Oregon due to inclement weather.
"Peter is unfortunately stuck in Oregon — They've had a huge snowstorm in Eugene and he's got 20+ inches at his house!" spokeswoman Beth Schoenbach said in an email.
DeFazio has sought to make climate change a priority for the T&I Committee, as it remains a priority for Democratic leadership in general. In an interview earlier this month, he told E&E News he plans to hold other climate-related hearings in the 116th Congress (Greenwire, Feb. 1).
In a video message posted on Twitter, DeFazio said he regretted missing the hearing and urged bipartisan collaboration on a broad infrastructure package that addresses climate concerns.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/27/stories/1060122473

Return to headline | Return to top
DeFazio Signals Bipartisan Infrastructure Funding Push With GHGs At Fore

Feb 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) says he wants to craft bipartisan transportation infrastructure legislation, rather than a more progressive bill with only Democratic priorities, even though he will face pressure from environmentalists and others to include an explicit focus on greenhouse gas issues.
While any highway funding bill that emerges from the Democratic-controlled House appears poised to have GHG and climate issues at the forefront, many Republicans during a Feb. 26 committee hearing signaled that they remain opposed to climate mandates, signaling difficulty in reconciling the issue in a divided Congress.
DeFazio outlined his intent to find a bipartisan approach in a statement issued ahead of the hearing, which he was unable to attend due to a freak snowstorm in his home state of Oregon that prevented him from returning to Capitol Hill.
That storm “is the latest evidence that climate change increases extreme weather events and those events negatively affect our transportation system,” he wrote in the statement, adding that the transportation sector -- including freight -- has become the nation’s largest source of GHGs.
DeFazio said he intends to “respond appropriately to this challenge” while also stressing the committee’s traditional bipartisan history. He also sought to preempt partisan sparring over the Green New Deal -- a progressive climate plan that also includes sweeping social changes that DeFazio rejected as far beyond the panel’s jurisdiction.
“Rather than debate this resolution, our job [is to] find pragmatic approaches,” he said, urging lawmakers to “look for areas of common ground” to help “inform the committee’s efforts to mitigate carbon emissions and provide for resilient infrastructure in disparate districts.”
He noted that all Americans rely on airports, bridges, drinking water, highways, ports, transit and wastewater systems -- and that such infrastructure is subject to an array of climate risks.
And he pushed back on likely GOP resistance to vehicle electrification policies, stressing that nearly all battery electric vehicles and nearly two-thirds of plug-in hybrids are assembled in the United States, boosting domestic manufacturing.
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), the committee’s top Republican, said in a Feb. 26 statement following the hearing that “reducing the environmental impacts of transportation require solutions based in reality, not fantasy,” while bashing the “sweeping mandates” that would be part of the Green New Deal.
Even so, Graves echoed DeFazio in saying the transportation committee has a track record of passing bipartisan legislation “that encourages cleaner transportation and responds to challenges posed by the environment and natural disasters by building more resilient infrastructure. I look forward to continuing to work to find more of those bipartisan solutions.”
During the hearing, several witnesses urged lawmakers to tie highway and other infrastructure funding to achieving GHG cuts -- either through rewards or penalties -- as a way to inextricably link the two issues.
For example, California Air Resources Board member Daniel Sperling said in his testimony that communities that take steps to boost transit and other climate-friendly transportation projects should be rewarded. He said there should be a “better way” to allow transportation funding to recognize cities and regions “for doing the right thing, investing in low-carbon strategies.”
He added that “almost everything” that can address climate change in infrastructure is identical to steps to boost efficient transportation. But there are still barriers between the two issues that need to be broken down, he said.
Sperling also cited California’s Sustainable Communities Program, a law that sets targets for cities to reduce passenger transportation GHGs, which he said has motivated participants and helped reframe transportation investments with environmental strategies. This is “truly a paradigm shift,” he said. “What we learned, though, is that strong carrots and perhaps some sticks are needed to go the next step of accomplishing actual change at the local level.”
The state is now exploring a variety of policy and funding processes “to infuse environmental criteria more deeply into transportation funding decisions.”
‘Wasted’ Investments
Similarly, Georgetown Climate Center Director Vicki Arroyo told the hearing that recipients of federal infrastructure funding should be required to study how a project would impact climate change and mitigate negative impacts.
She mentioned a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers on the future of interstate highways in her testimony. That study “highlighted the importance of preparing” the highway system and other roads and bridges “for the impacts of climate change and more intense weather events. Congress should act on these recommendations to ensure that major federal infrastructure investments . . . are built to withstand flooding, increased heat, and other climate change impacts.”
Arroyo added that recipients of federal funds “should be required to consider how climate change will impact their infrastructure systems and assets in the future, and ensure that their investments are designed accordingly to withstand future conditions.” States should be given the tools they need “to adequately integrate these considerations into capital decision-making processes, and with strong incentives to engage in resilience planning and to modify codes and standards ahead of disasters.” That would help ensure federal dollars are “not wasted on investments that will not be built to last under future climate conditions.”
Another witness, Kevin DeGood of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, suggested in his testimonythat lawmakers should consider adding measures to an infrastructure bill that would cut funding for recipients that fail to reduce GHGs.
“When it comes to both mitigation and adaptation, the federal government has not sufficiently exerted its policy prerogatives on grant recipients,” he said. “In the future, federal agencies should reduce funding for state and local governments that fail to implement projects and policies that decrease greenhouse gas emissions while also strengthening natural and man-made infrastructure to better withstand extreme weather.”
‘Practical’ Solutions
The hearing comes as the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Feb. 25 announced the launch of a new initiative to focus on highway funding led by former Reps. Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Joe Crowley (D-NY). The “Great American Rebuild Initiative” is intended to identify long-term funding for transportation infrastructure while ending reliance on the dwindling federal gas tax.
The two will conduct a comprehensive review of potential revenue sources and develop recommendations that are “practical, politically viable, and bipartisan.”
The initiative does not specifically address climate change, though many alternate funding options are based on climate-friendly policies such as a vehicle miles traveled tax or congestion pricing.
BPC notes that without new revenue sources, maintaining current infrastructure spending levels will require the highway trust fund to get a $20 billion general fund bailout each year. The fund’s balance will approach zero in fiscal year 2021, while the current transportation bill expires Sept. 30, 2020.
Additionally, infrastructure was a hot topic at the recent National Governors Association meeting, which included appearances by both Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump.
Pence promised the governors Feb. 25 that with their help Congress would help deliver legislation this year to rebuild roads and bridges while cutting permitting time.
Similarly, Trump told the governors at a separate Feb. 25 session that he is urging Congress “get it done” on infrastructure. He argued that he prioritized the issue in his recent State of the Union address and asked the governors to call their lawmakers “because I’m ready. I want to sign. I am totally ready.”
However, Trump gave no details on what he would like to see in a bill or how it should be funded. Last year, the administration proposed a dramatic funding shift, placing 80 percent of the burden for new projects on state and local officials, with the federal government covering just 20 percent. That is a reversal of the current formula and was dead-on-arrival in the GOP-controlled Congress. Trump would be expected to oppose funding tied to GHG cuts.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/defazio-signals-bipartisan-infrastructure-funding-push-ghgs-fore

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Democrats Try to Hold Climate Hearing — but Don’t Show up for It

Feb 26, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Kelsey Tamborrino

House Republicans managed to quash Democrats' hearing on climate change on Tuesday by outvoting the majority party at the poorly attended event, forcing it to adjourn only minutes after it began.
The hearing of the House Natural Resources panel was to be the latest to dive into climate change since Democrats took control of the House last month, bringing new attention to the issue they complained Republicans had ignored during their eight years leading the chamber. The hearing was designed to probe the "denial playbook" that Democrats say fossil fuel backers have copied from cigarette companies — the same tactics used by opioid makers and the National Football League to dispute strong scientific evidence.
But Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert — a staunch conservative who has claimed warm temperatures during the Viking age disproved climate change science — took issue with notion that the topic was within the panel's jurisdiction. He quickly motioned to adjourn the hearing before the witnesses could even deliver their opening statements.
That motion quickly passed, with the four Republicans present outvoting the two Democrats in the room, including Oversight and Investigations subcommittee Chairman T.J. Cox.
"This is now the seventh oversight hearing related to climate change that the majority is holding this month, starting with a full committee hearing," Gohmert said in an opening statement before calling for adjournment.
"These matters are all clearly outside of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources, and its subcommittee per the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives," he added.
As Republicans exited the room, Cox quickly pivoted and shifted the proceeding to a Democratic-led forum — a gathering that allows the witnesses to speak but which lacks the weight of an official committee hearing.
A Democratic committee aide said Democrats on the panel will take steps to make sure a similar action to close the hearing can't happen again, but did not offer any specifics.
Cox accused Republicans of using a "denial playbook" to try to discredit climate science. He likened the tactics to the the way he said the NFL distorted information on how repeated blows to the head caused chronic traumatic encephalopathy among football players and how pharmaceutical companies denied the addictive nature of opioids.
And he said Gohmert's move to block the hearing was an example of the "systematic denial" that the Republicans use.
"This is not the first time we've seen this playbook put to use," Cox said.
David Michaels, professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University, said the "disinformation campaigns" used by the fossil fuel industry, opioid makers and the National Football League all drew from the tactics employed by cigarette makers.
"Each of these cases is a variation on the playbook perfected by the tobacco industry starting in the 1950s and continuing for decades," he said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/02/house-democrats-try-to-hold-climate-hearing-but-dont-show-up-for-it-1219492

Return to headline | Return to top
Walkout by GOP House Members Halts Climate Denial Hearing

Feb 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

It was over almost as soon as it began.
Less than 15 minutes after the House Natural Resources oversight subcommittee’s hearing on climate change denial started, Republicans on the panel forced the hearing into adjournment and walked out.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), ranking member of the oversight subcommittee, led the motion to adjourn the hearing, arguing the subject matter wasn’t within the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee.
The hearing was titled “The Denial Playbook: How Industries Manipulate Science and Policy from Climate Change to Public Health.”
Witnesses were called from several industries, including retired NFL player Chris Borland, whose written testimony said he would speak about “industry’s manipulation of science and policy as it pertains to brain injury in football.”
But Gohmert argued the topic wasn’t within the committee’s jurisdiction, which deals with such matters as public lands, waters, and mineral resources.
The motion to adjourn the hearing was approved 4-2, with all four Republicans on the subcommittee voting yes and the two Democrats present—subcommittee chair Rep. TJ Cox (Calif.) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (Mich.)—voting no.
‘Denial of Data’
In contrast, Republicans on other House committees recently have said they will work with Democrats on climate change, including Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce and the House Science panels.
House Natural Resources Republicans in past hearings have called witnesses that questioned mainstream conclusions of climate science. They didn’t call any witnesses to the Feb. 26 hearing.
After they left, Democrats continued to hear testimony from the witnesses in an unofficial capacity.
“I don’t think we could offer a better example of the systematic denial of data” than half of this House that doesn’t want to listen, Cox said after Republicans left the room.
Cox had started the hearing by thanking Gohmert and urging they work to find common ground.
“This is the only committee in which Republicans are continuing to deny” climate change science, a Democratic committee staff member told reporters. “They are an island unto themselves and the water is rising.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/walkout-by-gop-house-members-halts-climate-denial-hearing

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump's New Ambassador Sees 'Both Sides' on Climate

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Jean Chemnick

In choosing Kelly Knight Craft as U.N. ambassador, President Trump is asserting White House control over the U.S. mission at a time of rising hostility by the administration to climate action.
The nomination comes as the White House National Security Council is trying to convene an "adversarial" group of researchers to review — or dispute — climate science. Some observers worry that the departure of Nikki Haley, the outgoing U.N. ambassador, could remove an influential counterweight to Trump's provocations toward the United Nations.
"As a senior diplomat, Haley had a lot of leeway as to how she pursued U.S. interests at the Security Council and in the U.N. system in general," said Francesco Femia, co-founder of the Center for Climate & Security. "It doesn't seem likely that that will be the case with our next ambassador."
Haley, a former governor and rising political star, had her own power center. She made Trump promise to elevate the U.N. ambassadorship to the Cabinet level as a condition of taking the job, and she held her own in public clashes with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and senior White House officials.
Craft isn't expected to be as independent. The wife of a prominent coal executive and Trump donor, Craft is a personal supporter of the president who was named ambassador to Canada after the 2016 election. She won't be a member of the Cabinet, and observers say U.N. policy is likely to be set largely by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton.
"Frankly, she is indicative of the second round of Trump appointees who are functionaries designated to carry out his ideology, not experts with their own political reputations and ability to push back against White House dictates," said Paul Bledsoe, a lecturer at American University's Center for Environmental Policy.
Haley and Craft have different views on climate change. Haley supported the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change, even before Trump made his decision known in June 2017. Days before she announced plans to step down as U.N. ambassador in October, Haley touted the withdrawal as an example of putting America first.
But the former South Carolina governor never wavered on the science of man-made climate change. She told NBC's "Today" show two months after Trump's Paris announcement that she didn't expect the president to reject government scientists' findings on climate change.
"Just because we pulled out of the Paris accord doesn't mean we don't believe in climate protection," Haley said. "We're not saying that climate change is not real. It is real."
By contrast, Craft told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in 2017 that there was scientific accuracy on "both sides" of the man-made climate debate.
Craft's support for coal put her at odds with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, which has committed to end coal use for power generation and introduced a nationwide carbon price.
Emails obtained by E&E News through a Freedom of Information Act request show Craft — not yet an ambassador — arranging meetings between her husband — Joseph Craft III, president of Alliance Resource Partners LP — and then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. At the bottom of her messages: "sent by my coal powered IPad."
Her husband has now reportedly offered a consulting job to Pruitt, who presided over the dismantlement of Obama-era carbon rules for power plants (Greenwire, Feb. 7).
It's not clear how the differing climate views of Haley and Craft might influence U.S. positions in the U.N. Security Council or General Assembly. Last Friday's news that Craft would be nominated for the post to replace State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, who withdrew her name from consideration, came as the White House takes a more aggressive stance on climate science. The Washington Post reported over the weekend that administration officials want to review internal assessments by intelligence and defense agencies of the impacts of climate change. But E&E News reported Monday that the group's focus seemed to have shifted toward reviewing the National Climate Assessment (Climatewire, Feb. 25).
Craft's nomination also comes as the U.N. weighs options to better plan for climate-related migration and global instability. The United States holds a de facto veto over any Security Council resolution, but under Haley, the body accepted resolutions naming climate change as a contributor to three African security crises — in the Lake Chad region, the Sahel and Somalia.
"In Nikki Haley's tenure there, the U.S. generally didn't block attempts by countries — many of which were successful — to move forward agenda items that included climate and security issues," said Femia.
If the White House initiative signals a more aggressive position on climate change broadly from the administration, "It's plausible that the U.S. could end up being more active on the issue negatively in the Security Council," Femia added.
Oli Brown, an associate fellow with the Energy, Environment and Resources Department at Britain's Chatham House, said Craft's nomination doesn't bode well for some countries' ambitions for "resolute action on climate change" at the Security Council.
"The U.S.'s permanent seat on the Security Council will provide plenty of opportunities to slow down or block any binding action on climate change, such as a specific resolution," he said.
But Femia and others said that U.S. acceptance of past references to climate change in resolutions on specific hot spots might continue under Craft. Even the United States has to pick its international policy battles, they said.
While Haley backed Trump's globally unpopular choice to leave Paris, diplomats from small island states say Haley went out of her way in meetings to acknowledge that they stand to suffer from climate change and to discuss ways the U.S. could help boost their resilience. Some say Craft's appointment is a step backward.
"The nomination by President Trump of Ms. Craft as the next U.N. ambassador despite her ambivalence regarding climate change will further isolate the United States of America in the global arena," said Saleemul Huq, director of the Bangladesh-based International Centre for Climate Change and Development.
Small island representatives in New York did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
"Diplomats tend to be diplomatic," noted Dennis Clare, an American who has served as a climate negotiator for small island states including Micronesia. "So they won't likely be critical of potential colleagues they may have to work with daily.
"It is for the nominating country to be concerned about whether its potential representative is qualified and will be effective in achieving its own priorities," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/02/27/stories/1060122519

Return to headline | Return to top
Both Sides Plot Long-Haul Strategy for 'Green New Deal'

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Nick Sobczyk, Geof Koss and George Cahlink

Republicans signaled yesterday they're not in a hurry to bring the "Green New Deal" to the Senate floor, giving Democrats time to develop a counter-message on climate change.
But there's no doubt the resolution introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is still making waves in the Democratic caucus.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters yesterday the Senate would debate the measure "in all likelihood before the August break," apparently pushing the timeline back for a vote that many speculated would come in the next few weeks.
For now, Senate Democrats are still holding their fire on the "Green New Deal," though several have suggested they would vote "present" when McConnell brings it to the floor.
They discussed the resolution during yesterday's caucus lunch but no decisions were made on a strategy, Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told E&E News.
"We're waiting to see what McConnell wants to do. He's the one who brought it up," Durbin said.
But they are using the opportunity to push for a more public debate about climate change.
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) yesterday penned a letter to McConnell asking for a full day of floor debate on climate change "before any vote is taken on the Green New Deal resolution."
And Environment and Public Works ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said on the floor last night he would introduce his own resolution acknowledging climate science and calling for action, an effort to unify the caucus on the climate change basics.
"We just think it's important to acknowledge it's real, the source of it is humans, at least in the last 100 years. And the other thing is to say maybe the Congress has a role in this," Carper told reporters yesterday, adding that "we've been talking about it for a while."
The "Green New Deal," though, continues to draw a wide range of responses from Democrats.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a moderate who has angered progressive environmentalists with his stances on fossil fuels, said it was up to Democrats to stake out their own positions.
"Everybody's going to have to find out where they're comfortable on it," Manchin told reporters yesterday. "It's basically just messaging, which is strictly political posturing."
Manchin reiterated his own view that technology should be developed to allow for continued and cleaner use of fossil fuels.
"I've got to deal in the real world, I've got to deal realistically," he said. "I want a reduced carbon footprint. We can do that, but you have to do research and development and acknowledge that you're going to have to use fossil [energy] in the near future for some time here.
"And can use it cleaner. That's where we should be going to reduce our carbon footprint and also hopefully developing more clean energy."
Many Democrats also talked around the "Green New Deal" itself, instead focusing their comments on climate change as a broader issue.
The resolution now has 11 Senate co-sponsors, including several presidential candidates, and 89 in the House — a huge chunk of the House Democratic caucus. It would call for a 10-year economic mobilization to slash greenhouse gas emissions, as well as health care for all and a federal jobs program.
But over the past few days, moderates have signaled they want to keep the "Green New Deal" centered on climate change and not get themselves into trouble with centrist constituencies by supporting the more progressive elements of the plan.
"I want to keep it focused on climate and not other issues because I want action on climate change," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has also caused a stir with progressive activists by floating, and then reneging on, an alternative to the "Green New Deal."
Her office released a draft Friday after a video of her confrontation with young climate activists went viral on Twitter (Climatewire, Feb. 25).
It calls for a carbon price to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and restoring the Clean Power Plan, among other things.
After outcry from several groups that said it was simply a watered-down version of the original "Green New Deal," Feinstein said she would make changes (E&E News PM, Feb. 26).
"I'm trying to draft another one, which might be more acceptable, but it's not done yet," Feinstein told E&E News last night.
Asked about a possible vote on Feinstein's climate resolution, Durbin said he had yet to see it.'The complicating factor'
The list of policy goals from Markey and Ocasio-Cortez is still causing some sticky debates on the House side, as well.
House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said yesterday the upcoming fiscal 2020 budget resolution won't include a call for a "Green New Deal," an issue that could doom the spending blueprint on the floor.
"The complicating factor is there are members who would have a hard time voting for a budget that didn't in some way anticipate a 'Green New Deal,'" he said. "That's going to be the challenge we face."
Yarmuth said there are few specific policy programs in the "Green New Deal," so it's hard to put them in the budget. The spending plan would contain some more narrowly focused climate proposals aimed at infrastructure and the electric grid, he added.
Yarmuth noted he was in the process of meeting with committee leaders, including Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) yesterday, as well as caucuses about their priorities. He'll then turn their ideas into a spending blueprint.
"The odds are we will mark up [the budget], then the question is can we get 218 on the floor?" he said, adding the diversity of views in the House Democratic caucus.
The nonbinding budget is meant to serve as a blueprint for appropriators as they craft their annual spending bills, but also serves as a defining document for the political parties.
In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have struggled to enact a budget, forcing lawmakers to set spending levels without the specific policy guidance.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/27/stories/1060122523

Return to headline | Return to top
Mcconnell Plans Vote on Green New Deal before August Recess

Feb 27, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Jordain Carney

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he will force a vote on the progressive Green New Deal sometime before the August recess, arguing he thinks Democrats are trying to dodge the fight.
McConnell said he had read with "some amusement" that some Democrats were discussing voting "present" on the anti-climate change plan, a move that would allow them to avoid taking a stance on the liberal resolution.
"The only thing I would ask is if this is such a popular thing to do and so necessary, why would one to dodge the vote. This is an opportunity to go on record. …. It's a debate we'll have in all likelihood sometime before the August break," McConnell said.
The Senate is scheduled to go on recess Aug. 5.
McConnell first announced earlier this month that he would force a vote on the resolution, introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Republicans have seized on the Green New Deal as a wedge issue as they hunt for fodder for the 2020 election.
Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, pointed to the it as one example of how Democrats have shifted to the left.
Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), a member of GOP leadership, argued that the proposal "drives a stake into the heart" of the U.S. economy and would result in a "gift" to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"The solution to climate change is not government regulation, it's innovation, and that's the way we ought to be heading," Barrasso added.
The Green New Deal, which strives for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States while creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs,” has zero chance of passing in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to advance.
But it would force Democratic 2020 hopefuls to go on the record, which Republicans believe could pay dividends during the election.
Though it's been seized on by Republicans, it has split Democrats, with several moderates and even members of Senate Democratic leadership cool to saying they would support the Green New Deal.
Some have floated voting "present," which wouldn't put them on the record as voting for or against the idea. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told E&E News that voting "present" could be used to try to discourage McConnell from future "political theater."
Democrats have tried to turn the tables by questioning what Republicans have done to combat climate change since taking over control of the Senate in 2015.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) blasted Republicans and the Trump administration from the floor earlier Tuesday.
"It is long past time for President Trump and Republican leaders to admit that climate change is real, human activity contributes to it, and Congress must take action to counter it. So far, Leader McConnell and Republicans: when we ask them do you believe climate change is real? Silence. Do you believe humans cause it? Silence," Schumer said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/431669-mcconnell-plans-vote-on-green-new-deal-before-august-recess

Return to headline | Return to top
Feinstein 'Reworking' Resolution That Drew Activist Ire

Feb 26, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Geof Koss and Nick Sobczyk

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said today she is "reworking" a draft climate change resolution that has been panned by progressive activists for being a weak attempt to derail the "Green New Deal."
The California Democrat told E&E News she is considering changes to reflect the rapid rate of warming, with an eye toward keeping global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius.
"It's a work in progress," Feinstein said. "I think most people who have looked at this realize that we're not doing enough, that the climate is warming much faster than we are taking those actions to prevent carbon from getting into the atmosphere.
"So the question comes with what can we do instead of allowing the temperature to rise 4 to 9 degrees to keep it below 2 degrees," she said.
The senator's office released a draft Friday after a video of a confrontation between her and young activists with the Sunrise Movement went viral on Twitter, generating millions of views (Climatewire, Feb. 25).
Feinstein's proposal calls for a carbon tax to get the nation to net-zero emissions by 2050, as well as the reinstatement of a number of Obama administration climate policies and increased use of carbon sequestration technology.
Feinstein, who in the viral video questioned the feasibility of the 10-year time frame included in the "Green New Deal," said she is weighing options to strengthen the resolution, which she indicated today was not intended to be publicly released.
"It seems to me that we have to be goal-oriented, and that's what I'm looking at, sort of restructuring it, what does one need to do to achieve the goal," she said. "And I don't know what that is yet."
The draft plan continues to draw complaints from climate activists.
"I looked at the resolution, and I determined that the resolution sucked," said RL Miller, the California-based director of Climate Hawks Vote.
Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, added that Feinstein should "get with it or get out of the way."
"Senator Feinstein's climate resolution is outmoded and cynical politics at its worst," he said in a statement. "It's more of the same half-measures and loopholes for polluting industries that have failed us for more than three decades."
The criticism comes ahead of an upcoming Senate vote on the "Green New Deal."
Asked whether she plans to offer her resolution on the floor when the green deal, sponsored by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), comes up for a vote, Feinstein replied, "Not necessarily. My plan is to do a resolution."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/02/26/stories/1060122479

Return to headline | Return to top
US Keeps Air Pollution Standard Established Under Obama

Feb 26, 2019 | AP (In the New York Times)

By Matthew Brown

U.S. environmental regulators on Tuesday announced they are leaving intact an air quality standard for power plant pollution that can worsen asthma in children, despite calls by health advocates for a tougher rule.
The move keeps in place a threshold for sulfur dioxide pollution established in 2010 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Barack Obama. Sulfur dioxide comes from burning coal to produce electricity and from other industrial sources.
Advocacy groups including the American Lung Association had urged EPA to lower the amount of the pollution it allows, from 75 parts per billion of sulfur dioxide in ambient air to 50 parts per billion.
The existing standard puts millions of people at increased risk of asthma attacks, said Janice Nolen, the association's vice president.
On the other side of the issue, the American Petroleum Institute contended the Obama-era rules were overly stringent and wanted them relaxed.
EPA regulators rejected the calls for change, saying a lengthy review confirmed the existing standard was both necessary and sufficient to protect public health.
Studies show people with asthma can experience problems following just five minutes of exposure to air with elevated sulfur dioxide levels, the EPA concluded. But the agency said the 2010 air quality threshold provided "an adequate margin of safety" from the pollutant's damaging health effects.
Emissions of the pollutant dropped sharply in recent decades due to industry regulations and the declining use of coal among electric utilities.
Between 2010 and 2016, sulfur dioxide emissions nationwide dropped 64 percent, according to the EPA.
Nevertheless, areas of 17 states and two U.S. territories remained out of compliance with the 2010 standard as of last month, according to EPA records. More than 3 million people live in those areas, Nolen said.
A main reason it's taking so long to get full compliance is the heavy workload involved, said Janet McCabe, a former senior official at EPA under Obama. Government officials first must figure out which power plants are causing the pollution, and then work with companies on plans to reduce it.
"It takes years," McCabe, said. "Recognizing that all that time, people are exposed to levels of sulfur dioxide that the EPA has deemed not to be healthy."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/02/26/us/ap-us-power-plants-air-quality.html

Return to headline | Return to top
The AOC Primary

Feb 27, 2019 | Wall Street Journal

By James Freeman

With apologies to Oscar winner Lady Gaga, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) may be giving taxpayers 93 trillion reasons to run away from her Green New Deal to reorganize the American economy. But all some Democratic senators need is one good reason to stay with the plan—the possibility of winning the party’s 2020 presidential nomination.
In an emerging Senate drama, it appears that the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders are attempting to win over party leftists by supporting the plan while simultaneously wooing moderates by refusing to vote for it.
The Green New Deal is perhaps most famous for its goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. to zero within a decade. But it goes much further and includes replacing existing private and public health plans with a government-run medical system as well as guaranteeing jobs nationwide.
Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and his colleagues at the American Action Forum are out with an analysis of the Green New Deal that pegs the minimum cost over 10 years at the staggering sum of nearly $53 trillion, and projects the cost could rise as high as $94 trillion.
This column was pondering a joke about Mr. Holtz-Eakin low-balling the estimate, but then realized he might be doing just that. In describing a U.S. energy infrastructure that is AOC-compliant, the analysis notes:First, we assume that a low-carbon electricity grid is feasible with only 4 hours of storage available for renewable resources; academic estimates have said a reliable grid requires 12 hours. Second, we assume no new construction of transmission assets is required, even though efficiently siting new renewable assets will require significant transmission infrastructure.
Democrats who share the desire to tear out and replace America’s energy economy suddenly seem hesitant to present the bill to taxpayers. And even the main advocacy group backing the Green New Deal now seems to think this is not the time to enact a Green New Deal. Mark K. Matthews and Nick Sobczyk of E&E News report:If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) calls a vote on the “Green New Deal,” it looks likely that many — or even all — Senate Democrats would vote “present” to avoid a public intraparty fight, said activists, lawmakers and congressional aides.The environmental group behind the climate resolution is not planning to punish Democratic lawmakers for doing so — a departure from the Sunrise Movement’s recent history of attacking both Democrats and Republicans who question the “Green New Deal,” a massive government-led jobs program...The maneuver also could spare Senate Democrats and the Sunrise Movement from a politically difficult or embarrassing result.So far, about a dozen senators have co-sponsored a Democratic-led resolution in favor of the “Green New Deal.”
Among the dozen Senate backers of the plan are 2020 presidential contenders Cory Booker (D., N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). According to Congress’ official website on pending legislation, they are still co-sponsors of the bill. The text of their plan asserts that “climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” If they really believe that, how can they vote “present”?
***
In Other News
Remind Us Again Why Harvard Hired Elizabeth Warren to Teach Law
“...the Proposed Wealth Tax fits squarely within the definition of ‘direct tax’ as articulated by the Supreme Court over the last 120-plus years, including as recently as 2012, and is unquestionably neither ‘apportioned’ nor imposed on ‘incomes’ within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. As a result, the Proposed Wealth Tax would, if enacted, violate the Direct Tax Clauses and therefore be unconstitutional,” Mark Berg in Bloomberg, Feb. 25
Out on a Limb
“Study: High-risk patients may have worse outcomes when surgeons are double-booked,” Seattle Times, Feb. 26
Further Out on a Limb
“Supreme Court rules judges might serve for life, but not eternity,” NBC News, Feb. 25
We Blame Global Warming
“February Is Shaping up to Be the Coldest in Los Angeles Since 1962: NWS,” KTLA, Feb. 25
Annals of Socialized Medicine
“Bullying and sexual harassment ‘endemic’ in NHS hospitals,” The Guardian, Feb. 24
Annals of Socialized Transportation
“Amtrak Train Stuck in Oregon for More Than 30 Hours Is Finally On the Move,” Fortune, Feb. 26
Annals of Socialists in Transit
“Ex-Clinton staffers slam Sanders over private jet flights,” Politico, Feb. 25
Annals of Politico Reporters in Transit
“Iowa family rescues Politico reporter who drove his car into a snowbank, feeds him chili,” Twitchy, Feb. 24
Annals of Fake Hate Crimes?
“Jackson gay rights leader accused of burning down own home,” Detroit News, Feb. 25
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aoc-primary-11551222671?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=3

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Among Nations Most Threatened by Warming, NASA Official Says

Feb 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

The U.S., along with India, China, and Saudi Arabia, may be the most vulnerable countries to rising temperatures and climate impacts, even as many northern nations may benefit, a NASA official told House appropriators Feb. 26.
Michael Freilich, director of NASA’s Earth Science Division, cited “incredibly robust” climate data compiled over the last decade showing northern Europe, Canada, and the former Soviet Union would likely, by contrast, be “most benefiting from the changing climate.”
That is primarily because temperatures in those nations are “lower than economically optimal now,” he said. Rising temperatures would benefit agriculture and other sectors in what are now colder climates, he told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.
Freilich and Neil Jacobs, NOAA’s deputy administrator and assistant secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction, were updating the appropriations panel on the role of climate research in studying changing climate systems. Freilich also announced at the hearing he is set to retire from his deputy administrator position later this week.
It was the first House hearing to focus on climate science since the White House came under fire for readying a new panel to re-evaluate the national security risks of climate change and other climate research. The White House effort is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council technology adviser who has in the past has insisted that carbon dioxide has been unjustly maligned as dangerous to the planet.
Frelich said the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive review compiled from work from roughly a dozen federal agencies and departments and completed in November 2018, suggests the U.S. Midwest was probably the most vulnerable area from an agricultural standpoint to rising temperatures.
“Indeed, the climate assessment pointed out that if things continue on the trends they are on now, our national agriculture production might be reduced for climatic reasons to sort of mid-1980s levels,” he said, “unless there were technological improvements” in the agricultural sector as well as cuts in rising greenhouse gas emissions.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/u-s-among-nations-most-threatened-by-warming-nasa-official-says

Return to headline | Return to top
5 Things to Watch in Kids' Climate Case Appeal

Feb 27, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

Government lawyers and a group of young plaintiffs are busy trading legal barbs in what could be the final stage of the so-called kids' climate case.
Juliana v. United States is before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has the power to either halt the litigation or greenlight what plaintiffs have billed as the "trial of the century."
The 21 children and young adults filed suit in 2015, arguing that federal policies enabled or fueled climate change. They're asking a federal district court in Oregon to rule that the government violated their rights to a sustainable climate and fell short of its obligation to protect the atmosphere for the public.
The Oregon court repeatedly allowed the case to proceed, and the litigation survived multiple emergency bids by government lawyers asking the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court to get involved.
Late last year, however, the district court judge agreed to open up her previous orders to full review by the 9th Circuit.
The federal government filed its opening brief in the appeal earlier this month, and the youth plaintiffs returned fire last week. Oral arguments are expected this summer.
Here are five key legal issues to watch.
1. Standing
Justice Department lawyers representing the federal government have repeatedly argued that the young litigants don't meet the legal bar to bring their case — in other words, that they don't have standing.
To meet the federal requirements for legal standing, a threshold for getting into court, all plaintiffs or petitioners must show they are concretely harmed by the action they are challenging, that the harm can be traced to the party they are suing and that the court can do something to fix the harm.
The Juliana plaintiffs have made many arguments to establish their legal standing, including pointing out natural disasters linked to climate change that have affected them and outlining emotional stress the children endure because of the government's climate actions.
Government lawyers have countered by noting that climate change is a global issue, not the kind of direct harm that can be litigated (Climatewire, Feb. 4).
They also contend that the government hasn't caused climate change and that a court can't redress the alleged harm anyway because "a single district judge may not ... seize control of national energy production, energy consumption, and transportation in the ways that would be required to implement Plaintiffs' demanded remedies."
Lawyers for the children dispute the characterization of climate change's impacts as purely global. They further argue that many of their arguments center on contested facts that must be sorted out at a trial in the district court.
"These young people deserve the chance to present their full case against their government who is harming them and let the light of justice fall where it may," Our Children's Trust attorney Julia Olson, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement last week.
Right to livable climate
California has faced severe blazes over the last year, including last August’s Carr Fire. @forestservice/Twitter
One of the most controversial substantive claims in Juliana is the youth plaintiffs' assertion of a right to a climate system that can sustain human life. Such unenumerated rights — those that don't explicitly appear in the Constitution — have long divided legal minds.
The Ninth and 14th amendments acknowledge the existence of rights not written into the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment bars the deprivation of "life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court has recognized unenumerated rights to privacy, same-sex marriage, travel and other things. But critics say the so-called climate right stretches the concept too far.
In their 9th Circuit brief last week, lawyers for the kids and young adults maintained that a livable climate is essential to the protection of life and liberty.
"Remarkably, Defendants contend that the federal government can knowingly deprive American children of a life-sustaining climate system, the very foundation of all life, without violating the Constitution," they told the court.
One of DOJ's top political officials made the government's position clear in a speech last year, saying the right to a livable climate "simply does not exist." Jeffrey Wood, who was then chief of the agency's environment division, later told E&E News such novel ideas about constitutional protections belong in law review articles and academia (Greenwire, Oct. 31, 2018).
Public trust
The kids argue the government has a duty to protect natural resources like the air and water. Bonnie Moreland/Flickr
Another key element of the kids' climate case: the government's alleged responsibility to protect the atmosphere under the public trust doctrine.
The concept of the public trust comes not from any written statute but from "common law," the body of legal customs and precedent from court decisions dating back centuries. The doctrine has historically been applied to navigable water and wildlife, tasking the government with maintaining those resources for the public's benefit.
The Juliana case endorses an expansion of the doctrine to also apply to the atmosphere. The federal government, the argument goes, failed to meet its duty to protect the atmosphere, and courts must step in to assess that failure and order remediation.
Strong disagreement exists over the proper scope of the public trust doctrine and the extent to which the federal government is bound by it.
"The people who complain that this is an outlandish expansion of the public trust really haven't looked closely at the expansion of the public trust in years," Lewis & Clark Law School professor Michael Blumm, who studies the doctrine, told E&E News last year (Climatewire, Oct. 5, 2018).
The government's counterargument is threefold: First, it says, there is no federal public trust doctrine binding the federal government. Second, even if there were a federal obligation, it was displaced by various statutes that spell out how to protect the environment. Finally, even if the doctrine weren't displaced, it still wouldn't extend to the atmosphere.
State-created danger
Historical documents show that government and private researchers knew about the effects of climate change for more than 50 years. Claudine Hellmuth (illustration); Court records filed by the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States (documents); Freepik (globes); Library of Congress (houses and lightning photos); NOAA (hurricane)
The Juliana plaintiffs raise another constitutional claim in their lawsuit: The U.S. government put the children in danger by contributing to "dangerous climate destabilization."
Claims of state-created danger are rooted in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, the provision protecting life, liberty and property. The 9th Circuit has established a three-part test for a litigant to support a claim: The risk of harm must be very serious; the defendants must have understood or have been willfully blind to the risk; and the defendant must have failed to take obvious steps to address it.
The U.S. government's approach to climate change fits the test perfectly, the kids argue.
But DOJ lawyers point out that state-created danger claims have previously arisen in cases involving physical assault, rape and death caused by government action. The youth plaintiffs, by contrast, allege climate change has robbed them of their dignity and capacity to meet their basic human needs, safely raise families and "maintain their bodily integrity."
Those are not the kind of "immediate, direct, physical, and personal harms" at issue in the traditional state-created danger cases, government lawyers told the court. Moreover, they said, the kids' lawsuit points not to a specific government action but to "mostly unspecified" action and inaction over decades.
Blocking fossil fuels
The youth plaintiffs want the courts to block fossil fuel development.
The youth plaintiffs intensified their already high-stakes lawsuit earlier this month when they sought a court order suspending federal permits for fossil fuel development.
The unusual request faces long odds in the courtroom. But if it's successful, it could sideline oil and gas development, pipeline construction, coal mining and other activities requiring government approval for the duration of the litigation.
The litigants say the order is urgently needed to halt the greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel development.
The federal government pushed back on the request last week, calling it an unprecedented approach that could derail important government functions and economic activity (Climatewire, Feb. 21).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/02/27/stories/1060122487

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested