Top News

Trump EPA Finalizes Rollback Of Key Obama Climate Rule That Targeted Coal Plants. According to the Washington Post, “The Trump administration finalized its biggest climate policy rollback Wednesday, requiring the U.S. power sector to cut its 2030 carbon emissions 35 percent over 2005 levels — less than half of what experts calculate is needed to avert catastrophic warming of the planet. The Affordable Clean Energy rule, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, demands much smaller carbon dioxide reductions than the industry is already on track to achieve, even without federal regulation. As of last year, the U.S. power sector had cut its greenhouse gas emissions 27 percent compared with 2005. Addressing an audience of supporters, including coal miners from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the new policy will overturn a climate policy that would have imposed higher costs on low- and middle-income Americans. ‘That means cleaner and more affordable energy for the American public,’ he said. The new rule comes as many companies and dozens of states wrestle with how to curb greenhouse gas emissions, despite President Trump’s rejection of the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is already triggering major climate impacts, including increased droughts, wildfires and intense storms. It reverses the Obama administration’s 2015 regulation, Clean Power Plan, that would have forced the power sector to switch from coal-fired generation to lower-carbon fuels such as natural gas, solar and wind.” [Washington Post, 6/19/19 (=)]

Under Trump, US Air Quality Slips For The First Time In Years. According to MSNBC, “In recent months, whenever Donald Trump is asked about the climate crisis, the president responds by talking about air quality – as if they were the same thing. They’re not. But Trump keeps pretending anyway, even going so far as to argue that air quality in the United States has improved since he took office. At a recent event in Ireland, the Republican boasted, ‘We have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it’s gotten better since I’m president.’ Trump added at a campaign rally last night, ‘We have among the cleanest and sharpest – crystal clean, you’ve heard me say it, I want it crystal clean – air and water anywhere on Earth.’ There are three relevant angles to this. The first is that it’s a clumsy way to dodge questions about the climate crisis. The second is that Trump’s claims about U.S. air quality are wrong. And third, as the Associated Press reported yesterday, U.S. air quality has actually gotten worse since Trump became president.” [MSNBC, 6/19/19 (+)]

Wehrum, King, Nichols Headline Auto Rule Hearing. According to Politico, “Top EPA and Transportation Department officials will likely face intense grilling from Democrats today at a joint hearing of two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees on the Trump administration’s proposed rollback of auto emissions standards. Headlining are EPA air chief Bill Wehrum and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration head Heidi King. Another high-profile witness, California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, will appear on a separate, overstuffed panel that includes officials from Louisiana and Colorado, industry representatives and other experts. The rule is expected to be finalized in the coming months. Wehrum will say the administration ‘aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles,’ according to a prepared statement. Nichols won’t pull her punches. In her prepared testimony, she complains that both ‘EPA’s professional staff and California’s engineers were cut out of this proposal’s development’ and argues that the oil industry pushed for the rollback by influencing the ‘former oil and coal industry lobbyists and lawyers who now work in leadership at the agency.’ Dept. of Investigations: E&C Democrats on Wednesday launched an investigation into whether the oil and refinery industries influenced the auto deregulatory push, Zack Colman reports.” [Politico, 6/20/19 (=)]

Trump’s U.N. Nominee Breaks With The President On Climate Change. According to the Washington Post, “President Trump’s nominee to serve as the next ambassador to the United Nations publicly broke with him on climate change Wednesday, stating at her Senate confirmation hearing that she believes fossil fuels and human behavior contribute to the planet’s shifting weather phenomena — but stopping short of endorsing a return to international pacts such as the Paris climate agreement. Kelly Knight Craft, now the U.S. ambassador to Canada, stressed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ‘human behavior has contributed to the change in climate. Let there be no doubt.’ ‘I also understand that fossil fuels have played a part in climate change,’ she later added. But Craft rejected urging the United States to make a return to the Paris agreement, warning that such pacts could ‘imperil’ American jobs. ‘We don’t feel like we have to be part of an agreement to be leaders,’ she told senators, also arguing that the United States’ withdrawal was legitimate because ‘we expected other countries to step up, and while they did commit, they really were not serious.’ Democrats had voiced concerns about how Craft would address climate change because of her family’s investments — totaling tens of millions of dollars — in the fossil fuel industry. Craft pledged she would recuse herself from negotiations or meetings related to coal and potentially fossil fuels, promising to follow whatever ethics guidance she was given on oil and gas matters as well.” [Washington Post, 6/19/19 (=)]

House Committee Forwards Bills To Bar Offshore Drilling Across US. According to The Hill, “Lawmakers gave initial approval to bipartisan measures to bar offshore drilling across the U.S. in a Wednesday meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee. The committee advanced bills that would bar drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida shorelines. ‘The limited economic benefit oil and gas exploration might have is dwarfed by the ongoing importance of our sustainable economies that depend on clean beaches,’ said Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), who campaigned on barring offshore drilling. Cunningham said another oil spill like 2010’s Deepwater Horizon would devastate South Carolina’s economy. ‘It’s pretty cut and dry where I come from. We don’t want it and we don’t need it,’ he said of offshore oil development. The Trump administration has pushed an energy dominance strategy that includes further offshore drilling, but Interior Secretary David Bernhardt has yet to unveil the department’s five-year offshore drilling plan, citing the uncertainty surrounding an Alaska case that blocks development there. A number of lawmakers have worked to bar offshore drilling near their states before it can be included in the plan, but Florida’s delegation, including its Republican members, has been particularly vocal.” [The Hill, 6/20/19 (=)]

With More Storms And Rising Seas, Which U.S. Cities Should Be Saved First? According to the New York Times, “As disaster costs keep rising nationwide, a troubling new debate has become urgent: If there’s not enough money to protect every coastal community from the effects of human-caused global warming, how should we decide which ones to save first? After three years of brutal flooding and hurricanes in the United States, there is growing consensus among policymakers and scientists that coastal areas will require significant spending to ride out future storms and rising sea levels — not in decades, but now and in the very near future. There is also a growing realization that some communities, even sizable ones, will be left behind. New research offers one way to look at the enormity of the cost as policymakers consider how to choose winners and losers in the race to adapt to climate change. By 2040, simply providing basic storm-surge protection in the form of sea walls for all coastal cities with more than 25,000 residents will require at least $42 billion, according to new estimates from the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental advocacy group. Expanding the list to include communities smaller than 25,000 people would increase that cost to more than $400 billion. ‘Once you get into it, you realize we’re just not going to protect a lot of these places,’ said Richard Wiles, the center’s executive director. ‘This is the next wave of climate denial — denying the costs that we’re all facing.’” [New York Times, 6/19/19 (=)]

Rising Temperatures Ravage The Himalayas, Rapidly Shrinking Its Glaciers. According to the New York Times, “Climate change is ‘eating’ the glaciers of the Himalayas, posing a grave threat to hundreds of millions of people who live downstream, a study based on 40 years of satellite data has shown. The study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, concluded that the glaciers have lost a foot and a half of ice every year since 2000, melting at a far faster pace than in the previous 25-year period. In recent years, the glaciers have lost about eight billion tons of water a year. The study’s authors described it as equivalent to the amount of water held by 3.2 million Olympic-size swimming pools. The study adds to a growing and grim body of work that points to the dangers of global warming for the Himalayas, which are considered the water towers of Asia and an insurance policy against drought. In February, a report produced by the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development warned that the Himalayas could lose up to a third of their ice by the end of the century, even if the world can fulfill its most ambitious goal of keeping global average temperatures from rising only 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels.” [New York Times, 6/19/19 (=)]

CPP/ACE

E.P.A. Finalizes Its Plan To Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration on Wednesday replaced former President Barack Obama’s effort to reduce planet-warming pollution from coal plants with a new rule that would allow plants to stay open longer and slow progress on cutting carbon emissions. While the Obama plan would have set national emissions limits and mandated the reconstruction of power grids to move utilities away from coal, the new measure gives states broad authority to decide how far, if at all, to scale back emissions. ‘The Affordable Clean Energy rule gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide affordable energy to all Americans,’ Andrew Wheeler, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said Wednesday as he introduced the new measure. Mr. Wheeler said that the Obama administration overreached its authority with its rule, Clean Power Plan, which was suspended by the Supreme Court after challenges from 28 states and hundreds of companies. The new rule is also likely prompt a flurry of legal challenges, this time from environmental groups, that could have far-reaching implications for global warming.” [New York Times, 6/19/19 (=)]

EPA Overturns Obama-Era Clean Air Rules For Power Plants. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency overturned Obama-era climate rules for power plants, vastly limiting the agency’s ability to mandate tougher greenhouse-gas emission regulations that could force older coal- and gas-fired plants to close. The EPA estimates that the new plan announced Wednesday, combined with industry trends, will cut U.S. power-plant emissions 35% by 2030 from 2005 levels. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the plan will keep power costs more affordable for working-class Americans. ‘These provisions will give states and the private sector the regulatory certainty they need to invest in new technologies that are more efficient and reduce emissions,’ Mr. Wheeler said. But environmentalists say the targets aren’t tough enough, since power plants already had cut their carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% between 2005 and 2016 as the industry began a massive shift toward burning less coal and more natural gas. The move is one of the most significant steps yet by the Trump administration to roll back climate policy, eliminating rules designed to force an industrywide decrease in emissions. Instead, the EPA plans to regulate the industry on a plant-by-plant basis, according to the summary, and will allow older plants to keep operating as they adopt improved, more-efficient technology.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump's Climate Rule Rollback Could Undermine Public Health. According to the Washington Post, “It’s not just climate change that could suffer under the Trump administration’s climate policy rollback. There could be public health effects, too. More coal-fired power plants probably will stay open under the Affordable Clean Energy rule, signed yesterday by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler. Obama-era rules placing strict limits on the power sector’s emissions would have gradually phased out coal-fired power generation faster than competition from cheaper electricity sources, including natural gas, solar and wind. But by making it easier for coal plants to keep operating, the new regulation makes more room for the pollutants these plants release. And these pollutants, which include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, are precursors to smog and soot, which can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, and even premature death. About 141 million Americans were exposed to unhealthy air between 2015 and 2017, according to a report by the American Lung Association. Of course, potential health effects are a sidebar to the question of how the administration’s new rule allows for less drastic reductions in carbon emissions than power plants would have otherwise pursued, and its bigger effects on the planet and climate change.” [Washington Post, 6/20/19 (=)]

Trump EPA Rolls Back Obama Rule On Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to the Associated Press, “The Trump administration on Wednesday completed one of its biggest rollbacks of environmental rules, replacing a landmark Obama-era effort that sought to wean the nation’s electrical grid off coal-fired power plants and their climate-damaging pollution. Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, signed a replacement rule that gives states leeway in deciding whether to require efficiency upgrades at existing coal plants. Wheeler said coal-fired power plants remained essential to the power grid, something that opponents deny. ‘Americans want reliable energy that they can afford,’ he said at a news conference. There’s no denying ‘the fact that fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of the mix,’ he said. Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va. was one of several coal country lawmakers on hand for the signing. He argued that power from the sun and wind was not yet reliable enough to depend on. ‘We’re not ready for renewable energy ... so we need coal.’ President Donald Trump campaigned partly on a pledge to bring back the coal industry, which has been hit hard by competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy.” [Associated Press, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Administration Replaces Obama-Era Power Plant Rule, In Boost To Coal. According to Reuters, “The Trump administration finalized a new carbon emissions rule for U.S. power plants on Wednesday that it said could cut pollution without damaging the coal industry, replacing a much tougher Obama-era version to fight climate change. The move was a boost to coal companies facing tough competition from natural gas, solar and wind energy suppliers, but infuriated environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers who said the regulation was too weak to significantly reduce emissions and would put public health at risk. The so-called Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule gives states three years to devise their own plans to cut emissions mainly by encouraging coal-fired power plants to improve their efficiency, the Environmental Protection Agency said. ‘Our ACE rule will incentivize new technology which will ensure coal plants will be part of a cleaner future,’ EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said at an event at agency headquarters attended by coal state lawmakers, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and a dozen coal miners in uniform. The ACE sets guidelines for states to develop performance standards for power plants to boost the amount of power produced relative to the amount of coal burned. It listed six existing ‘candidate technologies’ plants can use to do so, including duct leakage control and boiler feed pumps.” [Reuters, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Admin Submits Final Rule To Kill Obama Clean Power Plan. According to The Hill, “The Trump administration Wednesday finalized a rule to repeal and replace a capstone Obama-era carbon pollution regulation that they argue exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority. The new replacement rule to the Clean Power Plan (CPP), deemed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, aims to give states more time and authority to decide how to implement the best new technology to ease net emissions from coal-fired plants. ‘Under the CPP, the EPA Obama administration went beyond implementing best technology,’ said a senior EPA official on a call with reporters Wednesday. ‘Under the CPP the Obama administration actually imposed emissions reductions on each and every state. We don’t believe that’s an EPA role or authority under the [Clean Air Act.]’ The result of the relaxed rule, the official said, could mean individual coal plants might increase their overall emissions. But, the official said, across the board the agency expects emissions to drop. ‘We project that at full implementation, emissions from the sector will decrease. It’s possible that some emissions will go up but emissions rate will go down,’ the official said. ‘This regulation does not cap emissions, does not set a state-wide cape or a facility cap — we don’t cap emissions, we limit emissions rate.’ EPA officials estimated that under the rule the U.S. power sector would see CO2 emissions drop as much as 35 percent below 2005 levels.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump EPA Answer To Obama Clean Power Plan ‘Does Virtually Nothing‘ To Curb CO2. According to Roll Call, “The EPA finalized a rule Wednesday that would replace the Obama administration’s signature carbon emissions plan and give states more flexibility in emissions reduction, even as environmental advocates worry about the potential for increased pollution and threaten to sue. The Affordable Clean Energy rule is the Trump EPA’s answer to the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which for the first time set nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants across the country. The new rule combines a repeal of the Clean Power Plan with new, less stringent emissions reductions guidelines for states and power plants. The Clean Power Plan itself never went effect after 27 states and industry advocates filed a lawsuit, resulting in a stay by the Supreme Court. The case has remained in abeyance as the EPA wrote the ACE rule. The Clean Power Plan was too ‘federal-heavy’, and the new rule will rebalance the role of states and the federal government in emissions reduction, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum said during the announcement of the rule at the agency’s headquarters. States were required under the Clean Power Plan to devise strategies to start cutting emissions by 2022 from power plants and other high carbon-emitting energy sources, with a target of reducing carbon output by 32 percent below 2005 levels.” [Roll Call, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump’s EPA Just Replaced Obama’s Signature Climate Policy With A Much Weaker Rule. According to Vox, “The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday killed President Obama’s signature climate change policy, the Clean Power Plan (CPP). It’s one of the few definitive wins in the Trump administration’s full-court press to undo and weaken environmental regulations. Speaking before an audience that included coal miners wearing reflective shirts and hard hats, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler criticized the Obama policy, which required states to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and aimed to reduce US power sector emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. ‘The CPP would have asked low- and middle-income Americans to bear the costs of the previous administration’s climate plan,’ Wheeler said. ‘One analysis predicted double-digit electricity price increases in 40 states under the CPP.’ The EPA is still required to regulate greenhouse gases, but the CPP’s new replacement, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, is drastically weaker. The ACE rule would lower power sector emissions by 11 million tons by 2030, or between 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent. The EPA noted that long-term industry trends are expected to still push emissions down 35 percent, but that’s largely independent of the ACE rule.” [Vox, 6/19/19 (=)]

The Trump Administration Just Rolled Back Obama's Historic Climate Change Plan. According to VICE News, “The Trump administration scrapped a landmark climate change rule on Wednesday that was designed to lessen America’s dependence on coal-fired power plants. The Clean Power Plan was one of President Obama’s most iconic environmental efforts, and has been derided by Republicans since its inception. ‘Americans want reliable energy that they can afford,’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Andrew Wheeler said at a press conference on Wednesday, adding that ‘fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of the mix.’ Wheeler, once a lobbyist for the country’s largest coal mining company, replaced the Obama-era rule with one that encourages the revamping of aging, polluting power plants. Under the Clean Power Plan, these facilities would be phased out. Environmental groups and Democrats have predictably denounced the new rule, saying that by extending the lifetimes of coal-fired power plants, clean energy will continue to be cannibalized. The plan also prevents the federal government from setting broad emissions limits. Now, the EPA can only regulate ‘inside the fence line of’ plants on a piecemeal basis, reported the Wall Street Journal.” [VICE News, 6/19/19 (=)]

EPA Rolls Back Obama-Era Plan Limiting Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions. According to CNN, “The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday said states can set their own carbon emissions standards for coal-fired power plants -- a rule that the agency itself says could result in 1,400 more premature deaths by 2030 than the Obama-era plan it will replace. The move fulfills part of President Donald Trump’s promise to help the coal industry, but will likely face court challenges from environmental groups and several states who see the rollback as detrimental to clean air and efforts to fight the climate crisis. Former President Barack Obama’s plan, if implemented, would have prevented 3,600 premature deaths a year, 1,700 heart attacks and 90,000 asthma attacks, according to analysis conducted by the EPA under his tenure. The Obama Clean Power Plan was set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the climate crisis, by up to 32% compared to 2005 levels by the same year. ‘We are gathered here today because the American public elected a president with a better approach,’ EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Wednesday. ‘One of the President’s first acts in office was to issue an executive order to promote energy independence. In it, he instructed EPA to rescind, replace or revise the Clean Power Plan.’” [CNN, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Administration Weakens Climate Plan To Help Coal Plants Stay Open. According to NPR, “President Trump has thrown his latest lifeline to the ailing coal industry, significantly weakening one of former President Barack Obama’s key policies to address climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency released the final version of its Affordable Clean Energy rule on Wednesday. It’s supported by the coal industry, but it is not clear that it will be enough to stop more coal-fired power plants from closing. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler made the announcement at the agency’s headquarters before a crowd that included coal miners wearing work clothes and hard hats. Wheeler echoed arguments coal industry supporters have made, saying the Obama administration overstepped its authority under federal law when it issued the more sweeping Clean Power Plan in 2015. Unlike that plan, the new rule ‘adheres to the four corners of the Clean Air Act,’ Wheeler said. ‘EPA sets the best system of emission reductions, and then states set the standards of performance. This is how the Clean Air Act says the process should work.’ Gina McCarthy, who was EPA administrator during the Obama administration, maintains the rule she helped craft was legal. She criticized the Trump administration's new rule.” [NPR, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Deals Final Death Blow To The Planet. According to Vanity Fair, “In the 476 months that he’s been in office, Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that he would like the earth to die in a fire—literally. In that time he has abandoned the Paris climate agreement; unveiled a proposal to freeze rules on planet-warming pollution from cars and trucks; claimed wind turbines aren’t a viable source of energy because the sound they make ‘causes cancer’; and hired a guy who believes carbon dioxide has been demonized like ‘Jews under Hitler‘ to discredit the findings of 13 federal agencies that increased levels of CO2 pose a national emergency. But it was only today that his pièce de résistance, when it comes to letting climate change really rip, was officially put into place. On Wednesday, the administration officially replaced Barack Obama‘s Clean Power Plan with an alternative it cooked up called the Affordable Clean Energy rule. How do the regulations differ? Well: While Obama’s measure would have substantially reduced planet-killing pollution from coal plants, by setting national emissions limits and requiring the ‘reconstruction of power grids to move utilities away from coal,’ Trump’s rule will almost certainly increase levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by allowing states to decide how much they want to cut emissions. If they don’t want to cut them at all? That’s totally cool! (A 2018 joint study from Harvard, Syracuse, and Resources for the Future, a research organization showed that 18 states and D.C. would experience higher greenhouse emissions from the Trump rule; in 19 states, pollutants like nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions would increase.)” [Vanity Fair, 6/19/19 (+)]

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler Moves To Roll Back Coal-Fired Power Plant Rules. According to CBS News, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a final rule Wednesday that will undo Obama-era climate requirements for coal plants in a way the Trump administration insists will still reduce emissions. The new rule gives individual states wide discretion in deciding whether to require limited efficiency upgrades at individual coal-fired plants. The rule amounts to one of the Trump administration’s biggest rollbacks of environmental rules, replacing a landmark Obama-era effort that sought to wean the nation’s electrical grid off coal-fired power plants and their climate-damaging pollution. Wheeler claimed the rule will continue the United States’ ‘environmental progress legally and with the proper respect for the states.’ White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney claimed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan was ‘illegally’ and taxed hard-working Americans. Mr. Trump has campaigned on bringing back coal and coal jobs, even as the number of coal plants in America continues to decline. Supporters of the revised rule, like Mulvaney, say the Obama-era plan overstepped the EPA’s authority.” [CBS News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump’s EPA Announces New Plan To Save The Coal Industry. Experts Say It Won’t. According to Think Progress, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on Wednesday one of President Donald Trump’s biggest efforts yet to rescue coal, even as projections show the industry in a downward spiral largely due to market forces rather than policy. The agency unveiled the long-awaited Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, designed to repeal and replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aimed to curb climate change by lowering power plant carbon dioxide emissions. The Trump administration has repeatedly argued the CPP was a federal overreach, one the ACE rule seeks to correct. The CPP sought to reduce the power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions 32% by 2030, using 2005 levels as a baseline, largely by shifting to natural gas and renewable energy in a blow to coal. By contrast, Trump’s new ACE rule moves power to the states, giving those governments broad authority over coal emissions on a plant-by-plant basis. ‘ACE will continue our nation’s environmental progress and it will do so legally and with proper respect for the states,’ EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said during a press conference Wednesday while touting the ACE rule’s boon to coal.” [Think Progress, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Moves To Gut Obama Climate Policy And Bolster The Coal Industry. According to Los Angeles Times, “The Trump administration on Wednesday unveiled its final plan to rewrite a major Obama-era climate change policy, replacing proposed regulations that cracked down on coal-burning power plants with a weaker alternative. The administration’s plan would gut the Clean Power Plan, a sweeping climate change policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions drafted under President Obama. Stalled by the courts, the rule was never enacted. Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has branded the rewrite as the Affordable Clean Energy rule and designed it to fulfill the president’s campaign promise to bring back the coal industry. The new power plan does away with what had been aggressive nationwide goals for reducing the energy sector’s carbon footprint. It sets no targets, leaving that responsibility to individual states. And it assumes that gradual changes in the energy market will lead to the adoption of cleaner fuels, such that by 2030 carbon emissions from the electricity industry will have fallen 35% from 2005 levels.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump EPA Rolls Back Obama’s Coal Crackdown. According to Fox News, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Wednesday finalized the agency’s plan for replacing Obama-era regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants, part of a long-running effort by the Trump administration to roll back environmental rules. While the Obama administration and Democrats saw the Clean Power Plan as a crucial component in international efforts to curb global warming, Republicans have long claimed those regulations went too far and were too costly. From the start of President Trump’s administration, his Environmental Protection Agency has been working to overhaul the program, which was halted by the Supreme Court in 2016 before going into effect. During a press conference, Wheeler formally signed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which would give individual states wide discretion to decide whether to require limited efficiency upgrades at individual coal-fired power plants. Wheeler said the changes are being made because ‘the American public elected a president with a better approach.’ The ACE rule, once fully implemented, allows states to select their own energy plans. States will be given three years to submit the plan and the EPA will have 12 months to approve it. Wheeler called it a sign that ‘fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of the mix’ in the U.S. energy supply.” [Fox News, 6/19/19 (-)]

Trump Deals Final Blow To Clean Power Plan, Obama’s Signature Climate Policy. According to Huffington Post, “The Trump administration dealt former President Barack Obama‘s signature climate policy a death blow on Wednesday, finalizing its proposal to replace sweeping curbs on power station emissions with a lax mandate to upgrade equipment at old plants. The Environmental Protection Agency‘s proposed Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule grants states leeway to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and requires coal-fired power plants to install only modest on-site retrofits to pare down planet-warming pollution. At a press conference, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, until two years ago a coal lobbyist, made clear the new rule aimed to bolster the struggling coal industry. At one point, Wheeler even quoted the chief executive of oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. arguing that renewable energy is insufficient to deliver reliable electricity. ‘We can’t deny the fact that fossil fuels will continue to be part of the energy mix at home and abroad,’ Wheeler said. ‘The contrast between our approach and the Green New Deal and other plans like it couldn’t be clearer.’ The U.S. power sector is on track to cut carbon dioxide more than the 32% below 2005 levels the Clean Power Plan projected by 2030 as renewables, bolstered by state-level climate policies, continue growing at a steady pace.” [Huffington Post, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump EPA Finalizes Rule To Gut Obama Coal Plant Regulations. According to Washington Examiner, “The Trump administration finalized Wednesday its much-anticipated rule gutting President Barack Obama’s signature plan for reducing carbon emissions from coal plants to combat climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency released its replacement of Obama’s Clean Power Plan with a modest rule intended to encourage efficiency upgrades at coal plants to help them exist longer and emit less pollution. ‘ACE will continue our nation’s environmental progress and will do so legally and with respect for the states,’ EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said at a press conference Wednesday, where he was joined by White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, other administration officials, and Republican members of Congress from coal states. ‘The ACE rule will incentivize new technologies so coal plants can be part of our energy future.’” [Washington Examiner, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Administration Finalizes Revamp Of Obama-Era Coal Rule. According to Greentech Media, “The Trump administration on Wednesday finalized its replacement for a cornerstone Obama climate rule, the Clean Power Plan, which placed heavier regulations on coal plants. The replacement, known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, does not require states to reduce overall emissions. Instead, it gives states flexibility to set performance standards and implement efficiency improvements at individual facilities. States will have three years to prepare their plans, which the administration will approve. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, said the new rule will ‘ensure coal plants can be part of a cleaner future.’ But the ultimate impact of the rule remains to be seen. Coal faces significant economic headwinds in the U.S. aside from any regulations, and analysts say the new rule is unlikely to change broad trends in the power sector. Like its Obama-era predecessor, which was never implemented due to court challenge, the Trump administration’s rule is almost certain to face significant legal blowback. Coal-fired power plants accounted for 47 percent of large-scale generation facilities closed between 2008 and 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and coal consumption in 2018 was expected to be at its lowest level in nearly four decades.” [Greentech Media, 6/19/19 (+)]

Op-Ed: There Is No Such Thing As Clean Coal. According to an op-ed by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones, “The final version of President Trump’s jihad against clean power has been released: Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has branded the rewrite as the Affordable Clean Energy rule and designed it to fulfill the president’s campaign promise to bring back the coal industry. This kind of Orwellian branding has been around for a long time, but this really nails the whole genre. Clean energy = more coal. It’s the official version of Trump’s belief that if he says ‘clean coal’ often enough, then coal will actually become clean. I don’t know if this is just a routine lie on his part or if he’s really such a dunce that he doesn’t realize there’s no such thing. I don’t think anyone knows. But if this goes into effect, thousands more people will die and gigatons more carbon will be spewed into the air. And the jobs? They’ll keep declining because the cheapest coal is strip mined out west, where it’s mostly done by machines. But I don’t suppose Trump knows that either.” [Mother Jones, 6/19/19 (+)]

Analysis: Trump's Replacement To Obama's Clean Power Plan Is Just As Bad As We Thought It'd Be. According to Yessenia Funes in Earther, “It’s official: The Clean Power Plan is out. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced Wednesday the agency’s final replacement for the Obama-era rule, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions from the energy sector to combat climate change. Trump may deny the existence of climate change, but he couldn’t outright repeal the rule without a replacement because the courts have previously ruled that the EPA is legally obligated to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. His EPA first proposed a replacement rule, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) in August, and now it’s a done deal. From what Wheeler and his colleagues discussed during the press conference, the final rule doesn’t seem much different from what the agency first proposed nearly a year ago. Basically, it gives states the ability to do whatever they want—even if that means doing nothing—to reduce emissions from power plants, in stark contrast to the clear targets the Clean Power Plan put forth. The only option the rule explicitly offers is ‘heat rate improvements,’ which is another way of describing efficiency improvements at plants.” [Earther, 6/19/19 (+)]

Cost Of ACE Could Eclipse Benefits By $980M A Year. According to E&E News, “EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler sold his agency’s power plant carbon rule yesterday as having all the benefits of its Obama-era predecessor with none of the costs. He told an invited audience of conservative lobbyists and GOP lawmakers at EPA headquarters that the Affordable Clean Energy rule would slash emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants that harm human health directly, while saving the public up to $730 million annually. ‘Here is the bottom line: ACE will continue our nation’s environmental progress, and it will do so legally and with proper respect for the states,’ he said. But the 238-page rule and its 248-page regulatory impact analysis show the plan effectively maintains the status quo, doing little itself to lower emissions. And when benefits from the ACE rule’s modest cuts in ozone and particulate matter aren’t counted in its favor — something the Trump administration has advocated in other rules — the costs of the plan exceed its benefits by as much as $980 million per year. ‘I think what it really shows is how little this rule actually does,’ said Paul Billings, vice president of public policy for the American Lung Association. ‘This rule shows very, very small benefits because it’s providing very few reductions.’ The ACE rule, which was written to replace the Clean Power Plan, aims for modest heat rate improvements to be achieved at coal-fired power plants through a narrow menu of efficiency measures.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Democrats Split On Response To Trump Power Plant Rule. According to Politico, “Democrats across the halls of Congress are denouncing the Trump administration’s new power plant rule as a gift to fossil fuel interests and contrary to the need for aggressive climate action, but they’ve yet to unite behind how they’ll respond. Senate Democrats may try to force a vote under the Congressional Review Act to pressure moderate Republicans on the ballot next year, but there appears to be less enthusiasm for that approach in the House, where Democrats will be defending a number of newly elected moderates in conservative-leaning districts next year. Meanwhile, party leaders are so far avoiding what may be the most potent tool in their arsenal — the threat of a government shutdown — to block the rule or extract other concessions from EPA. ‘We’re going to explore all of our options in court and in Congress,’ said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has previously floated using a CRA resolution. ‘We’ll have to make a calculated decision, but he must be stopped.’ House Democrats did not include language blocking the coal-friendly rule in the EPA appropriations bill coming to the floor this week, nor did anyone seek to introduce an amendment to that effect. While Republicans included policy riders targeting a litany of EPA rules in spending bills when they controlled the House, Democrats have largely avoided similar measures targeting the Trump administration’s rollbacks at the agency.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Admin Finalizes Clean Power Plan Replacement. According to E&E News, “EPA today released its final Affordable Clean Energy rule to reduce carbon emissions from power plants without setting limits on the power sector’s emissions. The highly anticipated replacement for the Clean Power Plan redefines the ‘best system of emissions reductions’ for existing power plants, directing operators to slash greenhouse gases by focusing solely on improving the efficiency of their facilities. The agency is providing states with a list of applicable emissions control technology they can use for compliance. The ACE rule does not establish emissions caps. Instead, it gives states broad latitude to determine how stringently they want to control power plant emissions under their jurisdiction. The final version of ACE also jettisons a controversial plan that would have changed when the construction of efficiency improvement projects would have triggered compliance with the New Source Review program. That permitting program requires power plant operators to get preconstruction permits if a project will lead to increases in pollution (Greenwire, June 10). The rule also extends the timeline for when states must submit their plans to more closely match the schedule required for state implementation plans under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Wheeler Rolls Out Carbon Rule, Girds For Lawsuits. According to E&E News, “The Trump administration is celebrating its replacement for the Clean Power Plan today as EPA offers a narrow path for power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Coal miners, members of Congress and leaders of conservative think tanks joined EPA officials at agency headquarters this morning for the rollout of the long-awaited Affordable Clean Energy rule. The climate rule does not cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, leaving it up to states to pick from a menu of technologies to improve power plant efficiency at the facility level. EPA estimates that once the final rule is fully implemented, it will lead to a 10 million-ton reduction in CO2 emissions and will provide net benefits of $70 million to $100 million — or possibly higher — each year. Administrator Andrew Wheeler touted the rule — which also finalizes the repeal of the Obama administration’s landmark Clean Power Plan — as a more legally defensible alternative. ‘Unlike the CPP, the ACE rule adheres to the four corners of the Clean Air Act,’ he said. The release of the final rule comes as the Trump administration has sought to offer support to the coal industry, and after years of lobbying by industry groups and conservatives to pare back the scope of the Obama administration’s rulemaking.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (-)]

Trump Administration Rolls Out Coal-Friendly Climate Rule. According to Politico, “The Trump administration on Wednesday issued its long-awaited replacement for former President Barack Obama’s most ambitious climate change regulation, rolling back rules in an effort to salvage the declining role of coal in the nation’s power supply. Critics charge that the new rule would cripple the fight against climate change — which has emerged as a major issue for Democrats in the 2020 presidential race — and undermine any future White House efforts to use the Environmental Protection Agency to address the problem. The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule is a part of the Trump administration’s campaign to erase greenhouse gas regulations designed to stave off the worst effects of climate change. And it is the first in a litany of rollbacks due out this year that will restrict EPA’s regulatory powers, with new rules due out soon that will ease regulations on vehicle emissions, oil and gas wells and other types of power plant pollution. The new final rule, which was signed by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, eliminates the Obama EPA’s targets that would have required states to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, which would have hit coal power plants hard. It replaces them with a narrower plan that allows states to upgrade the efficiency of power plants to drive carbon dioxide reductions.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (=)]

EPA Adopts Risky Legal Stance In ACE To Limit Air Act GHG Authority. According to Inside EPA, "EPA’s just-issued Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which seeks to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), adopts a risky legal interpretation arguing that the agency is prohibited from issuing the types of broad greenhouse gas standards that were included in the CPP in a bid to block a future administration from re-imposing similarly expansive requirements. In the June 19 final ACE rule, EPA takes a narrow read of its authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), arguing that the only permissible interpretation of the law is that it allows the agency to define the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) as what can be directly added onto a facility -- rather than allowing more flexible measures that the CPP included, such as generation shifting or emissions trading. That will make it much more difficult, legal experts say, for Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers to defend the new rule, which was coupled with a formal repeal of the CPP, in court -- compared with an alternative scenario in which EPA had instead argued that its narrow interpretation was the most reasonable, rather than the only option.” [Inside EPA, 6/19/19 (=)]

EPA Repeals Obama-Era CPP, Finalizes Narrow ACE Replacement GHG Rule. According to Inside EPA, “The Trump EPA has finalized its Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, a narrow policy intended to address greenhouse gases from existing power plants, while also formally repealing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) in the agency’s first high-profile climate rule rollback to be completed. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the final rule June 19. The rule, which largely relies on the current industry trajectory away from coal toward lower-emitting natural gas and renewables, is prompting swift criticism from those pressing for strong climate action. ‘I believe this is the first rule in [the Trump] EPA’s history that acknowledges the existential threat of climate change but by the agency’s own admission does absolutely nothing to stop it,’ Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says in a statement. Still, EPA says the rule will cut GHGs from coal plants by 10 million tons per year when fully implemented, but critics are already questioning these projections, arguing in part that a still-pending policy that could allow coal plants to run more often without strict permitting requirements could boost both GHG and criteria pollutants.” [Inside EPA, 6/19/19 (=)]

EPA Carbon Rule Draws Democrats' Scorn, GOP Praises. According to E&E News, “Congressional Democrats this afternoon launched a unified rhetorical attack on the Trump administration’s replacement for the Clean Power Plan, but their path for action is limited. Instead, they’re largely looking to environmental groups to litigate EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy rule while they aim to sweep the 2020 elections and enact emissions policies even more aggressive than the Clean Power Plan. ‘Every environmental organization out there that has been trying to stem the tide of harmful policies out of the Trump administration is going to take this on and tie it up in litigation,’ Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) told E&E News this afternoon. One option that Democrats have talked about is the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress 60 legislative days to rescind federal regulations. But they would also need a majority in the GOP Senate and even more votes to overcome an inevitable veto from President Trump. ‘I think we’re going to explore all the tools we’ve got to roll this back, but ultimately, in order to succeed on a CRA, we need Senate Republicans to recognize what everybody else in the country recognizes, which is, massive carbon pollution is creating a whole lot of economic harm and a whole lot of negative health effects,’ Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a press conference on the ACE rule this afternoon.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

EPA Sees Falling Emissions, But Not From Its Climate Plan. According to E&E News, “EPA predicts carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will fall by 35% of 2005 levels in 2030 under the Affordable Clean Energy rule, President Trump’s scaled-back response to the Clean Power Plan. Yet almost none of those emissions reductions are attributable to EPA’s rule, the agency’s analysis shows. Emissions from U.S. power plants fell 27% between 2005 and 2017, as power companies retired coal plants in favor of natural gas and renewable energy. EPA officials made clear yesterday that they expected the trend to continue, and they argued it was evidence that regulation is not needed to cut carbon emissions. ‘The market has taken care of it,’ EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told reporters. ‘The Clean Power Plan would have ended up causing specific closures at specific plants, regardless of what the marketplace would have done.’ EPA’s analysis of the rule projects emissions will fall slightly more under ACE than the 32% cut imagined by the Clean Power Plan. Nearly all of those reductions are expected to come from actions taken voluntarily by power companies. The agency’s analysis predicts carbon emissions would fall to 1,743 million tons under a business-as-usual scenario. Under ACE, emissions would decline to 1,732 million tons, a difference of 11 million tons. That would amount to a slowing of emission reductions in the power sector. Annual power-sector reductions averaged 64 million tons between 2005 and 2017.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Former EPA Chief McCarthy Slams New Power Plant Rule. According to Politico, “Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy slammed the Trump EPA’s new power plant rule released today for gutting the rules she had put forward to combat carbon dioxide emissions that are contributing to climate change. ‘I believe this is the first rule in EPA’s history that acknowledges the existential threat of climate change but by the agency’s own admission does absolutely nothing to stop it,’ she said in a statement. McCarthy signed the Clean Power Plan, the rule to curb greenhouse gases that was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2016. EPA today officially rescinded that rule and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule. ‘The Trump administration has made painfully clear that they are incapable of rising to the challenge and tackling this crisis. They have shown a callous disregard for EPA’s mission, a pattern of climate science denial, and an inexcusable indifference to the consequences of climate change,’ McCarthy said.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (+)]

Democrats Shout, Shrug At EPA Carbon Rule. According to E&E News, “It's the ‘dirty power plan,’ ‘the disappointing one,’ a ‘totally regressive’ plan, the greenhouse gas regulation that’s ‘wrong and should be rejected.’ Those are just a few of the phrases congressional Democrats used yesterday to describe the Trump administration’s proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan, but that doesn’t mean they’ll do anything about it. While they’re unified rhetorically, Democrats are scattered about how to act on EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy rule, or whether it’s a good idea in the first place to try to stifle the agency through the appropriations process or the Congressional Review Act. The ACE rule is much less stringent than the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was stuck in the courts and never went into effect. Environmental groups have argued it would barely reduce emissions compared with no regulation at all. ‘I don’t think there will be any significant change different than what companies are going to do due to peer pressure, customer pressure and economic pressure,’ Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told E&E News yesterday.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Trump Climate Rule Could Widen Partisan State Split. According to Politico, “EPA’s new climate change rule for power plants gives the red states that depend on coal the ability to keep open those aging facilities, widening an environmental divide with the blue states that are moving toward cleaner energy sources. The Affordable Clean Energy rule released on Wednesday eliminates the state-by-state emission targets that were part of the more stringent Obama-era Clean Power Plan. Instead, it gives states significant authority to decide whether to require their power plants to install efficiency upgrades — or to skip doing anything at all, critics argue, undermining any national effort to combat greenhouse gases. ‘It does allow laggard states to continue to rely more on coal and more on fossil fuels than they need to in order for us to continue addressing climate change,’ said Sierra Club attorney Andres Restrepo. ‘The question is … how long will these stragglers continue to straggle along?’ The political split on environmental policy between states has been widening for years, even as coal power plants have been closing across the country at a rapid rate in both red and blue states as utilities shift to cheaper, cleaner natural gas and renewable sources. But many Democratic-controlled states, like California and New York, are shunning coal under policies explicitly designed to combat climate change amid the Trump administration’s rollbacks.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (=)]

The ACE Divide. According to Politico, “EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule eliminates the state-by-state emission targets that were part of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. Instead, the rule gives states significant authority to decide whether to require their power plants to install efficiency upgrades — or to skip doing anything at all, Pro's Alex Guillén and Gavin Bade report. That means the red states that depend on coal will have the ability to keep open aging facilities, widening an environmental divide with the blue states that are moving toward cleaner energy sources.” [Politico, 6/20/19 (=)]

White House

Trump UN Nominee: Climate Change Poses 'Real Risks'. According to The Hill, “President Trump‘s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Wednesday that humans have ‘contributed’ to climate change and vowed to press for global action if she’s confirmed — but stressed that she doesn’t think the United States should take on an ‘outsized burden’ in tackling the issue. Kelly Craft, the wife of a coal executive, also pledged to recuse herself from matters involving coal as she defended her record before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in her bid to become the next U.N. ambassador. ‘Climate change needs to be addressed, as it poses real risks to our planet. Human behavior has contributed to the changing climate,’ Craft said. ‘Let there be no doubt: I will take this matter seriously, and if confirmed, I will be an advocate for all countries to do their part in addressing climate change. ‘This does not mean, in my view, that the United States should imperil American jobs — or our economy as a whole — by assuming an outsized burden on behalf of the rest of the world,’ she continued. ‘However, it does mean that we should promote the creativity and innovation that have made the United States a leader in tackling the challenges of our environment — all while safeguarding our nation’s economic well-being.’” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump’s Nominee For U.N. Envoy Appears To Differ With Him On Saudis And Climate. According to the New York Times, “President Trump’s choice for United Nations ambassador said Wednesday that Saudi Arabia must be held accountable for rights abuses and that humans have contributed to climate change, posing ‘real risks to our planet.’ The positions expressed by the nominee, Kelly Knight Craft, currently the ambassador to Canada, suggested she differed with Mr. Trump on two signature themes of his presidency: the strong alliance with Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and the causes and dangers of global warming. Ms. Craft spoke at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on her nomination, held nearly six months after her predecessor, Nikki R. Haley, departed the post. Mr. Trump’s initial choice to replace Ms. Haley, Heather Nauert, a former State Department spokeswoman, withdrew from consideration in February. The United Nations post has historically been considered the second-most important foreign policy position in a presidential administration, behind the secretary of state. The prolonged absence of an American ambassador has not gone unnoticed at the 193-member organization; the United States is its host nation and biggest financial contributor.” [New York Times, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump's UN Ambassador Nominee Faces Tough Questions On Climate Change, Credentials. According to ABC News, “President Donald Trump‘s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations faced tough questions during her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday on the international body, climate change, her top priorities and limited of diplomatic experience. Kelly Craft, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, who along with her husband is a major donor to Trump and other Republicans, is expected to be confirmed to the role -- described as the second most important U.S. diplomat, behind the Secretary of State. Trump’s first ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley departed her post at the end of 2018. A career diplomat has filled in for nearly six months now in an acting capacity. While Haley was a member of Trump’s Cabinet, the administration has since demoted the position out of the Cabinet. Trump had nominated his former State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert to replace Haley, but Nauert withdrew her name months later. Before her nearly two-year tenure as U.S. envoy in Ottawa -- where she was involved in renegotiating NAFTA -- Craft was a businesswoman and a political donor, especially with her husband Joe, who is a wealthy executive for one of the largest U.S. coal producers. Craft was candid about her lack of experience on Wednesday, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she would approach the role with ‘clear-eyed humility. I have much to learn about the United Nations.’ But ‘ultimately, I would not have accepted the president’s nomination if I was not certain I was ready for the task at hand,’ she added.” [ABC News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Senators Press Trump Nominee For UN Ambassador On Climate And Her Coal Ties. According to CNN, “President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next US ambassador to the United Nations hit headwinds Wednesday as senators questioned the impact of her family’s coal fortune on her ability to work on climate issues at the world body. Kelly Craft, the current US ambassador to Canada, acknowledged during a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing that fossil fuels contribute to climate change and said she would recuse herself from any UN discussions on coal. But as senators raised the question again and again, Craft hedged on the degree to which fossil fuels drive climate change, which the UN described in November as an ‘existential crisis.’ For at least one senator, Craft’s nuanced stance wasn’t good enough. ‘At a time when climate chaos is the greatest global challenge we face, it’s incredibly disturbing that President Trump has nominated a UN Ambassador with deep personal ties to and a financial stake in the coal industry,’ Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon said in a statement after the hearing, announcing his opposition to Craft’s nomination.” [CNN, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump’s UN Pick Breaks With White House On Climate Change. According to Axios, “President Trump’s nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations publicly broke with the White House Wednesday, telling her Senate confirmation hearing climate change ‘poses real risks,’ USA Today first reported. ‘Human behavior has contributed to the change in climate, let there be no doubt. If confirmed, I will be an advocate in addressing climate change. ... I also understand that fossil fuels have played a part in climate change.’ — Kelly Knight Craft statement to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Why it matters: Trump has rejected the science on climate change and announced plans to pull out of the Paris climate agreement in 2017. Craft’s statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is in contrast to one she gave in a 2017 interview with CBC Politics in which she said she endorsed ‘both sides of the science.’ Between the lines: If confirmed by the Senate, Craft will represent U.S. interests at the UN, which recognizes climate change as a ‘potentially irreversible threat to human societies,’ per the Paris agreement. The Washington Post noted she stopped short of endorsing that agreement. The big picture: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has made tackling climate change a priority, calling it a ‘catastrophic situation for the whole world.’ He’s called for no new coal-fired power plants to be built after 2020 and ending fossil fuel subsidies. Craft pledged she would recuse herself ‘where coal is part of the conversation within climate change,’ per Reuters.” [Axios, 6/19/19 (=)]

Trump Speech, Flyover Confirmed As Part Of July Fourth Schedule. According to The Hill, “The Department of Interior on Wednesday released a schedule of events for Independence Day, which this year will include an address from President Trump titled ‘Salute to America,’ military demonstrations and flyovers, a parade as well as an expansion of open areas along the National Mall. ‘For the first time in many years, the World War II Memorial and areas around the Reflecting Pool will be open for the public to enjoy a stunning fireworks display and an address by our Commander-in-Chief,’ Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement. ‘We are excited to open these new areas so that more visitors may experience this year’s Independence Day celebration in our nation’s capital.’ Trump previously teased that he would give a speech at the traditionally non-partisan event celebrating the nation’s birthday. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the flyover would involve one of the jets used as Air Force One, though Trump is not expected to be on the presidential aircraft. Trump’s involvement in the holiday celebration has drawn some pushback from Democratic lawmakers and local officials who have raised concerns that the president is politicizing the long-standing tradition of fireworks on the Mall, and that his presence will drain additional resources from the National Park Service.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (=)]

Senior Official In Chemical Safety Office Joins White House. According to E&E News, “Nancy Beck, a senior EPA official whose ties to the chemical industry came under scrutiny, is moving to another part of the Trump administration. Beck is joining the White House’s National Economic Council on a detail, sources told E&E News. She started at EPA more than two years ago, later serving as the principal deputy assistant administrator in the agency’s chemicals office. ‘EPA is pleased that Dr. Beck will continue to provide her knowledge and expertise in serving this administration and the country,’ said EPA spokesman Michael Abboud. A White House official told E&E News that Beck is being detailed to the National Economic Council from EPA. Politico first reported that Beck was heading to the White House. She was the top-ranking non-career official in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn was confirmed in January as head of the office and thus ranks above Beck. Other top officials from EPA’s chemicals office have recently gone elsewhere. Law firm Wiley Rein announced earlier this month that it hired Erik Baptist, a deputy assistant administrator in the program, as a partner in its environment and product regulation practice.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

National

Climate Change Is Good For Surfing. Other Sports, Not So Much. According to NBC News, “For the past two decades, Mark Sponsler has been tracking the world’s waves and, indirectly, the world’s changing climate. ‘I’m the weather support guru for surfers who hop around the planet and chase waves,’ says Sponsler, a self-taught forecaster in Castro Valley, California, who uses data from weather satellites and ocean buoys to predict ocean swells. ‘I have been watching the ocean temperatures rise. I hate to say it, but rising temperatures, at least in the short term, are favorable for big-wave surfing.’ Sponsler’s observation is spot-on. Recent studies show that as the world’s oceans grow warmer, waves are getting bigger and more powerful. ‘Like sea level rise, we can see a marker of climate change in the increased energy of waves,’ says Borja Reguero, a researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an author of one of the studies. ‘The more energy, in general, the better conditions for surfing.’ But if climate change is a boon for surfing, it’s a bust for other sports. High temperatures and extreme weather events are making it hard to maintain playing fields and golf courses in the summer and ski runs and skating rinks in the winter. A 2018 report warned that the golf industry faces a number of climate-related threats, including reduced availability of water for irrigation and rising sea levels.” [NBC News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Congress

Bipartisan Research Bills Dodge Climate Controversy. According to E&E News, “Lawmakers rallied around two new bills yesterday that would inject additional funding into research and development of technologies to slash fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions. The House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy examined the latest version of the ‘Fossil Energy Research and Development Act,’ which would ramp up investment within the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy for carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) technology at power plants as well as direct air capture of carbon dioxide and methane leak detection and prevention in the natural gas industry. Subcommittee Chairman Conor Lamb did not dismiss the need to ‘decarbonize our economy,’ but the Democrat with plenty of fossil fuel production in his Pennsylvania district steered yesterday’s hearing away from the fraught politics of climate science and the Green New Deal. ‘We all believe that others in the world will be burning fossil fuels for a long time,’ he said. ‘We might as well have them buying carbon capture technology from the United States.’ […] The Senate is already on board, placing bipartisan support behind the ‘Enhancing Fossil Fuel Energy Carbon Technology Act,’ S. 1201, from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) (E&E Daily, May 17). The second bill considered at yesterday’s House hearing, the ‘Industrial Decarbonization Technology Development Act,’ looked beyond the power sector to transportation and heavy industries, which produce a fifth of U.S. carbon emissions.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Senate Dems, Companies Push For Solar Credit Extension. According to E&E News, “A bloc of Senate Democrats is pushing key solar tax breaks into the energy extenders debate, which formally kicks off in the House Ways and Means Committee this morning. Twenty Democrats, led by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, called for extensions of the investment tax credit and residential renewable energy tax credit, which are being gradually phased out of the code under a 2015 tax deal. ‘The ITC and residential renewable credits have a very strong track record of fueling solar deployment, jobs, and carbon reductions,’ the group wrote to Senate leaders yesterday. ‘Because of these credits, solar energy has averaged 50 percent annual growth for a decade. ... In order to continue amplifying renewable energy growth and a meaningful transition to clean energy utilization, our country will need to continue policies that have already proven to drive investment, or otherwise pass new policies that dis-incentivize carbon emissions.’ The signatories included six Democrats running for president: Cory Booker of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

House Votes To Halt Funding For Atlantic Exploration. According to E&E News, “The House last night voted to cut off funding for Trump administration efforts to drill off the Atlantic coast, as the chamber launched debate on a second multibill spending package that includes funds for EPA and the Interior Department. The bipartisan drilling amendment, offered by Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), would block NOAA from approving oil and gas exploration off the Atlantic coast, including seismic air gun testing. While the House has slogged through hundreds of spending amendment votes during the past week, Cunningham’s proposal was adopted by voice vote. The move came after conservatives paused their requests for roll call votes to protest the delay in approving emergency aid sought by the Trump administration to address the border crisis. The Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday approved $4.6 billion in border aid, mollifying conservatives — for now. That allowed for a relatively calm opening debate for the $322 billion minibus, H.R. 3055, which includes the Interior-Environment, Commerce-Justice-Science, Agriculture-Rural Development-Food and Drug Administration, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development bills. There were few demands for roll call votes, as members offered amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science title last night.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Facing Veto Threat, House Readies Debate On Trump EPA Rollbacks. According to Inside EPA, “Even as they face a veto threat from the White House, House Democratic leaders have teed up debate on EPA’s fiscal year 2020 spending bill, allowing for floor consideration of amendments that would block several Trump EPA priorities, including measures that roll back climate rules for new power plants and attack the basis for mercury limits. The amendments offer a window into likely political clashes over the issues, whether Democrats ultimately enact the provisions after subsequent budget negotiations with the White House and the GOP-controlled Senate. The House Rules Committee during a late June 18 meeting also allowed debate on several Republican amendments that appear unlikely to pass the chamber, but which could provide the opportunity for additional votes on Trump administration rollbacks, including methane and power plant regulations. Following the meeting, the rules panel released a list of amendments made in order for forthcoming floor debate on a massive spending bill that would fund EPA and the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. Debate is expected to start late June 19 and likely extend into next week.” [Inside EPA, 6/19/19 (=)]

Democrats Take Aim At Trump Policies By Passing $1T Spending Package. According to The Hill, “Democrats on Wednesday muscled through a nearly $1 trillion spending bill that attempts to block President Trump‘s policies on climate change, abortion and immigration, underscoring Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s (D-Calif.) argument that the House can work as a check on the administration. Lawmakers passed the spending package in a 226-203 vote that fell largely along party lines. Seven Democrats voted against the measure, as did all Republicans. The legislation includes the two largest government spending bills -- one for Defense and one covering Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. It also covers funding bills for foreign operations and energy and water. The measure takes aim at a slew of Trump’s funding goals, starting with a rejection of his budget request, which proposed deep cuts to the State Department, cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the elimination of advanced energy research and a massive increase in defense spending. ‘This bill rejects the administration’s unacceptable budget request and irresponsible policies and, rather, strives to uphold many bipartisan congressional priorities,’ said House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) ahead of the floor vote. The Democratic bill would eliminate what’s known as the Mexico City policy, which blocks the U.S. from funding foreign groups that promote abortion, and it would prevent withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate accord.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (+)]

House Dems Attempt To Block Trump Admin Roll Back Obama-Era Lightbulb Rule. According to The Hill, “House Democrats on Wednesday moved to block the Trump administration from rolling back Obama-era energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs. Democrats passed a nearly $1 trillion spending bill Wednesday afternoon that attempts to block President Trump‘s policies on climate change, abortion and immigration. The bill, passed in a 226-203 vote that fell largely along party lines, includes an amendment that would stop the Trump administration from rolling back the Obama administration’s standards for lightbulbs. The bill funds the Department of Energy (DOE), which had proposed regulations for lightbulbs that would eliminate efficiency standards for half the bulbs on the market. There are about 6 billion lightbulbs used to power American homes. About 3.3 billion are the traditional, pear-shaped kind, while another 2.7 billion run the gamut of shapes and sizes. Under the DOE rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the agency’s standards would not change but regulations would only apply to pear-shaped bulbs.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (=)]

House Backs Minibus With Environmental Amendments. According to E&E News, “Lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol made headway on the annual appropriations process, with the House passing a nearly $1 trillion spending package and emergency funding for the border crisis clearing the Senate Appropriations Committee. The House voted 226-203 for the four-bill package, H.R. 2740, which comprises Energy-Water Development, Defense, Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, and State-Foreign Operations measures. Final passage occurred after the Democratic majority overcame procedural protests by conservatives unhappy the House has not acted on President Trump’s request for billions of dollars to address the border crisis. Led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Republicans forced dozens of votes on amendments, prompting Democrats to bundle multiple amendments into en bloc packages. House members earlier this afternoon disposed of a number of amendments to the Energy-Water Development title of the bill, with members voting 233-201 to adopt an amendment by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) that would bar funding to complete the environmental impact statement for Alaska’s Pebble mine.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Panel Oks Enviro Bills And Interior, TVA Nominees. According to E&E News, “The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning approved by voice vote two Trump administration nominees and a number of noncontroversial bills including one that honors the late Republican Sen. John McCain and another that addresses PFAS contamination. In a fast-moving session, the panel gave green lights to Robert Wallace to be assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks and William Kilbride to be a member of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s board of directors. ‘Both nominees are well qualified and will bring a wealth of experience to these important positions,’ said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the committee’s chairman. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island added he was ‘delighted’ to support Wallace, who will be overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service (Greenwire, June 4). After serving as Republican staff director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and as chief of staff to Wyoming’s then-governor, Jim Geringer (R), Wallace spent 17 years as manager of government relations for GE Energy, a firm now called GE Power.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Senate Panel Advances Bipartisan PFAS Legislation. According to Politico, “Lawmakers on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced a bipartisan package of legislation meant to address toxic chemical contamination in drinking water around the nation — but without language designating the PFAS class of chemicals as a hazardous substance under the Superfund law. The package cleared unanimously by the committee is identical to the amendment to National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1790 (116), by a bipartisan group last week. Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said talks would continue on that Superfund provision. ‘The legislative work that we’ve achieved thus far on PFAS gives me renewed cause for hope that this committee can — and will — continue to make further progress on the issues that Americans care about most,’ Carper said. Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters he had not given up on the Superfund provision and would continue discussions on it, but he said he wanted ‘to celebrate what we were able to pass today.’ Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) expressed openness to adding the PFAS language to POLITICO on Tuesday. The approved PFAS package would require EPA to set an enforceable drinking water limit within two years for at least the two best-studied chemicals in the class, PFOA and PFOS. Other provisions would mandate public reporting on emissions and data reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (=)]

Election 2020

Can Climate Change Be Stopped? Here’s What The Democratic Presidential Candidates Say. According to Grist, “Can climate change be stopped? That’s a question the New York Times posed to 21 of the 22 Democratic candidates running for president. In a series of short videos published on Wednesday, the hopefuls weighed in on whether the largest and most important threat to Americans can, indeed, be ‘stopped.’ The Times picked a good question because it doesn’t have an easy answer. Obviously, a climate-informed person running for president doesn’t want to tell the whole truth here. Climate change not only cannot be halted entirely but is also expected to accelerate quite rapidly in the coming years and decades, no matter what we do now. Plus, the U.S. only emits around 15 percent of the world’s emissions, and getting China and India to stop developing all of a sudden isn’t exactly as straightforward as signing an executive order. Leave it to a politician to figure out the right way to answer an unanswerable question. The candidates’ answers ranged from boilerplate, to nuanced, to nonexistent (Joe Biden was the only Democrat running for president who did not respond to multiple interview requests from the newspaper of record). Without further ado, here is Grist’s official breakdown of how the candidates responded.” [Grist, 6/19/19 (=)]

Inslee Knocks Carbon Move: Trump's 'Undying Loyalty To Coal CEOs Is Literally Killing Americans'. According to The Hill, “Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has made combating climate change the centerpiece of his 2020 White House bid, blasted the Trump administration on Wednesday over efforts to repeal Obama-era carbon regulations. ‘Donald Trump‘s undying loyalty to coal CEOs is literally killing Americans. Today’s action provides yet another egregious giveaway to corporate polluters and fossil fuels,’ Inslee said in a statement. ‘This Dirty Air Rule may be the most destructive environmental policy action ever taken by an American president, and it will foist upon the American people tens of billions of dollars more in climate and health costs, over the next decade and beyond,’ he added. On Wednesday, the Trump administration finalized a rule repealing a carbon pollution regulation the Obama administration put in place, replacing it with a rule that gives states more time and authority to ease net emissions from coal-fired plants. ‘This proposal is morally reprehensible: This is a bailout for coal CEOs that will lead to more premature deaths, more children with asthma and more impacts of climate change across the world,’ Inslee said. The new rule has also been criticized by former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials who say it does little to cut carbon emissions.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (+)]

Courts and Legal

Trump Admin's Carbon Rule Faces Legal War. According to E&E News, “The Trump administration has lauded its Clean Power Plan replacement rule as a more legally defensible option for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. An anticipated flood of lawsuits from environmental groups and states will soon put those claims to the test. Potential challengers of EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy rule — which does not set a limit on emissions and asks states to select from a list of facility-level efficiency measures — say the regulation flouts the agency’s responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (Greenwire, June 19). ‘The Trump administration is doing everything it can to eviscerate protections for the public,’ said Sierra Club attorney Joanne Spalding. ‘EPA in particular has issued rule after rule rolling back public health protections, and it has so far been unsuccessful. ‘We expect this rule to see the same fate.’ One industry lawyer said challengers of the ACE rule are likely to face an ‘uphill battle’ in court. ‘Even the Obama EPA acknowledged that the Clean Power Plan relied on a new and pretty creative interpretation of the statute and in particular of what constituted the ‘best system of emissions reduction,’ or BSER,’ said Bracewell LLP partner Jeff Holmstead, who served in the George W. Bush administration’s EPA.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

New York AG To Sue EPA Over Power Plant Rule. According to Politico, “New York’s attorney general said today the state plans to challenge the EPA’s new power plant rule in court. ‘Given its clear violation of the Clean Air Act, I intend to sue the EPA over this ‘Dirty Power’ rule and look forward to collaborating with other states and cities in taking action to protect all Americans from the increasingly disastrous impacts of climate change,’ New York Attorney General Tish James said in a statement. EPA today released the Affordable Clean Energy rule which calls for coal power plants to increase efficiency to reduce their emissions. The rule replaces the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-administration rule that set emissions targets for each state. New York is set to approve rules to get to zero emissions by 2050.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (=)]

Local Leaders: Climate Dividend A 'Trojan Horse'. According to E&E News, “Political leaders in counties and cities across the United States are supporting climate litigation against fossil fuel producers by passing local resolutions that highlight the court cases. The Marin County Board of Supervisors in California passed a resolution Tuesday that opposes legal immunity for oil and gas companies should they be found liable for damages related to rising temperatures. The resolution seemed to address an immunity plan floated by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), a group that supports pricing carbon dioxide emissions and disbursing the revenue to the public in the form of dividends. Marin County — along with Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County — filed a climate nuisance lawsuit against 37 oil and gas companies in 2017. The resolution passed this week warns of a ‘Trojan horse’ being offered by the CLC. The resolution claimed that the group is ‘salting their industry-sponsored and funded proposal with provisions that foist the exponential costs of climate damages on local cities, towns, counties, and taxpayers.’ The CLC, whose founding members include Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and ConocoPhillips, is lobbying Congress to accept a four-pillar plan that would place a fee on carbon emissions. Along with suggesting a $40-per-ton carbon fee, the CLC’s plan would return the money collected from that fee back to taxpayers through dividend checks.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Court Orders Ohio Regulators To Toss FirstEnergy Grid Charge. According to E&E News, “The Supreme Court of Ohio ordered state utility regulators to eliminate a $168 million annual grid modernization surcharge on FirstEnergy customers because the charge included no requirement for how the power company spends the money. In an opinion handed down yesterday, the court voted 4-3 to remand the case to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. To date, the surcharge has cost FirstEnergy’s 2 million customers about $442 million. The decision is a victory for 19 consumer and environmental groups that appealed PUCO’s 2016 decision to impose surcharges on customers each year with the idea that extra revenue would stabilize the utility’s credit ratings and let the company borrow money at a lower cost for grid improvements. Groups challenging the surcharge argued it was a backdoor subsidy for FirstEnergy and didn’t require anything of the utility, which could funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to shareholders (Energywire, Jan. 10). The court agreed that the lack of requirement for FirstEnergy to update the grid in exchange for the subsidies disqualified the surcharge under Ohio law. ‘Utility companies can be expected to respond to financial motivations, but not if the commission awards them money up front with no meaningful conditions attached,’ Justice Michael Donnelly said in the 37-page opinion.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Industry and Business

Coal Giants Peabody, Arch To Merge Major Mines. According to E&E News, “The nation’s two biggest coal companies — Peabody Energy Corp. and Arch Coal Inc. — unveiled a joint venture today that will oversee mines producing more than one quarter of American coal. Peabody will control two-thirds of the new entity and Arch will have one-third, together controlling seven mines in Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. The joint venture will combine the nation’s two largest coal mines — Peabody’s North Antelope Rochelle and Arch’s Black Thunder — into a single complex. The mines, which combined produce 20% of U.S. coal, share a property line and railway in the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin lacks steel-making metallurgical coal mines, which have become a refuge for coal companies. Peabody and Arch have both expanded their metallurgical presence in recent years to meet foreign demand that commands high prices. ‘Simply put, this is about our combined operations strengthening our competitiveness with natural gas and subsidized renewables,’ said Peabody CEO Glenn Kellow. The announcement comes during hard times for the region, which produces more than 40% of U.S. coal but sends virtually all of it to a shrinking number of coal-fired power plants.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

International

Can Europe Wean Itself From Fossil Fuels? Its Leaders Are About To Decide. According to the New York Times, “The countries of Europe, which together represent the world’s third-largest industrial emitter, are set to decide on Thursday whether they can leap to a future largely free of fossil fuels within the next 30 years. Leaders from all 28 countries of the European Union are in Brussels this week, and analysts following the meeting said a large majority of countries were in favor of a proposal to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. The rules of the bloc, however, require that they reach a unanimous decision. Several European Union countries have already announced such targets. Britain became the first among the 20 largest industrial economies to announce its net-zero emissions target this week; Sweden has a similar target. Finland and Norway have set the bar highest, resolving to reach the target by 2035. Net-zero emissions, or climate neutrality, means slightly different things to each country. Norway and Sweden, for instance, aim to neutralize the emissions they generate (Norway is one of the world’s biggest oil producers, after all) by offsetting them by buying credits. Offsets could include things like funding clean-power projects in poor countries. That accounting method can neutralize a country’s carbon footprint but still allow the country to burn fossil fuels.” [New York Times, 6/19/19 (=)]

Britain, Italy Make Bid To Host 2020 U.N. Climate Talks. According to E&E News, “Britain and Italy are making a joint bid to host the United Nations’ global climate summit next year. The two countries said Tuesday they’re proposing that Britain host the annual U.N. talks in late 2020 and for Italy to stage a preparatory meeting. They said their partnership would send ‘a strong signal of determined and informed cooperation on climate change.’ Turkey is also in the running to host the 26th Conference of the Parties, or COP 26. Countries are expected to make a decision on the venue during technical talks taking place in Bonn, Germany, until June 27. Chile is hosting this year’s U.N. summit after Brazil dropped out. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced plans last week to eliminate the country’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

U.N. Pick Shifts On Climate But Stands By Paris Withdrawal. According to E&E News, “President Trump’s nominee for U.N. ambassador appeared to shift her stance on climate yesterday, saying she believes climate change is a pressing issue — caused in part by human behavior and fossil fuels. Kelly Craft has been less adamant on her climate position, once telling the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. there was truth to ‘both sides’ of the debate on human contribution to climate change (E&E News PM, May 3). Craft’s earlier noncommittal comments on climate and her notable investment in fossil fuels generated doubt among Senate Democrats about her ability to position the United States as a global leader on the issue. Craft — who owns more than $60 million in coal, oil and gas assets and is married to Alliance Resource Partners LP CEO Joseph Craft — said that if confirmed, she would not participate in negotiations that involve coal and fossil fuels. She said such a recusal would prevent any conflicts of interest from interfering with her work, which otherwise would inevitably involve climate-related matters. ‘I will give you my commitment that where coal is part of the conversation within climate change at the U.N., I will recuse myself,’ Craft said after Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) raised the issue during her confirmation hearing.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Craft Vows To Recuse From Coal Discussions At U.N. According to Politico, “U.S. Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft vowed today to recuse herself from any climate-related discussions at the U.N. ‘when there is coal in the conversation’ if she is confirmed as ambassador to the global body. ‘Where there is the issue of coal and/or fossil fuels, I will recuse myself in meetings through the U.N.,’ Craft said during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Craft later told Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) she’s ‘still waiting for clarity on fossil fuels,’ referring to her ethics agreement. ‘But I will give you my commitment that where coal is part of the conversation within climate change at the U.N., I will recuse myself.’ She added that ‘the experts that have been working on the climate change issues’ will ‘be able to take my place.’ When asked about her opinion on the Paris climate accord, she defended the Trump administration’s decision to get out of the pact. ‘We withdrew from the Paris agreement because we felt like we don’t have to be part of the agreement to be leaders,’ Craft told the senators. Separately, Trump administration today rolled back rules that would have required states to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, which would have hit coal power plants hard.” [Politico, 6/19/19 (=)]

National Security

More Than 500 Amendments Pile Up To Pentagon Bill. According to E&E News, “The Senate yesterday voted 88-11 to take up its defense policy bill, and more than 500 amendments are awaiting consideration. The legislation includes language to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contamination from military firefighting foam, and proposed amendments are still in play. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), approved compromise PFAS legislation yesterday. It could end up attached to the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Greenwire, June 19). The proposed PFAS amendment would add perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Toxics Release Inventory, along with numerous other types of PFAS. It would also require EPA to establish a drinking water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act within two years for at least two types of PFAS — PFOS and PFOA. EPW ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he was still hopeful another PFAS-related amendment he floated would make it into the NDAA. That provision would require EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. Sonya Lunder, senior toxics adviser with the Sierra Club’s gender, equity and environment program, said the legislation passed by the EPW Committee is ‘simply not strong enough.’” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Senators ‘Hopeful’ Defense Bill Will Include Superfund PFAS Measure. According to Inside EPA, “A bipartisan group of senators say they remain hopeful that legislative language requiring EPA to designate perfluorinated compounds as ‘hazardous substances’ subject to liability under the Superfund law will eventually be included in the fiscal year 2020 defense authorization bill, which is slated for consideration later this week. Their comments indicate that negotiations over the legacy waste issue are ongoing even as there is agreement on other provisions. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says he remains ‘hopeful’ that such a provision will ‘ultimately will be included’ in the defense authorization bill. Carper made his remarks at a June 19 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) business meeting, where lawmakers approved by voice vote a broad package of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) provisions covering numerous EPA actions under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Toxic Substances Control Act, though the compromise bipartisan legislation does not include the Superfund language. The legislative package is identical to an amendment to the defense authorization bill that Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Carper (D-DE), John Barrasso (R-WY), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) filed June 13.” [Inside EPA, 6/19/19 (=)]

Research and Analysis

Himalayan Glacier Melting Doubled Since 2000, Spy Satellites Show. According to The Guardian, “The melting of Himalayan glaciers has doubled since the turn of the century, with more than a quarter of all ice lost over the last four decades, scientists have revealed. The accelerating losses indicate a ‘devastating’ future for the region, upon which a billion people depend for regular water. The scientists combined declassified US spy satellite images from the mid-1970s with modern satellite data to create the first detailed, four-decade record of ice along the 2,000km (1,200-mile) mountain chain. The analysis shows that 8bn tonnes of ice are being lost every year and not replaced by snow, with the lower level glaciers shrinking in height by 5 meters annually. The study shows that only global heating caused by human activities can explain the heavy melting. In previous work, local weather and the impact of air pollution had complicated the picture. Joshua Maurer, from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth observatory, who led the new research, said: ‘This is the clearest picture yet of how fast Himalayan glaciers are melting since 1975, and why.’ The research is published in the journal Science Advances.” [The Guardian, 6/19/19 (=)]

Extreme Weather

Seawalls To Protect US Against Rising Oceans Could Cost $416bn By 2040. According to The Guardian, “Defending against rising seas could cost US communities $416bn in the next 20 years, according to a new report. Spending on seawalls alone could total almost as much as the initial investment in the interstate highway system, the authors said. And the billions involved will represent just a fraction of adaptation efforts governments in coastal states will have to fund if they do not want to simply retreat. ‘I don’t think anybody’s thought about the magnitude of this one small portion of overall adaptation costs and it’s a huge number,’ said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which published the report. Estimates of how much sea-level rise will cost often focus on impacts by 2100, Wiles said, adding that people will be paying for the climate crisis much earlier. ‘You’re looking at close to half a trillion spent over the next 20 years and no one has thought about that. So the question is, who’s going to pay for that? Is it really going to be taxpayers? The current position of climate polluters is that they should pay nothing, and that’s just not tenable.’” [The Guardian, 6/20/19 (=)]

Summer Heat Blazes In Faster Than It Ever Has In 100 Years. According to E&E News, “It has been hotter in May the past few years than in more than a century. The world’s land and oceans combined to reach 60.13 degrees Fahrenheit in the month that just ended, or 1.67 degrees above the 20th-century average, the National Centers for Environmental Information said in a statement Tuesday. That means the top-five hottest Mays in records going back to 1880 have all occurred since 2015. ‘What we have been seeing is the temperatures have been increasing, not only on a monthly, but annually and seasonally as well,’ said Ahira Sánchez-Lugo, a climatologist at the centers in Asheville, N.C. Nine of the 10 warmest Mays occurred since 2010, with 1998 as the only outlier. ‘We have seen quite a spike since 2010 at least,’ Sánchez-Lugo said. While the rest of the world baked, the western U.S., central and southeastern Canada, and northern and central Europe were actually cooler than average. The lower readings and heavy rains were caused by a low-pressure trough draped across the American continent that’s sent rivers over their banks and left corn and soybean planting lagging the five-year average. Northern Canada and Antarctica had temperatures rise about 7.2 degrees above normal in May.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Coastal States Face $416B In Adaptation Costs — Report. According to E&E News, “In the pecking order of places threatened by sea-level rise, small towns like Junction City, Wash., and Marathon, Fla., can’t match more densely populated cities like New York, San Francisco or Miami Beach. But when measured by the immense fiscal challenges of holding back the sea, coastal hamlets and rural counties face some of the highest adaptation costs in the United States. That’s one of the core findings of a new analysis that provides a granular look at the costs of adapting to sea-level rise in every coastal state, county, community and congressional district in the Lower 48 states. The study is based on the projected costs of building sea walls or other structural barriers to protect communities against sea-level rise, though the authors acknowledged that some areas can be protected by other means. ‘Our collective failure to come to grips with the massive costs of climate adaptation is the latest and most delusional form of climate denial,’ said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, which released the report, titled ‘High Tide Tax: The Price to Protect Coastal Communities from Rising Seas.’ The study found that cities, towns and counties in 22 states will need to spend $416 billion over the next two decades to armor more than 50,000 miles of shorelines with sea walls or other protective barriers.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Energy Company Plans Outages To Prevent Wildfires. According to E&E News, “Nevada residents who live in areas most prone to wildfires could see their electricity intentionally cut. The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that NV Energy already turns off customers’ power during fires when lines are damaged or aren’t working properly. But the utility announced last week it would turn off power when there’s a high risk of wildfires, too. Chris Hofmann is the utility’s director of grid reliability. He says planned outages would lower the odds that an electrical malfunction would spark a wildfire. Up to 15,000 customers in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Spring Mountains could be subject to the outages. New equipment to monitor weather, fuel moisture and soil conditions has been installed in those areas.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Ohio Farmers: It Will Take Years To Recover Losses From Rain. According to the Associated Press, “Farmers who have been unable to plant their soybeans and corn because of this spring’s never-ending rains told Ohio’s governor on Wednesday that it will take years to recover their losses. They also said the impact will be felt throughout the agriculture industry and could result in higher prices in stores. Dairy operations, fertilizer dealers and farm equipment sellers will feel the squeeze too. ‘The ripple effect will be huge,’ said Gov. Mike DeWine, who last week asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue a disaster declaration that would make aid available. DeWine told farmers after surveying swampy and weedy fields near Toledo that he plans on sending another letter to the Trump administration with more specific requests about easing rules that could help farmers. Crop insurance will keep most farmers from going under, but it’s not designed to cover such widespread losses, farmers told the governor. Since the beginning of April, many areas of northern and central Ohio have seen rain on more than half of those days, according to the agriculture department.” [Associated Press, 6/19/19 (=)]

Other Agencies

Interior

Interior Examines Transmission Backbone For Offshore Wind. According to E&E News, “The Interior Department yesterday began accepting competing development plans in the same ocean area that an offshore wind company is targeting for an unprecedented transmission backbone. The public notice from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), published in the Federal Register, could affect the fate of Anbaric’s OceanGrid proposal, which is aiming to connect several wind farms off the cost of New Jersey and New York. It’s the only proposal before federal authorities for a transmission line that would link multiple offshore wind farms, and the request constitutes the first time that the Trump administration has asked for comment on a multifarm backbone. Anbaric wants to build 185 nautical miles of cable and several collector platforms with 800 to 1,200 megawatts of capacity each. Those platforms would gather up energy from turbines at lease areas controlled by Ørsted AS, US Wind and Equinor ASA, along with other wind areas that haven’t yet been awarded, and deliver it to six substations ranging from Atlantic City to Long Island. The company asked BOEM to grant it the right of way for its project last year in an unsolicited application. If built, it would be the first U.S. project of its kind. A 2011 application to Interior from Atlantic Wind for a five-state, Google-backed transmission backbone was eventually withdrawn. If it’s ultimately seen through, OceanGrid could provide a new model for the U.S. offshore wind industry.” [E&E News, 6/20/19 (=)]

Exclusive: Trump Administration Delayed Releasing Documents Related To Yellowstone Superintendent's Firing. According to The Hill, “The release of internal documents sought by The Hill related to the replacement last year of Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk were delayed by the Interior Department under a new rule that gives political appointees more say over what is released. Interior political officials held back the release of a set of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents for nearly a month after some officials questioned whether the materials should have been provided to The Hill, according to new internal Interior emails granted to the environmental group Earthjustice in a recent public records request. The partially redacted documents were eventually released to The Hill on April 4, nearly a month after the first deadline set by the National Park Service (NPS). The delayed documents included communications in the days leading up to Wenk’s departure between him and acting NPS Director Dan Smith, Interior chief of staff Todd Willens, former senior adviser and national park superintendent Dave Mihalic and Rick Obernesser, the acting deputy director for operations at NPS. FOIA officials first flagged the four responsive documents set to be released to The Hill on March 6 to political appointees as part of the newly implemented Interior policy known as an ‘awareness review.’” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (=)]

'Bring Your Flags:' Bernhardt Rolls Out Trump's July 4 Plan. According to E&E News, “President Trump will celebrate July 4 on the National Mall with music, military demonstrations and flyovers, part of his ‘Salute to America’ event that will take place at the Lincoln Memorial. ‘Come on down — we’re going to have a big day,’ Trump told a cheering crowd of supporters in Orlando, Fla., last night as he formally announced his plan to seek reelection in 2020. ‘Bring your flags.’ Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who was tapped by Trump earlier this year to coordinate the event, rolled out the official schedule this morning, including plans to shift the fireworks display and open up sections of the National Mall that are usually closed on Independence Day due to the traditional fireworks launch site at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Trump predicted that ‘hundreds of thousands of people’ will join him for the event, which the Interior Department described as ‘a celebration of America’s military’ that Trump will lead. ‘We’re going to celebrate America — sounds good, right?’ Trump said last night. Bernhardt said Trump will give a speech to honor the military’s five service branches and that participants will include the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps, U.S. Army Band, Armed Forces Chorus and U.S. Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, among others.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Opinion Pieces

Op-Ed: 2020 Candidates Must Address Climate Change. According to an op-ed by Randall W. Parkinson in Florida Today, “The race for the next president of the United States has already begun, with the first nationally televised debate for Democratic candidates taking place in Miami on June 26 and 27. This time, the debate should feature a substantial section on climate change impacts and solutions. You cannot have a debate in Miami without acknowledging the threat to its very existence as a livable city: climate change. In the past, moderators have said they do not ask questions about climate change in presidential debates because it doesn’t make ‘good TV.’ While it may not be as sexy as some other topics, climate change is harming Americans in every part of the country, and for this reason it must be discussed. Our nation’s large wildfires, heavy rains, damaging hurricanes and heat waves are increasingly influenced by climate change. Right here in Florida, we are dealing with toxic algal blooms and we know from the National Climate Assessment that warmer, wetter weather makes algae blooms worse. Meanwhile, Miami Beach is spending $650 million on infrastructure to handle flooding from sea level rise. Climate is not a ‘single issue’ because it impacts everything: our health, our economy, agriculture, real estate values, national security and immigration. Climate impacts and solutions deserve meaningful discussion at every debate, starting in Miami and throughout the 2020 races.” [Florida Today, 6/20/19 (+)]

Op-Ed: Religion Must Rise To The Challenge Of Climate Change Too. According to an op-ed by Graham Lawton in New Scientist, “In 2011, when the Republican party took back the US House of Representatives from the Democrats, one of its first actions was to get rid of environmentally friendly crockery in the cafeterias there and bring back good ol’ plastic. The Republicans insisted that the eco cups and cutlery weren’t biodegradable and cost too much, but the subtext was clear: screw the environment, and all who sail in her. I retell this anecdote not to rake over old coals, but to suggest that you can tell a lot about an organization’s environmental commitment by looking at its catering operation. Judging from the cutlery at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the Vatican still has a long way to go. At first glance, the knives, forks and spoons look like metal. But they turn out to be metal-coated plastic. Non-recyclable, metal-coated plastic. One use, and they are off to landfill purgatory. I was there for a conference on non-religious belief (yes, at a university administered by the Vatican!), but unexpectedly ended up hearing a lot about the environment. It turns out that secularism, religion and environmentalism are entwined in ways that have scarcely been explored, yet will become more important as the environmental crisis gathers pace. Shortly before the minor political tremor over tableware in Congress, a real earthquake struck Christchurch in New Zealand. It caused widespread destruction and killed 185 people.” [New Scientist, 6/19/19 (+)]

Analysis: Food And Climate -- It's Not Just About Hamburgers. According to James Conca in Forbes, “A new study from Oxford published in the journal Science showed some interesting results about our food and our climate. One bowl of rice can have six times the climate impact of another. More greenhouse gases are emitted to give you a bottle of beer than to give you the same amount of beer from a keg. One cup of coffee’s carbon footprint may be fifteen times bigger than one made from a different crop of beans. The study investigated the complexities of the world’s agriculture to determine the broad environmental impacts of food production. Over 570 million farms produce over 5 billion tons of food a year, providing over 20 trillion calories to Earth’s almost 8 billion people. The process creates over 14 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂eq), over a quarter of human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Another 3 billion tons of CO₂eq are emitted during nonfood agriculture and deforestation. Today’s agriculture uses a lot of resources, covering 43% of the world’s ice- and desert-free land. Of this land, about 87% is for food and 13% is for biofuels and textile crops, wool and leather. Two-thirds of the planet’s freshwater is used for irrigation, usually during hot times of the year or in water-scarce areas, creating almost 95% of the world’s water scarcity. But there are ways of reducing agriculture’s environmental impacts. The researchers consolidated data on the multiple environmental impacts of over 38,000 farms producing 40 different agricultural goods around the world in a meta-analysis comparing various ways of producing food.” [Forbes, 6/20/19 (=)]

Op-Ed: Connecting The Drops Between Farm Fields And Mounting Water Risks. According to an op-ed by Sandra Postel in The Hill, “The heavy spring rains in the Midwest that have flooded farm fields, disrupted shipping and triggered numerous evacuations are also driving two disturbing projections for this summer: another large algal bloom in Lake Erie and a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of Massachusetts. Each spring, heavy loads of nitrogen and phosphorus from chemical fertilizers flow off farm fields into rivers and streams. In years of extreme precipitation, which the latest National Climate Assessment predicts will occur more often, those loads greatly increase. When they reach lakes and coastal zones, the nutrients feed the growth of algae, often turning water a sickly pea-soup green. The cyanobacteria that comprise algal blooms can also release neurotoxins that have killed dogs and pose risks to human health. While no government agency tracks the number of algal blooms nationally, the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group found cases of almost 300 blooms in rivers, lakes and bays in 48 states and the Gulf of Mexico since 2010. In August 2014, a toxic algal bloom in Lake Erie sat over Toledo, Ohio’s drinking water intake, forcing the city to warn residents not to use their tap water for drinking, cooking, or filling their pets’ water bowls. Two years later, a huge toxic bloom along Florida’s Atlantic Coast led the state to declare emergencies in two counties.” [The Hill, 6/20/19 (=)]

Op-Ed: Addressing Climate Change Is A Win For Republicans — Why Not Embrace It? According to an op-ed by Shane Skelton in The Hill, “In the heat of an election, politicians are sometimes pressured into supporting ideas and policies they know are ill-advised at best and socially and economically destructive at worst. One need only look at the ongoing Democratic presidential primary process to see nearly two dozen candidates clamoring over each other to claim the mantle of progressive idealism, embracing political and economic theories — like socialism — previously championed by ruthless dictators and since relegated to fringe elements of society. If so many Democrats are willing to do the wrong thing because they believe that’s what their voters want, why won’t Republicans do the right thing, especially when its exactly what their voters want? Arguably no one understands Republican voters better than famed pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz recently disseminated a memo warning Republican lawmakers that not addressing climate change is a political vulnerability, and one that will only grow as time passes. According to Luntz, 69 percent of Republican voters are concerned that the party is ‘hurting itself with younger voters’ by refusing to address climate change. Further, Luntz found that 55 percent of Republican voters under 40 are ‘very or extremely’ concerned with their party’s position on climate change.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (+)]

Op-Ed: Shutting Down Plastics At The Source. According to an op-ed by Sherri A. Mason in The Hill, “Plastics are everywhere. Every day, we breathe, drink and eat plastic particles. Right now, Congress has a chance to stop President Trump from misusing a clean energy program to give nearly $2 billion to support the industries that are inundating our oceans, streams and lived environment with even more synthetic particles. We are producing massive amounts of these materials every year: In 2015, for example, the United States manufactured 320 million tons of plastic. And a new report from Food & Water Watch shows that massive new investment in additional petrochemical facilities are planned, which will drive more drilling and pollution. These materials don’t go away; they break into particles so small and ubiquitous that they have now infiltrated our most important resources. My research focuses on plastic pollution in the Great Lakes, where we found that Lake Erie and Lake Ontario had concentrations of microplastics rivaling those within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. We have also looked for plastic within human consumables like bottled water. We found microplastics in 93 percent of bottled water brands such as Evian, Aquafina, Dasani, Nestle Pure Life and Pellegrino. In another study we found plastic particles in tap water, beer and sea salt, which simply added to the growing body of scientific literature finding plastics within shellfish, game fish and even our air.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (+)]

Op-Ed: Hydroponic Dandelions Hold The Key For A Critical Resource. According to an op-ed by Katrina Cornish in The Hill, “In today’s world, natural rubber is a critical component of developed economies — it remains impossible to drive a car, fly a plane or fight a war without it. However, because it is ubiquitous in our everyday lives, most people don’t realize its incredible importance. In 2018, 13.96 million tonnes were collected by hand-tapping latex from rubber trees, mostly in tropical, Southeast Asian plantations and small-holdings. The latex is about one-third rubber, which means that 3.7 billion U.S. gallons, enough to fill over 5,600 Olympic-sized swimming pools was dribbled into little cups. About 11 percent is centrifuged to remove half of the water, and the rest is converted to solid rubber. Concentrated latex is shipped to manufacturers of articles such as gloves and condoms made by dipping formers into latex emulsions, whereas the solidified rubber is molded into articles like tires, bushings and gaskets. About 50,000 different products require natural rubber for their manufacture. Biodiversification of global natural rubber is way past due. Natural rubber is the only critical agricultural product that has no backup. Synthetic rubber cannot replace it because of natural rubber’s unique, essential performance properties.” [The Hill, 6/19/19 (=)]

States

Great Lakes States, Provinces Team Up On Invaders. According to E&E News, “The eight states and two Canadian provinces in the Great Lakes region have agreed to cooperate on enforcing invasive species laws. They will share information and team up to investigate suspected violations, including possession and transport of banned exotic species such as Asian carp. An organization representing the region’s governors and premiers announced Monday that all the jurisdictions have signed onto the deal. More than 180 nonnative species have been introduced into the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. They compete with native species and damage sport and commercial fishing, tourism and recreation. The regional group previously identified the 21 ‘least wanted’ nonnative fish, plants and invertebrates that pose a particularly high risk. The group consists of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec and Wisconsin.” [E&E News, 6/19/19 (=)]

Colorado

Colorado Republicans Celebrate Trump Re-Election Announcement. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, “When President Donald Trump mentioned Hillary Clinton while kicking off his reelection campaign Tuesday night, a sanctuary full of his patriots in Lakewood chanted in unison with his audience in Orlando, Fla.: ‘Lock her up, lock her up.’ When he skewered the ‘fake news media,’ the crowd at Faith Baptist Church booed and cackled, with sporadic outbreaks of ‘USA, USA, USA.’ As Trump launched his second campaign, Republicans nationwide and at GOP watch parties in Colorado cheered him on.Bottom of Form Colorado Republicans talked about how to keep him in the White House and help other Republicans, such as U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner, who faces one of the toughest fights in the country, partly because of Trump’s unpopularity in Colorado. Weston Imer, a teenager on the Trump Victory Campaign for Jefferson County, read off a list of the president’s accomplishments on jobs, trade and foreign affairs, then advised the church crowd of about 150: ‘One of the things we want to focus on in this 2020 campaign is talking to your neighbors and saying, ‘The president isn’t that bad.’ So let’s say you have a light Democrat, and you want to talk to them about the president. Don’t come at like, ‘The president is the greatest president in history,’ which he is compared to George Washington and those other presidents. But make sure you hit on ‘The president is not that bad,’ because that’s how we get across to those independent voters and the swing voters in this state.’ In conservative El Paso County, about 75 people crammed into a room to watch the rally, the air conditioning struggling to keep pace with Trump fever.” [Colorado Springs Gazette, 6/19/19 (=)]

Florida

Rare Miami Forest Poised To Be Bulldozed For Walmart Development. According to The Hill, “A rare forest in Florida that is home to more than 20 endangered species of animals and plants is poised to be transformed into a Walmart-anchored shopping center after activists recently lost a legal battle to save the land from corporate development, the Miami Herald reports. According to the newspaper, the development will take up 138 acres of Miami-Dade’s pine rockland, which has been reduced to about 2 percent of its original size in recent years because of deforestation for other projects. The news comes after activists lost a years-long fight to save the land in court last week. A judge reportedly dismissed a lawsuit brought by a group of activists in 2017 challenging the development over what they called a failure to adequately notify the public of a rezoning hearing on the large-scale project. ‘The notice was far from adequate, and I wonder if the lack of critical information wasn’t an attempt to mislead the public about the project,’’ Kent Harrison Robbins, an attorney representing the activists, reportedly said after a hearing last month. However, that lawsuit was struck down on Friday after attorneys representing the developer of the project, Ram Realty, argued that the activists didn’t have standing on the issue given that they resided outside of the areas that would be affected by the project, the paper reports. Peter Cummings, founder of the realty company that acquired the land in 2013, said that he was ‘pleased’ with the legal outcome.” [The Hill, 6/20/19 (=)]

New York

New York To Pass Most Progressive Climate Crisis Plan In US. According to The Guardian, “New York state would launch the most progressive policy in the US to combat the climate crisis and one of the most ambitious in the world under a new plan devised by state legislators. The program projects that the state would produce 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2040 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050. The proposed legislation, agreed by the state’s Democrat-run senate, faces a vote by the other house of the state legislature, the assembly, in New York’s capital, Albany, on Wednesday. New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo who negotiated the proposal with top lawmakers and would have final word over any approved legislation, said it would give New York the nation’s best plan to address the causes of the climate crisis. ‘Climate change is the issue of our lifetime, frankly,’ Cuomo said on public radio on Tuesday morning. The bill’s adoption comes amid the Trump administration’s ongoing dismantling of environmental protections. Trump has especially hampered efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as announcing that the US will be leaving the Paris climate agreement.” [The Guardian, 6/19/19 (+)]

Pennsylvania

Op-Ed: New Jersey Needs More Electric Transit To Fight Climate Change. According to an op-ed by Barbara Rosen and Debra Coyle McFadden in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Climate change is the greatest threat to public health of the 21st century, with disproportionate harm borne by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged New Jerseyans among us. Fortunately, a 21st century clean technology solution is available. Transition to an electrified transportation system will reduce the use of petroleum-fueled cars, trucks, and buses, which cause nearly half of New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions, the most significant driver of documented climate change since the middle of the last century. Not only will climate change unravel the last 50 years of advances we have made in public health policy, but the effects of climate change are a clear danger to the health of Americans now. As leaders in health, we know a 21st century electrified transportation system must be designed equitably, to address the impact of climate change where it is most excruciatingly experienced. Climate change and the health impacts are real. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the average temperature in New Jersey has increased 3°F over the past century. Residents of urban communities, especially young children and the elderly, are most likely to reap the negative health consequences, typically in the form of asthma attacks and heat stress.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/20/19 (+)]

Utah

Utah Will Charge Some Vehicles For Every Mile Driven On The Roads. According to Fox Salt Lake, “Utah’s Department of Transportation will launch a program next year that will charge drivers for every mile they use the roads. At a meeting of the Utah State Legislature’s interim Transportation Committee, lawmakers were briefed on the program being launched in October, with driver signups beginning in January. ‘Utah could be the first state that actually does this!’ said Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville. UDOT is implementing a road use charge to address declining gas tax revenues, which pay for road construction and repairs. ‘The gas tax is being eroded by cars that are getting good mileage that are electric and they aren’t actually paying tax,’ UDOT Deputy Director Teri Newell told FOX 13. The proposal would be to charge .015 cents per mile to electric and hybrid vehicles, based on a GPS measurement of how far they are driven. For example, 10,000 miles would be about $150. Or, drivers could sign up to pay a flat fee that would be equivalent to (and could be in lieu of) vehicle registration with the state. Other states are considering similar programs, but only Utah and Oregon are moving beyond a pilot project. The state is already contracting with a third-party to handle GPS tracking to avoid privacy concerns.” [Fox Salt Lake, 6/19/19 (=)]

Own A Hybrid Or Electric Car? UDOT Would Like To Talk To You. According to Deseret News, “Utah will be one of the first states in the country to charge electric and hybrid vehicle owners for the miles they drive under a voluntary program starting in January. State lawmakers authorized the Utah Department of Transportation to collect a road usage charge as a way to make up for diminishing gas tax revenue. ‘We know that gas tax will be eroded over time and we’re just trying to be ahead of the game,’ said Teri Newell, UDOT deputy director, adding the number of electric cars in the state is small but growing. ‘It’s anybody’s guess at what point they fully are into the market and it becomes a bigger issue, so we just want to be ready.’ Currently, 89.5 percent of the 2.6 million registered vehicles in Utah run on gas, while 8.5 percent are diesel powered. Only 2 percent are electric, plug-in electric or hybrid, according to figures UDOT provided to the Transportation Interim Committee on Wednesday. Newell said the program is an attempt to charge people for how much they use the roads. ‘That’s really the fairest way to do it. The gas tax used to be a good way to replicate that, but now we need to start thinking about moving on to something different,’ she said.” [Deseret News, 6/19/19 (=)]

West Virginia

Federal Lands Behind In Maintenance. According to the Beckley Register-Herald, “According to data from the National Park Service (NPS), nationally in fiscal year 2018, nearly $12 billion of maintenance was deferred to a later date. Across all federal lands, that figure expands to $19.4 billion. In West Virginia, the NPS backlog as of last September was nearly $62 million — the New River Gorge National River had more than $21 million in deferred maintenance, followed closely by the Appalachian National Scenic Trail at nearly $19 million. Other regional NPS lands also showed a backlog of maintenance, with the Gauley River National Recreation Area behind nearly $3 million in prescribed maintenance and the Bluestone National Scenic River behind some $60,247. The deferred maintenance totals are nothing new, with the figures remaining relatively the same going back until FY 2014, the last year shown on the NPS website. Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee met to discuss the problem and possible permanent fixes to the ever-present need for funds for public lands. ‘Our national parks are one of the country’s greatest ideas and it falls on us to make sure that we are laying the groundwork for the next 100 years,’ Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said in his opening comments. Manchin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, pointed out that with the $60 million in deferred NPS maintenance, West Virginia, a state of 1.8 million people, has an additional $36 million in deferred maintenance on U.S. Forestry Service property and more than $7 million in deferred maintenance on U.S. Fish and Wildlife property in the state, for a total over $100 million in backlogged federal maintenance.” [Beckley Register-Herald, 6/20/19 (=)]

Editorial: Bipartisan Effort Should Not Fall Prey To Politics. According to the Parkersburg News and Sentinel Editorial Board, “No federal program protecting natural areas and assisting local and state recreation projects has had the reach and the importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Thousands of individual initiatives have been assisted by the LWCF. Projects ranging from local recreation to state parks in West Virginia have benefited from more than $243 million in LWCF assistance. The total is even higher for Ohio, at more than $340 million. Yet the fund, established by Congress in 1964, is subject to periodic reauthorizations and annual hat-in-hand requests to keep the money flowing. Earlier this year, Congress voted to reauthorize the LWCF. Now, however, the question of funding is up again. In April, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced a bill (S1081) to grant the fund at least some permanency. His measure, now with bipartisan support from 41 cosponsors, would ensure the program receives $900 million a year — without the need for annual battles over appropriations. A similar measure (House Resolution 3195) has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Already, it has 10 cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat. It is clear from the bipartisan nature of early support for both bills that this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is simply a matter of ensuring that a vitally important federal program remains not just in existence, but also funded adequately to do the important work in which it has engaged for more than half a century.” [Parkersburg News and Sentinel, 6/20/19 (=)]

Chad Ellwood

Research Associate

cellwood@cacampaign.com

202.448.2877 ext. 119