TOP HEADLINES

 

IG Says Trump's Budget Would Hobble Investigations

 

Pruitt Talks 'War On Lead,' But Budget Says Little

 

EPA: Pruitt Has 'Blanket Waiver' For First-Class Travel

 

DOE Watchdog: CCS Money Went To Spas, Liquor, Lobbying

 

Weather Service Would Lose 355 Employees Under Trump Budget

 

Exxon Sues The Suers In Fierce Climate-Change Case

 

 

White House And Diplomacy

 

Will Trump Name A Scientist? A Poli-Sci Grad Runs The Show. According to E&E News, “A job that’s been held by some of the nation’s top scientists is now occupied by a 31-year-old politics major from Princeton University. And it’s unlikely to change soon, observers say, leaving President Trump without a science adviser as the administration wrestles with a severe outbreak of the flu, lead-poisoned drinking water and record-breaking disasters that many scientists say are sharpened by rising temperatures. More than a year into his term, Trump hasn’t identified a potential nominee for the key position held by prominent scientists in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. And it stands to get harder. There’s a razor-thin margin for Senate approval, and Trump’s critics and supporters could complicate the confirmation of anyone who rejects mainstream climate science. That means the job falls to Michael Kratsios, the deputy assistant in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. At least for now. Kratsios graduated from Princeton in 2008 with a political science degree and a focus on Hellenic studies. He previously served as chief of staff to Peter Thiel, the controversial Silicon Valley billionaire and Trump ally. … In the last year, a science adviser could have helped Trump navigate a series of deadly hurricanes and wildfires, nuclear tensions with North Korea and Iran, and climate change, observers said. All of them can be the type of situation where Cabinet secretaries and political advisers offer competing viewpoints. So it’s essential to have one person who can filter those voices through an objective lens informed by science.” [E&E News, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Intelligence Official Warns Of 'Abrupt' Change. According to E&E News, “A top intelligence official took to Capitol Hill yesterday to quietly reiterate a dire warning about ‘abrupt climate change,’ a sharp rebuke to President Trump’s assertions on Twitter that the underlying science is a ‘hoax.’ Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats in written testimony warned of the potential for ‘abrupt climate change,’ marking the first time the former Republican congressman from Indiana has used such loaded language in writing. ‘The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent — and possibly upheaval — through 2018,’ he wrote. Coats’ testimony said the past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization. He also asserted, based on intelligence information from as recently as Thursday, that climatic changes could result in far-reaching global disruption. ‘Extreme weather events in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and can compound with other drivers to raise the risk of humanitarian disasters, conflict, water and food shortages, population migration, labor shortfalls, price shocks, and power outages. Research has not identified indicators of tipping points in climate-linked earth systems, suggesting a possibility of abrupt climate change,’ wrote Coats. While it’s not the first time Coats or other Trump officials have raised the warning flag about the effects of a shifting climate, the testimony marks the first time a high-profile Trump intelligence official has used language mirroring that of the Obama administration.” [E&E News, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Federal Agencies

 

EPA

 

IG Says Trump's Budget Would Hobble Investigations. According to E&E News, “U.S. EPA’s internal watchdog’s call for more funds went unheeded. Under the agency’s fiscal 2019 budget proposal, the EPA inspector general would receive $37.48 million — the exact same figure President Trump proposed for the IG in last year’s budget plan. The lowballed request comes despite pressure from the EPA watchdog over the past months to have the Trump administration ask Congress for millions of dollars more. EPA IG spokeswoman Tia Elbaum told E&E News that with sparse funds, the watchdog office will not be able to do many investigations. The inspector general is working on several sensitive probes involving Administrator Scott Pruitt, including spending on his travel and security detail. ‘The president’s budget request is substantially less than what we requested, seriously impacting the work we are able to perform. Without sufficient resources, we will not be able to do multiple audits and investigations that have considerable value and return on investment,’ Elbaum said. In fact, the IG had hoped the Trump administration would ask lawmakers for almost $25 million more in funds. Elbaum noted, ‘The IG determined that we need $62 million to perform the duties of our office, which includes completing statutorily mandated and risk-based projects, such as those requested by Congress.’” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Talks 'War On Lead,' But Budget Says Little. According to E&E News, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has promised Congress he’ll wage a ‘war on lead’ in fiscal 2019. But the agency’s budget proposal released yesterday offers scant details on the effort. In fact, while the Trump administration supports funding programs that help local communities pay to improve water infrastructure — including replacing lead pipes — EPA also proposes cuts to programs that have worked on lead contamination issues. The agency’s $84 million request for drinking water programs represents a $15 million decrease from current levels. Those proposed cuts come mostly from environmental programs, where EPA says it is ‘streamlining activities.’ The agency is actually requesting a slight $100,000 increase in funding for science and technology in drinking water programs. Overall, funding for those programs would be spent, in part, to ‘continue to evaluate and address drinking water risks in 2019,’ the budget states, including ‘evaluating recommendations from stakeholders to develop revision’ to the Lead and Copper Rule. EPA says it will ‘continue to focus on working with states to optimize corrosion control treatment and develop other strategies to minimize exposure to lead.’ Also on the chopping block is the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program. The administration is proposing a $38 million cut from current levels to fund the program at $67 million in 2019. The budget notes researchers from that program are working to develop sampling protocols and exposure risk assessment models for lead in drinking water. Researchers there also recently evaluated lead corrosion control treatment strategies with partner utilities in eight states ‘to inform implementation’ of standards for lead in drinking water.” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

EPA Numbers Hint At Eased Enforcement Under Trump. According to The Hill, “The reported decline in enforcement actions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a likely harbinger of what’s to come from the Trump administration, experts say. The EPA on Thursday reported that it had recommended that 115 cases of illegal pollution be prosecuted in the last fiscal year, down from 152 the year before and a peak of nearly 400 cases in 2009. The findings seemed to confirm speculation that the EPA under President Trump has shifted its focus away from regulating pollution and prosecuting polluters, and experts and former EPA officials predict the enforcement numbers would continue to drop. ‘The enforcement results today are heavily influenced by big cases brought by the Obama administration,’ said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) and head of EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement from 1997 to 2002. ‘Since President Trump took office, the long arm of the law has gotten shorter, at least when it comes to cracking down on illegal pollution.’ The tally of enforcement actions for fiscal 2017 included the final four months of the Obama administration. If the tally had only included actions taken under current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, many suspect that the total would have been significantly lower. Back in August, an EIP report looked at the first six months of Trump’s presidency and found that 26 civil lawsuits were filed against polluters. During the comparable time period under President Obama and President George W. Bush, 34 and 31 cases were filed, respectively. The EIP report also found a 60 percent drop in civil penalties under Trump.” [The Hill, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Questions Trail Pruitt's 'Reform Plan.' According to E&E News, “Faster contracting and permitting and fewer requests for industry information are all part of U.S. EPA’s long-anticipated ‘reform plan.’ Released yesterday along with its strategic plan in its fiscal 2019 budget proposal, EPA’s reform plan comes in response to an executive order signed by President Trump last March ordering a vast reorganization of the federal government. The plan offers 11 projects to help streamline EPA operations and makes use of the so-called Lean management system to ensure the agency is hitting its performance marks. ‘Together the Strategic Plan and Reform Plan set a roadmap for EPA to better achieve our mission of protecting human health and the environment, while improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our processes and operations,’ Administrator Scott Pruitt said in an internal email to employees yesterday. Stan Meiburg, a former acting deputy EPA administrator during the Obama administration, reviewed the reform plan at E&E News’ request. He said in an email that some elements ‘have merit in principle,’ such as the use of Lean techniques, stronger partnerships with state regulators, laboratory management, streamlined procurement and enhancing shared service centers. ‘These should be done in full collaboration with career staff, because though desirable they will involve some hard choices for the organization,’ said Meiburg, now director of graduate programs in sustainability at Wake Forest University. He also warned faster permitting shouldn’t be ‘a code word for permitting that neglects essential environmental obligations.’” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

After Court Order, EPA Sets Hearing On Conn. Petition. According to E&E News, “U.S. EPA is moving to comply with a federal judge’s ruling last week on a lawsuit brought by Connecticut, albeit not precisely how the state wanted. In the ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton of Connecticut ordered EPA to hold a public hearing within 30 days on its proposed decision on the state’s 2016 petition seeking a crackdown on Brunner Island Steam Electric Station, a Pennsylvania power plant whose emissions are blamed for contributing to Connecticut’s ozone problems (E&E News PM, Feb. 7). But while Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen (D) had asked that the hearing take place in his state, EPA will instead hold it Feb. 23 at agency headquarters in Washington, according to a notice set for publication in tomorrow’s Federal Register. A Jepsen spokeswoman declined to comment this morning. Under Eginton’s ruling, EPA must make a decision on the petition within 60 days. In the notice, EPA said it will issue its proposed response in the near future.” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

EPA Strategic Plan Sets Aggressive Efficiency Goals, Omits Climate Targets. According to Inside EPA, “EPA’s final strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 adds a host of aggressive metrics for achieving its efficiency and environmental remediation goals, including reducing the processing time for all federal permits to six months or less, but the Trump administration’s push to cut EPA funding and staff in the coming years could complicate those efforts. The strategic plan, released Feb. 12 alongside the White House’s FY19 budget request, largely maintains the goals set in the draft released last year, including an omission of any targets related to climate change or greenhouse gas cuts. This comes despite critics’ charges that excluding climate goals is a ‘glaring oversight’ that shirks the agency’s responsibility to help address one of the world’s most pressing environmental challenges. ‘By neglecting to even acknowledge climate change, the EPA is placing the livelihood of future generations in jeopardy,’ the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said in October comments on the draft plan. Even though the final plan largely maintains the draft plan’s goals, it adds numeric targets for achieving them. For instance, the final plan says that by the end of FY22, EPA will aim to process all permit applications under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act and other statutes within six months, and applications for pesticide registrations under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) within 60 days -- rather than the draft plan’s goal of completing those actions more quickly but without a specific target. It also sets goals of reducing ‘unnecessary or duplicative reporting burdens to the regulated community’ by 10 million hours, reducing the number of areas in nonattainment with ambient air quality standards to 1,014, completing cleanups at 255 Superfund sites, and bringing an additional 37,000 square miles of watersheds into compliance with state CWA standards.” [Inside EPA, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Proposed Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Cuts Faces Uphill Battle. According to Washington Post, “President Donald Trump’s plan to slash 90 percent of Chesapeake Bay cleanup funding, which could dismantle several decades of environmental restoration, met resistance from Maryland’s Democratic congressional delegation. The cuts, which would drop the budget for Chesapeake Bay programs from $73 million to $7.3 million, are nestled in a proposed 33.7 percent decrease in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. That would be a paltry sum ‘to support the nation’s largest estuary,’ Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, said in a statement. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan told Capital News Service the state would fight hard against massive cuts to the bay cleanup program. ‘This is yet another assault on clean water, from a president who campaigned saying he valued it,’ William Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said in a statement. Trump tweeted in April 2017 that he was ‘committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that economic growth enhances environmental protection.’ Maryland’s bay-wide commercial harvest for all crabs rebounded from under 20 million pounds in 2013-2014, the lowest marks since 1990, to about 30 million pounds in 2016, according to statistics from Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources. Critics said the proposed cuts to the EPA have the potential to derail the progress that Maryland has seen, putting both the economic growth and environmental protection Trump referenced in jeopardy.” [Washington Post, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

EPA: Pruitt Has 'Blanket Waiver' For First-Class Travel. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is pre-approved to fly first class whenever he travels, a spokesman said Tuesday. ‘Due to security reasons, he has a blanket waiver to buy business or first class,’ Jahan Wilcox said. Wilcox declined to say who specifically signed off on that policy, or when, or how the agency determined that flying coach was a security risk. He said that information would have to be requested via the Freedom of Information Act, a process that can take months to complete. Pruitt has been under scrutiny for his travel for months including in an investigation by the agency’s internal watchdog. The Washington Post reported this weekend that he and his top aides spent at least $90,000 on taxpayer-funded travel in early June, according to receipts obtained by the Environmental Integrity Project under FOIA. That group took EPA to court for records related to Pruitt’s travels, according to The FOIA Project. … ‘Unfortunately ... we’ve had some incidents on travel dating back to when I first started serving in the March-April timeframe,’ Pruitt told the New Hampshire Union Leader on Tuesday while visiting the state. ‘We live in a very toxic environment politically, particularly around issues of the environment. ... We’ve reached the point where there’s not much civility in the marketplace and it’s created, you know, it’s created some issues and the (security) detail, the level of protection is determined by the level of threat.’” [Politico, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

'I'm Not Involved In Any Of Those Decisions,' EPA's Pruitt Says Of Extensive First-Class Travel. According to Washington Post, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt on Tuesday attributed his habit of taking taxpayer-funded, first-class flights to his personal security detail and chief of staff, saying he plays no role in his travel arrangements. ‘I’m not involved in any of those decisions,’ Pruitt told the New Hampshire Union Leader during a visit to the state. ‘Those are all made by the [security] detail, the security assessment in addition to the chief of staff.’ Pruitt told the paper that the decision to routinely fly business class and first class across the country and even internationally stemmed from unspecified threats early in his tenure at EPA. ‘We live in a very toxic environment politically, particularly around issues of the environment,’ said Pruitt, who acknowledged he had just flown first class from Washington to Boston to reach New Hampshire. ‘We’ve reached the point where there’s not much civility in the marketplace, and it’s created, you know, it’s created some issues, and the [security] detail, the level of protection is determined by the level of threat.’ … Federal regulations require government employees to ‘exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business … and therefore, should consider the least-expensive class of travel that meets their needs.’ Agencies are allowed to authorize first-class travel in rare instances, such as for a flight of 14 hours or more, in the event of a medical disability or when ‘exceptional security circumstances’ mean ‘use of coach class accommodations would endanger your life or government property.’” [Washington Post, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

EPA Chief Pruitt Meets Privately With Sununu, Officials Of Forest Products Industry. According to WMUR, “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt came to New Hampshire Tuesday for private meetings with Gov. Chris Sununu and representatives of the forest products industry, as well as a stop at a federal Superfund site in Nashua. Following Pruitt’s visit, the EPA issued a statement focusing on his meeting at Central Paper Products, Inc., in Manchester. ‘For years, the federal government rendered most U.S. forestry producers ineligible for federal procurement projects and created confusion around biomass carbon neutrality,’ Pruitt said. ‘Understanding the importance of the forest products industry to the state of New Hampshire, EPA is focused on clarifying regulations that were encumbering the industry.’ The EPA also said that during his meeting with Sununu, Pruitt gave the governor a letter announcing the agency’s efforts ‘to work towards a carbon-neutral policy for biomass and clarify federal procurement recommendations for responsibly managed forests.’ … The spokesman said: ‘Also discussed were the EPA’s ongoing efforts to streamline regulatory permitting processes that would return more power and flexibility to the state.’ … State Democrats questioned why the meeting between Pruitt and Sununu was not announced in advance and closed to the media. ‘Pretty pathetic when a New Hampshire governor and U.S. Cabinet secretary are afraid of the citizens of New Hampshire,’ state Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley posted on Twitter. ‘We can have presidents in our living rooms but these two think they are so dang important they have to meet in secret?’” [WMUR, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Eyes Declaring Biomass Carbon Neutral. According to Politico, “While in New Hampshire, Pruitt met with Gov. Chris Sununu and gave him a letter announcing his agency’s effort to get to a carbon-neutral policy for biomass ‘and clarify federal procurement recommendations for responsibly managed forests,’ according to a statement from EPA.” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt's Carbon Tweet Irks Science Advisers. According to E&E News, “A tweet from Scott Pruitt has landed him on one side of a climate fight that has long divided his agency’s science advisers. The dispute: whether using biomass for fuel is ‘carbon neutral.’ The U.S. EPA boss thinks it is, he suggested on Twitter yesterday during a trip to New Hampshire to talk with representatives from the forest industry. ‘In the great state of #NewHampshire today meeting with forestry sectors about @EPA’s efforts to develop a carbon-neutral policy for biomass and clarify federal procurement recommendations for responsibly managed forests,’ Pruitt tweeted yesterday afternoon. Using the term ‘carbon neutral’ in reference to biomass is notable coming from an EPA administrator. The agency has not yet set an official position on the hot-button subject. EPA’s Science Advisory Board has spent years, without success, trying to figure out how to give guidance to regulators on the best way to account for carbon emissions from burning fuel sources like forest trimming or agricultural waste. … ‘For years, the federal government rendered most U.S. forestry producers ineligible for federal procurement projects and created confusion around biomass carbon neutrality,’ Pruitt said in a statement. ‘Understanding the importance of the forest products industry to the State of New Hampshire, EPA is focused on clarifying regulations that were encumbering the industry.’ EPA said it received comments from industry saying that a lack of a carbon-neutral policy on biomass was hurting forests and the forest products sector. Additionally, the agency said it was taking action because Congress recently included language in its appropriations bills that specified biomass should be considered carbon neutral.” [E&E News, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Trump Pick For EPA’s No. 2 Accused Of Abusing Power To ‘Bully’ And ‘Intimidate’ Opponents. According to Huffington Post, “At the hearing, John Paul, a regional air pollution officer from Dayton, Ohio, who spoke as a representative of the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials and its sister group, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, testified that the bill was ‘simply not protective enough’ and was ‘far too lenient’ on polluters. In response, Inhofe took the unusual step of asking the groups to turn over six years of IRS filings and all records of grants they received from the EPA. Wheeler took ownership of the demands in a March 1, 2005 interview with E&E News. But he denied that the requests were politically motivated. ‘STAPPA receives apparently ... most if not all of their funding from the U.S. taxpayers,’ Wheeler said. ‘That is part of our legitimate oversight activities on grant oversight. It has nothing at all to do with Clear Skies.’ But Bill Becker, who served as STAPPA’s executive director for 37 years before retiring in June, said the tax probe broke with ordinary protocol for requesting filings and ‘was meant for no other purpose than to intimidate and retaliate for positions ... against their bill.’ ‘It was merely a fact-finding witch hunt against our association, with the hope that they could find something and use that against us to temper what we said,’ Becker told HuffPost by phone Monday. ‘They treated us at the time in a mean-spirited, political way for merely questioning a policy.’” [Huffington Post, 2/13/18 (+)]

 

DOE

 

DOE Watchdog: CCS Money Went To Spas, Liquor, Lobbying. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s poor management of a $1.7 billion cooperative agreement for a now-failed carbon capture initiative led to millions of dollars of questionable or unlawful spending, according to an inspector general report. DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy office oversaw the Texas Clean Energy Project, which aimed to develop a coal gasification plant that would capture 90 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. DOE committed $350 million under a cost-share agreement, and later added another $100 million before it cut its ties in 2016 and the project ultimately foundered when it could not secure enough private funding. Last year it filed for bankruptcy protection. Investigators identified $2.5 million in ‘potentially unallowable’ expenses, including $1.2 million spent on lobbying. The company said the money was spent to clarify IRS rules about taxing grant money, but the IG said the activities were related to potential legislative changes and thus were lobbying activities barred from using federal money. The review also found $1.3 million in ‘questionable or prohibited’ travel costs, including $650,000 charged by one consultant for ‘spa service, alcohol, first-class travel, limousine services, receipts in foreign currency, and business meals.’ Investigators flagged another $325,000 that was charged as a business expense but ‘appeared to be social in nature,’ including ‘catering and banquet room rental expenses, catering on a private jet, and travel expenses to attend a charity event.’ The report also found $38 million in reimbursements that lacked proper documentation or justification, but declined to question the costs as a previous external audit ‘found no significant issues.’” [Politico, 2/12/18 (=)]

 

CCS Grants Paid For Booze, Spas, Catering — Audit. According to E&E News, “The Department of Energy allowed millions of dollars slated for a Texas carbon capture project to be used improperly for lobbying, alcohol, travel and ‘social’ expenses, the agency’s inspector general said in an audit released today. The watchdog found that the Office of Fossil Energy approved $38 million to be distributed to the Texas Clean Energy Project, which was never built, without adequate documentation to ensure the money was used for intended purposes. In one instance, more than $600,000 in consulting fees related to the project may have been charged for things such as spa services, limousines and first-class trips, auditors said. ‘The issues identified occurred, in part, because Fossil Energy had not always exercised sound project and financial management practices in its oversight,’ the report said. … The IG said invoices with spa, limousine and alcohol expenses were particularly concerning because they included Summit employees traveling with one consulting firm, increasing the risk of double billing. Another $1.2 million may have been used illegally for prohibited lobbying services. In one instance, Summit may have overstated the value of a cost share with a land purchase by $384,000. The IG said problems arose in part because Fossil Energy didn’t identify improper lobbying activities and approved funds without complete paperwork. In one example, invoices for $16.9 million in subcontractor costs did not include details about the nature of services provided or the number of hours worked.” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

FERC Chair Calls For Serious Resilience Discussion Post-DOE NOPR. According to Politico, “FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre called on state regulators this morning to share their candid views on grid resilience without getting mired in the controversy around the Energy Department proposal that FERC rejected last month. ‘[FERC] truly embraced the challenge presented by that unusual DOE NOPR situation,’ McIntyre told the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. The five-member commission unanimously voted to terminate Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s proposal, which would’ve propped up coal and nuclear plants in states with competitive markets. Instead, regulators asked the nation’s grid operators to spell out their regional grid resilience challenges. Still, McIntyre defended Perry, describing him as a ‘true public servant.’ ‘It was motivated by and expressly described itself as being motivated by the long term resilience of our electric grid. Well, who can argue with that as a valid concern?’ McIntyre said. FERC has given grid operators 60 days to submit their views, and will take comments from other parties for another 30 days. ‘Tell us what needs to happen and why,’ McIntyre told state regulators. ‘Let’s try not to get hung up in notions of bailouts of particular fuels or anything like that. I really don’t think that advances the ball at all.’ WHAT’S NEXT: FERC’s Jan. 8 order gives grid operators until March 9 to respond.” [Politico, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

FERC Studies Trump's Proposed 'Regulatory Streamlining'. According to E&E News, “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is working on analyzing President Trump’s infrastructure package, Chairman Kevin McIntyre said this morning. McIntyre, speaking at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter policy meeting, said ‘work is commencing as we speak’ on the White House framework. ‘There is a lot there ... focus on regulatory streamlining and attempts to avoid delays in permitting, etc.,’ said the agency chairman. ‘We will be looking at it from the standpoint of the framework of law, what is required and permitted by us, and then, within that framework, looking at what opportunities the plan gives us to overall improve infrastructure,’ McIntyre said. The infrastructure plan points to FERC specifically at least once. Currently, if agencies cooperate with FERC’s preparation of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, they cannot then intervene in the rest of the licensing process for a certain project. That policy effectively forces agencies to choose between the two, and if they decide not to participate in the NEPA work, FERC loses expertise on important environmental issues.” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

NOAA

 

Weather Service Would Lose 355 Employees Under Trump Budget. According to E&E News, “President Trump wants to get rid of 355 jobs at the National Weather Service, part of his plan to cut NOAA’s budget by nearly 20 percent next fiscal year. The number of positions would shrink by 8 percent, from 4,494 to 4,139, under the president’s budget proposal for fiscal 2019. It’s more bad news for members of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, who are in the middle of negotiations over a new contract. ‘It’s already causing all sorts of morale problems,’ Daniel Sobien, the organization’s president, said today. The new plan, which the White House released yesterday, would set NOAA’s overall budget at $4.56 billion in 2019, a decrease of $1.08 billion from current levels (E&E News PM, Feb. 12). The budget also would eliminate NOAA’s coastal zone management grants, the Sea Grant program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and the agency’s Office of Education, among other reductions. The jobs targeted for elimination at the Weather Service include 248 forecasters and others who provide support services. In its budget document, administration officials said eliminating the jobs would allow the agency to address ‘inherent inefficiencies associated with the rigid field office structure.’” [E&E News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Judiciary And Legal

 

AP | Utah Moves To Sue California Over Fee On Coal Power. According to Utah Public Radio, “Utah lawmakers want the state to set aside $2 million to sue California over rules that make coal-fired power more expensive. The proposal from Republican Rep. Mike Noel passed through a subcommittee Tuesday with only one Democratic lawmaker raising any objections. Noel says California’s policy is hurting coal miners in his rural district and violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. California utilities pay an extra $15 per megawatt hour to buy power from Utah’s coal-fired Intermountain Power Plant. California Air Resources Board spokesman Stanley Young says the state’s cap-and-trade system is aimed at reducing climate-changing gases no matter what state the coal comes from. The system has survived previous court challenges from business leaders in California. Democratic Sen. Jim Dabakis says the lawsuit would be a waste of taxpayer money.” [Utah Public Radio, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Wyoming, Utah Explore Funding Legal Challenges To West Coast Coal Policies. According to Reuters, “Lawmakers in coal-producing Utah and Wyoming, faced by a shrinking market for the fuel, this week introduced laws to fund legal challenges in California and Washington of policies that they believe hurt coal sales. A Utah lawmaker on Monday proposed allocating $2 million to cover legal fees to private attorneys that would challenge a California surcharge on Utah coal, imposed as part of a cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions there. In Wyoming, a Republican lawmaker on Monday introduced a bill in the state’s Republican-controlled lower house that would let the legislature hire and pay for its own outside lawyer to sue Washington state for denying permits for an export terminal. In both efforts, lawmakers argue the moves interfere with their states’ economies, which rely heavily on coal mining. Both bills have passed subcommittees and political observers expect them to have a good chance of passing their Republican-controlled legislatures. Western coal mining companies have already filed lawsuits against Washington state and the city of Oakland, California challenging local decisions to block export facilities on environmental grounds. The industry is also lobbying the Trump administration to override the local decisions, though it is unclear what policy options are available to the White House. The strategy to pursue legal challenges could be a long shot. Courts have tended in the past to side with local authorities in similar cases.” [Reuters, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

 

Ally Groups

 

Greens Sue Trump Over Fracking Waste In Gulf. According to The Hill, “Three environmental groups teamed up to sue the Trump administration on Tuesday for allowing oil companies to dump leftover waste from drilling and fracking into the Gulf of Mexico. The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Gulf Restoration Network and Louisiana Bucket Brigade, argues officials neglected to determine the potential dangers to water quality, marine life and the environment before allowing the dumping. Specifically, the groups are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act permit that allows companies to dump the waste into the Gulf. The permit was granted in September. The groups claim officials failed to conduct a comprehensive environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit petitioned the court to review the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the EPA. ‘The Trump administration is letting oil companies dump toxic fracking chemicals into the Gulf with no regard for the risks or the law,’ Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the CBD, said in a statement. ‘That’s just unacceptable. The EPA is supposed to protect water quality, not give oil companies free rein to use our oceans as their garbage disposal.’” [The Hill, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Greens See Trump Infrastructure Plan As Ruse To Gut Environmental Rules. According to Politico, “The proposal unveiled by the White House on Monday offers few details and little federal funding, even as it calls for several changes to push control — and the tab — to local and state entities and the private sector. But the most robust proposals are the ones that would narrow environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and other conservation laws. ‘This isn’t an infrastructure package, this is an all-out attack on long-standing environmental protections that have done a lot of good for this country,’ said Melissa Samet, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation. Republicans and business groups have long complained the current permitting process creates unnecessary delays for projects since agencies don’t usually conduct their separate reviews concurrently, the lead agency isn’t put in charge of the review process and laws allow for yearslong legal challenges. And they’re happy the White House is trying to shorten the process, though any major changes will have to go through Congress. ‘We’re very pleased with the permitting provisions. Even some of them being signed law would be a major improvement,’ said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. ‘We don’t want to blow up the process. We just want it to go faster.’ … ‘The president’s contentions are not to streamline a process, but to compromise needed environmental and public health issues,’ Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told reporters. ‘We’ve already done this [streamlining]. I think this is part of his overall strategy for big business [rather than] protecting the public.’” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Obama Energy Secretary Named To Utility Giant’s Board. According to The Hill, “Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has been tapped to serve on the board of electric utility giant Southern Co. Moniz, who served under former President Obama from 2013 to 2017, will be an independent director on the board. ‘I have long admired Southern Company for its innovative approach to research and development within the clean energy space, and look forward to joining the board,’ Moniz said in a late Monday statement. ‘Tom is an industry leader and I’m eager to work with him and the entire board in helping Southern advance at a time of great change in the energy world,’ he said of Tom Fanning, Southern’s CEO. ‘Ernie Moniz enhances our board by bringing a strong energy science and technology background together with broad expertise in energy and environmental policy, which will be invaluable as we continue to develop innovative solutions to shape America’s energy future,’ Fanning said in the statement. … The company is working to build two new reactors at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, the only nuclear power plant currently under construction in the country. But they are years away from completion and billions of dollars over budget. … Moniz is an outspoken supporter of nuclear power and argues that it is an essential factor in the world’s efforts to fight climate change.” [The Hill, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Happy Valentine’s Day. According to Politico, “Environmental activists will gather outside of EPA headquarters this morning to give out ‘sweet and snarky valentines’ to agency employees. Friends of the Earth say they will ‘show their love’ with messages like ‘We love the EPA (except that Pruitt guy)’ and ‘Let’s cuddle (like Pruitt cuddles up to Big Oil).’” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Opposition Groups

 

Heartland Lobbies To Spare 65-Year-Old Mo. Coal Plant. According to E&E News, “Years after Missouri’s largest utility said it would shut one of the nation’s oldest coal-fired power plants, the conservative Heartland Institute is asking for a private meeting with regulators to convince them the plant should continue running. John Nothdurft, Heartland’s director of government relations, wrote letters to Missouri Public Service Commission members seeking meetings to discuss an upcoming decision on whether to allow St. Louis-based Ameren Corp. to close its Meramec power plant and replace it with ‘costly and less reliable sources of electricity.’ The Jan. 30 letter to PSC Chairman Daniel Hall said Ameren’s plans to close the plant and replace it with more wind and solar generation would benefit utility shareholders at the expense of customers, who would see rates rise. The group said Missouri residents deserve better than ‘California-style energy policies’ and is building a ‘coalition of political, business and civic leaders’ in the Show-Me State. While it’s typical for advocacy groups to weigh in on utility plans to retire a power plant or build new ones, they generally do so through the public process of intervening in cases, not asking for meetings with regulators.” [E&E News, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Industry

 

Exxon Sues The Suers In Fierce Climate-Change Case. According to Bloomberg, “Experts say Exxon’s combative strategy -- an extraordinary gambit to turn the tables -- is a clear sign of what’s at stake for the fossil-fuel industry. So far, New York City and eight California cities and counties, including San Francisco and Oakland, have sued Exxon and other oil and gas companies. They allege that oil companies denied findings of climate-change scientists despite knowing that the use of fossil fuels posed ‘grave risk’ to the planet. Attorneys general Eric Schneiderman of New York and Maura Healey of Massachusetts, are investigating whether Exxon covered up information on climate change, defrauding shareholders and consumers. Exxon, the world’s 10th biggest company, has denied the allegations and says its defense is intended to show that it’s being punished for not toeing the line on climate change, even though it agrees with the scientific consensus. ‘The attorneys general have violated Exxon Mobil’s right to participate in the national conversation about how to address the risks presented by climate change,’ said Dan Toal, a lawyer who represents Exxon. ‘That is the speech at issue here -- not some straw man argument about whether climate change is real.’ Plaintiff lawyers and legal experts contend the oil giant’s tactics are meant to intimidate while shifting the spotlight away from claims of environmental damage. And they say there’s nothing improper with lawyers discussing legal strategies together. ‘It’s crazy that people are subpoenaed for attending a meeting,’ said Sharon Eubanks, a lawyer who was at the La Jolla gathering. ‘It’s sort of like a big scare tactic: reframe the debate, use it as a diversionary tactic and scare the heck out of everybody.’” [Bloomberg, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Exxon Targeting Opponents In Climate-Change Battle: Report. According to The Hill, “ExxonMobil is going after individuals and groups who are suing the oil giant, slapping them with lawsuits and legal threats of its own. Bloomberg reported Tuesday that Exxon has put at least 30 people and groups in its crosshairs as it seeks to push back against what it says is an effort by lawyers, state officials and environmental groups to smear the company. Exxon alleges that the public relations and legal campaign against it was developed six years ago in La Jolla, Calif. The company has dubbed the alleged crusade against it the ‘La Jolla playbook,’ according to Bloomberg. Exxon and other oil and gas companies have been the target of lawsuits by New York City and eight cities and counties in California alleging that the companies tried to cover up evidence of climate change. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey are also investigating whether Exxon sought to mislead shareholders and consumers by whitewashing information on climate change. Exxon has denied those allegations and has said that it recognizes the reality of climate change. ‘The attorneys general have violated Exxon Mobil’s right to participate in the national conversation about how to address the risks presented by climate change,’ Dan Toal, a lawyer for Exxon told Bloomberg. ‘That is the speech at issue here — not some straw man argument about whether climate change is real.’” [The Hill, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Trump Did More For 'Clean Coal' In One Week Than In All Of 2017 . According to Washington Post, “Last Friday, Trump signed a spending deal that included a new tax credit for projects attempting carbon capture — a process by which carbon dioxide is caught and stored underground instead of being released into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. Then on Monday, the White House released a budget proposal that restored funding to the Energy Department’s ‘clean coal’ efforts. The Trump administration called for $502 million in funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development program, according to a summary released by the department. That’s still a 20 percent cut from 2017 funding levels. Yet one year ago, the Trump administration was calling for the office’s budget to be slashed by a whopping 55 percent. Dan Reicher, former chief of staff at the Energy Department, said the administration’s spending on carbon capture and storage would reinforce the new carbon-capture incentives. It seems ‘the administration now realizes carbon capture and storage is a viable technology,’ Reicher said. … ‘I think everybody who is in touch with reality will tell you that fossil fuels are going to continue to play a role in the future,’ Perry said. ‘Our goal is to produce it more cleanly.’ Perry noted that last year his department signed a deal with Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry to collaborate on carbon capture. It should, of course, be noted the White House’s budget proposal is essentially a wish list of what the Trump administration wants the federal government to look like. Congress needs to consent to any changes.” [Washington Post, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Arch Coal Sees Tax-Free Horizon. According to Politico, “Coal mining company Arch Coal said Tuesday the recent passage of a GOP tax reform bill and the elimination of the corporate AMT will allow it ‘to realize all of its remaining AMT credits, resulting in a tax benefit of $35 million in the fourth quarter,’ according to a release from the company. That, coupled with the corporate tax cut Congress enacted last year and Arch’s ‘large net operating loss position should result in a cash tax rate of effectively zero for the foreseeable future,’ it said.” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

In Trump’s First Year, U.S. Agency Doubles Solar Investments Abroad. According to Reuters, “The United States government doubled its financial support for solar power projects overseas last year under a climate-friendly investment policy written in the last days of the Obama administration, according to a Reuters review of government documents. The growing U.S. support for foreign solar projects comes despite an ongoing federal investigation into past U.S. solar loans abroad. It also deepens confusion about President Donald Trump’s position on government support for renewable energy as his administration downplays the global warming threat and aggressively promotes fossil-fuel development. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the government’s international finance institution, loaned more than $630 million to foreign energy projects in 2017, 90 percent of which were solar, wind, or other low-carbon ventures, according to investment documents. That compares to $797 million in total OPIC energy financing in 2016, 61 percent of which went to clean energy. The agency’s lending to solar projects doubled to more than $250 million in 2017, supporting ventures in India, Africa and Latin America, according to the records. … Trump has never proposed repealing the billions of dollars worth of federal incentives for renewable energy, which were preserved by a Republican-controlled Congress in December tax legislation. But Trump has expressed skepticism about the viability of solar and wind, calling both ‘very, very expensive.’” [Reuters, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Opinion

 

Op-Ed: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Is Playing Taxpayers And Trump. According to an op-ed by Tom Rogan in Washington Examiner, “The metaphor for Pruitt’s approach to taxpayer-funded travel seems to be a $1,641.43 first class seat for a flight from Washington, D.C., to New York City. By itself, that expense is outrageous. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Washington Post notes that government officials are not supposed to use first class tickets outside of long-haul flights unless for medical reasons or ‘exceptional security circumstances.’ The Post adds that ‘Pruitt has used the security exception often during the past year.’ I would like to know why. After all, considering that passengers on an airliner have gone through security screening, that their names have been checked against watch-lists and that Pruitt is surrounded by his detail when on board an aircraft, I’m not buying the security excuse for first class flights. I know first hand that it is not a Cabinet-specific security requirement; in 2016, I sat behind then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Lew was in economy class and seated next to a random member of the public who questioned him for most of the flight! His security detail was attentive and close by, but not overly concerned. Even then, Pruitt has taken an excessive approach to his security arrangements. While the EPA administrator requires a full-time security detail to protect him from environmental terrorists, the degree and cost of his security arrangements are significantly higher than those of his predecessors. … To be fair, it’s not just Pruitt who is wasting taxpayer money on excessive security. As I’ve noted, too many White House officials also receive Secret Service details they very likely don’t require. Nevertheless, when it comes to an administration that has pledged to drain the swamp, Pruitt’s choices are inconsistent. President Trump should take action.” [Washington Examiner, 2/12/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Reagan’s ‘Party Of Ideas’ Is Down To Just One: Tax Cuts. According to New York Times, “It is a sign of our slide toward banana republic status when the president of the United States, leader of the world’s foremost democracy, publicly brands Democrats who failed to applaud his State of the Union address as un-American and treasonous. The largely partisan audience was fine with it. What has become of the Republican Party, which I once served on Capitol Hill and which I now consider a dangerous extremist movement on a par with the ruling Fidesz party in neo-fascist Hungary? Where did its principles go? What became of Ronald Reagan’s ‘party of ideas’? … Republicans were once the party of conservation and the environment: from Abraham Lincoln, who set aside Yosemite for what later became a national park, to Theodore Roosevelt, preserving 230 million acres of public land, to Richard Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Now the E.P.A. is being systematically gutted. Its administrator, Scott Pruitt, has named as chairman of its science advisory board a person who criticizes the E.P.A.’s standards for exposure to mercury (a neurotoxin causing severe brain damage) and believes ozone pollution rules are unnecessary because Americans spend most of their time indoors. Another of the board’s ‘alternative’ scientists is a man who has stated that ‘modern air is a little too clean for optimum health.’ … Donald Trump merely aggravated what has long been building up in the party of Lincoln. In 2011, when House Republicans threatened to drive the government into default to extort political concessions, I left the party. Seven years later, it has become so extreme that I fear it is endangering the stability of the republic.” [New York Times, 2/12/18 (+)]

 

Research And Analysis

 

Trump’s Climate Denial Backfires, Drives More Media Coverage Of The Issue. According to Think Progress, “New analysis from Media Matters for America finds that, following a year of lagging coverage of climate change, 2017 saw network news programs scramble to report on Trump’s full-scale assault on federal climate policy. The spike in coverage coincided with an increase in concern about climate change — Americans are now more worried than ever about the carbon crisis. What’s more, the heightened awareness comes in spite of the fact that broadcasters fell short in several key areas. ‘Even though corporate broadcast news coverage of climate change increased between 2016 and 2017, the quality of coverage remained poor across the board, primarily because the networks centered their climate coverage around Donald Trump while largely neglecting other important climate stories,’ said Lisa Hymas, director of climate and energy programs at Media Matters for America. … The nation’s broadcasters didn’t spend a lot of time on climate change last year, but when they did, it was almost always in response to Trump. Segments that dealt with his policies or featured statements from members of his administration accounted for 79 percent of the total time given over to climate change. Roughly half of all climate segments centered on his decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. ‘The networks paid disproportionate attention to the political spectacle Trump made of rejecting the Paris climate agreement, while they largely overlooked crucial stories like the ongoing rollback of the Clean Power Plan and the role of climate change in a year of record-setting weather disasters,’ Hymas said. Broadcasters gave almost no time, for example, to the impact of climate change on public health, national security, infrastructure or the economy — not to mention numerous protests against Trump’s climate policies. For example, broadcasters scarcely mentioned the People’s Climate March, which drew 200,000 people to the National Mall in April.” [Think Progress, 2/13/18 (+)]

 

Trump Wants Cash For Some Climate Research. According to E&E News, “The White House is targeting climate science for cuts across a number of federal agencies, but some climate research programs avoided the Trump administration’s crosshairs. Among them: a new research vessel traversing hard-to-reach parts of the Arctic, upgraded research facilities in Antarctica and continued support for a key climate change satellite. President Trump’s budget proposal released Monday would cut hundreds of millions of dollars from climate programs and makes it clear that climate science is not a priority of this administration. The climate research programs included in the funding request were likely there in part because climate science data are often collected and processed by instruments with a variety of functions or from research platforms that comprise a wide array of projects. … At the U.S. Geological Survey, the Landsat 9 satellite program will receive $72.9 million for its operations, including $31.9 million to develop a ground system component. For decades, the Landsat program has tracked some of the most important climate change data, making it one of the most comprehensive windows into humanity’s impact on the climate. Since 1972, it has tracked the melting of glaciers, the decline of coral reefs and the spreading of shrubbery over previously frozen areas of the world. According to NASA, ‘it is the only satellite record that is both long and consistent enough to track changes related to climate change at the scale of cities and farms.’” [E&E News, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Not So Fast. According to Politico, “Trump administration officials who say climate change may be good for us have it wrong, an author of the federal government’s most recent report on the subject suggested Tuesday. Don Wuebbles — a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois and coordinating lead author on the multi-agency Climate Science Special Report released in the fall — was asked about the Trump administration’s tendency to dismiss the risks of climate change during a panel discussion at the National Association of Utility Regulators meeting in Washington. Most recently, Pruitt asked whether warming was ‘necessarily a bad thing,’ and suggested humans have ‘flourished’ during warm periods. While Wuebbles did not call anyone out by name, he made clear that the science doesn’t really support that view. Slightly higher temperatures can yield some benefits for some crops, he said, but ‘most of the impacts on humanity are likely to be quite negative.’” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Low Energy. According to Politico, “Four percent of registered voters say energy issues are at the top of their mind when they vote for federal offices ‘such as U.S. Senate or Congress,’ a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted Feb. 8-12 finds. The same poll, however, found 41 percent of voters think the government spends too little on energy and environment programs and issue areas.” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

 

Arizona

 

LCV Backs Gallego. According to Politico, “The League of Conservation Voters Action Fund backed Rep. Ruben Gallego for reelection in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District on Tuesday. ‘Gallego has quickly emerged as one of the strongest voices for public lands and climate action in Congress,’ said LCV Action Fund Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld.” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Maine

 

‘It’s So High It’s Punitive’: Residents Angered By Local Tax Hike On Home Solar Panels. According to Bangor Daily News, “A group of York residents who own homes with solar panels are upset by a decision of the town to add a $1,000-per-panel assessment to their property’s overall value, calling the move ‘unjust’ and perhaps unconstitutional. And they intend to pursue their action in court, if need be. But town Assessor Rick Mace defended his decision, saying that based on his research solar panels add to the market value of a property and should be assessed as such. His decision leaves him in very limited company, however. The only other municipality in the state of Maine that assesses residential panels is Brunswick, at a rate of $500 per panel, and homeowners there are appealing to lower that. Two solar farms in Wayne and South China are also being locally assessed, but not individual homeowners. Added to this, Maine is alone among New England states in not offering a property tax exemption for renewable energy systems, according to data compiled by North Carolina State University’s Clean Energy Technology Center. And because there is no exemption, Mace argues, ‘if towns are not assessing for certain things that aren’t exempt then they aren’t doing their jobs.’ He said the group’s efforts would be better spent appealing to state representatives to change the law. … ‘That figure is super ballpark,’ said Collins. Her clients, she said, paid ‘between $400 and $900 per panel, installed.’ She points to the fact that Brunswick assesses them at $500 per panel, and even that figure is being challenged. Steve Hinchman, in-house counsel for solar energy company ReVision Energy, said York’s figure ‘is neither fair nor economically justified — it’s so high it’s punitive.’” [Bangor Daily News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Ohio

 

Cleveland Sees Clean Energy As Tool For Climate Change Resiliency. According to Midwest Energy News, “Cleveland’s risks might not seem as dramatic as the sea level rise that threatens New York or the wildfires that will become more common out West, but the challenges will be nonetheless very real, said Matt Gray, Chief of Sustainability for the City of Cleveland. Northeast Ohio can expect more severe storms, heat waves, and flooding. It’ll see more days with poor air quality, and along with that more asthma attacks and other health problems. Hotter summers will strain the electric grid more often. The region’s climate will become ‘wetter, warmer and weirder,’ Gray said. Neighborhoods like the ones flagged as heat islands by Rajkovich could face greater risks if the grid isn’t equipped to handle increasing demands. Urban planners view weatherization, tree planting and distributed generation as tools to make a community more resilient. ‘Climate change isn’t going to go away, and we need to address this,’ said Director Mike Foley at Cuyahoga County’s Department of Sustainability. Mitigation remains a priority, but some climate change impacts will happen in any case. Over the last decade, Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have generally supported clean energy efforts as mitigation tools. Now local government planners, academics and community groups see clean energy as a tool for adapting to that change. ‘Local governments have an obligation and a duty to minimize our greenhouse gas emissions and think about how our local populations address and adapt to climate change,’ Foley continued. ‘No one else is doing it for us.’” [Midwest Energy News, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Lower Ohio Electric Rates Based On Federal Tax Cut Won't Be Easy Or Quick. According to Plain Dealer, “Don’t plan on lower electric bills anytime soon reflecting the fat tax cut Ohio’s electric utilities are already enjoying. FirstEnergy, American Electric Power, Duke Energy and Dayton Power & Light have made it clear to the PUCO that passing on their windfall tax break from 35 percent to 21 percent will take a long time to figure out. In a rare, joint reply to the Public Utility Commission of Ohio’s Jan. 10 order asking utilities to begin looking into how much of the tax break could be passed onto customers and to begin keeping track of what they are over-charging customers, the four companies threw down a barrage of legal objections -- even that they have already been deprived of ‘due process.’ They also included a reference to state law and Ohio Supreme Court rulings that customer refunds are not legal in Ohio because they would constitute ‘retroactive rate making,’ unless provisions were made for them in a rate case. In other words, even if the PUCO were able eventually order a rate cut based on the lower taxes the utilities are paying, none of the over-collection from the preceding months could be refunded.” [Plain Dealer, 2/12/18 (=)]

 

Pennsylvania

 

ClearPath Puts $1M Behind Costello In PA-06 . According to Politico, “ClearPath Action Fund, a super PAC founded by Republican Jay Faison, announced today that it’s putting $1 million behind an outside effort to boost Pennsylvania Rep. Ryan Costello — its first of the 2018 cycle. ‘Ryan Costello’s clean energy record is no mere window dressing,’ Faison said in a statement. ‘He is one of the most committed clean energy champions in Congress, and we’re proud to make him our first 2018 endorsement.’ The group will start airing TV and digital ads this spring, part of a six-figure effort ‘to highlight Costello’s record advocating policies that expand clean and reliable energy,’ per a memo from the group. Costello is defending a suburban Philadelphia district that broke for Hillary Clinton by 1 point in 2016, but Costello’s district could change significantly depending on how the state Supreme Court orders its lines redrawn later this month.” [Politico, 2/14/18 (=)]

 

Editorial: Gov. Wolf's Budget Missed The Chance To Stand Up For The Environment. According to a guest editorial by Ezra Thrush in Patriot News, “PennFuture applauds the governor for calling for an $11 million increase for environmental protection and conservation, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the yawning investment deficit for protecting our water, air, land, and climate. Rather than chartering a new path for environmental prosperity, Wolf instead paid special attention to attracting the petrochemical industry to Pennsylvania, one of the most polluting and harmful in the United States. State funding for our environmental protection agencies - the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) - pale in comparison their peak funding well over a decade ago. Policy leaders on both sides of the aisle have cut both agencies’ budgets so severely that DEP itself has lost nearly 800 jobs and 40 percent of its funding. This could make sense if the Commonwealth’s environmental degradation was vastly improving and new challenges were easily being dealt with, but that is furthest from the truth. Pennsylvania’s environmental challenges are growing and it’s clear that our protection agencies are not at capacity to address them to the fullest extent. There are far less state regulators providing a watchful eye over big polluters, even though Pennsylvania faces a sprawling pipeline infrastructure buildout, dozens of new power plants under development, and a hulking cracker plant under construction in Beaver County, just north of Pittsburgh. Allegheny County stands among the top 10 most-polluted places in the nation with regard to year-round particulate pollution, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association, giving it a failing grade, yet Wolf continues to tout his support for an industry that will only make it worse.” [Patriot News, 2/13/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: How Pennsylvania Is Welcoming The American Energy Renaissance. According to an op-ed by Colin Hanna in The Hill, “The energy boom has brought solid, high paying jobs to parts of the state in dire need of economic rejuvenation. The average pay for someone employed in fracking is $20,000 higher than the state average salary – energy workers making roughly $62,000 a year. The boom has brought over $4 billion in economic investment into the state, providing tens of thousands of jobs. Two years in (and what seems ages ago in terms of technological development) the Pennsylvania fracking program was given high marks by the State Review of Oil and natural Gas Environmental Regulations. Pennsylvania has been an energy revolution success story and if the fracking play here were fully developed, industry estimates say it would provide over 200,000 jobs to the state. There is no reason to limit this success story to Pennsylvania alone. The Marcellus Shale deposits extend into New York State, West Virginia, and Ohio. Yet, lawmakers in some of those places have gone out of their way to signal not just disinterest, but outright hostility to our great American energy revolution. This is especially astounding considering that in 2016, fracking fueled half of all U.S. oil output. … These slippery anti-oil salesmen are busy telling their electorate that the city coffers can handle divestment. Yet they then turn to the media and claim the sky is falling down upon them because of climate change, and their only solution is to sue American energy producers. … Radical environmentalists have pulled the same stunt as de Blasio in several California cities — the over the top hysteria of each lawsuit suggesting something more akin to a publicity stunt and a waste of time and taxpayer dollars than anything else. … What is billed as justice for climate change is just a big city shakedown routine, filing their coffers at the expense of hardworking Americans in energy producing states like Pennsylvania.” [The Hill, 2/13/18 (-)]

 

Virginia

 

Dominion Bill Passes Va. House With Key Change Aimed At Helping Consumers. According to Washington Post, “The House of Delegates on Tuesday passed a sweeping overhaul of the way Virginia regulates its electricity utilities, with one last-minute change aimed at fixing what some say is a significant flaw of the legislation. An amendment offered by Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville) would prohibit utility companies from charging ratepayers twice for expensive projects to upgrade the grid and for investments in renewable energy. The change is intended to prevent what some called a ‘double-dip’ component of the original legislation, which lets utilities invest excess profit in new projects instead of returning money to ratepayers. According to critics, the original bill would let utilities keep the excess profit and build the cost of new projects into base rates. Dominion Energy, the state’s biggest utility, helped write the original legislation and denied that it would have permitted double-dipping. The Toscano amendment passed despite opposition from Dominion — a measure of changing attitudes in the General Assembly toward the state’s most generous corporate campaign donor. … Although some environmental and consumer groups, such as the Virginia League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, back the legislation because it makes renewable energy a priority, others say the bill remains problematic. They say it fails to return enough money to ratepayers, takes away state oversight and gives Dominion a blank check for a host of projects — for instance, designating a pool of money for burying power lines around the state.” [Washington Post, 2/13/18 (=)]

 

Elections Still Matter: Virginia Democrats Stun State Energy Monopoly In Late-Night Rejection. According to The Intercept, “DOMINION ENERGY, THE utility monopoly in Virginia, suffered a rare loss on the floor of the state House of Delegates late Monday night, when their ability to double-charge ratepayers for infrastructure improvements was stripped out of a controversial bill. The bill, which sailed through the Senate and is expected to pass the House of Delegates on Tuesday, would let Dominion and other utilities in the state use excess profits to pay for the upgrades, like modernization of the energy grid or renewable generation. Because Dominion could also use those upgrades as a rationale to increase its base power rates, critics charged that utilities could get ratepayers to pay twice for the same infrastructure. Virginia’s State Corporation Commission and the state Office of the Attorney General agreed. … The move is a major victory for Virginia’s large freshman class of Democratic legislators, many of whom campaigned against Dominion in their races and refused to take campaign contributions from them. It’s an act of defiance against the state’s most powerful corporate donor, as well as the Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, who endorsed the overall bill. While the legislation still has problems — Delegate Lee Carter called it ‘a steaming pile of garbage’ to The Intercept yesterday — Dominion losing a vote of any kind in the Virginia legislature, even an amendment vote, is a political earthquake.” [The Intercept, 2/13/18 (+)]