TOP HEADLINES

 

Washington To Hear From Coal Country In Clean Power Plan Meeting Tuesday In Wyoming

 

The E.P.A. Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See An Attack On Science

 

GOP, Democrats Join Forces To Stop White House Utility Selloff

 

Dem Senator Introduces Bill To Publicize Trump Officials' Flying

 

Greens Sue EPA Over ‘Once In, Always In’ Policy Reversal

 

Government Watchdog Files 30 Ethics Complaints Against Trump Administration

 

Half Of All U.S. Coal Plants Would Lose Money Without Regulation

 

 

White House And Diplomacy

 

Meet Trump's New Climate Guy. According to E&E News, “Griffith’s time at his dad’s gas station is about all the energy experience he had until this past year, when he landed a top political job at the Energy Department after working on the Trump campaign. An industry source called his literacy on energy issues ‘a work in progress.’ Those who work in the international climate space said his views are a mystery. Looking across the administration, though, there aren’t many officials who have breadth of expertise with demonstrated commitment to Trump world, sources said. In a period of significant personnel fluctuation, Trump has shown a propensity to go with familiar faces. That has accelerated the fast rise for the young, mid-30s Republican operative and former congressional candidate. While he’s learned on the job at the Energy Department, where he’s been for more than a year, those who have collaborated with Griffith say he is analytical, a good listener and a quick study. ‘Wells has quickly established himself as an integral component of the administration’s expansive international energy agenda and demonstrated a good head for quickly understanding issues and most importantly, knowing how to get things done, which is always the greatest asset anyone can have,’ Christopher Guith, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, said in an email. Many described Griffith as loyal, a quality admired by Trump. That he was on hand for the campaign rather than being one of the many hires Trump didn’t previously know worked to Griffith’s benefit. On top of that, Griffith is well-entrenched within the Republican establishment, having worked his way through the party ranks.” [E&E News, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Canada Falling Fall Short Of Promises — Report. According to E&E News, “The country is on track to underperform its revised Paris pledge by nearly four times as much as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has acknowledged to the United Nations, says the analysis unveiled today by the San Francisco-based environmental policy firm Energy Innovation and the Pembina Institute. The group used a peer-reviewed simulator to craft its estimates. Canada’s pledge to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the second half of the century is in even more jeopardy, the analysis says. ‘When you start to go into that real deep decarburization, some of those industrial emissions, which are some of the hardest to decarbonize, just become even more and more challenging to reach that level,’ said Sara Hastings-Simon of Pembina. The Trudeau government submitted a new, tougher Paris commitment to the U.N. climate body last year that promised a 40 percent cut compared with 2005 levels by 2030. But it projected that Canada would produce 567 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 by that year instead of the 523 MMT that would allow it to make good on its promise. Canada suggested the shortfall would be filled with mass transit spending and reforestation. But the Pembina-EI analysis shows that Canada’s true emissions gap will be 161 MMT, not 44 MMT. To fill that gap, the country would need to expand and strengthen last year’s Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change — a package of carbon prices, efficiency measures and curbs for methane emissions and hydrofluorocarbons — beyond its current end date of 2022, they said.” [E&E News, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Federal Agencies

 

EPA

 

Critics Blast Rule In Coal Country. According to E&E News, “Republican lawmakers and representatives from the coal and electricity sectors are among those planning to urge U.S. EPA officials to get rid of the stalled regulation aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, according to a preliminary list published by EPA. Environmentalists and public health advocates will be there to defend the doomed rule. The daylong EPA listening session — at the Gillette College Technical Education Center — is set against the backdrop of a county that relies heavily on coal and fossil fuel production. Seven of the top 10 largest coal mines are in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, where Gillette is located. Wyoming as a whole has also been the nation’s leading coal producer since the 1980s, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This is the last of four public listening sessions on the Trump administration’s proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan. Among the Wyoming politicians slated to address the listening session are Republican Gov. Matt Mead and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R), both strong supporters of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s move to eliminate the rule. Mead said in October that ‘the process that gave us the Clean Power Plan was flawed and the rule itself is flawed.’ He said it was overly burdensome for industry and took away states’ regulatory authority. In a January letter to Pruitt, Barrasso and his 10 Republican colleagues on the EPW Committee called the Clean Power Plan ‘unlawful.’ They wrote, ‘Congress did not give EPA the authority to transform our energy sector. The CPP would force coal plant closures and artificially shift energy generation to other sectors.’” [E&E News, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Washington To Hear From Coal Country In Clean Power Plan Meeting Tuesday In Wyoming. According to Casper Star Tribune, “The federal agency responsible for the emissions-cutting Clean Power Plan will hold a public meeting today in Gillette, one of only three across the country this season as the agency plans to dissolve the Obama-era rule. The Clean Power Plan would have dealt a painful blow to one of Wyoming’s key industries, and both its supporters and opponents are lining up to speak at the event in coal country. Many of the arguments will be familiar to those who have followed the development, and more recent devolution, of the Clean Power Plan. Supporters say regulations to cut carbon dioxide emissions are a necessary step towards combating climate change. Others will criticize the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation as an unwieldy and ineffective tool that targeted the coal industry. Some may criticize climate science, which identifies the burning of fossil fuels as the catalyst for human-caused climate change. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, along with others in the Trump administration, has expressed doubts about that conclusion, despite a widespread consensus of scientists from NASA to the University of Wyoming.” [Casper Star Tribune, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

One Last Time. According to Politico, “EPA will hold its final ‘listening session’ today in Gillette, Wyo., on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan. A preliminary list of speakers shows a range of voices will attend the session — including various speakers from Cloud Peak Energy, a firm headquartered in Gillette that mines coal in the Powder River Basin, and the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Sens. John Barrasso and Mike Enzi — who have previously applauded the proposed repeal — are also scheduled to speak. Barrasso plans to emphasize how the rule would hurt energy workers in his state, an aide tells ME, and will highlight bipartisan efforts in Congress to promote carbon capture technologies. On the other side, advocates from the American Lung Association, Moms Clean Air Force and National Wildlife Federation will speak. Moms Clean Air Force will highlight EPA’s ‘legal and moral obligation’ to action on greenhouse gas emissions, according to the group’s talking points. Administrator Scott Pruitt won’t be there today, but he is set to make a separate trip to Wyoming this week to visit the state’s coal-mining operations.” [Politico, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

The E.P.A. Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See An Attack On Science. According to The New York Times, “The proposed new policy — the details of which are still being worked out — is championed by the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, who has argued that releasing the raw data would let others test the scientific findings more thoroughly. ‘Mr. Pruitt believes that Americans deserve transparency,’ said Liz Bowman, an E.P.A. spokeswoman. … Critics, though, say that Mr. Pruitt’s goal is not academic rigor, but to undermine much of the science that underpins modern environmental regulations governing clean water and clean air. Restricting the application of established science when crafting new E.P.A. rules could make it easier to weaken or repeal existing health regulations, these people say. The proposal is ‘cloaked in all of these buzzwords, in all of the positive things that we want to be for: ‘science,’ ‘transparency,’ said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, an independent blog that monitors scientific journals and exposes errors and misconduct. While Dr. Oransky said he agreed that it was critical to hold the scientific process accountable, he said he believed Mr. Pruitt’s intent was to inject doubt into areas of public health where none exists. ‘Data he doesn’t like will get disqualified,’ Dr. Oransky said. … ‘This affects every aspect of environmental protection in the United States,’ said David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health under President Barack Obama. Mr. Michaels, now a professor at George Washington University, called the plan ‘weaponized transparency.’” [The New York Times, 3/26/18 (+)]

 

Pruitt's Bid To End 'Secret Science' Faces Legal, Implementation Hurdles. According to Inside EPA, “Administrator Scott Pruitt’s pending plan to apply a sweeping new data transparency requirement at EPA is expected to face legal and implementation controversies likely as soon as it is released, agency watchers say, including potential violations of medical privacy protections, trade secret information and other data that form the basis for air quality standards, pesticide and chemical approvals and other rules. One former EPA official, now a member of the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), a group of former EPA staff opposing many of the Trump administration’s environmental policies, tells Inside EPA that ‘it is hard to oppose transparency and the use of the best available science. There are, however, legitimate reasons for not making every last piece of information connected with a scientific study fully and freely available to the public.’ These reasons can ‘include protecting the privacy of any individuals who may have participated in the research as human subjects, and protection of businesses’ legitimate intellectual property/trade secrets. In other cases, the underlying data may simply no longer be available due to the passage of time. None of these reasons necessarily makes a study scientifically invalid or even suspect.’ And one legal expert says the agency will almost certainly face legal challenges if it seeks to apply the policy. ‘If a statute mandates reliance on ‘the best available science,’ and EPA declines to use the best available science just because the researchers are unwilling to breach the confidentiality of their subjects, that’s a pretty clear statutory violation,’ Dave Owen, a professor of environmental law at the University of California Hastings law school, says. Some of the statutes EPA operates under, such as the revised Toxic Substances Control Act, have specific language requiring it to use best available science.” [Inside EPA, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Deals Give Companies More Time To Pollute. According to E&E News, “An enforcement breakthrough a decade in the making was unveiled in December: Three manufacturers of a sooty oil-based product known as carbon black had agreed to slash air pollution by thousands of tons each year. But there was a twist. As they cracked down on those three firms, U.S. EPA and the Justice Department were quietly angling to ease up on two others. Cabot Corp. and Continental Carbon Co. had previously reached their own settlements with the government. In what former EPA officials describe as an unusual move, federal regulators have agreed to give them years longer to install new pollution controls, according to court filings. And there was another wrinkle: Helping engineer the package deal was former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who became a lobbyist after leaving Congress last year, according to records and interviews. For Boston-based Cabot, which came to terms with EPA in 2013 and is now facing higher-than-anticipated cleanup costs, the amended agreement will even the field with its later-settling rivals, said Martin O’Neill, senior vice president for safety, health, and environment and government affairs at the speciality chemicals manufacturer. ‘We couldn’t be more pleased with where the industry is right now,’ O’Neill said in an interview. But for people living near the two companies’ plants, the upshot could be dirtier air for years to come. ‘It is outrageous that we have not been given any indications that there could be a delay in the implementation,’ said Casey Camp-Horinek, a council member of the Ponca Tribe of Indians in north-central Oklahoma, in an email after learning of the proposed extension from a reporter. ‘The EPA has totally failed in its trust responsibility to the Ponca Tribe,’ she said.” [E&E News, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Trump’s Latest EPA Nominee Let Cancer-Causing Chemical Pollute Groundwater. According to Huffington Post, “The former Ford Motor Company executive nominated Friday to a top Environmental Protection Agency position is accused of overseeing an industrial spill that contaminated the groundwater of a Michigan suburb with a cancer-causing chemical. William Charles ‘Chad’ McIntosh, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the EPA’s Office of International and Tribal Affairs, ran Ford’s environmental compliance and policy divisions from 1998 until he retired last year. During that time, degreasing chemicals that had long spilled from a Ford manufacturing plant in Livonia, Michigan, were breaking down into vinyl chloride and tainting the local groundwater. Exposure to vinyl chloride is linked to a rare form of liver cancer, brain and lung cancers, lymphoma and leukemia, according to the National Cancer Institute. Ford said it didn’t discover the contamination until 2014, when the company began renovating the plant. Last August, more than 100 homeowners in Alden Village, the town east of the Livonia plant, sued the company over the spill. Shawn Collins, the attorney representing the homeowners, faults McIntosh for the company’s failure to discover the contamination sooner and said he plans to ‘demand’ McIntosh’s deposition in the case. ‘You can’t ignore these kinds of toxic chemicals in such an enormous quantity on your property, so whoever was in charge of the environmental state of affairs at this plant did not do his job,’ Collins told HuffPost on Monday. ‘That’s McIntosh.’” [Huffington Post, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt

 

Pruitt Leads The Way On Regulatory Rollback. According to Real Clear Policy, “This month, the Environmental Protection Agency released its EPA Year in Review for 2017–2018. To call it impressive would be a gross understatement. With Administrator Scott Pruitt leading the charge, the agency has shown unrivaled commitment to carrying out the president’s agenda of deregulation. Now, as EPA administrator, Pruitt is taking even more direct action and doing so in a cooperative and transparent manner. When Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney discussed the deregulation effort at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, he highlighted the rules that were top priority for the administration’s regulatory roll back: the Waters of the United States rule and the Clean Power Plan. Both fall within Pruitt’s jurisdiction at the EPA. No surprise that action on EPA regulations has moved to the forefront of the administration’s agenda. … The EPA Year in Review booklet is nearly 40 pages long, outlining the regulatory rollback, increased transparency, and government reform measures accomplished in the last year alone. This includes finalizing 22 deregulatory actions and savings of more than $1 billion in regulatory costs, which previously fell on Americans’ shoulders. … As he says in a letter at the front of the EPA Year in Review, Administrator Pruitt ‘look[s] forward to working together to accomplish even more progress in 2018.’ We applaud Mr. Pruitt’s accomplishments in his first year as head of EPA, and hope that his success provides an example to other agencies. Executive agencies can take the lead on growing the economy by freeing Americans from excessive regulatory burdens. This, the EPA — with Pruitt at the helm — has proven.” [Real Clear Policy, 3/26/18 (-)]

 

DOE

 

Trade Deadline. to Politico, “Can appliances be regulated like automobiles? That’s the question the Energy Department posed last year in an effort to apply Trump’s regulatory reform goals to its efficiency standards program, and responses were due by Monday. DOE asked for input on several potential reforms, including enforcing efficiency rules similar to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which averages performance across an automakers’ entire vehicle fleet. DOE’s request for information also pointed to state-level renewable portfolio standards or California’s cap-and-trade program as examples of the ideas it was considering. But those ‘market based’ approaches probably won’t work, numerous commenters told DOE. The main barrier is ‘anti-backsliding’ provisions in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which prevents DOE from weakening existing requirements. Current law ‘precludes the use of averaging, credit-trading, or providing feebates as an alternative to minimum energy-efficiency requirements,’ the Alliance to Save Energy, a pro-efficiency group, wrote in its comments. A coalition of industry trade associations agreed that such mechanisms would be unlikely to work; in their comments, the groups, including the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, urged DOE ‘to focus its limited resources on reforming the existing program’ through changes to a separate process improvement rule. Read additional comments from AHRI, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Lennox International , E2, Whirlpool, the Edison Electric Institute, Dow, Southern Company and the California Energy Commission.” [Politico, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Where’s Perry. According to Politico, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry is in California today, where he’ll tour the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and hold an all-hands meeting with the facility’s employees at 3 p.m. The trip follows Perry’s visit to the Lawrence Livermore National Lab on Monday.” [Politico, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

DHS

 

How Trump Favored Texas Over Puerto Rico. According to Politico, “A double standard has emerged in President Donald Trump’s handling of disaster relief efforts in Texas versus in Puerto Rico, POLITICO’s Danny Vinik found in a new investigation out today. A review of public documents, never-before-published FEMA records and interviews with more than 50 people involved with disaster response show an imbalance that tracks with one core person’s attention: the president. Behind the scenes, people with direct knowledge of Trump’s comments said the president was focused less on the details of the relief effort than on public appearances, repeatedly using conference calls and meetings to direct FEMA Administrator Brock Long to spend more time on television touting his agency’s progress. And as the administration moves to rebuild Texas and Puerto Rico, the contrast in the Trump administration’s responses are taking on new dimensions, Danny writes. During the first nine days after Hurricane Harvey, FEMA provided 5.1 million meals, 4.5 million liters of water and over 20,000 tarps to Houston; but in the same period, it delivered just 1.6 million meals, 2.8 million liters of water and roughly 5,000 tarps to Puerto Rico. The federal government has already begun funding projects to help make permanent repairs to Texas infrastructure. But in Puerto Rico, that funding has yet to begin, as details of an experimental funding system are negotiated with Trump’s Office of Management and Budget — an experimental formula that multiple congressional staffers and people with knowledge said White House officials told Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló to agree to if wanted money for his island.” [Politico, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Congress

 

Senate

 

GOP, Democrats Join Forces To Stop White House Utility Selloff. According to Washington Examiner, “Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., the chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, and Maria Cantwell of Washington, the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, are leading the effort against the White House plan, which was included in President Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget request. Nearly two dozen senators joined them in a campaign to stop the plan. The senators, both from Northwest states with federally owned utilities, sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney late last week opposing a provision in the budget proposal that seeks to auction off the transmission assets of the Department of Energy’s Power Marketing Administration and abandon cost-based rates. ‘There is a long, bipartisan tradition of opposing similar past proposals, including last year’s proposal that recommended selling off federal PMA transmission assets,’ the letter read. ‘Unfortunately, this year’s budget is broader in scope, potentially undermining reliable and affordable electric service in our states.’ The White House seeks to divest power marketing utilities of more than 33,000 circuit-miles of transmission lines, which were built to connect much of the nation’s population centers in the West to power plants. Selling those assets to private companies will hurt the federal utilities economically, raise prices for families and businesses, and ‘will not improve our nation’s infrastructure,’ the letter stated. The plan would have the effect of destabilizing the economic viability of the Bonneville Power Administration in the Northwest, the Western Area Power Administration that serves the Rocky Mountain states and Wyoming, and the Southwestern Power Administration that serves many of the Gulf Coast states, Oklahoma and others with low-priced 24-hour hydroelectric power from 24 Army Corps of Engineers dams, the letter stated.” [Washington Examiner, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Dem Senator Introduces Bill To Publicize Trump Officials' Flying. According to The Hill, “A Democratic senator introduced legislation on Friday that would mandate Trump administration officials share their travel schedule and flight class publicly in an effort to curb improper government spending. The Federal Travel Transparency Act introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) seeks to prevent federal officials from misusing taxpayer dollars. The bill specifically nods to the heads of the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Treasury Department, all of whom have been criticized for extravagant travel on chartered planes or in first class. ‘Every public servant has a responsibility to be a good steward of public dollars but it’s clear that Donald Trump and his Cabinet secretaries do not always see it that way,’ Duckworth said in a statement. ‘When Trump Administration officials spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to charter a private or military plane or purchase a first-class ticket, they should — at the very least — be required to tell the American people who are bankrolling their luxurious travel why it is necessary.’ Specifically, the bill would require the government to disclose on a public website the official air travel activities of agency leaders every few months. The disclosures would include trip duration, destinations and the number of employees on the trip as well as justification for the travel and the associated costs.” [The Hill, 3/23/18 (=)]

 

 

Ally Groups

 

Greens Sue EPA Over ‘Once In, Always In’ Policy Reversal. According to Politico, “Seven environmental groups today sued EPA over its January change to how major emitters like power plants are classified under the Clean Air Act, a move they complain could let sources drastically increase pollution but that was never subject to public comment. In his January memo, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum reversed the so-called once in, always in policy that meant any source that initially qualified as a ‘major’ source of pollution would always be subject to those tougher standards, even if their emissions dropped low enough to qualify for a category with less stringent requirements. EPA argued that the change would allow emitters to move forward with new projects that could actually reduce emissions. In a statement, the green groups argued that thousands of power plants, refineries, smelters, paper mills and other sources of pollution will now be able to attenuate or turn off their pollution controls, increasing emissions. ‘For decades, polluters have been able to meet this Clean Air Act requirement, and the administration’s decision to grant them this toxic loophole is as heartless as it is reckless,’ said Mary Anne Hitt of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. A report released today by the Environmental Integrity Project, one of the groups suing EPA, looked at 12 Midwest plants and concluded that the change could let sources to quadruple their emissions of pollutants ranging from lead to benzene to acid gas. WHAT’S NEXT: EPA will defend the change before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.” [Politico, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Government Watchdog Files 30 Ethics Complaints Against Trump Administration. According to The Hill, “A liberal government watchdog group has filed 30 ethics complaints with government agencies, including the White House. Public Citizen says in complaints obtained by NBC News that government employees have worked against President Trump’s executive order to keep lobbyists out of the government. ‘The bottom line is that neither Trump nor his administration take conflicts of interest and ethics seriously,’ Lisa Gilbert, the group’s vice president of legislative affairs, told the network. ‘ ‘Drain the swamp’ was far more campaign rhetoric than a commitment to ethics, and the widespread lack of compliance and enforcement of Trump’s ethics executive order shows that ethics do not matter in the Trump administration.’ NBC News reports Public Citizen filed complaints with the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Commerce and Interior, among others. … ‘These 30 apparent violations of Trump’s own ethics rules are only the tip of the iceberg,’ Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, told NBC News. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment. Public Citizen in October said it found 44 active lobbyists with ties to Trump or Vice President Pence who had contributed nearly $42 million in lobbying revenue and spending through the first half of 2017.” [The Hill, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Opposition Groups

 

Natural Gas Plants Under Attack In Several States. According to Institute for Energy Research, “California, Arizona, Michigan, and Massachusetts are saying ‘no’ to new natural gas generating plants, and California even wants to get rid of some of its older gas plants. Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission directed Pacific Gas and Electric, the state’s largest electric utility, to solicit bids for renewable energy and storage projects to replace three natural gas plants. In Arizona, regulators voted for a nine-month pause on any new large gas-fired power plants and told the state’s largest investor-owned utilities that their future plans relied too heavily on natural gas and should include more wind and solar, electricity storage, and energy efficiency. In Michigan, CMS Energy Corp. had to back off from plans to expand a gas-fired plant in Dearborn due to environmentalists claiming that it would worsen air quality. Over half of U.S. states have mandates (renewable portfolio standards) that require a certain percentage of electricity be generated by renewable technologies by specified years. To meet the mandates, generating companies must build more renewable energy technologies, mostly solar and wind technologies that are intermittent and unreliable. To ensure reliability, generating companies have built efficient, low-cost natural gas combined cycle plants to back-up the intermittent renewable plants. As a result, natural gas has increased its share of electric utility generation over the past decade from 22 percent to 32 percent, overtaking coal as the major source of U.S. electricity generation. But despite the only modest increase in solar and wind generation over the last decade (from one percent to eight percent of generation), some state regulators and environmental groups are arguing that new natural gas plants are not needed and that renewable energy should replace some existing gas plants.” [Institute for Energy Research, 3/26/18 (-)]

 

Industry

 

Half Of All U.S. Coal Plants Would Lose Money Without Regulation. According to Bloomberg, “It’s long been clear that U.S. coal plants are struggling. A study released Monday shows how much -- concluding that barely half earned enough revenue last year to cover their operating expenses. Power grids may face ‘massive’ upheaval as more uneconomic plants close, according to the report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The problem is particularly bad in Florida, Georgia and elsewhere in the Southeast, where the distance from major coal mines drives up prices. The study examined the monthly economic performance of every U.S. coal plant in operation since 2012. Still, many coal plants manage to shield themselves from economics. About 95 percent of those with operating expenses exceeding revenue operate in regions where regulators set rates, the study found. Instead of allowing market forces to determine their fate, regulators and utilities often keep struggling plants open to ensure stability on their grids. ‘We find ourselves awestruck by the resilience of U.S. coal,’ wrote William Nelson and Sophia Liu, the report’s authors. ‘Plants persist even when they cost more to run than replace.’” [Bloomberg, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Shell Faces Climate Resolution From Shareholders. According to E&E News, “Royal Dutch Shell PLC is expecting to face a shareholder resolution at its annual May meeting calling for an ambitious pivot from fossil fuels. Climate activists have been unimpressed by Shell’s climate plans, which aim to cut its carbon footprint 50 percent by 2050 — more than most oil companies have promised. Activists want even higher targets, pointing to estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency, which say total carbon emissions must fall 60 to 65 percent to uphold the Paris climate agreement. ‘The ambitions announced by Shell are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement, in particular when taking into account expected global energy demand growth,’ said Mark van Baal of Follow This, the group that submitted the resolution calling for more aggressive targets. A similar resolution last year drew opposition from 94 percent of Shell shareholders.” [E&E News, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Shell — Yes, That Shell — Just Outlined A Radical Scenario For What It Would Take To Halt Climate Change. According to The Washington Post, “Royal Dutch Shell on Monday outlined a scenario in which, by 2070, we would be using far less of the company’s own product — oil — as cars become electric, a massive carbon storage industry develops, and transportation begins a shift toward a reliance on hydrogen as an energy carrier. The company’s ‘Sky’ scenario was designed to imagine a world that complies with the goals of the Paris climate agreement, managing to hold the planet’s warming to ‘well below’ a rise of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels. Shell has said that it supports the Paris agreement. The scenario, which finds the world in a net-zero emissions state by 2070, is based on the idea that ‘a simple extension of current efforts, whether efficiency mandates, modest carbon taxes, or renewable energy supports, is insufficient for the scale of change required,’ the oil company document reads. ‘The relevant transformations in the energy and natural systems require concurrent climate policy action and the deployment of disruptive new technologies at mass scale within government policy environments that strongly incentivize investment and innovation.’ … ‘Any time we see a forecast looking out many decades (in this case, 2070), it can be an interesting talking point but does not seriously influence investor decisions,’ said Pavel Molchanov, energy analyst at the investment firm Raymond James. ‘Even for long-term-oriented investors, that is simply too distant a time frame.’” [The Washington Post, 3/26/18 (+)]

 

Coal Tycoon Governor Jim Justice Uses Loophole To Leave Mines And Workers Idle. According to Climate Home News, “In Virginia, only one of Justice’s approximately 20 mines still produces coal. Instead of closing the operations and restoring the land, his companies often place their mines into ‘temporary cessation’. Under this status, regulators allow miners to pause both production and land reclamation. Temporary cessation is meant to be a short-term response to low coal prices – in Virginia (and other states) it must be reapproved every six months. Records compiled by CHN show coal mines belonging to Justice have been idle for years at a time. Unreclaimed, idle mines mean ongoing pollution and community health impacts, while miners are put out of work indefinitely. The practice is not illegal, nor is it confined to Justice companies; CHN discovered many companies, particularly in Central Appalachia, using temporary cessation for extended periods. … While Justice’s companies have idled mines in West Virginia and Kentucky, his Virginia operations rely the most on temporary cessation. Records from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) reveal permits belonging to Justice’s largest company operating in the state, A&G Coal Corporation, have been approved for temporary cessation 20 times since 2012. One of A&G’s permits has been idle nearly continuously since 1984. Another of his companies, Black River Coal, LLC, owns a mine currently in temporary cessation that has been in and out of the status since 1997. Employment plummeted after these mines became inactive. A&G employed 418 people in Virginia as recently as 2010 but now only accounts for 89 jobs, according to data from the DMME and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.” [Climate Home News, 3/26/18 (=)]

 

Pay Gap For Women Worse At Oil Explorers. According to E&E News, “Only 5 percent of the top-paid employees at Premier Oil PLC are female, according to figures submitted to the U.K. government. Those numbers from the North Sea-focused oil explorer, concerning the top quartile of employees, compare to the 22 percent of women who were in that segment at Royal Dutch Shell PLC. That illustrates a general theme: As bad as the pay gap may be at most integrated companies, which have a hand in various types of oil business, it’s worse at the smaller companies that focus on exploration and production. Specialized technical or scientific training of the sort that has often attracted more men than women is a necessity for many of those positions. Flexible working conditions, which companies say help retain female employees, are also hard to come by, with staff spending weeks at a time on offshore platforms. ‘Our offshore workforce, which represents 7 percent of our employees, is all male,’ wrote Premier Oil in its report. That breakdown in roles that are higher paid ‘due to the working environment’ ends up widening the pay gap, it added.” [E&E News, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Opinion

 

Editorial: Too Many Trump Cabinet Member Are Extravagant In Their Spending. According to Omaha World-Herald, “The gold-plated spending by Trump Cabinet members needs to stop. Last week came word that Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, spent more than $120,000 in public funds last summer for a trip to Italy, with almost $90,000 for food, hotels, commercial airfare and a military jet used by Pruitt and nine EPA staff. President Donald Trump’s first Health and Human Services secretary, Tom Price, resigned last fall after revelations that he spent more than $1 million in public funds on travel including chartered flights. Price’s successor, Ben Carson, spent an astounding $31,000 on an office dining table at public expense. It’s hard to see how the administration can brag about ‘draining the swamp’ when it fails to rein in such shameless extravagance.” [Omaha World-Herald, 3/26/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Scott Pruitt’s Attack On Science Would Paralyze The E.P.A. According to an op-ed by Gina McCarthy and Janet McCabe in The New York Times, “The E.P.A. administrator simply can’t make determinations on what science is appropriate in rule-making without calling into question decisions by other federal agencies based on similar kinds of studies, including on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, and research into cancer and other diseases. All rely to some extent on data from individual health records. If one agency rejects studies based on that sort of data, it could open up policies by other agencies based on similar studies to challenge. Mr. Pruitt — who is a lawyer, not a scientist — told The Daily Caller: ‘We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record. Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.’ … So why would he want to prohibit his own agency from using these studies? It’s not a mystery. Time and again the Trump administration has put the profits of regulated industries over the health of the American people. Fundamental research on the effects of air pollution on public health has long been a target of those who oppose the E.P.A.’s air quality regulations, like the rule that requires power plants to reduce their mercury emissions. Mr. Pruitt’s goal is simple: No studies, no data, no rules. No climate science, for instance, means no climate policy. … Representative Bill Foster, a physicist and Democrat from Illinois, has argued that ‘scientists should set the standards for research, not politicians.’ We couldn’t agree more. Scientific research provides factual support for policies that reduce exposure to pollution and protect the American people from costly and dangerous illnesses and premature deaths. Under Mr. Pruitt’s approach to science, the E.P.A. would be turning its back on its mandate to ‘protect human health and the environment.’” [The New York Times, 3/26/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: I Used To Work At The EPA. Now I Have Lung Disease And Depend On It. According to an op-ed by John Kennedy in USA Today, “For more than 30 years, I was a proud employee of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Pacific Southwest regional office in San Francisco. My job was to help develop systems to protect clean air and mitigate toxic contamination. I’m particularly grateful for the work I did on emergency response measures that set up monitoring and reporting systems to inform the public of the impacts of disasters such as wildfires on air quality. My greatest reward came from working with the women and men at EPA. Their service, professionalism and dedication to clean up our air, water and land, and to protect the public’s health, were an inspiration that provided motivation throughout my career to do my best as a public servant. My personal connection to the EPA and appreciation for its mission make it especially disheartening to see the level of vilification and animosity aimed at the agency since the dawn of the Trump administration. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is determined to undermine the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution and conduct scientific research. Instead, he’s focusing on boosting industry profits. … Now, as a retiree and grandfather, I see the need for robust environmental protections more than ever. I was recently diagnosed with advanced stage lung disease and must pay careful attention to air quality. During last fall’s Western wildfires — among the worst in recorded history — the very program I helped launch was on the ground monitoring the air, collecting data and putting out timely and accurate public health messages for people like me. Thanks to partnerships across federal, state, local and tribal agencies, I became a direct beneficiary of the work I did during my career at EPA. When the president and Congress slash federal agency budgets, the impact reverberates far beyond Washington. It means states that rely on EPA grants to help keep toxic pollutants out of the air have less money for air quality programs, whether they are in response to a disaster or to keep the air safe for children as they walk to school every day.” [USA Today, 3/26/18 (+)]

 

Research And Analysis

 

Meeting Paris Agreement Targets Will Take Massive Cuts In Emissions. According to Bloomberg, “Meeting the Paris accord’s temperature targets will take massive cuts to greenhouse gas emissions within 15 years, but won’t require them to be reduced to zero, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. If those targets—between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.6 Fahrenheit)—are overshot, the consequences would likely require both drastic cuts to emissions and geoengineering efforts to remove carbon from the atmosphere, according to the paper by Katsumasa Tanaka at the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan and Brian O’Neill at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. … The scientists created scenarios that would achieve both the temperature goals and emissions guidelines. The group concluded to do so would necessitate cutting emissions 80 percent by 2033 to meet the 1.5 degree target or about 66 percent by 2060 to meet the 2 degree mark. ‘In both these cases, emissions could then flatten out without ever falling to zero,’ according to the statement. However, there is growing doubt the targets in the Paris accords will be met, especially since President Donald Trump has pledged the U.S. will pull out of the international agreement. … If the 1.5-degree mark is missed, emissions would have to fall to zero by 2070 and then be negative for the rest of the century. In the 2-degree scenario emissions would have to drop to zero by 2085 and then stay negative for a shorter period of time to get back below 2 degrees.” [Bloomberg, 3/26/18 (=)]