Research Clips: Month 26, 2018
TOP HEADLINES
Trump Slams 'Totally Disastrous' Paris Pact, Touts Coal
Pruitt Vows To Repeal ‘Prohibition’ On U.S. Energy Resources
EPA Scientists Find Black Communities Disproportionately Hit By Pollution
Anti-Secrecy Lawsuits Soaring Against Pruitt's EPA
Trump's Energy Dominance Is About 'Exporting Freedom,' Rick Perry Tells CPAC
Rebranded CCS Coalition Launches But Loses Key Ally
POLITICAL NEWS |
Trump Slams 'Totally Disastrous' Paris Pact, Touts Coal. According to E&E News, “In a freewheeling campaign-style speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference today, President Trump slammed the 2015 Paris climate deal and touted efforts to find buyers for American coal. Lampooning the accord as a ‘totally disastrous, job-killing, wealth-knocking-out’ deal, Trump said other countries wanted to block U.S. use of domestic coal, oil and gas. Trump announced plans to withdraw from the agreement last summer. ‘We knocked out the Paris climate accord,’ Trump said to cheers and chants of ‘USA, USA!’ at National Harbor along the Potomac River in Oxon Hill, Md. ‘Would have been a disaster.’ Trump also poked at China, saying its compliance with the climate pact would not have kicked in until 2030, while the United States was required to act immediately. Russia, he said, would have able to go ‘back into the 1990s, which was not a clean environmental time,’ while the United States would have been forced to pay for ‘growing’ nations. ‘I said, ‘What are we? Are we allowed to grow, too?’ Trump said. ‘They called India a developing nation, they called China a developing nation, but the United States, we’re developed, we can pay.’ … ‘I said, ‘We have too big of a deficit with Vietnam; I’m not happy,’ Trump said. ‘I said, ‘Buy coal, buy coal.’ They use a lot of coal.’” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Trump Is Attacking The Paris Climate Pact Again. Here's Why. According to E&E News, “Speaking in front of the political equivalent of a home crowd, President Trump told a cheering room of conservatives Friday what he really felt about the Paris Agreement: It’s not about climate; it’s about winning. How Trump addressed perceived unfairness in the accord underscored how difficult it will be to keep the United States engaged in the global climate pact. That the United States gets a raw deal in trade deals and diplomacy is a central belief of the president, going back years before he ever entered public office. The real Trump on Paris is the one who told the Conservative Political Action Conference that the Paris Agreement ‘would have been a disaster for our country.’ He was showered in chants of ‘USA’ in response. It cuts to the theme of fairness — or unfairness, depending on perspective — between the United States and its economic allies, and competitors, that runs through Trump’s trade positions. ‘I think that it does in fact make it hard for him to walk back from his commitment to withdraw from Paris,’ said Andrew Light, a State Department climate adviser under former President Obama who’s now at the World Resources Institute. ‘He wants his base to understand that Paris is a bad deal. ‘It’s not about dealing with a global problem, it’s a threat to Americans as well.’ Trump’s view of the Paris Agreement has little to do with climate, a topic to which the president has devoted minimal attention.” [E&E News, 2/26/18 (=)]
Bishop Leads Congressional Trip To Australia, New Zealand. According to Politico, “House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) has taken a bipartisan congressional delegation to Australia and New Zealand for energy and defense-related activities, a committee aide told POLITICO today. The U.S. lawmakers will look at energy activities in Australia, which is one of the world’s leading exporters of liquefied natural gas, examine New Zealand’s deregulation of its energy sector and learn about ‘the strategic importance of the two nations as a counterbalance to less-friendly powers in the Pacific,’ the aide said. Neither the committee nor Speaker Paul Ryan’s office would immediately provide a list of lawmakers on the trip. WHAT’S NEXT: Upon returning from the trip, a House Natural Resources subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine the role of the U.S. in global LNG markets and the geopolitical benefits.” [Politico, 2/25/18 (=)]
Pruitt Vows To Repeal ‘Prohibition’ On U.S. Energy Resources. According to Bloomberg, “The Obama administration effectively imposed ‘Prohibition’ on U.S. energy and natural resources development through policies meant to address climate change and water protection, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said on Friday night. It was not the first time Pruitt has likened the previous administration’s agency to the U.S. attempt to ban alcohol in the 1920s and early 1930s, but he has upped the frequency with which he mentions it in recent days and weeks. Attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference, in Oxon Hill, Maryland, cheered the remark and other slogans that have become standard in Pruitt’s public comments. Those include maligning his predecessors for their ‘fifth-grade civics’ and making the agency ‘weaponized against certain sectors of our economy.’ Like other conference speakers over the course of the day, Pruitt lauded President Donald Trump’s rejection of the Paris agreement on climate change, citing what he characterized as unequal responsibilities for the U.S., China and India. ‘The Paris accord was never about’ carbon dioxide reduction, he said. During a question-and-answer session, Pruitt repeated statements about U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that have been challenged.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/18 (=)]
Trump 'Knocked It Out Of The Park' On Paris — Pruitt. According to E&E News, “U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said President Trump quitting the Paris climate deal is the accomplishment that he is most proud of since taking office. ‘His decision on Paris, knocked it out of the park. He knocked it out of the park,’ Pruitt said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. ‘It took so much fortitude, so much courage to do what the president did.’ The EPA chief said the deal was unfair to the United States, arguing that China and India didn’t have to take steps to reduce their carbon output until years later. Pruitt was a leading proponent of withdrawing from the global pact; President Trump announced his intention in June to leave the accord in 2020. ‘The Paris accord was never about CO2 reduction. It was a bumper sticker,’ Pruitt said. ‘It was all about putting our economy at a disadvantage, despite the fact that we’re leading the world in CO2 reduction anyway.’ Pruitt, in a question-and-answer session on stage with American Conservative Union Vice Chairman Charlie Gerow, praised the president repeatedly for his leadership during the first year of his administration. Along with cheering Trump’s announcement that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord, Pruitt drew comparisons between now and President Reagan’s time in office. Calling himself ‘a child of the Reagan revolution,’ Pruitt remembered what his father faced in trying to grow his business in the 1970s. ‘And then President Reagan came in, and the light started shining, right? I will tell you we’re living in a similar time. President Trump is leading in a time that is so consequential for our future,’ Pruitt said. ‘We’re on the trajectory to see great things for this country. Truly, he is about making America great again.’” [E&E News, 2/26/18 (=)]
Pruitt Plays The Hits At Conservative Confab. According to Politico, “Pruitt largely stuck to his stump speech during a 20-minute Friday night headlining appearance at CPAC’s Ronald Reagan dinner. He said the Obama administration ‘weaponized against certain sectors of our economy,’ especially coal; touted his deregulatory efforts; said America is ‘blessed’ with natural resources to use; dinged the Obama administration for environmental disasters on its watch, like Gold King and Flint; blamed Obama for growing the Superfund list; and said Trump has ‘courage’ and is about ‘getting results.’ On WOTUS: Pruitt noted Trump assigned him to pull back on federal water jurisdiction, and alleged WOTUS was solely a power grab by the Obama administration unrelated to protecting water quality. He added: ‘Make no mistake about it. It’s not about water quality, it’s not about that. It truly is about power and jurisdiction and oversight that was being stretched so far.’ Pruitt got applause from the crowd when he mentioned the new version of WOTUS will be based on Justice Antonin Scalia’s part of the Rapanos ruling. He’ll always have the Paris pullout: Asked what he was proudest of, Pruitt immediately mentioned getting the president to announce he will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Trump ‘knocked it out of the park,’ Pruitt said. Following the appearance at CPAC, Pruitt appeared on Fox News for a one-on-one interview with Jeanine Pirro discussing EPA’s sue-and-settle policy, the end of the ‘war on coal’ and the move to de-regulation. Watch here.” [Politico, 2/26/18 (=)]
Air Boss Has Big Plans For GHGs And Cars. According to E&E News, “U.S. EPA’s top air regulator is quietly shaping up to be one of the most influential players on President Trump’s environmental team. In an interview last week with E&E News, Wehrum listed six priorities for the air office that he plans to tackle over the next year: the Clean Power Plan; mercury and air toxic standards; national air pollution limits for ozone; permitting under EPA’s New Source Review program; EPA’s methane rule for oil and gas operations; and greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. ‘They’re consequential, very important parts of the air program,’ Wehrum said. The EPA veteran said he’s not intending to make serious shake-ups within the air office. ‘Coming here is not with the eye that I need to fundamentally change [the Office of Air and Radiation] or how OAR does what it does.’ The office ‘operates really well,’ he said, calling it a pleasure to work there. And he said he’s working in tandem with his boss, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. ‘The administrator obviously runs the agency and has a very clear perspective on all of the important issues that we deal with. It’s important that we remain aligned,’ Wehrum said. ‘Part of the importance of my role is helping the agency thoroughly vet these issues and reach a position that makes sense.’” [E&E News, 2/26/18 (=)]
Anti-Secrecy Lawsuits Soaring Against Pruitt's EPA. According to Politico, “The Environmental Protection Agency has experienced a huge surge in open records lawsuits since President Donald Trump took office, an analysis of data reviewed by POLITICO shows — a trend that comes amid mounting criticism of EPA’s secrecy about Administrator Scott Pruitt’s travels, meetings and policy decisions. The legal attacks also reflect widespread interest in the sweeping changes Pruitt is enacting. The suits have come from open government groups, environmentalists and even conservative organizations that have run into a wall trying to pry information out of Pruitt’s agency. The documents they’re seeking involve a broad swath of decisions, ranging from EPA’s reversals of the Obama administration’s landmark climate change and water rules to pesticide approvals and plans for dealing with the nation’s most polluted toxic waste sites. … All told, plaintiffs have filed 55 public records lawsuits against EPA since Trump’s inauguration, according to POLITICO’s review of a database of cases compiled by The FOIA Project, an initiative run by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Forty-six of those lawsuits came in 2017, making it the busiest calendar year by far for open-records cases brought against EPA, according to data stretching back to 1992. The second-busiest year was 2015, when plaintiffs filed 22 such suits against the agency as it was completing major rules on topics such as wetlands protection and power plants’ carbon pollution. The federal government as a whole has seen a rise in lawsuits over public records during Trump’s presidency, but not at anywhere near the rapid uptick EPA is experiencing.” [Politico, 2/26/18 (=)]
EPA Scientists Find Black Communities Disproportionately Hit By Pollution. According to The Hill, “A study conducted by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists found that minority and poorer communities are disproportionately affected by air pollution relative to the overall population. The findings by five EPA scientists, published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, found that when looking at areas most affected by particulate air emissions, like soot, there were large disparities between communities differentiated by color and social strata. African-Americans faced the highest impact, with the community facing a 54 percent higher health burden compared to the overall population, the study found. Non-white communities overall had a 28 percent higher health burden and those living under the poverty line had a 35 percent higher burden. The report cited historical racism and economic inequality as major factors for the disparity due to the locations of facilities emitting particulate pollution, and used that knowledge as the basis for the study. The scientists concluded that measuring a community’s impact solely on their socioeconomics may not be sufficient, as it found that African-Americans are more affected by air pollution than the impoverished. Leslie Fields, director of Sierra Club’s environmental justice program, called the results ‘a travesty.’ ‘This report illustrates how people of color and people with limited means have been grossly taken advantage of by polluters who don’t care about the misery they cause,’ Fields said in a statement. ‘Locating polluting facilities in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color means that people with marginalized identities experience more asthma, a greater likelihood of heart attacks, even premature death.’” [The Hill, 2/23/18 (=)]
Judge Grills EPA On Delays In Ozone Designations . According to E&E News, “A federal judge here yesterday questioned U.S. EPA’s decision to delay a determination last year on whether the San Antonio metropolitan region meets 2015 ground-level ozone standards. During oral arguments, the agency said it needs more time to finish analyzing that region, as well as the rest of the nearly 500 counties still awaiting ground-level ozone designations under the 2015 standards. … Yesterday’s hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California combined two separate lawsuits challenging the delay: one by a coalition of public health and environmental groups and the other by California and more than a dozen other Democratic-led states. Besides asking Judge Haywood Gilliam to order EPA to make all remaining designations by April 30, environmental and public health groups want those decisions to take effect immediately for compliance purposes. Typically, EPA allows for a month or two of lag time. The eight-county San Antonio area requires even more time, until Aug. 10, federal lawyers said, because the agency is waiting until Feb. 28 for Texas officials to submit additional information. San Antonio’s status has been particularly thorny. State regulators last fall backed away from their original recommendation to deem the most heavily populated of those counties in nonattainment, right before EPA’s Oct. 1 deadline.” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
EPA Approval Of Virginia Ozone SIP Appears To Violate D.C. Circuit Ruling. According to Inside EPA, “EPA is approving a Virginia plan for attaining the 2008 ozone standard that scraps emission control measures for the revoked weaker 1997 ozone standard, a move that appears to violate a recent federal appeals court ruling that rejected much of an agency rule allowing the removal of some control measures for rescinded ambient air standards. ‘It’s definitely possible that this regulation would run into trouble’ with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s recent ruling limiting ‘backsliding,’ or removal of existing ozone controls, says an environmentalist. In a Feb. 22 Federal Register notice, EPA gives final approval to Virginia’s state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The SIP removes some air quality control provisions associated with the 1997 NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb. EPA Region 3 Administrator Cosmo Servidio signed the approval Feb. 9, and the agency in the notice said it was tracking the then-pending D.C. Circuit case South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., v. EPA, et al. At the time of the approval, the court had yet to rule. But days later the court issued a unanimous Feb. 16 ruling limiting anti-backsliding, and that raises questions over the validity of Virginia’s SIP. The court vacated numerous aspects of the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule setting implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Environmentalists challenged the Obama rule for being too lax, and separately the South Coast air district, which regulates air quality in the Los Angeles area, challenged it for being too stringent.” [Inside EPA, 2/23/18 (=)]
D.C. Circuit Ozone Ruling Likely To Complicate, Delay States' Air Planning. According to Inside EPA, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s recent ruling scrapping large parts of EPA’s policy for revoking old ozone standards will complicate and delay states’ efforts to craft plans for attaining the standards, sources say, highlighted by the fact California must now overhaul many of its air compliance plans. A former EPA air official says the agency ‘will have to write another rule for what states are to do instead, which may or may not get challenged, so expect a lot more process,’ following the court’s ruling that scrapped several parts of an Obama-era rule on how states should implement the 2008 ozone ambient air standard. The unanimous Feb. 16 ruling in South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., v. EPA, et al., is ‘going to slow everything down’ in terms of states having guidance on ‘what they are expected to do. It frustrates everybody because these things take a long time,’ the source says. For example, a California Air Resources Board (CARB) spokeswoman says the state will now have to revise its state implementation plans (SIPs) that detail the emissions reduction measures the Golden State intended to use to attain the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The ruling also raises questions over the validity of EPA SIP approvals that rely on provisions of the Obama-era implementation rule that the court rejected. For example, there are questions over the agency’s recent final approval of a Virginia ozone SIP because the plan relied on the implementation rule to remove emissions control measures for the prior 1997 NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb.” [Inside EPA, 2/23/18 (=)]
Pruitt Ag Adviser Has Waiver From Trump Ethics Pledge. According to E&E News, “Jeff Sands, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s senior agricultural adviser and a former pesticide lobbyist, received a limited waiver from President Trump’s ethics pledge. White House counsel Don McGahn said in a memo that he gave the waiver at EPA’s request for Sands, who lobbied for the global agribusiness company Syngenta AG before his government job. Under the waiver, Sands is exempt from the pledge’s lobbyist restrictions that bar political appointees from participating in issues they lobbied on within two years prior to joining the administration. The document, dated Oct. 2 last year, said Sands’ ‘extensive expertise’ in farming issues warranted the waiver from the president’s ethics pledge. ‘I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant this waiver because of Mr. Sands’ extensive expertise in this area and various entities, programs and policies,’ McGahn wrote in granting the waiver, which was posted online by the Office of Government Ethics. ‘His deep understanding of agricultural issues forged through his previous service with Congress, a trade association and a company make him an ideal person to assist the Administrator and his senior leadership team to make EPA and its agriculture programs more efficient and effective,’ he said. Sands joined EPA in October last year. Prior to lobbying for Syngenta, he was director of public policy for the Agricultural Retailers Association and also was an agricultural aide for Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) on Capitol Hill.” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Officials Push EPA To Reverse Decision On Conn. Petition. According to E&E News, “The owner of a Pennsylvania power plant can’t be counted on to voluntarily curb ozone-forming pollution, two public speakers said this morning in urging U.S. EPA to reverse a preliminary decision and grant Connecticut’s bid for lasting curbs on the facility’s releases. ‘Emissions reductions must be real, permanent and enforceable,’ Ric Pirolli, director of air planning for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said during the first part of a public hearing on the proposed decision. Instead, Pirolli said, EPA officials denied Connecticut’s petition on the assumption that a steep drop in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station last summer will continue in the future. That cut came after the plant switched from coal to natural gas as a fuel source for the four-month summer ozone season. While EPA predicts that the owner, Talen Energy Corp., will continue that practice in coming years, that might not be the case if fuel prices change and coal again becomes preferable to natural gas, Pirolli said. Making a similar argument was Janice Nolen, assistant vice president for national policy at the American Lung Association. While the advocacy group is ‘pleased’ that NOx emissions at the southeastern Pennsylvania plant tumbled by some 77 percent last year, ‘that change would not have occurred’ without Connecticut’s petition, Nolen said. Absent EPA action, she added, ‘that change is not enforceable.’” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Connecticut, Maryland Say EPA's Air Pollution Transport Policy Inadequate. According to Inside EPA, “Connecticut, Maryland and the American Lung Association (ALA) are attacking EPA’s policies to curb interstate transport of air pollution as inadequate, criticizing the agency’s proposed rejection of Connecticut’s petition seeking emission controls on a Pennsylvania power plant as an example of its failure to address the issue. At a Feb. 23 EPA public hearing in Washington, D.C., Connecticut air regulator Rick Pirolli faulted EPA’s rejection of the petition seeking direct federal regulation of the Brunner Island power plant in Pennsylvania. Connecticut blames the plant in part for the state’s problems attaining federal ozone limits, and called for approval of the petition under Clean Air Act section 126 that allows a state to ask EPA to regulate air pollution in another state. EPA ‘relies primarily on the fact that Brunner Island voluntarily utilized natural gas rather than coal during the 2017 ozone season because it is currently cheaper to do so, resulting in reduced emissions,’ Pirolli said. Switching to natural gas cuts levels of ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx), but the switch is voluntary and can be reversed -- and Pirolli said this means there is no future guarantee of reduced ozone emissions. ‘EPA speculates that economic incentives will cause Brunner Island to continue to voluntarily burn natural gas, so EPA is taking no action,’ Pirolli said. ‘Emission reductions must be real, permanent and enforceable,’ and EPA has not met this bar, failing to ‘meaningfully engage’ with the evidence presented by Connecticut in its petition, Pirolli said.” [Inside EPA, 2/23/18 (=)]
Trump's Energy Dominance Is About 'Exporting Freedom,' Rick Perry Tells CPAC. According to Washington Examiner, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Friday that President Trump’s pursuit of ‘energy dominance’ is a mission to export freedom globally by being a top producer of natural gas. ‘We just don’t export American [liquefied natural gas (LNG)] around the world, we export freedom,’ Perry said on Friday while addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference being held just outside of Washington in Oxon Hill, Md. The countries that receive U.S. energy in the form of LNG ‘are free from countries that would place those countries’ values in jeopardy,’ he said. Perry called ‘exporting freedom’ a new U.S. mission for the 21st century. The U.S. became a net natural gas exporter in 2017, and is projected to be a net oil exporter in 2020. Perry said the benefits of the energy boom has to do with President Trump’s deregulation agenda, which has gotten government out of the way of industry to support the shale energy boom. Under the previous administration, the idea was to ‘regulate our way into nirvana,’ which Perry called ‘a fallacy.’” [Washington Examiner, 2/23/18 (=)]
Trump To Nominate Nuclear Expert For DOE International Affairs . According to Politico, “President Donald Trump plans to nominate Ted Garrish to lead the Energy Department’s international affairs office, the White House announced this afternoon. Garrish, who held senior DOE positions during the Reagan administration, is known for his expertise in nuclear energy issues and has been an adviser to Energy Secretary Rick Perry since last spring. He was recently an energy policy adviser to the Maryland Energy Administration and had previously been an executive with CH2M HILL, an engineering firm. According to the White House, Garrish worked on nuclear export controls while in the private sector and assisted countries who were new to nuclear power. If confirmed, Garrish would take over the international affairs office, which has been lead by Wells Griffith, a Trump political appointee, on an interim basis.” [Politico, 2/26/18 (=)]
New Carbon Capture Tax Credit Sparks Hope Among Odd Collection Of Backers. According to Politico, “A surprise victory for a carbon capture and sequestration tax credit in the budget package has spawned optimism among its odd coalition of backers that they can make a technological leap in the fight against climate change — but getting major new projects off the ground will still be a heavy lift. The aim, according to Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who spearheaded the measure, is to bring down the project costs of CCS technology by allowing a broader group of facilities like factories and ethanol plants to claim the tax credit. ‘The net result is we are going to stay in an all-of-the-above energy world. And that’s very positive,’ Heitkamp told POLITICO. ‘Trust me, people are going to take advantage of this credit and, as a result, technology for carbon capture and sequestration and utilization is going to accelerate.’ Key to Heitkamp’s success in tacking the tax credit into the budget package that passed Congress this month was bringing together Democratic climate hawk Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) with pro-coal Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). They were backed by groups that worked behind the scenes to lobby support for the tax credit. That coalition, rebranded last week as the Carbon Capture Coalition, has built a membership that includes nearly 50 groups such as the Bipartisan Policy Center, National Farmers Union, Renewable Fuels Association and oil and gas giant Shell Oil.” [Politico, 2/26/18 (=)]
Attorney General Becerra Opens Environmental Justice Office. According to E&E News, “California Attorney General Xavier Becerra launched an environmental justice bureau yesterday to focus on helping communities most affected by pollution. ‘The harsh reality is that some communities in California — particularly low-income communities and communities of color — continue to bear the brunt of pollution from industrial development, poor land-use decisions, transportation, and trade corridors,’ the Democrat said in a statement. ‘Meeting the needs of these communities requires our focused attention.’ He added, ‘To all who advocate for environmental justice, the California Department of Justice will work with you and fight for a clean, safe and healthy environment. We have a moral and legal responsibility to do so.’ The bureau will target compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and land-use planning laws; fixing contaminated drinking water; eliminating or shrinking exposure to lead and other toxins in the environment and in consumer products; and ‘challenging the federal government’s actions that repeal or reduce public health and environmental protections,’ according to a statement from Becerra’s office. Groups working on environmental justice causes lauded the decision. ‘The establishment of the new Bureau of Environmental Justice is a significant step in providing the necessary level of protection for those communities at greatest risk from those impacts and that have for too long been neglected,’ said Gladys Limón, executive director of California Environmental Justice Alliance.” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Judge Dismisses Coal Mogul’s Defamation Lawsuit Against John Oliver. According to The Hill, “A West Virginia judge dismissed a coal mogul’s defamation lawsuit this week against cable television host John Oliver and HBO. In a decision dated Wednesday, West Virginia Judge Jeffrey Cramer accepted HBO’s argument that Bob Murray, CEO of coal mining giant Murray Energy Corp., failed to show that Oliver had defamed him according to the law. Oliver dedicated an extended segment in June to criticizing the coal industry, with a focus on Murray, including his frequent criticisms of former President Obama’s ‘evil agenda,’ his lawsuits challenging regulations and his closeness with President Trump. ‘If you even appear to be on the same side as black lung, you’re on the wrong f---ing side,’ Oliver said about one of Murray’s lawsuits, filed against a federal rule meant to reduce black lung disease among coal miners. Murray’s company slammed the ruling and said it will appeal it the decision to West Virginia’s Supreme Court immediately. ‘This decision contains absolutely no legal reasoning, whatsoever, and instead blindly adopts the defendants deeply flawed arguments. This is a flagrant disregard of the law, the facts, and the substantial damages intentionally inflicted by the defendants,’ the Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal mining company, said in a Saturday statement.” [The Hill, 2/23/18 (=)]
CLIMATE ADVOCACY AND OTHER NEWS |
Rebranded CCS Coalition Launches But Loses Key Ally. According to E&E News, “Nearly 50 groups and companies have launched a carbon capture coalition to push for new federal and state policies to advance the technology. The coalition, unveiled this morning, is a rebranding of the former National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, which launched in 2011 primarily to expand new federal tax credits for storage of carbon dioxide captured from industrial and power emitters. With Congress passing those expanded tax credits this month, the rebranded organization is targeting additional bills in Congress and pushing for CO2 pipelines to be part of the infrastructure debate. Joining the Carbon Capture Coalition are the Bipartisan Policy Center, Carbon Wrangler LLC, ClearPath Foundation, EnergyBlue Project, LanzaTech, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, National Farmers Union, NET Power, New Steel International, Renewable Fuels Association, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Third Way. There are about three dozen existing members from the former NEORI, including coal companies, agricultural interests and the Clean Air Task Force. ‘This is truly a diverse coalition,’ said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center. However, the new organization is losing the Natural Resources Defense Council, which was formerly in NEORI. The environmental group said it would continue supporting CCS in other ways. It had not signed multiple recent letters sent to Capitol Hill on the tax credits. ‘We don’t support fossil fuel subsidies, including subsidies for enhanced oil recovery, that would conflict with the need to reduce our dependence on those fuels. We support shifting enhanced oil recovery projects to the use of carbon dioxide captured from CCS projects, rather than CO2 mined from underground,’ said Ana Unruh Cohen, NRDC’s director of government affairs.” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Not All Conservatives Will Say, 'I Love CO2'. According to E&E News, “Some young conservatives believe that their generation won’t get bogged down in the partisan battles over climate change. Instead, it will look for solutions. A number of young Republicans embraced climate change as a scientific challenge, not a political one, in interviews during the Conservative Political Action Conference here last week. To them, global warming isn’t necessarily a Democrat-versus-Republican issue, but is rather a global risk that hasn’t been adequately addressed by their party elders. Most of those interviewed have experienced unusually high annual temperatures for much of their lives. ‘I think it is a big deal for our generation; we care about our environment a lot, especially because we’re going to be here a lot longer than the older generations are,’ said Leah Keller, a 20-year-old neuroscience major at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania. ‘As our generation enters the workforce, that will become more of a conservative issue.’ Organizations that feature climate skepticism have long found an enthusiastic audience at CPAC. Think tanks that reject mainstream science set up booths claiming that the world needs more carbon dioxide. For years, speakers on the main stage and at side panels have railed against liberal ‘climate alarmists’ and those who blame America’s fossil fuel industry for harming the planet. But a sampling of young Trump supporters who traveled here from across the country, looking for jobs, marriage partners and Washington internships, suggests that the next generation of conservatives might put aside partisanship on the climate issue.” [E&E News, 2/26/18 (=)]
Koch Document Reveals Laundry List Of Policy Victories Extracted From The Trump Administration. According to The Intercept, “IN THE BACKDROP of a chaotic first year of Donald Trump’s presidency, the conservative Koch brothers have won victory after victory in their bid to reshape American government to their interests. Documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented show that the network of wealthy donors led by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have taken credit for a laundry list of policy achievements extracted from the Trump administration and their allies in Congress. … ‘This year, thanks in part to research and outreach efforts across institutions, we have seen progress on many regulatory priorities this Network has championed for years,’ the memo notes. The document highlights environmental issues that the Koch brothers have long worked to undo, such as the EPA Clean Power Plan, which is currently under the process of being formally repealed, and Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, among their major accomplishments. The memo also highlighted administration efforts to walk back planned rules to strengthen the estate tax in a list of 13 regulatory decisions favored by the network. … ‘We’ve made more progress in the last five years than I had in the last 50,’ Charles Koch reportedly said. ‘The capabilities we have now can take us to a whole new level.’” [The Intercept, 2/25/18 (+)]
Carbon Dioxide Restrictions Bill Introduced In Congress. According to Heartland Institute, “The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act would cap the carbon dioxide emissions of covered industries beginning in 2019. By 2020, the covered industries would have to reduce emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels; by 2030, emissions would be limited to 60 percent of 2005 levels; and by 2050, allowable emissions would be capped at 80 percent below 2005 levels. The U.S. Treasury Department would auction permits each year to companies restricted under the law, with 100 percent of the revenues to be returned to taxpayers by the IRS through a quarterly dividend check, the legislation states. The bill would also require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate all other anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including transportation, housing, construction, and commercial real estate, within 10 years of the bill’s passage. Only emissions from farm animals and human respiration would be exempt from EPA regulation. Tim Huelskamp, president of The Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News, says both the timing and foreseeable effects of the bill are bad. ‘Raising taxes any time is a bad idea, but it is especially harmful just after President Trump and Congress reduced income taxes for most Americans,’ Huelskamp said. ‘A carbon tax will put Americans out of work, jack up our utility bills, and harm America’s competitive place in the world.’” [Heartland Institute, 2/26/18 (-)]
Replacing Scientific Method With Dogma, Pt. 1: Attacking Museum Donors. According to Heartland Institute, “So-called consensus climate science reaches new lows nearly every day, with many researchers resembling dogmatic, religious zealots, the kind of people who burned heretics at the stake during the middle ages and suppressed scientific discovery, rather than scientists engaged in the free pursuit of knowledge. Recently, an intolerant rump of scientists who believe humans are definitely causing dangerous climate change, proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), wrote an open letter to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) urging the organization to remove philanthropist Rebekah Mercer from its board of trustees. This despite the fact Mercer and her family’s foundation have donated generously to the museum over the years, and I suspect she has convinced friends and business relations to give as well. Mercer’s supposed crime is not that she interfered with the AMNH’s policies or dictated exhibits. She didn’t. Nor did Mercer tamper with the museum’s management or influence its displays or purchases. According to these AGW fanatics, the reason Mercer should be booted unceremoniously from AMNH’s board after years of helping it thrive is because she ‘and her family were important backers of President Trump … and the family foundation has contributed millions of dollars to climate-change-denying politicians and organizations like the Heartland Institute, which says, ‘Global warming is not a crisis… .’” [Heartland Institute, 2/26/18 (-)]
Peer-Reviewed Anti-Fracking Study Retracted Due To Errors. According to Heartland Institute, “A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, the journal of the American Geological Union (AGU), was retracted in January after an ‘error in wind measurement’ led the writers to overstate methane leakage rates at drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale region in southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. In conducting the 2017 study, a research team led by scholars from the University of Maryland performed three aerial measurements over the region in August and September of 2015, finding a methane leakage rate of 3.9 percent of total production. The paper called drilling in the area a ‘climate detriment.’ ‘At our measured leak rate, the use of natural gas rather than coal for combustion will result in a relatively greater climate impact over the next few decades,’ the authors wrote. In a tweet promoting the study, AGU claimed enough methane was leaking from the Marcellus to power a city twice the size of Washington, DC.” [Heartland Institute, 2/26/18 (-)]
Job Numbers Jump By 1,000 But Not Because Of Trump. According to E&E News, “U.S. coal jobs increased by 1,001 from 2016 to 2017, according to a review of data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Despite President Trump’s promises to bring back ‘beautiful’ coal, energy analysts don’t think the White House had anything to do with the numbers. West Virginia saw the biggest increase: 1,429 jobs. ‘Trump has ended the war on coal,’ said Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), chairman of the Congressional Coal Caucus. Seven other states lost coal jobs in 2017. Many analysts credit the increase to short-term forces in the market. They point to a cyclone that hit Australia, which is the world’s leader in metallurgical coal production. Kentucky lost 108 coal jobs in 2017, according to annual averages from MSHA. Both Texas and Ohio suffered bigger losses, with 503 and 401 jobs lost, respectively. Retirements that have already been announced have led analysts to predict more mine closures in 2018.” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Op-Ed: America’s Moral Obligation To The Environment. According to an op-ed by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO.) The Hill, “The Environmental Protection Agency, now under the environmentally-insensitive leadership of Scott Pruitt, seeks to undermine our nation’s top scientists and the EPA’s legal obligation by proposing the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The EPA administrator’s sin is his willfully unconscious hijacking of future generations’ ability to drink unsoiled water and breathe unpolluted air. We must not let this happen. With the EPA holding listening sessions across the country – one most recently in my district, the 5th District of Missouri – we must use this opportunity to take a stand for the environment and the well-being of our communities. In some ways it is irrelevant whether you believe in climate change or the idea that humans are contributing to climate change, because we are all certainly paying for its effects. In the words of Ben Franklin, an ‘ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ Though a vocal minority have yet to embrace the facts that climate research has found, we must take action to mitigate these growing costs. We all have been haunted by the disheartening images from hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. And we have seen footage of the damage caused by the devastating wildfires in California. This is all a result of climate change, which is exacerbated by carbon pollution. If we ignore this fact, the frequency and severity of extreme weather will exponentially increase, leaving hardworking taxpayers to foot the bill. And even more tragic will be the loss of life.” [The Hill, 2/23/18 (+)]
Op-Ed: Divestment Threatens Nation's Energy Supply. According to an op-ed by Jim Constantopolous in Las Cruces Sun-News, “Oil and natural gas production is surging in New Mexico and nationally. But there’s a hidden danger lurking in the shadows: divestment. Over the past decade, critics of the petroleum industry have mounted a ‘keep-it-in-the-ground’ campaign as a way of demonstrating their concern with climate change. But the campaign, which began in New England, has evolved into a national movement. Its leaders like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and environmentalist Bill McKibben are urging corporations, universities, foundations, and faith-based institutions to divest their stocks in oil and natural gas companies. … Divestment, on the other hand, is ineffective, costly for universities that lose some of their endowment, might not even lead to less greenhouse-gas emissions, and amounts to naïve moralism. Philanthropist Bill Gates called divestment one of the ‘false solutions’ to environmental problems. It is doubtful divestment will adversely affect fossil fuel companies, since stocks sold by one investor will be bought by another who doesn’t agree with divestment. So for all practical purposes, a switch in investors won’t cause any loss of investment and the company won’t notice the change. But divestment shouldn’t be shrugged off. It could have a political impact, as happened some years ago when another divestment campaign helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. And another campaign targeted the tobacco industry. But let’s be realistic: To ensure that the U.S. can meet its energy needs will require use of fossil fuels well into the future, along with improvements in energy efficiency. Using more solar and wind will help only moderately. Oil and natural gas will need to play a central role.” [Las Cruces Sun-News, 2/23/18 (-)]
Sunday TV Excludes Scientists, Advocates Say. According to E&E News, “Sunday morning talk shows largely excluded scientists and climate journalists from conversations about global warming in 2017, according to Media Matters for America, a progressive press watchdog. Last year was the second consecutive year scientists and climate journalists were excluded from coverage, they found. Media Matters reviewed segments on ABC’s ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos,’ CBS’s ‘Face the Nation,’ NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ and Fox News Channel’s ‘Fox News Sunday.’ The Sunday TV programs garnered a combined viewership of more than 11 million in the last quarter of 2017. ‘With their wide viewership and political prestige, Sunday news shows play a crucial role in determining which issues and voices are included in the national dialogue,’ the watchdog wrote in a press release. Sunday news programs did air more coverage of global warming in 2017 than in 2016, they found. Of those segments, 35 percent of show guests who discussed global warming were Trump administration officials. Michael Mann, the renowned climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said that in the last year or two, he has done fewer interviews with the major television networks. ‘Seems like they could be doing a better job covering what is arguably the single greatest threat to human civilization,’ Mann said in an email. The report echoes worries that under President Trump, scientists are being shut out of policy conversations. At U.S. EPA, for example, Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed hundreds of webpages related to climate change and remodeled the agency’s Science Advisory Board to include industry-connected researchers.” [E&E News, 2/23/18 (=)]
Welcome To The Age Of Climate Migration. According to Rolling Stone, “Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas and Louisiana last August, causing $125 billion in damage, dumped more water out of the sky than any storm in U.S. history. By one calculation, roughly a million gallons fell for every person in Texas. The water rained down on a flat former bayou that had become a concrete and asphalt empire of more than 2.3 million people. Highways turned into rivers and shopping malls into lakes. As the water rose, people scrambled for safe refuge – into attics, onto rooftops and overpasses. A Texas game warden captured a nine-foot-long alligator in the dining room of a home near Lake Houston. Snakes swam into kitchens. A hawk flew into a taxicab and wouldn’t leave. As the deluge continued, tens of thousands of people fled – some in fishing boats down suburban streets, some in canoes, some on Jet Skis. Others risked a harrowing drive through water, fallen trees and swimming dogs. More than 30,000 people ended up in shelters. Thousands more headed up Interstate 45, toward Dallas, where parking lots at IHOPs and McDonalds were full of desperate people wondering how their suburban neighborhoods had turned into Waterworld. Many of them lived in their cars until the floods receded, and eventually returned to devastated homes. … ©After Hurricane Maria, 300,000 Puerto Ricans fled to Florida, and disaster experts estimate that climate and weather events displaced more than 1 million Americans from their homes last year. These statistics don’t begin to capture the emotional and financial toll on survivors who have to dig through ashes and flooded debris to rebuild their lives. Mental-health workers often see spikes in depression, PTSD and suicides in the months that follow a natural disaster. After Harvey, one study found that 30 percent of residents in flooded areas had fallen behind on their rent or mortgage. One in four respondents said they were having problems paying for food.” [Rolling Stone, 2/25/18 (=)]
STATE AND LOCAL NEWS |
Dem Governors Band Together To Thwart Trump’s Policies. According to Politico, “On climate, guns, trade, infrastructure, immigration and more, they’ve gone from talking about the importance of a strong federal government to looking for any and every way to do the opposite of what the federal government is doing — and in many cases, to take action where the administration won’t. ‘We have a national administration that is not keeping with where the American people are, and when it becomes as evident as it is, then it’s incumbent on people with half a brain to figure out a way around that,’ said Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy. Malloy is a member of the Climate Alliance, formed in the wake of Trump’s announcement that he’d withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, and last week joined three other governors in forming States for Gun Safety. Both groups are explicitly aimed at taking action in opposition to policy being written in Congress and making agreements among states that circumvent Washington. Just as Democratic attorneys general have borrowed the strategies Republicans used in the courtroom against the Obama administration, Democratic governors are now learning from GOP counterparts who once turned down stimulus money and declined to open Obamacare exchanges.” [Politico, 2/25/18 (=)]
5 Takeaways From Michigan’s Renewable Portfolio Standard Report. According to Midwest Energy News, “The cost of renewables is falling much faster than regulators expected. The average price for renewable contracts plunged 38 percent between 2009 and 2016 to $72.60 per megawatt hour (MWh). Wind contracts were even cheaper, landing between $45 to $69 per MWh, or roughly half of what they were when the 10 percent standard took effect. The MPSC reports that not only are renewables on a ‘downward pricing trend,’ but also that the prices are ‘much lower than expected.’ Renewables come with costs, but so does everything else on the grid. While renewable energy ‘has had an impact on electric rates,’ it ‘should be considered in context of other rate drivers as well,’ the MPSC says. For example, fuel costs, environmental controls and infrastructure investments also contribute to rate increases. Under the law, utilities are allowed to add a renewables surcharge to bills, which are limited to $3 a month for residential customers, $16.58 a month for commercial customers, and $187.50 a month for industrial customers. However, through 2016 only two utilities — Indiana Michigan Power Co. and Wisconsin Electric Power Co. — still had surcharges in place. Renewables beat coal by a long shot — and they’re closing in on natural gas. Renewable energy has left coal in the dust, coming it at nearly half the cost of power from a new, conventional coal plant. The better benchmark to compare renewables with today is natural gas. This is playing out as DTE Energy looks to build a nearly $1 billion gas plant for new capacity that clean energy supporters argue could be done cheaper with renewables. Last year, the Energy Information Administration projected levelized natural gas costs to range from $59 to $101 per MWh, depending on the type of plant.” [Midwest Energy News, 2/22/18 (=)]
ClearPath Action Fund Endorses Heller, Curbelo. According to Politico, “ClearPath Action Fund, a super PAC founded by Republican Jay Faison, announced today that it’s endorsing Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, along with financial commitments to back the Republican incumbents. ‘Rep. Curbelo and Sen. Heller have really put their shoulders to the wheel for clean energy, for the good of their constituents and for the country,’ Faison said in a statement provided to Campaign Pro. ClearPath Action Fund announced earlier this month that it’s putting $1 million behind an outside effort, including TV and digital ads, to boost Pennsylvania Rep. Ryan Costello.” [Politico, 2/26/18 (=)]