Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 10, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former Obama Officials Stress Climate Impact on Security
Apr 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Sarah Cammarata and Oma Seddiq
...Ben Gann is the American Chemistry Council’s new director in its Chemical Products and Technology Division. He previously served as director of legislative affairs and grassroots activities at SmithBucklin. -
(ACC Mentioned) FP1 Starts a New Firm
Apr 9, 2019 | Politico - Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer
...The American Chemistry Council has hired Ben Gann as director in its Chemical Products and Technology division. -
Lawmakers Press Wheeler on Agency's Proposed Budget Cuts
Apr 9, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler was on Capitol Hill again today to defend President Trump's budget plan for the agency. -
Updated TSCA Inventory: What You Need to Know Now to Avoid Business Disruption
Apr 9, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Amanda L. Aragon, Sarah A. Slack and Dorothy E. Watson
In 2016, after decades without any changes, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (the “TCSA”) with an eye towards updating and modernizing the regulatory regime for chemical substances. -
Toxic Chemical Discovered in Drinking Water by Central Pa. Homeowner; Utility Plans More Testing
Apr 9, 2019 | Penn Live
By Wallace McKelvey
A resident discovered high levels of PFAS, a toxin linked to cancers and other health effects, in their tap water, setting off a state investigation in Newberry Township. -
Greater Supply Chain Collaboration, Information Key to BPA Substitution
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Collaborative effort and improved communication in the supply chain are vital in securing alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) in thermal paper, an industry workshop concluded. -
The Family That Took on Monsanto: 'They Should've Been With us in the Chemo Ward'
Apr 10, 2019 | The Guardian
By Sam Levin
The words flashed on the screen and changed his life. Edwin Hardeman had struggled through six rounds of chemotherapy in 2015 when he saw a TV report that said exposure to a popular weedkiller could lead to the exact cancer that was destroying his life. For the first time, the Californian had a possible explanation for his disease. -
UK Publishes Amended Draft REACH SI
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK has published changes to the draft REACH statutory instrument (SI) concerning transitional provisions relating to imported substances. -
NGOs Propose Key Principles for Future EU FCM Regulation
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A group of NGOs has developed five "basic key principles" which it believes should guide future EU legislation on food contact materials (FCMs) to ensure consumers are protected from harmful chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips to Report Plastic Pellet Spills, Shareholder Says
Apr 9, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Less than two weeks after Exxon Mobil became the first major oil company to agree to report plastic pellet pollution to investors, another major petrochemical company has followed suit under pressure from activist shareholders. -
Trump Plans to Sign Executive Orders to Expedite Pipelines
Apr 10, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko and Gabriel T. Rubin
In a move to expedite oil and gas pipeline projects, President Trump plans to sign a pair of executive orders that would overhaul some environmental permitting rules and limit shareholder resolutions aimed at environmental concerns, according to a senior administration official. -
Trump's Orders Target States' Rights to Boost Oil and Gas
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Ariel Wittenberg and Kelsey Brugger
President Trump is hoping to boost the oil and gas sector today by taking executive actions that increase control over pipeline approvals while targeting states' ability to block projects under a bedrock environmental law. -
Trump Slated To Order EPA To Limit States' Review Power Under CWA 401
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds and Doug Obey
Brushing aside concerns from governors and others, President Donald Trump is slated to issue an executive order April 10 that will order EPA to “review and update” its policies governing state reviews of federal projects under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), with a senior official indicating it will likely curtail states' current review powers. -
Appeal Over Replaced Obama Natural Gas Rule Tossed
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
The Trump Administration’s successful effort to replace an Obama Administration rule on natural gas wells has mooted an appeal of a court order related to the earlier rule, the Tenth Circuit said April 9. -
Long Island May Be Next to Impose Natural Gas Curbs, Group Says
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Long Island may be next to impose a moratorium on new natural gas customers unless the Trump administration can push through regulatory changes to build new pipelines in time, according to the American Gas Association. -
10th Circuit Dismisses Appeal of BLM Methane Rule Delay
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is dismissing a challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) effort to delay implementing Obama-era methane limits for oil and gas operations on federal land, holding that the case is moot because BLM has since finalized a replacement rule scrapping much of the standards. -
Fires in Texas Spark Interest in Chemical Safety
Apr 10, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Anthony Gutierrez
Watching the news last week as clouds of thick black smoke billowed over Houston, I worried about my family. They are surrounded by chemical plants. -
Triton Hackers Strike 'Critical Infrastructure' — Report
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The hackers who carried out a dangerous intrusion into a Saudi petrochemical facility two years ago have hit a new target, according to a blog post from the cybersecurity company FireEye Inc. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Step Up Pace on Showcasing Climate Change
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chuck McCutcheon
Today’s activity in the House is perhaps the most vivid sign of how Democrats seek to portray themselves as the party of addressing climate change, even as the GOP-controlled Senate evinces little interest. -
(ACC Mentioned) Judge Questions Environmental Groups’ Claim of Harmful Waste
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
An appeals court judge questioned whether an environmental group can claim as-yet-unseen consequences of the EPA’s decision not to regulate some materials as hazardous waste. -
(ACC Mentioned) Suffolk, to Combat Pollution, Clamps Down on Plastic Straws, Styrofoam
Apr 9, 2019 | Newsday
By David M. Schwartz
Suffolk County lawmakers passed bills Tuesday to crack down on the use of polystyrene and plastic straws to combat plastic pollution, spelling the end of days of getting a Styrofoam cup of coffee and plastic straw in a Slurpee. -
Judges Split On Environmentalists' Standing To Challenge Waste Rule
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Appellate judges appeared split during April 9 oral argument on whether environmentalists have standing to challenge an EPA exclusion that exempts third-party recyclers of hazardous secondary materials from strict waste rule requirements even as the panel appeared to question environmentalists' argument on the merits. -
Republican Climate Playbook in Disarray
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Courtney Columbus
Two House Oversight and Reform panels met yesterday to discuss climate change, but they didn't do much overseeing. -
House Foreign Affairs Panel Approves Democrats’ Paris Deal Bill
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
House Democrats are sticking to their pledge to quickly move legislation keeping the U.S. committed to the Paris climate agreement, pushing it April 9 through a second committee. -
As Key NSR Trial Begins, Parties Spar Over Remedy
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
Parties to a major EPA enforcement case over the Clean Air Act’s new source review (NSR) program are sparring over what penalties Ameren, a utility, should face for its violations, with a judge agreeing with Justice Department (DOJ) and environmentalist claims that he can force the company to install pollution controls, while the utility disagrees. -
Kerry Goes After Trump Over Climate on Capitol Hill
Apr 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
Former Secretary of State John Kerry swiped at President Trump while voicing concerns about the effects of global climate change on U.S. national security during an appearance Wednesday on Capitol Hill. -
The Problem With Putting a Price on the End of the World
Apr 10, 2019 | The New York Times
By David Leonhardt
On a Saturday afternoon in early December, inside a soaring auditorium on the campus of Stockholm University, William Nordhaus gave the crowning lecture of his half-century career as an economist. -
Missing Climate Goals Will Cost Investors, Firm Warns
Apr 10, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Climatewire)
By William Wilkes and Christopher Flavelle
Investors be warned: If the planet heats up by more than 2 degrees, it's going to get a lot harder to make money.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former Obama Officials Stress Climate Impact on Security
Apr 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Sarah Cammarata and Oma Seddiq
OBAMA ALUMS PRESS CLIMATE SECURITY THREATS: Former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel took up climate change and national security at a House Oversight Committee hearing today, blasting President Donald Trump for rolling back the work of the Obama administration. Kerry told the hearing that ignoring the changing conditions served to benefit Russia and China, since both countries are eyeing the potential resources and gauging the military implications of the warming Arctic. “What a gift to them if we stop making our own assessments because we have our own heads buried in the sand while their eyes are on the tundra,” Kerry told the committee.
Hagel warned that the impacts from climate change were already threatening U.S. military capabilities, and he pointed to the damage that last year’s hurricanes inflicted on Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, as well as the recent flooding that hit Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base. “We now don’t need to wait for more sophisticated climate models,” he said.
What do you mean by degree? The back and forth between the former Cabinet members and committee Republicans who sought to challenge their testimony turned farcical at times. Digging back to Kerry’s undergrad days, Kentucky Republican Rep. Tom Massie, questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, asked Kerry, “Isn’t it true you have a science degree from Yale?” Kerry replied that he had received a Bachelor of Arts in political science, to which Massie, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, shot back: “How do you get a Bachelor of Arts in science? ... I think it’s somewhat appropriate that someone with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today.” That prompted an irritated Kerry to reply: “Are you serious? This is really a serious happening here?”
ON THE HILL
WHEELER TOUTS WIFIA, AWIA OVER SRFs: EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler today defended the Trump administration’s budget proposal to slice $300 million off of the popular state drinking water fund, arguing that federal dollars are best spent on newer water funding programs. Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) criticized the $300 million cut to the fund during an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, adding that counties in his state are frequently looking for water money. “I'm hung up on the optics,” he said. Wheeler said EPA is instead seeking to funnel money through two “more innovative” mechanisms under the still-nascent Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and the America's Water Infrastructure Act that was passed last year. “We’re asking for more money for those two programs because we want to see if there’s a different way of trying to solve water problems for communities around the country,” he replied.
Mum on NSR split: Wheeler also remained tight-lipped during the hearing on whether EPA has decided to split its New Source Review changes from the broader Affordable Clean Energy rule. The option remains on the table, Wheeler said, though he promised EPA ultimately will advance both efforts, either together or separately.
AID TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER RECESS: Puerto Rico and states devastated by storm, wildfire and flooding damage will have to wait for emergency aid until after Congress returns from a two-week recess, after Democrats rejected the latest offer made by Republican appropriators over funding for Puerto Rico, POLITICO’s Caitlin Emma and Marianne LeVine report. There is bipartisan support for providing $600 million in nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico, plus funding for Midwestern states ravaged by storms, but Democrats want more funding for the island. Last week, the Senate shot down a disaster aid package that would deliver at least $13 billion in aid. Now lawmakers will put down the gavel beginning April 15, holding up action on emergency aid. The full story here.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
WIND LEASING STILL UP IN THE AIR: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is still deciding which areas of the New York Bight along the Atlantic Coast to open up to offshore wind leasing, Walter Cruickshank, acting director of BOEM, said today, Pro New York’s Danielle Muoio reports. The agency has come under heavy opposition over its proposed areas, including four areas totaling about 794,000 acres. Once BOEM makes its selection, it must conduct an environmental review before putting the areas up for auction.
Fishing industries in New York and New Jersey have decried the moveover the impact the leasing areas could have on local fishing populations, and state officials have voiced their concerns with the process. “Every acre that we identified received multiple indications of support for leasing,” Cruickshank said during a conference in New York today. BOEM is also looking into future lease sales off the coasts of California and the Carolinas. Read more here.
CALI SENATORS, PELOSI APPLAUD DOJ MOVE: Sens. Dianne Feinsteinand Kamala Harris, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi lauded the Justice Department’s decision to reverse their plan to shutter the DOJ’s environment division office in California. “Closing the San Francisco office would have weakened enforcement of our environmental laws … throughout the West,” the lawmakers said today in a joint statement. They added a more affordable Bay Area office will allow the Justice Department to “protect natural resources in California, Hawaii, Alaska and Pacific territories.” The DOJ announced last November it would close its Environment and Natural Resources Division office in San Francisco by around the end of 2019 to cut costs.
PARK PLAN UNDER FIRE: New massive wireless expansion at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming may violate federal policy, according to a complaint from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national green group that is pressing for Interior’s IG to include the park in its ongoing review of national park wireless operations. The proposed expansion includes installation of more than a dozen new cell towers and 62 miles of fiber optic cable. “Without serious consideration, Grand Teton is throwing park values of untrammeled scenery, natural soundscape, and the serenity of solitude out the window,” PEER Executive Director Tim Whitehouse said.
MOVERS AND SHAKERS
Ben Gann is the American Chemistry Council’s new director in its Chemical Products and Technology Division. He previously served as director of legislative affairs and grassroots activities at SmithBucklin.
The North American Concrete Alliance will be flying in today and Wednesday to discuss infrastructure, energy and climate issues. They’ll meet with Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and David Rouzer (R-N.C.), among others. (H/t POLITICO Influence).
SWAMP WATCH
Johnson Matthey Inc., a Pennsylvania-based chemicals company and “a leader in sustainable technologies,” has tapped Ogilvy Government Relations to lobby on EPA’s Cleaner Trucks Initiative and USTR’s Section 301 investigation, per a filing. Some of the individual lobbyists include Conrad Lass, former chief of staff for the Bureau of Land Management; and Karissa Willhite, Sen. Bob Menendez’s former deputy chief of staff.
Minnesota-based PolyMet Mining has tapped Mercury Public Affairs to lobby on environmental issues including mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, per a filing.
QUICK HITS
— “Kerry, Hagel warn Trump undermining national security on climate,” Houston Chronicle
— “Saudi Aramco Raises $12 Billion in Debut Bond Sale,” Wall Street Journal
— “As White House questions climate change, U.S. military is planning for it,” The Washington Post
— “Trump Said to Seek Limits on State Power in Pipeline Approvals,” BloombergWIDE WORLD OF POLITICS
— Iran denounces terrorist designation for military unit as 'vicious move'
— Mnuchin says Treasury lawyers discussed demand for Trump's tax returns with White House
— 2020 Democrats dogged by staff scandals back workplace harassment crackdown
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletters/afternoon-energy/2019/04/former-obama-officials-stress-climate-impact-on-security-576853
-
(ACC Mentioned) FP1 Starts a New Firm
Apr 9, 2019 | Politico - Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer
FP1 STARTS A NEW FIRM: FP1 Strategies is starting a new firm to handle its public affairs and corporate communications work, called PLUS Communications. FP1 will continue to handle the firm’s political consulting work. PLUS will be led by the same managing partners who head up FP1 — Danny Diaz, Jon Downs, Rob Jesmer and Terry Nelson — as well as Dave DenHerder, who’s moving over from FP1. “Since our founding in 2011, the firm has grown steadily from three experienced operatives to more than 80 communications professionals who have fought and won some of the country’s biggest campaigns — from the ballot to the Capitol to the boardroom,” Nelson said in a statement.
— The new firm will represent FP1 clients such as the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, Charter Communications and McDonald’sand will also handle crisis communications and grassroots work.
LOBBYISTS FUNDRAISING FOR DEMOCRATS WHO REJECT CORPORATE PAC MONEY: Freshman Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.) swore off corporate PAC money during his campaign, POLITICO’s Theodoric Meyerreports. “But less than six months after winning election in a former Republican stronghold, Cisneros is not exactly keeping his distance from corporate special interests in Washington. Four lobbyists — who represent major corporate clients including AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft, Pfizer, Verizon and Wells Fargo — hosted a fundraiser for Cisneros late last month at a townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee list of fundraisers obtained by POLITICO.”
— “The lunchtime fundraiser, hosted by Ingrid Duran and Catherine Pino of D&P Creative Solutions and Dean Aguillen and Moses Mercado of Ogilvy Government Relations, brought in about $15,000 for Cisneros’ reelection campaign, according to a person familiar with the total. … The event didn’t violate Cisneros’ pledge to swear off corporate PAC money. But it illustrates a larger trend of Democratic lawmakers who have promised to steer clear of corporate PACs allowing the same corporations’ lobbyists to write them personal checks — and in some cases even host fundraisers for them.”
— Two of the lobbyists who hosted the Cisneros fundraiser, for instance, “also hosted one last month for Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-N.M.), another freshman who’s sworn off corporate PAC money, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. Freshman Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa), meanwhile, held a fundraiser late last month at the offices of the Washington lobbying firm Cornerstone Government Affairs, which represents major corporations such as Boeing, Citigroup, Johnson & Johnson, Nike and United Airlines. ‘Rep. Axne does not take corporate PAC donations, but we are still very hopeful that our friends will show up to help in whatever capacity they can,’ Mike Goodman, a Cornerstone senior vice president, wrote in an email, which was obtained by POLITICO.” Full story.
** A message from U.S. Travel Association and the travel industry: Travel is trade. Travel is commerce. Travel is jobs. It’s an essential industry that generates $2.5 trillion in economic output, supports 15.7 million American workers and helps reduce our overall trade deficit. Travel matters to America—it should matter to you. Learn more about this industry and its outsized impact on the U.S. economy. **
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Tips: tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow me on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer.
ANNALS OF TAX-PREPARATION LOBBYING: “Congressional Democrats and Republicans are moving to permanently bar the IRS from creating a free electronic tax filing system,” realizing one of the for-profit tax preparation industry’s long-sought goals, ProPublica’s Justin Elliott reports. “Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal [(D-Mass.)], passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by” Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Mike Kelly (R-Pa.).
— “In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits.” Full story.
TAKEAWAYS FROM THE GAO REPORT ON LOBBYING DISCLOSURE: Bloomberg Government’s Megan Wilson took a deeper dive in the new Government Accountability Office report on lobbyists’ compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which PI spotlighted last week. “So-called ‘shadow lobbyists’ can have long careers influencing Congress without ever registering or filing public reports because the government has so few people tracking compliance with disclosure laws. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, which is responsible for policing the lobbying industry, received nearly 3,800 referrals from the House and Senate about firms that potentially violated the law between 2009 and 2018.” More than half are still pending. Full story.
TRUMP MET WITH AT&T CEO: Randall Stephenson, AT&T’s chief executive, “met with President Donald Trump last week to discuss next-generation 5G networks, according to a source familiar with the meeting,” POLITICO’s Margaret Harding McGill reports. “Trump hosted Stephenson to get a status report on the progress of AT&T and the broader wireless industry in their moves toward deploying 5G, the source said. Trump was also interested in gauging the industry's confidence in its ability to beat China in the race to build out next-generation networks, the person added.” Full story.
WALL STREET EXECUTIVES GIRD FOR WEDNESDAY’S HEARING:The House Financial Services Committee hearing set for Wednesday, at which Wall Street chief executives will testify, “has consumed big banks’ lobbying and public relations operations for weeks.” Bloomberg News’ Robert Schmidt and Austin Weinstein have a preview: “They’ve compiled thick briefing binders on issues like small business lending and minority hiring, readied responses to pointed questions about pay and inequality, and conducted so-called murder boards — practice sessions where chief executive officers are cross-examined by a team pretending to be hostile members of Congress. But even with the extensive preparations, few predict that the executives will come out unscathed.” Full story.
BEN WHITE AND MORNING MONEY HEAD TO #MIGLOBAL: POLITICO is partnering with the Milken Institute for this year's global conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., from April 28 to May 1. Ben White will again write a special “Morning Moneyʺ newsletter for the conference, detailing all the happenings, highlights, major conversations, evening festivities and buzzy VIP gatherings. Sign up today to receive exclusive coverage and everything you need to know direct from #MIGlobal in this special-edition, pop-up newsletter.
FLYING IN: The National Beer Wholesalers Association has nearly 700 beer distributors in D.C. this week for a fly-in. They’ll meet with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) and Maggie Hassan(D-N.H.) and Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), among others. The North American Concrete Alliance will be flying in today and Wednesday to discuss infrastructure, energy and climate issues. They’ll meet with Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and David Rouzer (R-N.C.), among others.
— And the American International Automobile Dealers Association is flying in today and Wednesday to advocate on auto tariff issues. They’ll hear from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Wednesday morning before heading to the Hill.
— In advance of a Senate confirmation vote expected this week on former lobbyist David Bernhardt’s nomination to run the Interior Department, Public Citizen is deploying bike activists to circle Union Station and the House and Senate office buildings today through Thursday towing banners labeling Bernhardt as “King of the Swamp.”
BROADCASTERS FIGHTING TRUMP DRUG-PRICING RULE:“Broadcasting and advertising groups are adding a powerful voice to the fight against a controversial Trump administration proposal that would require drug companies to share prices in their commercials,” The Hill’s Alex Gangitanoreports. “Critics worry the new rules could discourage Big Pharma from advertising on air, costing the nation’s advertisers and television stations an important source of revenue.” Full story.
FORMER NRCC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STARTS A NEW FIRM: “John Rogers, the former executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is launching a new political consulting firm with veteran ad-maker Jason Meath,” POLITICO’s Scott Bland reports. “The new firm, Torchlight Strategies, will offer political ad-making and general consulting services to Republican clients and will also seek some public affairs work.” Full story.
IF YOU MISSED IT ON MONDAY: “An American lobbyist who has admitted to paying $50,000 for a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch to attend President Donald Trump’s inauguration served as a ‘valuable resource’ for government investigators and deserves credit for that help at his upcoming sentencing, federal prosecutors said on Monday,” POLITICO’s Darren Samuelsohn reports. “W. Samuel Patten met or spoke by phone with prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller and other government investigators nine times as part of his cooperation agreement after pleading guilty last summer for failing to register as a foreign lobbyist in the U.S., according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which inherited the case from the special counsel.”
— “‘In all of these sessions, Patten has been honest and straightforward with government investigators,’ the government said in a court filing ahead of the lobbyist’s sentencing on Friday. The federal prosecutors’ sentencing memo largely holds back in describing exactly what Patten helped them on, explaining to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson that they’d file that material under seal because it “includes sensitive information about other investigations and persons who have not been (and may not be) charged with a crime.’” Full story.
JOBS REPORT
— Andrew Wright has joined K&L Gates as a partner in the firm’s public policy and law practice. Wright, a previous White House counsel to President Barack Obama, most recently served as a senior fellow at the New York University School of Law.
— The American Chemistry Council has hired Ben Gann as director in its Chemical Products and Technology division. He was previously director of legislative affairs and grassroots activities at SmithBucklin.
— Nana Nyanin has joined LPL Financial as assistant vice president of government relations. She most recently was a senior associate for government affairs with New York Life Insurance Company.
— The Software & Information Industry Association has hired Jesse Spector as director for technology policy. She previously was policy officer for the digital economy with the European Union Delegation to the U.S.
— Rich Feuer Anderson has hired Jae Jang as assistant vice president. He previously was an associate at the American Bankers Association.
NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS
Next Leaders New Majority (Rep. Susan Brooks, Supporting United States of America’s Next Leaders PAC (SUSAN PAC))NEW PACS
Engage Texas (Super PAC)
Bascom Hunter Technologies Inc Employee Action Fund (PAC)
People for Freedom (PAC)
Hope PAC (Leadership PAC: Rep. Joe Neguse)
Babe Vote (PAC)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS
A1.9 Strategies LLC: Viken Detection
Cambia Health Solutions: Cambia Health Solutions
Dentons US, LLP: Horse Tours & Travel S.A.E.
JC Health Strategies, LLC: Novo Nordisk, Inc.
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.: LESCO on behalf of RMCI, Inc.
Maynor LLC: Davidson Technologies, Inc
McMillan & Young Policy Consultants LLC: Lobbyist 4 Good
Mercury Public Affairs, LLC: Polymet Mining
Ms. Tami Wahl: Parry, Romani, DeConcini & Symms on behalf of Belmar Select Outsourcing
Ms. Tami Wahl: Parry, Romani, DeConcini & Symms on behalf of Fagron
Natural Resource Results LLC: Conservation Legacy dba Preserve America's Youth Summits
Natural Resource Results LLC: History Colorado
Ogilvy Government Relations: Johnson Matthey Inc.
Ruttenkern Policy Group: Highland Dairy & Arm
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP: Assiniboine & Sioux Rural Water Supply System
Susan Greenhalgh: National Election Defense Institute
TCH Group, LLC: Peabody Energy, Inc.NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS
A1.9 Strategies LLC: O'Brien, Gentry & Scott obo Axnes
Allon Advocacy, LLC: Sipree, Incorporated
American Continental Group: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP: Waters Advocacy Coalition
Ms. Anna Aurilio: Hopewell Fund
Polsinelli PC: Rockwell Medical Technologies, Inc.
Prime Strategies: Metropolitan Museum of Art
Prime Strategies: Ponce Health Sciences University
Prime Strategies: Urban Librarians Unite
Rich Feuer Anderson: Thomson Reuters
Sidley Austin LLP: Continental Carbon Company** A message from U.S. Travel Association and the travel industry: Travel is a powerful engine for a roaring economy. Travel is a driving force in reducing the trade deficit. Travel is millions of good jobs in every corner of America. In 2018, traveler spending generated $2.5 trillion in economic output, supported 15.7 million American jobs, and helped reduce our overall trade deficit, with $256 billion in U.S. travel exports creating a $69 billion travel trade surplus.
The U.S. Travel Association unites the industry around its mission of growing travel to and within the U.S. to further boost the economy, add more jobs and lower the trade deficit. From supporting policies that ensure travel to the U.S. is as secure and expedient as possible to modernizing America’s travel infrastructure to be the world’s greatest—we are dedicated to the growth of this industry and its continued success. Travel matters to America—learn more about this industry’s impact and why travel should matter to you. **
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/04/09/fp1-starts-a-new-firm-422870
-
Lawmakers Press Wheeler on Agency's Proposed Budget Cuts
Apr 9, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler was on Capitol Hill again today to defend President Trump's budget plan for the agency.
Wheeler testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, saying the fiscal 2020 proposal, which would slash nearly a third of EPA's current funds, would support the agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment.
Democratic lawmakers did not accept that assessment from the EPA chief, instead saying the Trump administration continued to focus on rolling back environmental regulations at the agency.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the subcommittee's chairman, said that while Wheeler has not been swamped with the same ethics troubles as his predecessor, Scott Pruitt, concerns remain over EPA's policy direction.
"While I'm relieved that you have not continued his pattern of indiscretions and ethical violations, I do have serious concerns about the course this agency, the EPA, has plotted under your leadership," Tonko said, saying the agency has downplayed climate change and devalued science.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), ranking member on the subcommittee, was not as troubled by Trump's proposed budget cuts for EPA. Lawmakers should not be supporting duplicative environmental programs, he said.
"We should not advocate for more funding if all it is buying us is bureaucracy, regulatory confusion with other agencies, or woke-sounding programs that don't really improve public health and the environment," Shimkus said.
Democrats used today's hearing to press Wheeler to update lawmakers on planned rules as well as release more information.
Tonko asked the EPA head about the "secret science" proposal, which would limit EPA to using studies with publicly available data to draft its regulations. The agency has often used research that relied on health data kept confidential for privacy reasons to support its rules.
Wheeler said EPA intends to move forward with the proposal and issue it by the end of this year.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the full committee, also pushed Wheeler on several fronts, including EPA's release of studies related to the chemical Pigment Violet 29.
Pallone lamented some of that information still had redactions and asked Wheeler to release it in full. The EPA administrator said the data was confidential business information.
"So the answer is no again," Pallone cut him off.
"Under the law, we can't," Wheeler replied.
Republicans also checked in during today's hearing about what was happening at EPA.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) asked Wheeler about EPA's realignment of its 10 regional offices. Wheeler said the goal was to have those branches mirror the functions of headquarters, and the realignment should be implemented by Monday. He said some regional offices would be standing up enforcement divisions and other program offices under the proposal.
"I think consistency is long overdue, so thank you for doing that," McKinley said.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) asked about EPA's plans for the New Source Review program, which requires industrial facilities to add modern pollution controls when they are built or modified and has been heavily lobbied on by industry.
Wheeler said the agency was trying to modernize the program and noted changes to it were included in EPA's rule to curb power plant carbon emissions, known as the Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule. The NSR changes may not remain in the final regulation, said the EPA chief.
"We are looking at whether or not to include that in the final regulation or separate it out as a separate NSR regulation," Wheeler said. "We will move forward with both pieces."
Wheeler was also questioned over EPA's handling of auto fuel efficiency standards. The agency has pulled back on Obama-era clean car rules and will revoke California's waiver to set its own tougher vehicle standards.
At today's hearing, Wheeler said EPA's fuel efficiency rule was not completed yet but the agency was moving forward on revoking California's waiver. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) pleaded with the EPA administrator to restart negotiations with Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, over the clean car standards.
"Mary is willing to go back to the table. Can we go to the table and get one national standard that will keep a strong, competitive auto industry?" Dingell said.
"I would love to have a 50-state solution on this," Wheeler said. He has said recently that he hopes California will not sue the agency once the final regulation is released (Greenwire, April 4).
Parochial concerns were also apparent at today's hearing. Dingell took the chance to ask Wheeler to step back from the planned closure of the Large Lakes Research Station, an EPA facility in Grosse Ile, Mich.
"I can certainly take another look at it," Wheeler said, although he noted EPA has been tasked with reducing its real estate footprint.
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) said EPA's budget plan would cut into its Chesapeake Bay cleanup program. Under the proposal, the initiative would receive $7.3 million, or about 10% of its current funding.
Sarbanes noted Trump had said he would fully fund the Great Lakes cleanup program despite his budget slashing its funds. "We haven't had the same kind of declaration or commitment made with respect to the Chesapeake Bay," said the lawmaker, adding he expected Congress would restore the Chesapeake Bay program's funding.
"We will utilize all the funds that Congress gives us for the bay," Wheeler said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/09/stories/1060151285
-
Updated TSCA Inventory: What You Need to Know Now to Avoid Business Disruption
Apr 9, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Amanda L. Aragon, Sarah A. Slack and Dorothy E. Watson
In 2016, after decades without any changes, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (the “TCSA”) with an eye towards updating and modernizing the regulatory regime for chemical substances. One of the elements of the amendments was to require the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to update the TSCA Inventory List, which is the list of all chemical substances that are manufactured, processed1 or imported into the United States. Part of the update requirement was to identify which chemical substances are active in commerce or are “commercialized”. In order to facilitate updating the TSCA Inventory, EPA required manufacturers and importers to report those chemicals manufactured or imported into the United States for 10-years prior to June 21, 2016. EPA also allowed processors of chemicals to report on the same lookback period. Submissions were due from parties in 2018, and EPA used the submissions to prepare and publish the initial list of “active” chemical substances on February 19, 2019. The updated TSCA Inventory includes approximately 40,665 active chemical substances, as well as approximately 45,573 inactive chemical substances. These numbers include the approximately 7,757 active and approximately 10,463 inactive chemical substances designated as confidential business information and therefore not specifically identified on the publicly-available TSCA Inventory.
The TSCA Inventory designations are significant because certain reporting requirements apply under the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule once a chemical substance is listed as “inactive” on the TSCA Inventory. Under the Active-Inactive Rule, EPA publication of the initial TSCA inventory triggered a 90-day window of review of those chemicals listed as “inactive” chemical substances because identifications do not become effective or “designated” until 90 days after the inventory is published. This 90-day period allows industry time to respond to the new inactive designations, and gives industry 90 days to file a Notice of Activity Form B (“NOA Form B”)2 before the inactive chemical substance designation becomes final. Note that the TSCA Inventory only publishes non-confidential chemical substances. If a manufacturer, importer or processor has reason to believe that a substance may have been reported as active, but may have been reported as confidential business information, it may ask EPA to search the Confidential Inventory for a specific chemical substance by submitting a bona fide intent request (“BFI Request”).
EPA’s February 19, 2019, publication of the initial Active TSCA Inventory is available through EPA’s website here. The 90-day clock for industry to submit an NOA Form B to continue manufacturing, processing or importing an initially-listed inactive chemical substance is currently running and expires on Monday, May 20, 20193. If a company is currently manufacturing, importing or processing, or anticipates that before May 20, 2019, it will manufacture, import or process a chemical substance listed as inactive on the February 2019 initial TSCA Inventory, it must submit an NOA Form B to EPA before May 20, 2019 in order to continue that activity without disruption. If a manufacturer, importer or processor waits until after May 20, 2019, it must stop the manufacturing, importing and processing the designated inactive chemical substance until the NOA Form B is properly filed. Such forms are required to be filed with EPA not more than 90 days prior to its planned manufacture, importation or processing.
EPA has provided the following guidance as to when filing an NOA Form B would be required:
Manufacturers/Importers:
“I did not file a Form A during the retrospective reporting period because I was not commercializing that chemical substance during the reporting period, but now I have started commercializing that chemical substance, or I plan to commercialize that chemical substance before May 20, 2019.”
Processors:
“I did not file a Form A during the retrospective reporting period because I chose not to voluntary report. Now the chemical substance is identified as inactive, and I want to keep processing the substance, or I want to process the substance before May 20, 2019.”
Information about how to prepare and submit the NOA Form B is available on EPA’s website. In order to ensure that there is no disruption to manufacturing, processing or importing of a chemical substance, it is prudent to confirm that any chemical substances being or expected to be manufactured, processed or imported by May 20, 2019 are not listed as inactive. If they are, the appropriate filing of an NOA Form B prior to May 20, 2019, will prevent business disruption.
1 TSCA defines processing as: “the preparation of a chemical substance or mixture, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce (1) in the same form or physical state as, or in a different form or physical state from, that in which it was received by the person so preparing such substance or mixture, or (2) as part of a mixture or article containing the chemical substance or mixture.” 40 C.F.R. § 720.2(aa).
2 The NOA Form B can found in EPA’s Central Data Exchange (“CDX”), available through: https://cdx.epa.gov/
3 When filing the NOA Form B, industry may protect the chemical substance information as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”). However, this must be substantiated either at the time of the NOA Form B application, or within 30 days after application submittal. 40 C.F.R. § 710.37.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/updated-tsca-inventory-what-you-need-to-know-now-to-avoid-business-disruption
-
Toxic Chemical Discovered in Drinking Water by Central Pa. Homeowner; Utility Plans More Testing
Apr 9, 2019 | Penn Live
By Wallace McKelvey
A resident discovered high levels of PFAS, a toxin linked to cancers and other health effects, in their tap water, setting off a state investigation in Newberry Township.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, were common in clothing, cookware and firefighting foam for decades. Despite mounting research showing significant health risks, the chemicals are not routinely tested by drinking water systems or formally regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“No water system is required to test for it because there’s no [statutorily set limit], which we are in the process of developing,” said Neil Shader, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Suez, the water utility for the York County community, has already installed new equipment that should be operating by next Monday in order to reduce PFAS levels. A utility spokesman said it also plans to begin testing other systems for signs of contamination.
“This is certainly something we’re very concerned with,” he said. “It’s a nationwide problem and we want to be right on top of it.”
Last year, Gov. Tom Wolf established an action team to develop a plan to sample drinking water systems, limit public exposure and potentially introduce state-level regulation. Shader said the first steps of that plan — assembling a list of at-risk systems that will be tested for contamination — will be unveiled next week.
The DEP was already monitoring 19 other contaminated sites, including the Harrisburg International Airport. Many of those sites, including HIA, were places where firefighting foam was manufactured or regularly used.
Shader declined to comment on whether the latest contamination site in Newberry Township, which is across the Susquehanna River and downstream from HIA, could be linked to the HIA contamination.
“We’re just starting to investigate what the possible source would be,” he said.
Currently, Shader said the DEP has no guidance for what residents of Newberry Township should one, other than to consult their physicians.
They should not, however, boil their tap water. While boiling water can neutralize biological contaminants like E.coli and giardia, it would actually increase the concentration of PFAS and other chemical contaminants — and thus increase the potential risk from consuming them.
For now, Shader said, the DEP has authorized the local water utility Suez Newberry to install a new granulated activated carbon treatment for the water system. That method has been effective in other places with high levels of PFAS.
The customer, who has not been publicly identified, sent a sample of their water to a lab that returned combined PFAS/PFOA levels of 186 parts per trillion. That’s far beyond the 70 parts per trillion limit established in an EPA health advisory. Recent research, however, indicates that even much smaller concentrations than 70 parts per trillion can be dangerous.
Shader said the DEP has not independently confirmed the resident’s sample but chose to act out of an abundance of caution.
Suez spokesman Richard Henning said the utility plans to conduct additional testing in Newberry Township, which has some 2,100 customers of the utility. However, it moved to bolster treatment before waiting for that testing to be completed.
“Our focus was first to treat it if we thought there was a potential [for contamination] because there’s potential across the country,” he said. “We wanted to be sure we could treat it and remove it first.”
Henning said Suez plans to test its other systems for PFAS chemicals. The company’s water utilities include Middletown, which is adjacent to HIA.
The new treatment system in Newberry Township should be operating by Monday, Henning said.
Shader said the company will have to notify customers.
As of Tuesday, it wasn’t clear what other Pennsylvanians concerned about PFAS contamination in their communities should do.
The state’s own water testing laboratory will become accredited to test for the contaminant this year, Shader said, and the resident whose discovery led to the investigation actually used an unaccredited lab to test the sample.
In fact, he said, very few labs anywhere are set up to perform such tests. The DEP recently purchased equipment that will allow it to do more PFAS testing over the course of the next year.
First developed by 3M in the 1930s and mass-marketed in the ‘40s and ‘50s, these synthetic chemicals—also known as perflourinated chemicals or PFCs—enabled the development of nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing and firefighting foam. Today, there are thousands of these chemicals known by acronyms like PFOS, PFOA, PFNA and PFHxS.
But the chemical bonds that give PFAS their heat, oil and water-resistant qualities are so resilient they don’t break down in the environment — or in the human body. It didn’t take long for PFAS to make their way into drinking water and, finally, the human bloodstream. They’ve been linked to various health effects, including pregnancy complications and problems related to the liver, lungs and thyroid.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/04/toxic-chemical-discovered-in-drinking-water-by-york-co-homeowner.html
-
Greater Supply Chain Collaboration, Information Key to BPA Substitution
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Collaborative effort and improved communication in the supply chain are vital in securing alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) in thermal paper, an industry workshop concluded.
In Brussels on 26 March, stakeholders shared views on how to overcome barriers to substitute the chemical ahead of its 2020 ban.
Actors from the thermal paper supply chain, EU and national authorities, research institutions, trade unions, industry associations and NGOs attended the workshop, organised by the Belgian health and economic ministries and Echa.
Delegates said there should also be a clear definition of what ‘"safe and sustainable’" means when it comes to potential substitutes. Additionally, to help the switch, better information on the hazards and risks of alternatives – as well as their added value – would be useful, they added.
Concrete explanations of applicable regulatory controls would also help in decision making. A formal Q&A session with authorities providing clear answers was seen as a way to eliminate differing interpretations, and make clear the obligations of other actors in the supply chain.
BPA, which is reprotoxic and has endocrine-disrupting properties, was restricted by the EU in 2016 and is currently on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs.
From 2 January 2020, BPA cannot be placed on the EU market in thermal paper in a concentration equal to or greater of 0.02% by weight.Workshop outcomesContributions from workshop delegates led to a range of positions on substituting BPA in thermal paper. These included:legislation is seen as the main driver for substitution of BPA in thermal paper. Where there is no legislation, the public image of the company – often subject to pressure from NGOs – is the strongest driver, especially for retailers;the retailer has the "most significant" role in triggering the change and exercising pressure on the whole supply chain, as it is the "nearest" stakeholder to end consumers;authorities could help promote green chemistry through research and funding;using a grouping approach to assess alternatives would also be useful;substituting paper with electronic receipts might be a solution as it would restrict BPA exposure, but it brings problems, such as labelling, data protection and environmental impact of data storage; andalternatives are often more expensive, which results in a lack of demand, and information gaps on users are further barriers to adopting substitutes.
Echa published its first substitution strategy at the end of 2017. During 2019 the agency will publish "user friendly" data on its website on alternative substances under REACH.BPS and other alternatives
Since BPA was added to the candidate list, European thermal paper manufacturers have increased assessments of alternatives, which were discussed during the workshop.
The use of bisphenol S (BPS), which is an analogue of BPA, has increased in the last few years with Echa reporting that its use doubled between 2016 and 2017.
It appears to be one of the main alternatives currently used in France, according to a study carried out by the University of Grenada and presented during the workshop.
But research shows that BPS is suspected to have adverse health effects similar to those of BPA. And recent Brazilian research said BPS may act as an endocrine disruptor in the prostate, while a Chinese study said that humans are likely to be exposed to it on a daily basis.
According to information provided by registrants to Echa, BPS is suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child.
Belgium is conducting a substance evaluation of the BPS REACH registration dossier in response to evidence of endocrine disruption.
Use of potential substitute pergafast 201 was also discussed at the workshop. A representative from Solenis said it is safer than bisphenol A and B, and there is "more demand than supply" at the moment with more capacity coming "in the near future".https://chemicalwatch.com/76119/greater-supply-chain-collaboration-information-key-to-bpa-substitution
-
The Family That Took on Monsanto: 'They Should've Been With us in the Chemo Ward'
Apr 10, 2019 | The Guardian
By Sam Levin
The words flashed on the screen and changed his life.
Edwin Hardeman had struggled through six rounds of chemotherapy in 2015 when he saw a TV report that said exposure to a popular weedkiller could lead to the exact cancer that was destroying his life. For the first time, the Californian had a possible explanation for his disease.
What he didn’t know then was that four years later, he would become the first person to prove in US federal court that Roundup had caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) – and that in the process, he would help uncover damning secrets about the manufacturer, Monsanto, and its influence in science and government.
“I hope this is a significant turnaround in Monsanto’s history,” Hardeman, 70, said on a recent morning in his Windsor living room, his first interview since a jury ruled that the company was liable for his cancer and owed him $80m in damages. “Maybe they will finally do the right thing.”
Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, has given no indication that it plans to change its ways. But Hardeman’s triumph, overcoming a judge that was openly hostile to his case, could impact tens of thousands of other cancer survivors and families in court – and could affect the agrochemical industry for years to come.Becoming ‘the face’ of the fight
Edwin and his wife, Mary, never expected that they would become de facto leaders of the federal court fight against the world’s most widely used weedkiller. They just wanted Monsanto to acknowledge the dangers – and potentially save other families from the horror they endured.
“This is something that was egregious to me. It was my personal battle and I wanted to take it full circle,” said Edwin, whose cancer is now in remission. “It’s been a long journey.”
Mary bristled when she thought about Monsanto’s continued defense of its chemical: “They should have been with us when we were in the chemo ward … not knowing what to do to relieve the pain.”
“I get angry,” she added. “Very angry.”
Monsanto first put Roundup on the market in 1974, presenting the herbicide, which uses a chemical called glyphosate, as a breakthrough that was effective at killing weeds and safe. The product has earned the corporation billions in revenue a year, and glyphosate is now ubiquitous in the environment – with traces in water, food and farmers’ urine.
But research has repeatedly challenged Monsanto’s assertionsthat Roundup is safe, culminating in a key 2015 ruling by the World Health Organization’s international agency for research on cancer (Iarc), which said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
The Iarc classification opened the floodgates to litigation alleging that Roundup exposure caused their NHL, a cancer that affects the immune system.
Hardeman had frequently sprayed Roundup on his properties for nearly three decades up until 2012 – first in his home in a California coastal town called Gualala and later on his 56-acre property in the city of Santa Rosa, where he was controlling poison oak. It had never occurred to him that he was putting his health at risk: “It’s a product that is so widely used. It’s in all the home building stores. There’s no warning label.”
On Christmas day in 2014, he discovered a swollen lymph node on his neck and was later diagnosed with stage three cancer.
Hardeman didn’t recognize the term glyphosate when he saw the news report about the Iarc ruling on TV. At that time, the chemotherapy side effects had devastated him – causing violent nausea, swelling that made his face unrecognizable and terrifying feelings of electric shocks jolting his body.
But when he realized that glyphosate was the main ingredient in Roundup and that research suggested it could be responsible for his form of NHL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, it clicked: “It just hit me. There’s something going on here.”
He filed a lawsuit in February 2016. So did hundreds of other cancer survivors and families who lost loved ones, and many of the parallel suits were consolidated as one case under federal judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco.
The judge selected Hardeman to be first – the so-called “bellwether” trial, meaning it would be the official test case that would inform future litigation and potentially impact settlements for others.
It was a lot of pressure.
“Learning I was going to be the plaintiff, the one, the face of the … litigation, was a shock,” he said.
Sitting in their living room on a quiet suburban street in Sonoma county, California’s wine country, the couple of 44 years said they were so averse to attention that they didn’t even tell close relatives about the lawsuit throughout their years-long fight, with Mary’s siblings in Ireland, her home country, only learning of the case through recent headlines.
But before he and Mary took the stand and had their photos splashed across news sites, the California litigation was already making waves around the globe. That’s because, despite Monsanto’s best efforts, the judge ordered the unsealing of key internal company documents that emerged during discovery – records which, for the first time, revealed Monsanto’s conduct behind closed doors.Uncovering Monsanto’s strategy: ‘I was appalled’
The unsealed emails and documents suggested that Monsanto had an aggressive PR strategy for years that involved attacking negative research and ghostwriting and pushing favorable studies.
In one email, a Monsanto executive advised others in the company to be cautious about how they describe the safety of the product, warning, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
Monsanto officials also privately talked about the company writing science papers that would be officially authored by researchers, with one email saying “we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit and sign their names”. The internal documents also shined a harsh light on Monsanto’s cozy relationship with US regulators and its media campaign to combat the Iarc ruling.
(The company has said it was open about its involvement in research.)
One executive eventually revealed that the company had a roughly $17m budget for PR and public affairs related to Iarc and glyphosate.
“I don’t think I realized the importance of my case unleashing an investigation into Monsanto’s archives, which nobody’s ever been able to do,” Hardeman said.
The records helped Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the first person to take on Monsanto in a Roundup trial in state court, win his historic victory last year, with a jury saying the corporation had “acted with malice” and was responsible for his cancer.
“I was just so appalled by Monsanto’s conduct,” Hardeman said, recalling how the company never returned the phone calls of Johnson, a former school groundskeeper who is terminally ill.
While the state court verdict boded well for Hardeman, he soon faced an unexpected roadblock that felt potentially insurmountable: Judge Chhabria barred Hardeman’s lawyers from discussing anything about Monsanto’s conduct and also restricted the plaintiffs from providing the jury with basic information about Hardeman’s life.
The judge said the first phase of the trial should be strictly about science and whether Roundup caused cancer and went so far as to issue a $500 sanction against Aimee Wagstaff, Hardeman’s lawyer, for violating his orders. The judge also blocked her from introducing Mary to the jury and said the attorneys couldn’t even show a photo of Hardeman during closing statements.
“It was really hard to take and watch,” Hardeman said, recounting Chhabria’s attacks on his lawyer.
Hardeman still won.
The unusual and severe limitations made the message of the victory all the more powerful, Wagstaff said in an interview: “We were forced, over our objections, to argue just the science. Any argument by Bayer or Monsanto that this was a sympathetic jury to Mr Hardeman … is just not supported by the facts.”
Mary, who was home sick the day the jury announced, first saw the verdict on Twitter before her husband could break the news: “I let out a scream. It’s a wonder one of my neighbors didn’t come in.”
With the cancer science proven, Hardeman’s legal team was finally allowed to present evidence and arguments about Monsanto’s “despicable” and “reckless” behavior – and that was a success, too. The jury ruled Monsanto was negligent and owed him $80m in damages.
Within minutes of the final verdict, a Bayer spokesperson issued a response: The company would appeal.‘I worry about the younger generation’
In US federal court, there are around 1,200 plaintiffs with similar Roundup cancer cases – and roughly 11,000 nationwide. Despite two jury rulings saying Roundup causes cancer, the corporation’s defense has not changed: Roundup is safe for use.
“We continue to believe strongly in the extensive body of reliable science that supports the safety of Roundup and on which regulators around the world continue to base their own favorable assessments,” a Bayer spokesperson told the Guardian. “Our customers have relied on these products for more than 40 years and we are gratified by their continued support.”
Bayer, which has faced backlash from investors and a share price drop in the wake of the Roundup controversy, could be pushed to negotiate a massive settlement with plaintiffs following Hardeman’s victory.
Hardeman said the very least the company could do is warn consumers: “Give us a chance to decide whether we want to use it or not … Have some compassion for people.”
Hardeman said it also disturbed him that Bayer and Monsanto still have not done their own study on the carcinogenicity of Roundup, even after all these years. (Monsanto has said the company has gone beyond what was required in testing glyphosate exposure risks).
“I worry about the younger generation,” Hardeman said. “Why haven’t you tested this product? Why, why, why? You’ve got the money. Are you afraid of the answer?”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/10/edwin-hardeman-monsanto-trial-interview
-
UK Publishes Amended Draft REACH SI
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK has published changes to the draft REACH statutory instrument (SI) concerning transitional provisions relating to imported substances.
After the REACH SI was laid, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) received comments from industry about the transitional import provision.
Industry raised concerns that the draft would "still lead to disruption in the supply chain in the case of substances imported from outside the EEA," Defra said.
Under EU REACH, downstream users of substances within the European Economic Area (EEA) do not have to register the substances they use. This includes UK companies who are currently sourcing chemicals from suppliers in the rest of the EEA.
However, these UK companies will become importers into the UK market after Brexit, and will consequently be obliged to register the substances.
The REACH SI provides transitional support to these companies through an interim notification system for imports instead of requiring them to undertake a full registration immediately after Brexit. This transitional import means that qualifying UK companies will be able to continue buying substances from the EEA without any interruption after Brexit.ORs
Industry was also concerned that the provision did not allow a UK-based only representative (OR) to send the required notification to the Health and Safety Executive, which will be the administrative body governing chemical controls post-Brexit.
EU REACH contains an equivalent provision regarding EEA-based ORs. "While industry has not provided detailed evidence of the impact, the government has decided to reduce the risk through this instrument," Defra said.
Under the notification system, those importing chemicals from the EEA will need to submit basic data on the company, substances and information on safe use within 180 days. The interim notification will need to be replaced with a full registration after two years.
However, the provision in the older draft REACH SI does not include the situation where a chemical was registered by an EEA-based OR but is imported directly into the UK from outside the EEA. "As a consequence, these importers would not benefit from the transitional provisions and would need to register under UK REACH before continuing to import the chemical," Defra said.
The revised provision now "fulfils the intention" that all chemicals registered under EU REACH should be able to access the UK market after exit through the transitional provisions, either by being transferred directly into the UK REACH system in the case of UK-held registrations, or through the notification arrangements.
The legislative change now means a UK-based OR can complete the notification, in which case the importer will be exempt from this duty. "This will reduce burdens on importers and avoid unnecessary duplication by importers and only representatives," Defra said.
The REACH SI passed through the House of Lords – the second, unelected, chamber of the UK Parliament – on 28 March after a motion objecting to it was withdrawn.
The European Council is due to hold a Brexit summit on 10 April to decide whether to approve the UK government’s request to delay Brexit until 30 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76124/uk-publishes-amended-draft-reach-si
-
NGOs Propose Key Principles for Future EU FCM Regulation
Apr 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A group of NGOs has developed five "basic key principles" which it believes should guide future EU legislation on food contact materials (FCMs) to ensure consumers are protected from harmful chemicals.
Their release follows the start of the EU’s evaluation process for FCM legislation. Since basic provisions set out 42 years ago, this never been evaluated.
The FCM Regulation of 2004 describes the general principles of chemical safety and provides further powers to enact specific EU measures for specified materials and articles. Certain rules are in place for plastic FCMs but there is a lack of harmonised laws for others.
The current public consultation on the evaluation is open until 6 May.
NGOs have blasted current controls on FCMs as being "outdated and full of holes". Their principles are "meant to spark new discussions" about the safety of FCM and final food contact articles.
The group is comprised of European NGOs CHEM Trust, ChemSec, Client Earth, the European Environmental Bureau, the Food Packaging Forum and Health and Environment Alliance (Heal). Consumer groups Danish Consumer Council and Beuc are also part of the coalition, alongside US Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.
Key principles
They have asked all stakeholders to consider supporting the five principles. According to the group, the new EU regulation of chemicals in food contact materials must ensure:
a high level of protection of human health: all substances used in food contact materials should have adequate safety data, provided by industry and should be regularly reviewed for this use by public authorities. The presence of substances that are already restricted in the EU, and those meeting the REACH criteria for SVHCs, should be automatically prohibited;
thorough assessment of chemicals in materials and final articles: the presence in, and migration of, chemicals in food contact articles – including non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) – should be measured, assessed and controlled. Absence of reliable migration data should imply presumption of full migration. Both industry and regulators should ensure that any migration is understood and limited to ensure a high level of protection of public health;
effective enforcement: national governments must ensure this via checks on both imported and EU-manufactured finished articles using the best available analytical methods. Producers and importers of chemicals used in FCMs should always be responsible for providing adequate analytical standards and analytical methods to regulators and test laboratories;
a clean circular economy based on non-toxic material cycles: as the EU’s transition to a circular economy gains momentum, it is vital that the efforts to encourage recycling do not perpetuate the use of harmful chemicals in FCM; and
transparency and participation: supply chains and final consumers should have a right to know the identity and safety information on chemicals used in, and migrating from, food contact materials. Regulatory and policy processes should, as a minimum, adhere to the same standards of openness and stakeholder participation that have been established in REACH.
Michael Warhurst, executive Director of CHEM Trust, said that lack of controls on chemicals next to food is a "scandal". Reforming these "ineffective" laws has to be an important priority for the next Commission, who should receive the outcome of this evaluation at the start of their term, he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76131/ngos-propose-key-principles-for-future-eu-fcm-regulation
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips to Report Plastic Pellet Spills, Shareholder Says
Apr 9, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Less than two weeks after Exxon Mobil became the first major oil company to agree to report plastic pellet pollution to investors, another major petrochemical company has followed suit under pressure from activist shareholders.
After initial push back from its owners, The Woodlands-based Chevron Phillips Chemical has agreed to start reporting plastic pellet spill in annual sustainability report out in June, according to the shareholder group As You Sow. The move comes as the petrochemical industry is under pressure from growing public outcry over millions of tons of plastic waste clogging waterways and oceans.
Chevron Phillips Chemical – owned jointly by Houston-based Phillips 66 and Chevron Corp. – has 30 petrochemical facilities that produce plastic resin or nurdles that are used to produce thousands of consumer goods.
Spills of plastic pellets during handling are estimated to be the second largest contributor to plastic pollution in oceans, according to As You Sow. The pellets, the size of fish eggs, can be swept into waterways and mistaken by wildlife as food – impacting as much as 260 species.
As You Sow filed a proposed shareholder resolution in January with several major petrochemical producers, including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, Phillips 66 and Chevron, asking for annual reporting on spills and measures taken to prevent and clean up spills. Exxon was the first to agree to the proposal in late March.
Both Chevron and Phillips 66 initially petitioned against As You Sow's proposal, arguing to the SEC that they did not have the power or authority to compel their joint venture to report plastic pellet spills. The SEC disagreed with those arguments in mid-March, according to SEC documents.
Now under a deal with As You Sow, Chevron Phillips Chemical has agreed to share information on whether and when accidental pellet spills occur, how much material was recovered and how it is working to prevent pellet losses outside of its facility. The company also said it use a third party to audit and verify its findings. As You Sow is withdrawing its shareholder proposals in recognition of the agreement.
"We are pleased to see Chevron Phillips follow Exxon Mobil and agree to public reporting on plastic pellet spills and management," said Conrad MacKerron, senior vice president of As You Sow in a statement. "Such basic transparency is essential to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to assess the scope of this growing problem."
Separately, Chevron Phillips Chemical said late last week it is joining an industry effort to provide more reporting on plastic pellet pollution called Operation Clean Sweep Blue – a program jointly administered by the industry group American Chemistry Council and Plastic Industry Association.
Operation Clean Sweep Blue is a more rigorous program on pellet loss reduction than the chemical industry program Operation Clean Sweep, which Chevron Phillips has belonged to since 2000. Operation Clean Sweep previously has been criticized for not requiring members to publicly report spills.
Chevron Phillips Chemical also said its 2018 sustainability report will include information on spills that previously was only provided to regulatory agencies.
"Simply put, plastics should not end up in unintended places in our environment. We are very proud of our track record and commitment to sustainability programs," said Jim Becker, vice president of polymers and sustainability in a statement about Operation Clean Sweep Blue. "We are always seeking ways to improve our results and joining Operation Clean Sweep Blue is yet another significant step as our company and our industry work to eliminate plastic waste from finding its way into unintended places," .
"We are pleased that the procedures and safeguards we have put into place at all facilities are working effectively to minimize and eliminate pellet spills and are confident that the numbers reported in our sustainability report will confirm the success of these initiatives," Becker added.
Chevron Phillips Chemical is one of dozens of petrochemical companies behind a new industry effort, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, meant to curb plastic pollution through initiatives to advance recycling technology, waste management and education, among other measures.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Chevron-Phillips-to-report-plastic-pellet-spills-13753606.php
-
Trump Plans to Sign Executive Orders to Expedite Pipelines
Apr 10, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko and Gabriel T. Rubin
In a move to expedite oil and gas pipeline projects, President Trump plans to sign a pair of executive orders that would overhaul some environmental permitting rules and limit shareholder resolutions aimed at environmental concerns, according to a senior administration official.
The orders, which Mr. Trump plans to sign Wednesday, are in part aimed at blunting the ability of environmental activists and state regulators to use the Clean Water Act to obstruct oil and gas pipeline projects, the official said.
“There are a lot of problems with the way the Clean Water Act is being interpreted,” the official said. “These two executive orders will promote the development of new energy infrastructure, create jobs and provide affordable energy to consumers.”
Mr. Trump is seeking to fulfill a campaign promise to streamline government reviews and speed up energy projects. Interstate pipeline projects, in particular, have faced delays, with new lines to take natural gas to coastal consumers stalled for years under court and regulatory challenges.
But decades of law and court precedent often underpin those challenges, and even some of Mr. Trump’s supporters agree with legal experts and analysts who say his ability to make changes is limited without new laws from Congress or the states.
“We expect little impact on projects pending in the near-term,” the analysis firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC said in a note. “Although the (orders) may narrow the parameters of future … reviews, substantial changes to the program and its timelines only appear to be achievable through Congressional action,” which ClearView calls unlikely.
Mr. Trump plans to sign the orders Wednesday near Houston at an International Union of Operating Engineers’ training center, highlighting organized labor’s support for overhauls that would speed up permitting. Oil and gas, and other major trade groups have also pressed for change, and some cheered the expected orders’ announcement Tuesday even despite its potential limitations.
“When states say ‘no’ to the development of natural gas pipelines, they force utilities to curb safe and affordable service and refuse access to new customers including new businesses,” said Karen Harbert, leader of the American Gas Association, a trade group for natural-gas distribution companies. “These executive orders clear the way for development.”
One order directs the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update guidance on the Clean Water Act to limit state authority, the administration official said. It also directs the Transportation Department to update rules for natural-gas shipping and export, among other things.
A second order seeks to clarify presidential power and limit environmental reviews on pipelines that cross the country’s international borders.
The first order also directs the Labor Department to scrutinize whether retirement funds that pursue environmental or socially progressive investment strategies are fulfilling their duty to maximize shareholder value.
Limiting shareholder resolutions related to environmental concerns, specifically climate change, has been a priority for energy companies in recent years, particularly following a 2017 vote by Exxon Mobil Corp. shareholders that forced the oil and gas giant to report on how climate change would impact its business.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-orders-to-expedite-pipelines-11554854507
-
Trump's Orders Target States' Rights to Boost Oil and Gas
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Ariel Wittenberg and Kelsey Brugger
President Trump is hoping to boost the oil and gas sector today by taking executive actions that increase control over pipeline approvals while targeting states' ability to block projects under a bedrock environmental law.
The president is heading to Texas where he's slated to sign two executive orders, including one marking the first step toward limiting the amount of time states have to block Clean Water Act permits.
It's a move aimed at boosting oil and gas pipeline permitting, one that many state groups — including those that generally support the administration's efforts to streamline permitting — have already said they will oppose.
A senior administration official on a call with reporters yesterday insisted the executive actions aren't meant to impinge on states' rights.
"We're not trying to take away power from the states," said the official, "but we are trying to make sure state actions comply with the statutory intent of the law."
But Trump's orders will go far beyond testy state fights involving the Clean Water Act. What began months ago as a way to address pipeline permitting issues has morphed into a miscellaneous decree.
The orders, which Trump is slated to sign at the International Union of Operating Engineers' training and education center in Crosby, Texas, surrounded by union laborers and engineers, will also include provisions aimed at expanding energy production, circumventing environmental analysis and amending safety rules for natural gas export facilities.
Specifically, the official said the orders build on the "presidential permit" Trump recently issued to try to advance the controversial Keystone XL crude pipeline. That novel permit — which sought to bypass an environmental review conducted by the State Department — was described as "clever" by analysts and challenged by environmental groups (Energywire, April 9).
Trump's executive order would "clarify how this process works for future cross border" permits. As a technical matter, the change gives sole discretion to approve those permits to the president rather than the secretary of state.
That way, proposed international pipelines would not need to undergo the agency's National Environmental Policy Act, which can delay pipelines for years. That change could have implications for the proposed Enbridge Inc. replacement pipelines, spanning from Canada to the Midwest.
In addition, the orders would direct the Department of Transportation to amend safety rules governing LNG export facilities so they are not so prescriptive, the official said.
The order also directs DOT to propose a rule allowing LNG to be treated the same as other cryogenic liquids that are permitted to be shipped in rail tank cars. That is not currently authorized by the agency.
"LNG safety standards were originally drafted nearly 40 years ago," the official said. "Modern large-scale liquid import-export facilities bear little resemblance to peak-shaving facilities of 40 years ago."
The energy industry has been advocating for some of these changes for months, while others emerged with little notice. Yesterday, the senior administration official said the order would direct the Labor Department to evaluate investment trends to identify "barriers" in financing. The agency will look into proxy voting by shareholders.
"Many infrastructure projects rely on financing," the official said.Clean Water Act
Trump's push to target states' Clean Water Act permit approvals stems from conflicts between energy companies, the administration and Democratic governments in Washington state and New York, which have blocked natural gas and coal-related permits in recent years.
The orders specifically target states' authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which allows them to approve, deny or place conditions on federal permits and ensure projects won't violate state water quality standards.
The law says states must make those decisions within a "reasonable timeframe" lasting less than a year. Federal agencies get to decide what is reasonable, with deadlines at EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ranging from 60 days to a year.
The law is unclear about when that time frame begins, and EPA guidance from 2010 says the clock starts when states say they have enough information to make a decision.
The result is that states reviewing complicated infrastructure pipelines often far exceed federal deadlines, asking project developers for more information about how water resources might be affected and extending the clock.
Now, the Trump administration is directing EPA to revise that 2010 guidance and to look at decades-old regulations on the issue that predates the agency itself.
The senior administration official noted that the 2010 guidance document is based on a 1994 Supreme Court decision but that circuit courts of appeals have more recently ruled that the clock starts on state reviews when a permit application is submitted.
That includes a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from last year saying New York had taken too long to review a permit for a project from Millennium Pipeline Co. (Energywire, March 13, 2018).
New York's recent pipeline permit denials have attracted the ire of the energy industry, the Trump administration and members of Congress alike.
The senior administration official said the executive orders are meant to "alleviate some of these problems moving forward" by directing EPA to review "outdated" guidance and regulations.
The executive actions will not come as a surprise to states, where organizations are gearing up to fight preexisting efforts at EPA and the Army Corps to review their Clean Water Act Section 401 guidance (Greenwire, Jan. 24).
This week, the Western Governors' Association put out a statement saying any changes to states' Clean Water Act authority "would inflict serious harm to the division of state and federal authorities established by Congress."
In August, the group, which represents 19 states and three Pacific territories, spearheaded a letter signed by other state organizations criticizing a Senate bill similarly targeting states' Clean Water Act authority (Greenwire, Aug. 9, 2018). Republican senators reintroduced that bill yesterday in an attempt to "compliment" President Trump's executive actions.
At the time, WGA Executive Director Jim Ogsbury said, "the emergence of this issue is a reflection of fair-weather federalism," belying talking points that tout support for states' rights.
That's a point that was echoed by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) in remarks to the Environmental Council of the States yesterday evening that touched on the state certification issue.
"We will all need to stand by a commitment to this federal-state partnership," he said (E&E News PM, April 9). "Cooperative federalism and respect for states' rights doesn't mean the same thing to this administration as it does to those of you who are actually doing the work of environmental protection."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/10/stories/1060151873
-
Trump Slated To Order EPA To Limit States' Review Power Under CWA 401
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds and Doug Obey
Brushing aside concerns from governors and others, President Donald Trump is slated to issue an executive order April 10 that will order EPA to “review and update” its policies governing state reviews of federal projects under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), with a senior official indicating it will likely curtail states' current review powers.
“Many states” implement section 401 faithfully. However, implementation “on occasion” has caused delays in permitting and development of energy infrastructure projects that would have “broad regional and national benefits,” the official said on an April 9 conference call with reporters.
The order, which is broadly intended to speed permitting of federal energy projects, “will ensure that section 401 of the CWA is implemented consistent with statutory intent. Outdated federal guidance and regulations issued by EPA have caused confusion and uncertainty leading to project delays, lost jobs and reduced economic performance,” the official said.
Among other things, the official signaled the administration believes EPA's current policies unlawfully allow states to waive 401 requirements and also incorrectly allow states to determine when their one-year statutory clock for reviewing projects begins.
Such an approach is likely to drive heightened opposition from Democrats. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate environment committee, is floating the possibility of using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to target EPA or other agency policies implementing Trump's order.
“We have something Harry Reid invented, the CRA, which allows us to come back and repeal at a later date a bad regulation -- that is the ultimate weapon,” Carper told Inside EPA April 9 on the sidelines of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) spring meeting in Arlington, VA.
“The Republicans figured out how to use it pretty effectively, and that might be an approach."
While Democrats have been expected to try to use CRA authority as a way to challenge the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts at EPA and other agencies, they lack the votes to advance the measure in the Senate or overcome an almost certain veto from Trump.
But any effort to advance a CRA repeal resolution could give them a political messaging tool to criticize Trump's order and potentially undercut Republicans' support for states' rights.
Carper touted such a message in his remarks, telling state officials that Trump's planned order is an example of how the administration is failing to live up to its purported support of cooperative federalism where states lead in implementing federal environmental law.
“Cooperative federalism doesn't mean the same thing to this administration as it does to those who do the work of environmental protection,” he said. “It's clear to me that EPA and the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers plan to erode states' ability to protect their rights under section 401 of the Clean Water Act” that ensures project do not result in violations of state water quality standards.
Citing a letter from the Western Governors' Association to House and Senate leaders, Carper said that limiting states' authority under CWA section 401 would cause “serious harm to the division of state and federal authorities established under the constitution."
GOP Concerns
At issue is a long-awaited order Trump is slated to announce April 10 aimed at speeding construction of natural gas pipelines. Among other things, it will address section 401 of the CWA, which generally gives states authority to review federal projects to ensure they do not undercut attainment of water quality standards.
As such, states may place conditions on federal permits before certifying them or they may decline to certify them.
Trump's order seeks to address Republican and industry concerns that some states -- backed by environmentalists -- have abused their 401 authority to block natural gas and other projects as a way to limit production, distribution and use of fossil fuels due to concerns about their climate impacts.
States have disputed critics' claims that they have exceeded their authority and are instead urging federal officials to make “process improvements” that would speed the reviews without limiting state authority.
State regulators were slated to meet with federal officials April 9 to urge them to consider their planned improvements.
“The coalition of groups we have been working with will push the process improvement document we put together to push those principles and push for the administration to actually sit down and talk to us. They haven't really done much of that yet,” Julia Anastasio, executive director and general counsel of the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), told Inside EPA April 8.
But the order appears to reject at least some of the states' approaches. For example, the senior official said there are “inconsistencies” between the CWA and EPA's 2010 interim guidance on 401. For example, he said the guide “provides that states may waive certification while federal agencies are the only entity that can waive."
The official also said the guidance conflicts with case law on when a certifying agency can determine what constitutes a complete application, a determination that starts a one-year clock for states to review the application.
There is an “overreliance” on a single Supreme Court case from 1994, Jefferson County PUD vs Washington Department of Ecology, the official said, adding that the guidance also conflicts with a 1989 case, City of Fredricksburg v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
And the official added the guidance also conflicts with a recent FERC declaratory order in the Millennium Pipeline case, which states that the one-year clock starts on the receipt of the application.
“With all of these problems, it is imperative that the administration take action to provide clarification and certainty so that we can have a much more streamlined permitting process going forward under the statute,” the official said.
But such approaches appear to be at odds with states' calls for the administration to work with states to “require applicants for CWA Section 401 certification to submit baseline data and information to states before the commencement of any statutory or regulatory timeline for review.”
States have also suggested that federal officials “Adopt policies expressly stating that timelines for state action under CWA Section 401 do not begin until an applicant has submitted a substantially complete application to request the issuance of a water quality certification.”
While the order will likely lead to steps to curtail state powers, it does not appear to go as far as some Republicans have hoped. In advance of the order's release, Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY), together with several other GOP lawmakers, April 9 reintroduced legislation that would curtail the scope of state reviews and take other steps to speed state scrutiny of federally approved projects.
Among other things, the bill would limit the scope of state reviews and place other requirements on states. For example, it would “clarify that states, when evaluating water quality, can only consider discharges that would result from the federally permitted or licensed activity itself -- not from other sources.”
But such provisions have already drawn stiff opposition from state officials, who shot down a version of the billintroduced in the last Congress over such a provision.
Cross-Border Projects
In addition to the order on pipelines, Trump is also slated to issue an order on cross-border infrastructure that will limit the State Department's ability to conduct environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This appears to be in part a response to the Keystone Pipeline case where a federal court has blocked the project because of inadequate State Department review under NEPA.
“The president's Executive Order clarifies that any decision to issue or deny a cross-border permit shall be made solely by the president of the U.S.,” the senior official said.
"Under the order, the Secretary of State will continue to receive permit applications and provide advice to the president on whether a proposed permit furthers the foreign policy interests of the United States.”
In addition, the “Secretary of State is directed to adopt procedures to complete the process of soliciting information from federal agencies in providing assistance to the president within 60 days of receiving an application.”
But the order “will ensure that our land management and environmental agencies will be doing environmental reviews within the United States. We won't have the State Department doing NEPA."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-slated-order-epa-limit-states-review-power-under-cwa-401
-
Appeal Over Replaced Obama Natural Gas Rule Tossed
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
The Trump Administration’s successful effort to replace an Obama Administration rule on natural gas wells has mooted an appeal of a court order related to the earlier rule, the Tenth Circuit said April 9.
California, New Mexico and environmental groups appealed a federal district court decision to block the Bureau of Land Management’s original 2016 “waste prevention rule” restricting the venting and flaring of natural gas wells and establishing other requirements, according to the appeals court.
The lower court enjoined the Obama-era rule while a Trump Administration replacement rule underwent public notice and comment.
Following publication of the new final rule in September 2018, the appeal is moot, as the two states and the environmental groups acknowledge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said in an unpublished opinion.
The proper disposition, however, isn’t to dismiss the entire case, as David Bernhardt, the acting secretary of the Interior, and other officials sought, the appeals court said.
The new rule says it “removes almost all of the requirements” of the old rule, the appeals court said. “We do not see any harm in allowing the district court to decide in the first instance whether the entire case is moot given that the district court is more acquainted with the overall claims and issues,” it said.
The Trump Administration’s “revision” rule was its third attempt to postpone or kill the requirements of the 2016 rule, following successful legal challenges to the first two such efforts, according to the court.
Judges Carlos F. Lucero, Robert E. Bacharach, and Carolyn B. McHugh served on the panel.
The Western Environmental Law Center and others represented the Wyoming Outdoor Council and other environmental groups. The offices of the California and New Mexico attorneys general represented those states.
The Department of Justice represented the Interior Department.
The case is State v. W. Energy All., 2019 BL 125598, 10th Cir., No. 18-8027, unpublished 4/9/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/appeal-over-replaced-obama-natural-gas-rule-tossed
-
Long Island May Be Next to Impose Natural Gas Curbs, Group Says
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Long Island may be next to impose a moratorium on new natural gas customers unless the Trump administration can push through regulatory changes to build new pipelines in time, according to the American Gas Association.
Trump is poised to issue an executive order on Wednesday promoting projects like the long-stalled Constitution Pipeline, a planned 124-mile gas conduit from Pennsylvania to New York, according to people familiar with the matter.
New York is already feeling the pinch from inadequate infrastructure. Consolidated Edison Inc. last month put in place a moratorium on hooking up new customers to gas lines in Westchester County, which lies directly north of New York City, because it doesn’t have enough interstate capacity. Long Island may follow in May unless a pipeline project gets approved, said Karen Alderman Harbert, chief executive officer of AGA, which represents distribution companies. Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. and National Grid Plc, which operate in Long island, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
In Long Island, “we are going to have to put a moratorium on new gas customers in May unless we get more pipeline,” Harbert said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “That’s the effect of this inability to get the pipeline permitted. We will see how far the executive order goes.”
Pipeline projects in parts of the U.S. also face fierce opposition from environmental groups. The executive order “is highlighting a problem that is starting to metastasize in different parts of the country,” Harbert said. “It shouldn’t take longer to permit a pipeline than it does to build it.”
Trump’s action isn’t likely to jump-start widespread pipeline construction, since it’s up to Congress rather than the president to restrict states’ authority under the Clean Water Act. The initiative isn’t expected to solve legal problems thwarting several pipelines in the Mid-Atlantic U.S., which hinge on inadequate Interior Department reviews.
Harbert, who has spent much of her career focused on energy policy at agencies including Energy Department and Chamber of Commerce, took over as CEO of the AGA on April 1.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/long-island-may-be-next-to-impose-natural-gas-curbs-group-says
-
10th Circuit Dismisses Appeal of BLM Methane Rule Delay
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is dismissing a challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) effort to delay implementing Obama-era methane limits for oil and gas operations on federal land, holding that the case is moot because BLM has since finalized a replacement rule scrapping much of the standards.
The court issued the April 9 order in Wyoming, et al. v. Department of the Interior, et al., without holding oral argument. “After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal.”
The action at issue is BLM’s December 2017 one-year suspension of the 2016 waste prevention rule, which it implemented without notice or comment. The Obama-era regulation sought to limit “waste” through venting and flaring of the potent greenhouse gas methane when oil and gas is produced on federal lands.
In February 2018, a California district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the suspension rule and reinstating the Obama-era methane rule. That same day, BLM formally proposed a rule to largely rescind the methane standards, prompting a Wyoming district court to enjoin portions of the waste rule pending finalization of the proposal. California, New Mexico and environmental groups appealed that court’s order to 10th Circuit.
On Sept. 18, BLM published its final replacement rule which rescinded many of the original rule’s requirements, while altering others. It took effect in November.
The finalization set up a new legal fight after California and New Mexico filed suit in a Northern California district court over the replacement rule.
The final replacement also prompted BLM to successfully ask the 10th Circuit to find the litigation over the suspension to be moot.
“For the foregoing reasons, we grant the federal appellees’ motion to dismiss, vacated the district court’s order and dismiss these appeals as moot,” the court held in the new order.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/10th-circuit-dismisses-appeal-blm-methane-rule-delay
-
Fires in Texas Spark Interest in Chemical Safety
Apr 10, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Anthony Gutierrez
Watching the news last week as clouds of thick black smoke billowed over Houston, I worried about my family. They are surrounded by chemical plants. Hearing state and local officials saying there is no air quality issue, and then ordering everyone to “shelter in place” terrified me. In truth, the monitors either weren’t working or were under maintenance, and there didn’t seem to be an evacuation plan. Why not? The law requires one.
In the past month, there have been at least two major chemical fires or explosions at EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been extensively writingon the RMP rule and its provisions and participated in the victorious court case that required the EPA to implement the Obama era rule.
RMP standards are aimed to provide additional information to communities surrounding facilities, require facilities to coordinate with first responders on emergency evacuation plans in case of an emergency, and to research safer technology alternatives that may make their facility less prone to catastrophic incidents.
Despite these important provisions, the Trump Administration has moved forward with rolling back this rule and in doing so, they have proposed to “remove all preventative measures.” What is a risk management plan if it doesn’t lower risks? The final rule is being finalized now, and we expect with the concerns we had over the proposed rule that this final rule will weaken standards. The two major chemical fires and explosions this month should demonstrate to the EPA that implementing the RMP protections are the least they could do for environmental justice communities, first responders, and workers to protect their public health and safety.
The KMCO plant explosion in Crosby, Texas occurred on April 2nd at the chemical manufacturing facility when isobutylene ignited. This facility was no stranger to incidents, its past explosion occurred in 2010 causing worker injuries and a worker death. The facility has been cited for lacking an appropriate emergency action plan, benzene leaks, and lack of monitoring. This time around, the explosion killed one and injured two others. Communities surrounding this facility are still seeking information from TCEQ and the facility directly on potential health hazards and air quality monitoring in the wake of the explosion.
The Intercontinental Terminals Company (ITC) fire in Deer Park, Texas on March 17th burned for days and once the fires from the various containers were put out, a new shelter in place order for two additional days was issued due to excessive benzene levels detected. Congressional members representing sections of the Houston area came together to call on TCEQ to provide more information on the air monitoring and information sharing after this fire.
Unfortunately, explosions like these add insult to injury for many communities. People living near petrochemical facilities like these already face disproportionate exposure to toxic emissions from the facilities on a regular basis, in addition to other nearby sources of air pollution, like increased truck traffic around the facility and other industrial and transportation-related pollution and stressors. Preventable chemical disasters only add to the burden faced by these communities on a daily basis.
Yvette Arellano from the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (T.E.J.A.S.), an environmental justice group working on the ground in Manchester and Greater Houston Area, stated “While regulatory agencies protect these facilities from acts of terrorism, who protects us from these facilities which terrorize us on a daily basis? The simple daily acts of life from brushing our teeth in the morning to going to sleep are made traumatic by these events, and the ITC disaster is yet to be over. We never asked to live a life in which we are scared of being at home, forced to live with plastic on the windows and doors, with no ventilation in a city where temperatures regularly skyrocket to over 100. We are suffering out of sight, made silent, and forced into the shadows-living under dark clouds, not of our making. This is not just, it is not freedom or liberty this is an act of terror on our lives.”
I wish I could be clinical and detached from this issue, but I can’t. My family lives in one of the largest concentrations of these RMP facilities outside of Houston, Texas. Every time I hear about another incident I think of my nieces and nephew and whether they were outside at school when this happened. I worried about them while they were locked in their homes in a shelter in place during the ITC fire and subsequent benzene leak. Like all young children, they deserve to be free to run outside without fear of a chemical cloud keeping them indoors.
These incidents at chemical facilities in Texas are unfortunately perfect examples of why the Risk Management Plan standards should not only be maintained by the Trump Administration but should also be strengthened during this rulemaking process. Congress should hold the EPA accountable and call on them to issue a strengthened RMP rule that provides the communities outside of these facilities better access to information regarding the chemicals on-site, better coordination with first responders to create better safety plans that aren’t limited to shelter in place.
Chemical facilities need oversight and high standards for safety in order to protect environmental justice communities, first responders, and workers. Companies should be held accountable, particularly those with multiple incidents and fines like the two facilities above. They need to be willing to more readily share information with communities so families like mine can make the best decision in case of a fire or explosion and need to take strong measures to reduce the risk of these incidents happening in the future.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/anthony-gutierrez/chemical-safety-texas
-
Triton Hackers Strike 'Critical Infrastructure' — Report
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The hackers who carried out a dangerous intrusion into a Saudi petrochemical facility two years ago have hit a new target, according to a blog post from the cybersecurity company FireEye Inc.
FireEye researchers reported responding to "an additional intrusion" from the Russia-linked hacking group that deployed the Triton malware, a first-of-its-kind hacking tool designed to hijack Schneider Electric SE safety systems and clear the way for a potentially deadly attack.
FireEye researchers have been tight-lipped about the identity of the first Triton victim, which E&E News reported to be the Petro Rabigh oil and gas complex along Saudi Arabia's Red Sea coast (Energywire, March 7).
But now, the Triton hackers have been spotted infecting safety systems at "a different critical infrastructure facility," according to FireEye, which was contracted to lead the incident response at the unidentified site.
The intruders appeared to be interested in gaining long-term access to the latest victim — an infection "measured in years," according to the Milpitas, Calif.-based cybersecurity firm. FireEye analysts pointed out that the group seems to be "installing malware like TRITON and waiting for the right time to use it," laying the groundwork for future, life-threatening fireworks.
Other industrial cybersecurity firms have warned that the Triton hackers remain an active threat to oil and gas companies around the globe, particularly in the Middle East, where they were first spotted. But FireEye's post today marks the first acknowledgement of a follow-up cyberattack affecting industrial safety systems, specialized devices that prevent petrochemical, refining or other potentially explosive processes from spiraling out of control.
The hackers followed a markedly similar playbook to infect controllers at the new target: first, using custom tools and some "off-the-shelf" malware to worm into corporate networks, before pivoting through a "demilitarized zone" and into the anonymized plant's industrial controls. FireEye did not disclose the precise nature of the target facility's operations, or its location.
Once they had gained a foothold on their target's distributed control system network, the digital assailants went straight for the site's safety systems, attempting to sneak in Triton malware by only working during "off-hour" times.
"The actor's demonstrated interest in operational security suggests there may be other target environments — beyond the second intrusion announced in this blog — where the actor was or still is present," FireEye warned.
In another blog post late last year, FireEye linked certain fingerprints from the first Triton intrusion back to a Russian government-owned research lab in Moscow, the Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics.
That organization has not responded to repeated requests for comment. But Russian government spokespeople have denied meddling in U.S. critical infrastructure in the past.
FireEye urged other control system operators to double-check their own systems for signs of Triton and its accompanying intrusion tools.
"We believe there is a good chance the threat actor was or is present in other target networks," researchers said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/10/stories/1060151513
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Step Up Pace on Showcasing Climate Change
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chuck McCutcheon
Today’s activity in the House is perhaps the most vivid sign of how Democrats seek to portray themselves as the party of addressing climate change, even as the GOP-controlled Senate evinces little interest.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee marks up H.R. 9, which would keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Energy and Commerce Committee advanced the bill last week on a party-line vote, a scenario likely to recur. Bloomberg Government has a detailed analysis of the bill.
Two separate committee hearings are being held: House Oversight and Reform discusses climate change and national security with former Secretary of State John Kerry and ex-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, while Homeland Security’s emergency preparedness subcommittee looks at the homeland security impacts.
Hazardous Waste Court Hearing
Environmental groups are challenging the EPA’s decision to exclude companies that send hazardous waste off-site for processing from its hazardous waste disposal requirements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is holding oral arguments in the case.Challengers include California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Air Council and Coalition for a Safe Environment. The American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association, and other industry groups are supporting EPA’s side.
The Other Coal FIght
Some Republican-leaning states are getting into fights over coal—specifically, coal ash laced with toxins that are entering the states’ waterways.North Carolina ordered Duke Energy to get rid of coal-ash ponds, while South Carolina utilities are emptying and closing their ponds after being hit with lawsuits and galvanizing public pressure.Coal-ash ponds were long seen as the simplest disposal method, and hundreds are spread across the South. Excavating them can take years and cost millions. But a 2008 spill near Knoxville, Tenn., buried 300 acres in slurry, bringing the issue to the fore.
What Else We’re WatchingThe House Natural Resources Committee examines the status of Puerto Rico’s electric power authority. One of those testifying—Tom Sanzillo, the director of finance for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis—said he plans to outline to lawmakers why efforts to privatize the island’s electric utility likely will fail.An initial vote on David Bernhardt as Interior secretary could occur Wednesday after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed cloture on the nomination.The Senate could confirm up to four federal district court picks, including Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick, a protege of scandal-plagued, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The Senate failed to act on Wyrick’s nomination last year, forcing the White House to restart to confirmation process.EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler heads back to the Hill to defend his agency’s fiscal 2020 budget request with the Energy and Commerce Committee. Previous committees have given Wheeler a hard time about the funding, and today’s will be no different.The IPF 19 conference in New York features New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, New York Power Authority President and CEO Gil Quiniones, and acting Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Walter Cruickshank.Members of Congress and Trump administration officials discuss cyber- and terrorism-related threats to drinking water at an Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies meeting.China’s largest coal industry gathering, Coaltrans China, gets under way in Shanghai.Insights
Former DOJ Prosecutor Back in BigLaw Shares Tips to Help Clients
Morgan Lewis’s Zane David Memeger, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, shares tips for how attorneys “switching hats” from public to private practice can better understand and help their clients.
Daily RundownTop Stories
Some Links to Cancer Shown in Draft Review of Common Pesticide
A draft federal report finding some links between the active ingredient in Roundup and some forms of cancer could affect the widespread legal proceedings involving the weedkiller.Reshuffle of EPA Regional Offices to Take Effect on Tax Day
The EPA’s restructuring of its 10 regional offices will formally take effect April 15. Each of the 10 regional offices will have eight divisions, mimicking the setup in the EPA headquarters office.Drought Plan for Seven Southwestern States Passes House
A fragile water-sharing agreement for the Colorado River basin passed the House by a voice vote, despite concerns that the plan would hurt some Southern California farmers.Energy
Keystone Pipeline Permit Challenged as Unconstitutional
The Trump administration violated the U.S. Constitution in issuing a new permit for TransCanada Corp.’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline, American Indian and environmental groups say.EPA Says It Won’t Second Guess State Audits of Oil Firms
The EPA isn’t going to second guess state-led audits of new owners of oil and gas drilling sites if the audits are on par with federal requirements, the agency told state regulators.Environment
Shell Keeps Pair of Pipeline Cancer Claims in Federal Court
Shell Oil Co. beat back a dismissal request by two plaintiffs in a federal mass tort action over contamination from oilfield pipeline cleaning facilities.EPA Watchdog Raises Alarm on Toxic Chemical Release Reports
Municipal sewage treatment plant releases were left out of the EPA’s online inventory of the volume of toxic chemicals released into the environment each year, the agency’s inspector general reportedTrump to Tout Green Bona Fides While Gutting Environmental Rules
President Donald Trump is preparing a novel campaign strategy for a president who is pulling the U.S. from the international Paris accord on climate change, cheer-leading for coal, one of the dirtiest source of power, and suggesting that wind turbines cause cancer. He is going to tout his environmental credentials.
Today’s EventsAll Day • Green Investing • Green and SRI Investing Symposium in New York explores opportunities in green and socially responsible investment markets for structured credit investors.10 a.m. • Forest Service • Senate energy panel discusses Forest Service’s fiscal 2020 budget request.10 a.m. • Energy and Water • House Appropriations’ energy and water spending panel holds member day hearing.Noon • Law • D.C. Bar hosts panel discussion on the intersection between Chevron deference, which requires courts to yield to agencies on the interpretation of federal statutes, and “non-delegation,” which bars Congress from enacting laws giving regulators “unbounded” discretion.1 p.m. • Arctic • Wilson Center hosts forum on Arctic research in the national interest.2 p.m. • Mountaintop Mining • House Natural Resources’ energy and mineral resources panel discusses mountaintop removal mining.5 p.m. • India • John Hopkins’ energy program hosts discussion of India’s energy access efforts.5:30 p.m. • OPEC • Citigroup hosts discussion in New York on geopolitical developments and the state of the oil market in light of OPEC’s announcement to delay a decision on their output policy until June.Around the WebThe capture of a 17 foot-long python in the Florida Everglades’ Big Cypress Natural Preserve—the biggest ever there—was caught because of research and a new approach to finding pythons, environmentalists say.A common species of freshwater green algae is capable of removing certain endocrine disrupting chemicals found in plastics and pharmaceuticals from wastewater, according to new research.Exelon has chosen the deferred-dismantling option for shutting down the Three Mile Island nuclear plant over immediate dismantling and permanently encasing radioactive contaminants on site.Quote of the Day“We’re basically at that point in time when the train has started to move and it’s time to jump on or miss it.”
—Mark Gyetvay, chief financial officer for Novatek, Russia’s top liquefied natural gas producer, discussing efforts to expand in the Arctic.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-democrats-step-up-pace-on-showcasing-climate-change-46
-
(ACC Mentioned) Judge Questions Environmental Groups’ Claim of Harmful Waste
Apr 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
An appeals court judge questioned whether an environmental group can claim as-yet-unseen consequences of the EPA’s decision not to regulate some materials as hazardous waste.
Environmental advocacy group California Communities Against Toxics and other local and national groups say waste that companies paid to have removed and recycled should still be regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency’s hazardous waste requirements.
Under the agency’s current regulation (RIN:2050-AG99), materials that a company sends off-site for recycling and reclamation are excluded from those requirements, which are more stringent than those for nonhazardous waste.
That exclusion “fails to prevent dangerous releases of hazardous wastes, including the kinds of leaks, spills, fires, and explosions the agency knows occur when hazardous wastes are reclaimed,” the environmental groups stated in court documents.
Both sides argued their sides before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit April 9. The petitioners didn’t point to any specific contamination incidents that had occurred since the appeals court reinstated the exclusion in 2017.
“What is imminent or actual here?” Judge David Sentelle asked during the oral arguments.
The environmental groups have “reasonable concerns” that the exclusion could lead to contamination that affects quality of life and recreation near facilities that accept the waste material, Earthjustice attorney Khushi Desai, arguing on behalf of the petitioners, told the judge.
“It’s the very fact that this exclusion is taking away protections Congress deemed necessary,” she said.
Identifiable InjuryDepartment of Justice senior attorney Perry Rosen, who argued on the EPA’s behalf, said petitioners hadn’t presented evidence of harm.
“There needs to be an identifiable injury,” he said during oral arguments.
The petitioners include California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean Air Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Community In-Power & Development Association, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, the Sierra Club, and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
Industry groups supporting the EPA’s exclusion include the American Chemistry Council, American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Metals Industries Recycling Coalition, National Association of Manufacturers, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.
The case is Calif. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 18-1163, 4/9/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/judge-questions-environmental-groups-claim-of-harmful-waste
-
(ACC Mentioned) Suffolk, to Combat Pollution, Clamps Down on Plastic Straws, Styrofoam
Apr 9, 2019 | Newsday
By David M. Schwartz
Suffolk County lawmakers passed bills Tuesday to crack down on the use of polystyrene and plastic straws to combat plastic pollution, spelling the end of days of getting a Styrofoam cup of coffee and plastic straw in a Slurpee.
Straws and stirrers would be by-request-only in sit-down restaurants and would have to be biodegradable — not plastic — in food establishments and self-service beverage stations starting Jan. 1 under a bill passed by the Suffolk Legislature. For consumers with a disability or medical condition, plastic straws would be available on request for consumers.
A separate bill that also passed would ban restaurants from using polystyrene foam takeout containers — commonly referred to under the brand name Styrofoam — and polystyrene packaging "peanuts" starting next year as well.
"This is sweeping legislation to begin weeding out single-use plastics," said Legis. Kara Hahn (D-Setauket), the lead sponsor of the bills.
The bills would have to be signed by County Executive Steve Bellone before they become law. County spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle said the administration is reviewing the legislation. Hahn said she believed he would sign them, citing the overwhelming support from lawmakers.
Legislators also passed a law that will ban the sale of single-use plastics at county parks and beaches, including plastic utensils, plates and cups. It would go into effect when current park vendor contracts are up.
The three bills passed the Legislature without an opposing vote, although one lawmaker abstained from the proposed straw law because, he said, they're a necessity for parents of little kids going out to eat.
"I don’t think it’s giving all of us with little kids all the options we need to go out to eat without our kids spilling soda all over themselves," Legis. Rob Calarco (D-Patchogue) said.
Hahn responded that there are plenty of biodegradable options for straws — made out of paper, bamboo and other plant material, and businesses are developing more to meet the demand as more municipalities pass laws.
"There are so many options out there that are biodegradable and compostable," Hahn said. "For far too long, we’ve been putting off" environmental legislation because of cost.
The bill does include a juice box exemption, meaning drinks that come with a prepackaged plastic straw attached would be allowed.
Legis. Kevin McCaffrey (R-Lindenhurst) said he had been skeptical of straw bans, but saw businesses adapt in places where they took place. He said one restaurant in his district is using all sustainable products.
While the goods cost more than the plastic and Styrofoam — McCaffrey said the restaurant owner said biodegradable straws cost 10 times more than plastic ones — it's worth it for environmental reasons. "We can all figure out a way to do it, if the effect on the environment is a good one," McCaffrey said.
The bill would exempt drive-through restaurants from the requirement that customers have to ask for a straw, but the straws they provide would have to be biodegradable.
Environmentalists and legislators across the country have targeted plastic straws and other disposable plastics for littering beaches, polluting waterways, getting ingested by marine life and breaking down into tiny plastic pellets that make their way into the food chain.
Straws "are a growing emblem of plastic pollution," Jordan Christensen, program coordinator for Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said at the meeting. She said alternatives include paper straws and bamboo straws.
A New York City study on polystyrene found it couldn't be recycled once it was used, she said.
"If you can't recycle it, the only thing we can do is ban it," Christensen said.
Andrew Fasoli, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said a NYC study found it costs businesses twice as much for alternatives to polystyrene packages, which he called “a reliable, efficient and cost-effective package."
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/environment/plastic-straws-suffolk-legislature-1.29608849
-
Judges Split On Environmentalists' Standing To Challenge Waste Rule
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Appellate judges appeared split during April 9 oral argument on whether environmentalists have standing to challenge an EPA exclusion that exempts third-party recyclers of hazardous secondary materials from strict waste rule requirements even as the panel appeared to question environmentalists' argument on the merits.
In California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard argument on whether it should strike down an exclusion in EPA's definition of solid waste (DSW) rule that allows third-party recyclers of hazardous secondary material to avoid stringent regulation under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA).
While judges questioned environmentalists' merits argument that generators' payments to third-party recyclers meant the materials are “waste” subject to regulation, they differed on EPA's argument that the case should be dismissed because environmentalists lack standing.
At issue is one portion of EPA's 2018 revised DSW rule. Specifically, in question is the agency's court-mandated adoption of a Bush-era measure that, under a so-called transfer-based exclusion (TBE), exempts third-party recyclers of hazardous secondary material from stringent regulation as a solid or hazardous waste.
EPA adopted the TBE measure after the same appeals court -- in response to separate challenges from environmentalists and industry -- ruled in 2017 and 2018, vacating aspects of the Obama EPA's 2015 DSW rule.
Among its rulings, the court vacated the 2015 rule's verified recycler exclusion (VRE), except for that exclusion's emergency preparedness requirements and a “contained” standard for managing materials prior to recycling. The court replaced the VRE with the TBE.
In its briefs, EPA argues that the petitioners missed the 90-day window for challenging the 2008 rule -- which generally includes the same exclusion as that in the 2018 rule -- and also contends one of the petitioners agreed to settle an earlier challenge to the 2008 rule, conceding to a dismissal, with prejudice, upon the agency issuing a new rule to address its concerns.
During oral argument, Judge David B. Sentelle repeatedly questioned environmentalist's attorney Khushi Desai on the groups' standing, particularly asking what harm or injuries the petitioners had experienced due to the rule.
Desai said the environmental groups have reasonable concerns that there is a substantial probability they will be harmed. She added that another factor is also how that concern affects petitioners' enjoyment of their everyday lives.
But Sentelle responded that there are numerous cases that say harm has to be imminent or actual. “What is imminent or actual here in the way of harm . . . ?”
She responded that it is the fact that the recycling facilities will likely use this exclusion, which strips away RCRA protections.
But Sentelle pressed on, asking if any injury occurred, and what made this an imminent injury versus simply a worry.
She replied that the exclusion takes away congressionally-required protections against the risks of these types of hazards, and that this same court has found standing in similar circumstances in suits decided in 2014 involving the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council.
'The Matter's Moot'
But another judge questioned EPA's standing argument and arguments over whether the suit was timely or not.
Judge Judith W. Rogers contended that because EPA in the earlier challenge voluntarily withdrew the exclusion, “the matter's moot. EPA's gotten rid of what the complaint was all about."
She then asked Department of Justice attorney Perry Rosen, representing EPA, that now that the agency has come back and restored the exclusion, and the petitioners have filed objections -- “that's not after-arising?”
In the case, the parties dispute whether after-arising conditions -- which can trigger an exclusion from the 90-day deadline -- are present in the case. The environmentalists say they are, as the legal landscape changed when EPA reinstated TBE.
But Rosen during argument said he does not believe this meets the “after-arising” condition, as the Sierra Club's original claim was dismissed with prejudice. The after-arising doctrine does not allow a party “to undismiss a claim that it voluntarily dismissed with prejudice,” he said.
But on the merits, the judges appeared to ask the petitioners similar queries, questioning their main argument that generators' payment to third-party recyclers to effectively rid themselves of the hazardous secondary materials equates to “discard” -- a key term used to define if an item becomes a solid waste.
Sentelle asked whether this same interpretation would apply if the generator of the materials also was the reclaimer, but it was hiring a third-party to haul the materials to the second location. Desai responded that this is very different, but added that she believes it could be discarding. She was also asked how the interpretation would apply if hypothetically, the material was donated to another entity, but the party had to pay for hauling it. She responded that argument could be made for either discarding or not.
A second judge asked Desai why it would make a difference that someone pays a second owner, who will then recycle the material.
Desai said it is because at that moment, the generator assigns a negative value to the material, so the action is discarding. “It doesn't matter whether the reclaimer ultimately finds value in it."
The judge then questioned “why wouldn't it be valuable to the extent that any value could be recovered for anyone?”
Desai said it is because the material is negatively valued by the generator. That is “discard” in the ordinary sense of the term. She cited previous case law by the court holding that simply because something is ultimately recycled does not mean it was not discarded.
But Sentelle interjected, saying just because the court held “that the agency was not unreasonable in calling something discarded in those cases does not mean that it would here.”
During his arguments on the merits, Rosen said the statute does not make any references to payment for materials equating to disposal or discard. He argued that the petitioners' argument on this is inconsistent with RCRA and at least five decisions by the D.C. Circuit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/judges-split-environmentalists-standing-challenge-waste-rule
-
Republican Climate Playbook in Disarray
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Courtney Columbus
Two House Oversight and Reform panels met yesterday to discuss climate change, but they didn't do much overseeing.
Instead, the hearings were often marred by bickering over basic science and relentless Republican attacks on the Green New Deal, demonstrating the fluid GOP stance on climate issues.
First up was a full committee hearing where Republicans repeatedly yielded their time to conservative Rep. Thomas Massie. The Kentucky Republican questioned climate science and attacked the credentials of former Secretary of State John Kerry, one of the witnesses (Greenwire, April 9).
"There's not a single climate denier in this room," Massie said, before casting doubt on well-established science that says greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and referring to Democrats as "photosynthesis deniers."
It was another twist on the kind of partisanship that has defined climate debates on Capitol Hill for years, even if witnesses at both hearings repeatedly called for bipartisan action. The two oversight hearings also highlighted the fact Republicans are all over the place on climate change, except when it comes to the Green New Deal.
Republicans on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, as well as the Energy and Commerce Committee, have professed belief in the science and touted "energy innovation" as their solution. However, several Oversight GOP members yesterday openly doubted man-made climate change and even the existence and severity of sea-level rise.
But if there's one thing all Republicans have in common, it's a strong distaste for the Green New Deal, the progressive climate plan from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). That distaste has translated into new energy — and injected new partisanship — into the climate debate.
"I hope we hear a lot from Mr. Massie," ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in his opening statement, after noting Massie is an engineer who owns an electric car.
"But I'm not sure this hearing is about needing truth from people like Congressman Massie," Jordan said. "I think it's about the Green New Deal and the regulations and central government planning and the politics that come with it."
The hearing was not supposed to be about the Green New Deal, but it nonetheless became the topic du jour for the GOP.
While the subject was nominally the national security implications of climate, Democrats spent much of their time rebuffing those attacks and decrying the Trump administration's proposed "adversarial" review of climate science.
One of the few Democrats to bring up the Green New Deal at all was Ocasio-Cortez, who noted most of the Republican attacks on the resolution are not based on the resolution at all, but on a fact sheet her office put out with the rollout and later retracted.
"While I am incredibly flattered that the ranking member and many members across the aisle seem to be so enamored with a nonbinding resolution presented by a freshman congresswoman who was sworn in three months ago, I think that ironically, despite that fixation, it doesn't seem that they've actually read the contents of proposed and presented resolution," she said.
"I would encourage that you don't need Cliffs Notes for a 14-page resolution," she said.
Ocasio-Cortez also pushed Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a one-time Republican senator from Nebraska, to make the broader point that not acting on climate could have consequences for the economy and even human life.
"In terms of leadership, if we fail to act, or even if we delay acting, we will have blood on our hands," she said.'Let's have no illusion'
The Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment met later in the afternoon and offered a more concrete preview of how Democrats on the panel would like to address climate change.
Subcommittee Chairman Harley Rouda (D-Calif.) said it was the first of three fact-finding hearings to tackle the issue. The others will address current and future opportunities to address climate change.
They brought in a pair of prominent climate scientists and former Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) to examine the history of inaction on climate. The conversation inevitably delved into fossil fuel propaganda campaigns that emerged with the scientific consensus in the late 1980s and early '90s.
The difference between early opposition groups, such as the Global Climate Coalition, and modern groups that oppose the scientific consensus, is that they often are less obvious, Wirth said.
"I think the organizations that are in opposition have become much more subtle and sophisticated than they were before," Wirth said.
But Republicans weren't buying into the conversation, even if the tone was less contentious. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) suggested that scientific consensus can change and brought up conjecture about global cooling in the 1970s.
"Let's have no illusion about the point of today's hearing," he said. "The majority has called this meeting for the sole purpose for condemning the oil and gas and petrochemical industry."Homeland security hearing
The afternoon also featured a House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery hearing on climate, which was injected with its own dose of climate partisanship.
Ranking member Peter King (R-N.Y.) questioned whether climate change is even in the panel's jurisdiction, echoing concerns from Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee.
"I do hope that as we go forward, we realize that our main goal as a committee, our main purpose from the genesis, was to focus on terrorism. And I realize that has been expanded now, which I understand, I support that, but I think we should leave the debate over climate control and global warming to other committees," King said.
"We can accept for the purpose of the argument that everything is true, and then we can focus on what the mitigation should be rather than getting into debates on how to change the climate, or prevent climate change," he added.
Subcommittee Chairman Donald Payne (D-N.J.), in turn, asked Timothy Manning, a former deputy administrator for protection and national preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, why climate change is related to fighting terrorism.
"I think there's a potential future where there are growing resource conflicts," Manning responded, listing access to clean drinking water and access to land for grazing and growing crops.
"As you increase conflict, you have instability in nations, you have radicalization, you have all the ingredients necessary that we have seen historically that lead towards radicalization and terrorism," he said.
Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) added that FEMA's strategic plan has included climate change in the past, allowing it to "plan forward."
The Department of Homeland Security wrote detailed documents on climate during the Obama administration, including its Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap in 2012.
But the agency's efforts on climate have largely been halted under the Trump administration and the tenure of outgoing Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who announced her resignation Sunday (Climatewire, April 9).
"There are serious questions as to how they will be able to respond as climate change intensifies hurricanes and other disasters," Payne said. "However, instead of trying to incorporate climate change in how it plans for the future, FEMA has stripped any mention of it from their 2018-2022 strategic plan, which guides the agency's actions over the next few years."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/10/stories/1060151893
-
House Foreign Affairs Panel Approves Democrats’ Paris Deal Bill
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
House Democrats are sticking to their pledge to quickly move legislation keeping the U.S. committed to the Paris climate agreement, pushing it April 9 through a second committee.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the measure on a 24-16 party-line vote. House Democratic leaders have said they want to bring the bill quickly to the floor for a vote, which could occur as soon as next month, even as the Republican-led Senate is unlikely to take up the legislation.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee also advanced the bill on a party-line vote April 4.
The legislation, H.R. 9, or the Climate Action Now Act, aims to keep the U.S. on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets. Under the global deal, the Obama administration set a target for the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The bill—led by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who chairs the select climate committee—would give the White House 120 days to submit a plan to Congress outlining how to achieve those reductions.
President Donald Trump announced in June 2017 that he would pull the U.S. from the global climate pact, but that withdrawal won’t take effect until November 2020.
The Democrats’ legislation also restrict the Trump administration from using federal funds to take actions to withdraw from the deal.
“If we withdraw, we will be the only country unwilling to step up to this challenge,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the committee, said of Trump’s plans to walk away from the deal.
‘Pure Politics’Republicans, though, criticized the Democratic bill for locking in Obama-era climate targets that didn’t undergo congressional scrutiny rather than working on bipartisan solutions.
“To have a bill coming out basically attacking the president for pulling out of the climate deal I think is pure politics and it’s below the bipartisanship of this committee,” Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) said.
Lawmakers should work on bipartisan legislation bill to support research and advance technological solutions to climate change “instead of doubling down on a pledge that Congress had no role in setting” and “that will have an unknown and potentially catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the panel.
Republicans offered five amendments. Four of those failed on party-line votes. One amendment—offered by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) to attach the Green New Deal, the ambitious climate plan championed by progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—wasn’t considered because Engel ruled it wasn’t relevant to the Paris bill.
The other amendments mostly doubled down on Republican arguments that the Obama administration’s Paris commitment would hurt the economy and unfairly requires cuts from the U.S. even as other countries like China continue to emit.
Democrats on the committee lambasted the GOP amendments as an attempt to slow down the legislation in the face of the urgency of addressing climate change.
“It’s been a deliberate, consistent pattern of science denial and deflection when dealing with this subject,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-foreign-affairs-panel-approves-democrats-paris-deal-bill
-
As Key NSR Trial Begins, Parties Spar Over Remedy
Apr 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
Parties to a major EPA enforcement case over the Clean Air Act’s new source review (NSR) program are sparring over what penalties Ameren, a utility, should face for its violations, with a judge agreeing with Justice Department (DOJ) and environmentalist claims that he can force the company to install pollution controls, while the utility disagrees.
Judge Rodney Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is presiding over the remedy phase trial, which began April 8 in the long-running case, United States and Sierra Club v. Ameren Missouri.
Sippel determined in a March 28 memo that Sierra Club had organizational standing to sue the company and can seek injunctive relief at the Rush Island coal plant, which the judge previously determined violated NSR. The group along with DOJ had submitted a March 27 remedy trial brief asking Sippel to force the company to obtain a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit as well as pollution offsets at a nearby plant.
In February, Sippel rejected Ameren’s novel claim that he lacks Clean Air Act authority to order injunctive relief to remedy past harm, dismissing what sources described as a long-shot argument that runs counter to what EPA -- and federal courts -- have successfully been doing for decades.
But Ameren’s March 27 remedy trial brief argues it should not have to get a PSD permit because local air quality is excellent and because the plant’s contribution to local pollution is miniscule.
The company also notes that had it “known that the projects would trigger PSD, then, like any reasonable operator, it would have taken other actions -- like capping emissions, or installing dry sorbent injection [DSI] technology -- to avoid an emissions increase.”
Now, “Given excellent local air quality and the plant’s lower emissions along with the narrow purposes of the PSD program, the potential burdens on ratepayers, and the other equitable considerations like fair notice and penalty issues, Ameren proposes that an equitable remedy would be: 1. Installing [DSI technology] at both Rush Island units, which reduces emissions by 50 percent,” and obtaining a minor source permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to set an enforceable annual emission limit.
It also asks for “no mitigation relief,” arguing there are no “excess” emissions “because operating without a PSD permit is not unlawful, and it is black letter law that no mitigation is required for a lawful act.”
This claim hinges on a 2010 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Sierra Club v. Otter Tail, that held a failure to get a permit is a one-time, non-continuing violation “with the notion that operations occurring after that one-time violation must be remediated. Plaintiffs have provided absolutely no reason why Otter Tail does not control.”
It adds if the court disagrees and requires mitigation, “then retiring an appropriate number of Ameren’s emissions allowances under the Cross-State Air Pollution Program would constitute full mitigation.”
Meanwhile, DOJ and Sierra Club say Sippel should force the plant to come into compliance with the air law and require additional emission cuts at the nearby Labadie coal plant as a way to rectify the harms of excess sulfur dioxide emissions over the years.
“In 2007 and 2010, Ameren performed the largest boiler upgrades in the history of its Rush Island power plant. But Ameren failed to obtain the requisite PSD permits for those modifications, and it failed to implement state-of-the-art pollution controls. Had Ameren complied with the law, Rush Island would have emitted tens of thousands of tons less sulfur dioxide in following years,” the filing says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/key-nsr-trial-begins-parties-spar-over-remedy
-
Kerry Goes After Trump Over Climate on Capitol Hill
Apr 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
Former Secretary of State John Kerry swiped at President Trump while voicing concerns about the effects of global climate change on U.S. national security during an appearance Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who both served under former President Obama, referred to climate change as a multiplier effect on a number of pressing security issues while testifying during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing.
“Unfortunately, instead of mobilizing efforts to fight climate change, President Trump has attacked the science, weakened environmental protections and undermined U.S. leadership abroad,” Kerry told lawmakers.
“I understand there may be differences of opinion on how we should respond, but there should be no uncertainty about whether we should respond. … Each day that we fail to act on climate change, we are risking the health and security of future generations.”
Kerry and Hagel mentioned climate change's effects on migration patterns, the security of military infrastructure, recruitment of terrorists and food security. They also put a focus on extreme weather events.
“This past year’s extreme weather has seriously affected our military readiness,” Hagel said, naming military bases that have recently been damaged by severe weather.
The former Obama Cabinet members also took aim at Trump’s plan to form a committee to re-evaluate the scientific consensus surrounding climate change, with Kerry referring to the plan as “a scheme to pretend there are two sides to an issue long since settled.”
A growing number of agencies have informed the National Security Council that they do not plan to participate in the climate committee. A number of security experts have also voiced concern over the climate’s potential impact, with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats saying that climate change would increase “the risk of social unrest, migration and interstate tension.”
Kerry, who was involved in negotiations on the Paris climate accord during the Obama administration, said Tuesday that millions of people may “have to move because they can’t eat, can't drink. The instability that is created would be manna from heaven for extremists."
"That becomes the concern of our military that has people posted around the world in these locations, fighting terrorism, trying to protect the United States of America. The best protection is to try and take away the causes of these things before they happen. Don’t allow them to just build up and inundate us," he said.
The hearing, scheduled by Democrats in control of the Oversight committee, was put on to address the intersection of climate change and national security, but several Republicans on the panel used their speaking time to slam the Green New Deal introduced earlier this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other progressives, which is aimed at combatting climate change.
Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) told the committee he plans to try and force a House vote on the Green New Deal once Congress returns from its Easter recess.
“The Green New Deal as a resolution is important because it sets forth a precedent, a clear choice for the American people. It sets forth a clear choice between two parties on a very important issue,” Hice said, characterizing the policy as increasing household energy bills, eliminating fossil fuels and requiring removal of a large portion of U.S. vehicles off the road.
“On the other side you have groups that believe in free market enterprise, believe in federalism, believe competition, capitalism, believe that the best way to address this is to get the federal government out of it,” he added.
Ocasio-Cortez, who sits on the Oversight panel, argued that many Republicans are criticizing a bill they have failed to read, simply referring to policies they don’t like as "socialism."
Kerry went after Republicans for failing to put forward their own climate bill while defending Ocasio-Cortez, saying she has "in fact offered more leadership in one day or one week than President Trump has in his lifetime on this topic."
Many Republicans also came to the defense of energy industries associated with their state.
“We all live on this earth, and we all breath the same air, but my colleagues on other side of the country will never understand what the energy industry means to my state,” said Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.).
But Kerry maintained that it was the free market, not regulations, that led to the demise of the coal industry in Miller’s home state.
“The truth is, congresswoman, solar today is cheaper than coal. It is. And the marketplace has made its decision. It’s not Congress that has decided that coal plants are closing. It’s the market. There’s not an American bank that will fund a new coal-fired power plant,” he said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/438084-kerry-goes-after-trump-over-climate-on-capitol-hill
-
The Problem With Putting a Price on the End of the World
Apr 10, 2019 | The New York Times
By David Leonhardt
On a Saturday afternoon in early December, inside a soaring auditorium on the campus of Stockholm University, William Nordhaus gave the crowning lecture of his half-century career as an economist. The occasion was his acceptance of the Nobel Prize in economics, which Nordhaus, a trim, soft-spoken Yale professor, had been jointly awarded. The title of the lecture was “Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics.”
As a young professor on a sabbatical in Vienna in the mid-1970s, Nordhaus happened to share an office with an environmental researcher, who helped spark his interest in the emerging issue. While there, Nordhaus came up with the target, now famous, of holding global warming to two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. He chose the target, as he recently explained to me, because he believed that the earth has experienced similar fluctuations before and that humans had tolerated them.
The Nobel was a tribute to the originality and influence of his work developing economic models that help people think about how to slow climate change. It also seemed to be a cri de coeur from the Swedish academics who choose the economics laureates: Climate change is a threat like no other. Fatal heat waves, droughts, wildfires and severe hurricanes are all becoming more common, and they are almost certain to accelerate. Avoiding horrific damage, as a United Nations panel of scientists recently concluded, will require changes in human behavior that have “no documented historic precedent.”
In his speech, Nordhaus explained that people use too much dirty energy because they don’t have to pay the true costs it imposes on the world: pollution-related health problems in the short term and climate change in the long term. Economists refer to these costs as externalities, because they are not naturally part of the market system. “We have a climate problem,” Nordhaus said, “because markets fail, and fail badly, in the energy sector.” The only solution, he argued, was for governments to raise the price of emissions.
Economists and other policy experts have long focused on this idea of carbon pricing. It can take the form of a carbon tax, as Nordhaus prefers. Or the pricing can be embedded in a system of permits known as cap-and-trade, as President Barack Obama and other Democrats proposed in their 2009 bill to address climate change. Either way, the underlying concept is simple. When a product becomes more expensive, people use less of it. Carbon pricing is an elegant mechanism by which market economics can work on behalf of the climate rather than against it.
But if the idea’s straightforwardness is its great economic advantage, it has also proved to be its political flaw. Energy, for utilities and transportation, is a major cost of living. And across the industrialized world, the middle class and the poor have been struggling with slow income growth. As Nordhaus acknowledged in his speech, curbing dirty energy by raising its price “may be good for nature, but it’s not actually all that attractive to voters to reduce their income.”
The timing of Nordhaus’s Nobel Prize highlighted this political problem. While he was onstage, demonstrators in France were marching against gas-tax increases in raucous protests — the so-called yellow-vest movement — that shut down the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower. This is “the ultimate challenge” that Nordhaus was describing. Climate change may be an existential crisis, but in their day-to-day lives, many people are more worried about the problems created by the most obvious solution than by climate change itself.
Which helps explain why climate activists have recently begun to change their political strategy. The cherished idea of economists, carbon pricing, is losing favor and being supplanted by ideas that seek to invert the political logic. Rather than broadcast the necessary sacrifices, as taxes and cap-and-trade schemes do, the alternatives try to play them down and instead emphasize the benefits of less pollution. These alternatives — like clean-energy mandates and subsidies — are less efficient than carbon pricing, as skeptics like Nordhaus point out. They don’t harness market forces to the same degree, and they don’t necessarily affect the entire economy. But they still have the potential to make a real difference, and in some places, like California, they already have. The question is whether any policy is both big enough to matter and popular enough to happen.
The question is whether any policy is both big enough to matter and popular enough to happen.
Carbon pricing’s recent losing streak arguably began in the United States during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, in 2009 and 2010. Those years were the most successful period for progressive legislation since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. Obama signed a huge federal stimulus bill, toughened Wall Street regulation and extended health insurance to some 20 million people. The one major piece of Democratic legislation that failed was the climate bill, which was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
Since that failure, some progressives have wondered if Obama and other party leaders could have passed the bill if only they had tried harder. The answer is unknowable, but I think the evidence suggests that the bill died for more fundamental reasons. Spending federal money to prevent a depression is popular. So are cracking down on Wall Street and expanding health insurance. Raising the price of energy is not.
In the years since the bill’s failure, the story has repeated itself elsewhere. In Australia, a Labor Party-led government put in place a carbon tax in 2012, only to be swept from office the next year by conservatives who ran on an “ax the tax” platform. In France, to quell the yellow-vest protests, President Emmanuel Macron’s government withdrew its gas-tax increase late last year. In the United States, voters in Washington — a blue state — rejected a ballot initiative last year that would have created a carbon tax, by a vote of 57 percent to 43 percent. And in places that have imposed a price on carbon, like the European Union, California and some other states, it tends to be too low to be effective.
Perhaps the most encouraging example for carbon-tax advocates has been Canada. The province of British Columbia enacted a carbon tax in 2008, and it has worked well. It includes a clever provision to reduce political opposition: Every dollar that is raised is returned to families and businesses through tax credits. An all-star roster of Nobel laureates and former Republican and Democratic presidential appointees — including Treasury Secretaries George Shultz and Lawrence Summers and the Federal Reserve chiefs Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan — recently signed a joint statement in favor of a similar carbon tax for the United States. But it remains a long shot in this era of government distrust. Even in Canada, the politics have become trickier. A nationwide carbon-pricing plan went into effect this year, and conservative leaders are fighting it intensely.
All these struggles have led activists to have second thoughts about carbon pricing. John Podesta, who helped direct climate policy in the Obama administration, told me that a new political strategy was necessary. The Green New Deal — a progressive wish list on the issue — includes neither a carbon tax nor a cap-and-trade system. Foreign Affairs recently ran an article with the headline “Why Carbon Pricing Isn’t Working,” by Jeffrey Ball, a former energy reporter at The Wall Street Journal. Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican who spent six years as the top United Nations climate official, told me: “An economist would probably argue that the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gases is to put a price on carbon. But efficient is not always what can be attained from a political perspective. I would rather move now on what we can do than wait for economists’ perfection.”
When I began writing columns in The Times about climate policy more than a decade ago, I, too, was strongly in favor of carbon pricingas the best strategy for attacking climate change. But two big things have changed since then. The financial crisis and its aftermath intensified many families’ economic problems. Income growth has since been sluggish. Amazingly, the wealth of the median American household has fallen 30 percent since 2007, according to the most recent Federal Reserve data, making higher energy costs an even harder sell.
The second change is political. A decade ago, there was reason to think that carbon pricing could be bipartisan. It borrows from the best traditions of liberalism and conservatism by using the government to address a failure of the private market while still relying on that market. President George H.W. Bush’s administration used a pricing scheme to solve the problem of acid rain. John McCain favored such a carbon scheme.
'An economist would probably argue that the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gases is to put a price on carbon. But efficient is not always what can be attained from a political perspective.'
Today, however, the Republican Party has become radicalized. It opposes once-bipartisan ideas as a matter of course: an assault-weapons ban, Obamacare (which was shaped by ideas from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney) and virtually any effort to slow climate change. The G.O.P.’s radical turn means that climate activists can no longer search for a compromise between the two parties, in the hope that their leaders will try to sell it to skeptical voters. Republicans have made clear that they will instead stoke the skepticism for their own ends. Doing so pleases the oil and coal industries, which are generous campaign donors. It also helps win elections. To a lesser degree, the conservative parties in Australia and Canada are mimicking this strategy.
In response, climate activists are realizing that they instead need to find policies that are popular enough to survive the inevitable attacks on them.
“The whole question with climate is, What’s your theory of political change?” Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager and Democratic political donor, told me recently. We met for lunch at a cafe on Capitol Hill, ostensibly to talk about the issue for which he has become famous — advocating President Trump’s impeachment. But the environment was Steyer’s first political focus, and we spent most of the lunch discussing it.
In 2017, not long after Trump’s victory, NextGen America, Steyer’s climate-advocacy group, went looking for ways to make progress at the state level. With Trump in the White House, it was clear that the federal government would be moving in the wrong direction on environmental policy. NextGen officials decided to choose a few states where success might make a difference and send a political signal. “We wanted to try to get some wins that weren’t in very liberal, very Democratic places,” said Jamison Foser, a senior adviser at NextGen. They ultimately settled on three states, none reliably blue: Arizona, Michigan and Nevada.
In all three, NextGen and its allies worked to put an initiative on the ballot that would require local utilities to use much more renewable energy, like solar and wind. The proposed increases were big: Every state would need to more than double the share of its renewable energy by 2030. This kind of requirement is known as a performance standard, and it has a long history of success in many fields, reducing house fires, medical errors, deaths in car accidents and the use of lead paint and asbestos.
On energy, California is a good case study. Its cap-and-trade program has been disappointing. Its performance standards have worked better. In 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican, committed the state to reducing its carbon emissions to their 1990 level by 2020. He and state legislators later gave regulators the authority to require more clean-energy use by local utilities.
This sort of mandate is not the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions, as economists like to point out. It requires regulators to choose reasonable benchmarks for different companies — or to set a uniform one that all must meet. Carbon pricing, if aggressive enough, encourages bigger reductions from companies that can cut their emissions more cheaply.
But the downsides of performance standards are often exaggerated. Most Americans are surely happy to pay a small amount more for their homes, for instance, if their children no longer have to ingest lead paint. And the initial skepticism about California’s plan appears to have been misplaced. Critics predicted that the state wouldn’t be able to meet its goal without hurting its economy. They were wrong: The state met its goal four years early, by 2016. The costs to consumers were modest and hard to notice. John Podesta told me he considered California’s approach a model for future federal action.
The key political advantage is that performance standards focus voters on the end goal, rather than on the technocratic mechanism for achieving it. Carbon pricing puts attention on the mechanism, be it a dreaded tax or a byzantine cap-and-trade system. Mechanisms don’t inspire people. Mechanisms are easy to caricature as big-government bureaucracy. Think about the debate over Obamacare: When the focus was on mechanisms — insurance mandates, insurance exchanges and the like — the law was not popular. When the focus shifted to basic principles — Do sick people deserve health insurance? — the law became much more so.
Even some strong advocates of carbon pricing have come to see this point. Nathaniel Keohane, the head of the climate program at the Environmental Defense Fund, which helped design the original cap-and-trade program for acid rain, puts it this way: “If we’re going to succeed on climate policy, it will be by giving people a vision of what’s in it for them, a positive vision of how it matters for their life and their kids.” Too often in the past, he said, climate activists failed to do that. “We really led with, and let us ourselves be defined by, the policy mechanism rather than the outcome we were striving for. You need to be able to inspire people.”
In Arizona, Michigan and Nevada, Steyer’s group was trying to put a simple question in front of voters: Should their state use more clean energy? According to the polls that Foser and his NextGen colleagues studied, as many as 80 percent of Americans say yes to that question.
This framing is crucial. When voters think about clean energy rather than climate change, some of the usual partisan patterns break down. Even many Republican voters support clean energy. In Michigan, the recently departed Republican governor, Rick Snyder, helped negotiate a 2016 deal that created performance standards for utilities. After signing the bill, he claimed it would reduce energy costs.
The Michigan ballot initiative’s goal was to make the 2016 law more ambitious. And the politics looked so favorable that the two largest utilities basically dropped their opposition. Months before Election Day, they pre-emptively agreed to increase their renewables share to 25 percent by 2030. It wasn’t quite the 30 percent level in the initiative, but it avoided the risk of defeat and let activists focus elsewhere. The activists took the deal and canceled the initiative.
In Nevada, the measure did get on the ballot, and the campaign in favor of it has some lessons for winning future fights. The messages were simple and powerful. They focused on the immediate benefits from clean-energy use, like fewer health problems, lower medical costs and more jobs that pay well. As Steyer said to me, “If you don’t talk about health issues and jobs, then you’ve got nothing to talk about.” In one ad, a white-coat-clad doctor in Carson City describes the damage air pollution does to the lungs and brains of her patients in northern Nevada. “It’s just a disaster, health-wise,” she says. In another ad, a woman named Jennifer Cantley becomes teary-eyed when talking about having to check the air quality each day before letting her son, who has asthma, go outside to play with his friends.
This approach does not eliminate opposition. A conservative coalition ran a campaign against the measure, claiming that it would increase energy costs. But the state’s largest utility, NV Energy, mostly stayed out of the fight. It will still be able to earn big profits from renewable energy, albeit probably not quite as big. In the end, the initiative passed, 59 percent to 41 percent.
'If we’re going to succeed on climate policy, it will be by giving people a vision of what’s in it for them.'
The story in Arizona was very different. The utility there, Arizona Public Service, is powerful and aggressive, and it fought hard against the initiative. Crucially, the office of the state’s attorney general, who has received campaign donations from the utility, added five words to the ballot question: “irrespective of cost to consumers.” “They basically placed an ad against the measure in the measure,” Steyer said. It failed to pass, 69 percent to 31 percent.
That loss shows that there are no guaranteed formulas for success in climate politics. If the oil and coal industries decide to fight, they can expend a lot of money and power. But the experiences in Arizona, Michigan and Nevada — not to mention California — at least clarify the political dynamics. When the debate is about the cost of living, climate activists are in trouble. When it’s about clean energy or people’s health, they have a much better chance.
The highest-profile current attempt to redefine climate policy is the Green New Deal. In February, two Democrats — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House and Ed Markey in the Senate — released a 14-page resolution calling for a huge federal effort to fight climate change.
The Green New Deal, as the name suggests, is essentially a program to create good jobs and simultaneously expand the use of clean energy, mostly through federal spending and performance standards. The resolution quickly became a symbol of the Democratic Party’s insurgent progressives, attracting criticism from the right and the center. Some of the criticism was fair. The resolution is too vague to be rigorously analyzed; it’s a statement of principles, not a detailed policy. In places, the Green New Deal puts more emphasis on left-wing priorities than on fighting climate change. It mentions “repairing historic oppression” yet omits nuclear power.
Still, the core idea in the Green New Deal is one shared by the left and the establishment center-left. (Remember that Markey, who is hardly a socialist, also had his name on the Obama-era cap-and-trade bill.) Even Nordhaus says, “I laud the spirit of the Green New Deal.” The idea also happens to be popular with the public, polls show. Most voters support clean energy and, after four decades of slow-growing living standards, also support federal action to create good jobs.
Rhiana Gunn-Wright, a 29-year-old Rhodes scholar, works for the think tank New Consensus and helped design the Green New Deal. When I spoke with her, I was struck by her sense of political realism and how different it was from the old definition. For a long time, environmental activists have shown an almost compulsive — and in many ways admirable — honesty. They have chosen policies, like carbon taxes, that emphasize the downsides: Energy prices will rise. The Green New Deal and the recent clean-energy ballot initiatives do the reverse. They emphasize the benefits of clean energy and minimize the downsides. “There is a lot of anxiety and uncertainty in America today,” Gunn-Wright said. “Any solution that is tied to tangible economic benefits is going to have a better chance of passing.”
The Green New Deal obviously cannot wish away the costs of replacing dirty energy. Government subsidies for clean energy require tax dollars, and performance standards for utilities will almost certainly cause prices to rise. But as the experience in California, among other places, has shown, a switch to cleaner energy is not as expensive as many people fear. The price of solar and wind power has fallen sharply in recent years and will most likely fall further. The problem with the failed carbon-pricing schemes of recent years has not been the actual price increases they would inflict on families but the perceived price increases. Either a carbon tax or a Green New Deal would impose manageable costs, but those incurred by the Green New Deal are likely to be less visible.
And the potential benefits are large, as real-world examples attest. Other countries, especially Germany and China, have rapidly expanded their clean-energy production through public subsidies. The United States could do the same. When Washington has invested in nascent industries in the past, the return has been fantastic. The successes have easily paid for the failures. The internet, the pharmaceutical industry and fracking (its environmental impacts aside) are among many examples. In addition to research funding, a Green New Deal could also expand performance standards to sectors beyond utilities, like transportation.
If the next president were able to sign an ambitious version of the Green New Deal, it would not be nearly enough to solve the climate crisis. The problem is enormous and global. But most scientists believe that a large reduction in carbon emissions over the next few decades could greatly reduce the destruction — and a large reduction in emissions remains possible.
And what about putting a price on carbon?
To Nordhaus and some other economists, it remains the only policy powerful enough to be worth the effort. I understand where they’re coming from. Carbon pricing would affect every industry and every household. It would have cascading benefits, giving the private sector an incentive to invest more in clean energy. But recent history offers reason to be skeptical that focusing entirely on pricing would make its achievement any more likely.
The better bet seems to be an “all of the above” approach: Organize a climate movement around meaningful policies with a reasonable chance of near-term success, but don’t abandon the hope of carbon pricing. Most climate activists, including those skeptical of a carbon tax, agree about this. Gunn-Wright says she is open to a price on carbon. NextGen’s Foser says he thinks the next federal climate bill should err on the side of ambition. Podesta, who has spent as much time as anyone thinking about how to pass federal legislation on climate change, says he thinks a carbon price needs to be in a bill, so long as it isn’t the focus. One option, he suggested, would be a carbon price that was both delayed until future years and initially low, increasing later. Such a price could still have a major effect on investments in clean energy, because those investments tend to be long-term.
The sad truth is that climate politics are probably not going remain as they are today. The future will almost certainly bring increasing harm, though more extreme weather. Eventually, some Republican politicians, especially in coastal states, may be willing to break with party leaders on the issue. Eventually, Americans may decide to punish politicians who deny or play down climate change. By the time a price on carbon took effect, it might not be so unpopular anymore. But we can’t wait for the politics to change to begin taking action.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/09/magazine/climate-change-politics-economics.html
-
Missing Climate Goals Will Cost Investors, Firm Warns
Apr 10, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Climatewire)
By William Wilkes and Christopher Flavelle
Investors be warned: If the planet heats up by more than 2 degrees, it's going to get a lot harder to make money.
That's the conclusion of investment advisory firm Mercer LLC, which modeled the financial fallout from 2, 3 and 4 degrees Celsius of global warming through 2100 in a report released Monday.
The report marks one of the first attempts to model sector-specific investment risks from climate change over decades. If warming is limited to no more than 2 degrees, coal and other fossil fuels lose the most in value, because countries have shifted toward cleaner energy. If temperatures rise further, sectors with the biggest losses will include industrials and agriculture.
"Asset owners should consider climate change at every stage of the investment process, from investment beliefs, policy and process to portfolio construction decisions," said Deb Clarke, global head of investment research for Mercer, which is owned by Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc.
The warning is the latest from the financial sector of the physical and financial risks posed by rising temperatures. While some investment strategists think climate change will offer opportunities, others warn of physical and social damage cascading across the economy.
Limiting global warming to 2 degrees would cause significant losses between now and 2030 in coal, oil and gas, and electric utilities, according to the report. Those losses would be offset by higher returns on renewable energy investments.
"On the 2-degree scenario, our broad view is that the impact overall on GDP is pretty negligible," Steven Sowden, a principal at Mercer and one of the report's authors, said in a phone interview.
If warming is allowed to exceed that level, however, investors would have few good options.
Three degrees of warming would spare most of the energy sector from significant losses, Mercer found, with the exception of coal. But the damage from extreme weather events would cause negative returns for almost every other sector between now and 2030, including financials, agriculture, industrials and consumer staples.
Those losses would accelerate by 2050. For most sectors, the effects of 4 degrees of warming would be even worse.
Mercer said its model suggests climate change would depress the economy and weigh on interest rates. While most first-world government bonds could benefit from investors seeking safe havens against climate risks, Australia and New Zealand government bonds could be sensitive to physical damage caused by extreme weather events and resource scarcity.
Worldwide real estate would also suffer a net loss, Sowden said. While rising seas and more intense hurricanes would likely push people inland, increasing the value of land that is now sparsely inhabited, those gains would be swamped by the loss in value — or simply the outright loss — of wide swaths of coastal property. The land that remains inhabitable would become increasingly expensive to insure.
"These scenarios are negative for global growth, and they're not really great for anyone," Sowden said. Among the few areas of the economy he said were likely to have positive returns in a beyond-2-degrees scenario: disaster-mitigation infrastructure, such as flood-wall defenses.
Mercer recommends governments take action to stick to their Paris 2015 climate goal commitments, and that investors increase their holdings of sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy assets to take advantage of the shift.
While scientists are cautious to link any single weather event to global warming, they've built consensus around the probability that more powerful floods, fires, droughts and storms will occur with greater frequency as the Earth gets hotter.
The United Nations wants to hold average temperature increases to well below 2 degrees Celsius, which would still represent the quickest shift in the climate since the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago.
Extreme weather events are the most threatening global risks this year, the World Economic Forum said in a report published in January. That same month, the U.S. Defense Department warned climate change could compromise U.S. security, with rising seas increasing flood risk to military bases and drought-fueled wildfires endangering those inland.
As those warnings multiply, some fund managers have been slow to incorporate the dangers of global warming into their investment decisions, Sowden said. But as climate change advances, asset prices could quickly shift to reflect the risk — something he said is likely to happen within the next five years.
"If the market starts to price in these impacts, it could start to have material impacts, especially at the sector level, in a relatively short period of time," Sowden said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/10/stories/1060151253
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested