TOP PRUITT HEADLINES

 

Udall: Pruitt Broke Law By Having Aide House-Hunt For Him.

 

Senator To Pruitt: EPA Meddling In Health Study ‘Unconscionable.’

 

Pruitt Says His Legal Fund Won’t Take Cash From Those With EPA Business.

 

Pruitt Contradicts Ex-EPA Security Chief Email Over Use Of Sirens In Non-Emergencies.

 

Pruitt Didn’t Pay Aide For Apartment Hunt.

 

Pruitt: Meeting With Hugh Hewitt Before EPA Decision Led To 'Good Things.'

 

Pruitt Disavows EPA Tweet Aimed At Democrats.

 

Pruitt Says He’s Taken Steps To Avoid Future Controversies.

 

 

OTHER TOP HEADLINES

 

EPA Science Advisers Concerned About Pruitt's Science Directive.

 

Top Official Gets Climate Science Lessons.

 

House's EPA FY19 Bill Revives Contentious Workforce 'Reshaping' Effort.

 

U.S. Coal Alliance Is Only A 'Conversation' — DOE Official.

 

Someone, Somewhere, Is Making A Banned Chemical That Destroys The Ozone Layer, Scientists Suspect.

 

 

 

Federal Agencies

 

EPA

 

Top Official Gets Climate Science Lessons. According to E&E News, “A top EPA political appointee is receiving staff briefings on climate change science at his request. Bill Wehrum, EPA’s air chief, told lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday that he was in the middle of a series of briefings on the state of climate change science by the agency’s staff. ‘For the last 10 years, I was an attorney in private practice, and nobody hired me to go dive into the mountain of data that exists on climate, so there’s a lot I have to learn,’ he told Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). ‘I’m putting my money where my mouth is.’ Wehrum was previously an industry attorney at Hunton & Williams LLP after serving as EPA’s acting air chief during the George W. Bush administration. ‘I’ve done several, and there’s more to go,’ he said of the briefings. ‘There’s a mountain.’ Wehrum’s boss, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, has said he wants a public debate on climate change that would pit a ‘red team’ composed of people with views challenging the mainstream science against a ‘blue team.’ He has also downplayed the role that carbon dioxide plays in warming the Earth.” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

EPA Council Holds “Open House” With Industry. According to Politico, “EPA touted a meeting between general counsel Matthew Leopold and senior representatives from eight industry groups on Wednesday in a release from the agency. The representatives were the first to meet with Leopold during an ‘open house’ forum to learn about his priorities and the legal issues facing EPA, the agency said. Leopold plans to hold additional meetings with The Environmental Council of the States, ‘non-governmental advocates,’ and state agency representatives, as well. EPA told ME the meeting included representatives from the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, Information Technology Industry Council and the National Mining Association, among others.” [Politico, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

EPA On Track To Meet Court's Ozone Deadline. According to E&E News, “EPA remains on course to complete past-due attainment designations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard by mid-July, according to a court-ordered status report. After issuing two rounds of attainment decisions in November and last month, the agency ‘intends to make final designations’ for an eight-county area in and around San Antonio by July 17, an attorney for EPA said in the report, filed yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Earlier this year, a three-judge panel on the appellate court had ordered the status report. The panel also deferred action on EPA’s bid to dismiss as moot lawsuits brought last summer by a coalition of Democratic-led states and an array of public health and environmental groups. The challengers had launched the litigation after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in June announced a blanket one-year delay in making the attainment designations for the 70 parts per billion standard on the grounds that more information was needed. Although Pruitt backed down two months later, the plaintiffs argued that their lawsuits should be kept alive in the event EPA tried anew to delay the designations, which were statutorily required by last October.” [E&E News, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

EPA, States Plan Environmental Data Clearing House In Federalism Effort. According to Inside EPA, “EPA and state regulators are planning to craft a clearing house of environmental research to improve states’ access to EPA’s Office of Research and Development data and tools, part of states’ ongoing push to bolster their collaboration with federal regulators on implementing environmental laws, which has gained traction under the Trump administration. In a May 4 memo, top officials of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) update state regulators’ on the group’s progress in advancing the group’s April 2017 paper on re-aligning states’ working relationship with EPA, as well as plans for continuing that effort in the coming year. … The memo outlines priorities for continued talks with EPA in 2018, including improving states access to ORD tools and research, addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and improving state and federal coordination on groundwater policies that affect Superfund cleanups. … On enforcement, the memo says ongoing discussions are focusing on striking the right balance between state and federal enforcement by developing principles that define expectations for states and EPA on individual enforcement actions, and on developing metrics for assessing overall compliance rates.” [Inside EPA, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Secret Science

 

EPA Science Advisers Concerned About Pruitt's Science Directive. According to Politico, “EPA’s own scientific advisers — including some handpicked by Administrator Scott Pruitt — are raising concerns about his plans to set new limits on what research the agency can use. Members of the agency’s Science Advisory Board were not alerted to the controversial directive ahead of time, and only learned about it through press reports, according to a memo posted to EPA’s website. The memo details a teleconference meeting of the board’s work group that reviews the scientific underpinnings of upcoming regulations. Pruitt’s chosen SAB chairman, Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, was among the panel members on the call, according to the memo. ‘The proposed rule deals with issues of scientific practice and proposes constraints that the agency may apply to the use of scientific studies in particular contexts. As such, this rule deals with a myriad of scientific issues for which the Agency should seek expert advice from the Science Advisory Board,’ says the memo to SAB members from Alison Cullen, the work group chairwoman and a University of Washington professor. The memo lays out a series of concerns about the proposed science directive, which would require the underlying data be available for all studies that EPA uses to set regulations, and would set new requirements for calculating the effects of pollution on public health. Among the concerns in the memo were the potential impacts the proposal would have on previously published studies for which the data cannot be made public, and the lack of analysis about its impact on regulatory programs. WHAT’S NEXT: EPA is accepting public comment on the proposed science policy.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Advisers Pan Science ‘Transparency’ Proposal. According to The Hill, “A team of external scientific advisers to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt is criticizing his proposal to restrict the scientific findings that the agency can use in writing and enforcing regulations. The critique, posted Tuesday to the EPA’s website, comes from a working group of the Science Advisory Board, a panel of experts — some of whom Pruitt hand-picked — charged with evaluating the EPA’s science and regulatory actions. Pruitt rolled out the controversial proposal last month in what he said was an effort to improve transparency at the agency and increase scrutiny. In general, studies used by the EPA would have to fully disclose their data and methodology. ‘The American people ought to be able to have confidence, assurance, that the findings, the record that we build ... can be assessed, it can be evaluated, it can be analyzed,’ Pruitt said. Critics say it the proposal is merely an attempt to make it harder for the EPA to be aggressive in its regulatory, enforcement and other actions.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt

 

Pruitt Granted Extension To File Financial Disclosure Form. According to The Hill, “Federal employees were required to submit their financial disclosure forms Tuesday, but Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s was not one of them. Pruitt is among 70 EPA employees who requested and was granted a filing extension by the EPA, an agency spokesperson confirmed Wednesday. Currently 366 employees at the EPA are required to file the annual public financial disclosure forms that list any outside work they do to ensure that there are no conflicts. At the agency, candidates and appointed special government employees must fill out a detailed form annually. ‘EPA may grant extensions of up to 90 additional days for good cause. This year more than 70 employees have requested and been granted a filing extension. Administrator Pruitt was one of the employees who sought and was granted an extension,’ Kevin Minoli, the EPA’s designated agency ethics official, said in a statement to The Hill. Last year, Pruitt listed assets from his job as Oklahoma attorney general prior to starting at the EPA in February, as well as various incomes from bonds, trusts and his home mortgage. … ‘Historically, prior EPA Administrators, including those in the previous administration, have also regularly sought and received extensions,’ Wilcox said in a statement.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt’s Policy Director At EPA Met With Hundreds Of Industry Representatives, Emails Show. According to The Intercept, “Some of the regulated groups that sought meetings were the beneficiaries of relaxed EPA regulations. After a court ruled in April 2017 that operators of large animal farming facilities must report how much animal waste they release, several agricultural industry groups met with the EPA. If it had been implemented, the decision would have not only cost the industry millions of dollars, but it also would have put a spotlight on the serious health and environmental impact of waste from factory farms — and big ag was worried. Representatives of the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, National Pork Producers Council, United Egg Producers, National Turkey Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Milk Producers Federation, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives sought a meeting with Dravis to express their concerns. According to the emails, they got the meeting on July 11 at the EPA’s headquarters in Washington.” [The Intercept, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Hurry Up! According to Politico, “The Environmental Integrity Project released a letter Wednesday signed by more than 300 former EPA employees, who call on the agency’s inspector general to complete his investigation into Pruitt’s travel and management. ‘We write to respectfully request that you complete your investigation and present your findings as soon as possible, so that EPA can better focus on its statutory responsibilities,’ the letter states.” [Politico, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

Congressional Appearance

 

Dems Grill Pruitt On Scandals, Skirt Climate. According to E&E News, “Scandals trumped climate policy for Democratic senators yesterday as they drilled down on ethical concerns about Scott Pruitt’s actions at EPA. The EPA administrator testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee in a hearing intended to discuss the agency’s fiscal 2019 budget. But Democrats chose to focus most of their attention on high-profile scandals including Pruitt’s use of 24-hour security, a cut-rate condo deal, travel expenses and recent reports Pruitt had set up a legal defense fund. Democrats did not use the opportunity to question Pruitt’s planned rollbacks of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, the oil and gas industry, and landfills. They also did not press Pruitt on how budget cuts and reductions in staff at the agency could be affecting climate-related research and programs. Only one senator, Republican Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, asked Pruitt a climate-related question. She requested an update on the agency’s progress toward repealing the Clean Power Plan. The administrator noted the agency was conducting a two-step process, seeking public comment both on the repeal and separately receiving comments about a possible replacement of the rule. The ‘collaborative’ rulemaking process is expected to wrap up this year, according to Pruitt.” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Vows Quick Timelines For Rolling Back Obama Water, Climate Rules. According to Inside EPA, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Senate appropriators that he plans to take quick action on a host of issues from Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction and climate rollbacks to new limits on drinking water contaminants and other chemicals, including setting an aggressive goal of enacting new CWA and power plant climate rules in 2018. During a May 16 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s interior and environment panel, Pruitt said of the repeal and replacement effort for the Clean Power Plan rule governing existing power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions that ‘we anticipate that occurring in 2018 -- all that occurring in 2018.’ He said the same timeline applies to replacing the Obama-era rule on the CWA’s scope, with final action on its repeal targeted for summer and replacement before 2019. The administrator stood behind those projections even though both rulemakings will require the agency to finish work on a new proposal for a highly visible, contentious subject, take comment on it, and then craft a final rule that considers those comments. Speaking to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) during the hearing, Pruitt said that despite the agency’s short self-imposed deadline, it still plans a robust public engagement effort for that process.” [Inside EPA, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Senate Democrat Claims Pruitt Admits House-Hunting Broke Federal Law. According to Inside EPA, “Pruitt denied that he had aide Millan Hupp setting up house tours or contact realtors while on the agency clock, saying instead that ‘the individual you’re referring to is a longtime friend of my wife and myself.’ Udall countered that for a subordinate to assist her boss outside of work without pay is also a violation of personnel policies. ‘Regulations prohibit directing a subordinate to do personal work for you, and if they volunteer that is a gift -- services must be paid for at fair market value. So it doesn’t cut it that they’re a friend or that kind of thing. Did you pay them at the time for doing that work?’ Udall asked. Pruitt answered, ‘It’s my understanding that all activity there was on personal time.’ Udall concluded, ‘Then that’s a gift. That’s a violation of federal law.’ The two immediately changed topic after Udall’s last comment, and the Democrat did not signal how he plans to use what he described as an admission of lawbreaking by the EPA administrator. But during a short press conference after the hearing, Udall included Pruitt’s answer in a list of ethical and other breaches that he said Pruitt had admitted to or lied about to legislators, and warrant continued investigation. That list also includes, among other topics, whether Pruitt asked for his controversial round-the-clock security detail, rather than career staff determining independently that the extra protection was needed, and whether he told the detail to use lights and sirens in their vehicles to move quickly through traffic. ‘He lied about the sirens and the lights, about the request for 24/7 security. He admitted he did not pay staff for house-hunting, which is illegal,’ Udall said.” [Inside EPA, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Taps Outside Attorney For Help Amid Investigations. According to Politico, “EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has tapped a white-collar defense lawyer to advise him as he grapples with a dozen federal investigations into his activity, according to two people familiar with the situation. Paul Rauser, the co-founder of the firm Aegis Law Group, has been assisting Pruitt for several weeks as the EPA chief faces fierce scrutiny on everything from his international travel and his lavish spending to his $50-per-night lease in a Capitol Hill condo owned by the wife of an energy lobbyist, these people said. Rauser has recently been spotted at EPA headquarters, according to the people. Rauser ‘focuses on domestic and international white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, and high-stakes commercial litigation and arbitration,’ according to Aegis’ website. … Pruitt told lawmakers during a Senate hearing on Wednesday that he has established a legal defense fund, adding that donations to the fund will be made public and he would not solicit contributions from lobbyists or corporations with business before the agency. Another lawyer working with Pruitt, Foley and Lardner partner Cleta Mitchell, helped set up the fund, according to a person familiar with the issue. The Washington Post first reported Mitchell’s involvement in the fund. Mitchell, in an email, confirmed that Pruitt is her client, but declined to comment further. ‘Scott has been a friend and client for a number of years – we are both from Oklahoma,’ she said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Dems Call For Pruitt To Disclose Legal Fund Donors. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s legal defense fund could prove to be another target for his critics. At a Senate hearing this morning, Pruitt confirmed he had set up a fund as he deals with multiple investigations into allegations of excessive spending and misuse of his Cabinet-level office as EPA chief. Democrats who have pushed for his resignation or firing are now discussing Pruitt’s fund and how its donors must be disclosed. ‘He is going to disclose all donors to it because there’s a massive problem in terms of conflict of interest,’ said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees EPA and held this morning’s hearing. When told about Pruitt’s legal defense fund, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) laughed. ‘That’s interesting,’ he said. Carper, ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said few people, including past EPA administrators, have ever thought of setting up such funds. ‘This would be unique,’ he said. Under questioning from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) at today’s hearing, Pruitt acknowledged the fund had been created. Asked whether he would disclose donors, Pruitt said he would. ‘They will be published, yes. Pursuant to the requirements of disclosures, yes,’ he said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Democrats Fear Pruitt’s Legal Defense Fund Could Create Conflicts Of Interest. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s newly formed legal defense fund has the embattled administrator’s critics wondering whether companies he regulates will come to Pruitt’s rescue behind the scenes. Legal defense funds are subject to few formal rules, although any donations to help pay for Pruitt’s lawyers would have to abide by existing ethics rules, including limitations on gifts from lobbyists or those with business before an official. While the Office of Government Ethics in September issued nonbinding guidance recommending that executive branch officials reject anonymous donations and consult with ethics officials before establishing such funds, critics say the system is ripe for potential abuse. ‘You can see the conflicts,’ Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) told reporters Wednesday, after pressing Pruitt on the legal defense fund during a congressional hearing. ‘A business is saying, ‘I want this regulation to be repealed and so I’m going to give $100,000 to your legal defense fund.’ That kind of activity just shouldn’t be happening.’ Experts say that even with those ethics boundaries, Pruitt will have significant leeway in deciding just how transparent the fund will be. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, compared the situation to the ‘Wild West.’” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Contradicts Ex-EPA Security Chief Email Over Use Of Sirens In Non-Emergencies. According to CNN, “Scott Pruitt on Wednesday contradicted an internal email from his former security chief that said the embattled Environmental Protection Agency administrator encouraged the use of lights and sirens for non-emergency situations while traveling in a motorcade. During a Capitol Hill hearing on the agency’s budget, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, raised the issue of a former special agent who worked on Pruitt’s protection team who claimed he was demoted when he refused to drive with lights and sirens blaring through the streets of Washington. ‘Let’s get the record straight: Did your security detail use sirens while you were in the car for non-emergencies, yes or no?’ Udall asked Pruitt, who is at the center of a dozen investigations, reviews and audits. Pruitt replied that the ‘policies were followed to the best of my knowledge by each of the agents that serve me.’ When Udall pressed him again, Pruitt said he did not recall and that policies were followed by his agents ‘in all instances.’ The Democrat senator followed up for a third time: ‘You personally requested that on a number of trips?’ he asked Pruitt. ‘No, I don’t recall that happening,’ Pruitt said.” [CNN, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Says His Legal Fund Won’t Take Cash From Those With EPA Business. According to Bloomberg, “A private fund to help Scott Pruitt pay legal bills amid investigations of his taxpayer-funded travel, unorthodox condo rental and security protection will not accept donations from people with business before the EPA. Pruitt made the pledge during a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing Wednesday as he faced withering criticism for his leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency -- and his new strategy for dealing with the legal fallout from a series of controversies. The EPA administrator said he had worked with the White House Office of Legal Counsel and the Government Accountability Office to establish the fund, would follow their guidance and would publish information about donations. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said he was concerned the legal fund could exacerbate the ethical concerns surrounding Pruitt, especially if it received cash from anonymous donors seeking to influence EPA policy decisions.” [Bloomberg, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

EPA’s Pruitt Faces Bipartisan Criticism At Senate Spending Panel. According to Roll Call, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt faced a bipartisan lashing at a Senate Interior-Environment Appropriation Subcommittee hearing where agency scandals largely eclipsed discussion of the fiscal 2019 budget. ‘I am concerned that many of the important policy efforts that you are engaged in are being overshadowed because of a series of issues related to you and your management of the agency,’ Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said as she kicked off a hearing on the EPA’s fiscal 2019 budget. Senators, especially Democrats, focused questions and commentary on numerous investigations into Pruitt’s conduct — including the use of sirens in non-emergency situations as he traveled in government vehicles, his below-market housing in the home of an energy lobbyist, and his pricey 24-hour-a-day security detail and the $43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office.” [Roll Call, 5/15/18 (=)]

 

Security A 'Silly Reason' For First-Class Flights, Democrat Tells Pruitt. According to ABC, “Democrats slammed Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt for new developments in persisting questions about his conduct and spending since taking over at the agency, including his costly 24-hour security detail and rental arrangement in a Capitol Hill townhouse connected to lobbyists. Pruitt was asked about recent reports about his actions at the agency in a hearing before a Senate appropriations subcommittee. He is already under multiple investigations into the cost of his security detail, travel, pay raises for aides, alleged retaliation against whistleblowers, and his time renting a condo in a Capitol Hill townhouse connected to lobbyists. More than 300 former EPA officials wrote to the EPA’s inspector general on Wednesday calling for him to expedite the investigations because they are concerned the scandals have ‘compromised the agency’s mission,’ according to a copy of the letter released by the Environmental Integrity Project.” [ABC, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt Admits Top Aide Helped Him Search For Housing But ‘On Personal Time.’ According to The Washington Post, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt acknowledged Wednesday that one of his top aides helped him search for housing last year — a potential violation of federal law — but said she had done so ‘on personal time.’ The admission came during a Senate budget hearing, which including sharp questions from Democrats about the administrator’s ethics and spending decisions. Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee focused largely on the agency’s policy actions. Three Democratic senators — Tom Udall (N.M.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) — devoted the bulk of their time to asking Pruitt about actions that have prompted more than a dozen probes by EPA’s Office of Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office and the White House itself. Leahy belittled Pruitt’s claim that he needed to fly first class because of security concerns. ‘Nobody even knew who you were … You have to fly first class? Oh c’mon,’ Leahy said. Such decisions had made Pruitt and the EPA ‘a laughingstock,’ he added.” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Embattled EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Tripped Up In Senate Testimony Over Security Request. According to CNBC, “Embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told a Senate hearing on Wednesday he did not recall ever asking his security detail to use lights and sirens in government vehicles. However, seconds later, a U.S. senator submitted evidence that the Trump deputy had in fact made the request. Claims that Pruitt had asked security personnel to flash lights and blare sirens to speed up trips to the airport or dinner surfaced earlier this year in a New York Times report on alleged workplace retaliation at the EPA. The allegations were leveled by the former head of Pruitt’s security detail, Eric Weese, who was reportedly moved to another position after refusing to sign off on first-class travel for Pruitt. Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico asked Pruitt whether he had personally asked his security detail to use sirens and lights, which is usually reserved for the president. ‘I don’t recall that happening, Ranking Member Udall,’ Pruitt said. ‘There are policies that the agency follows, the agents follow, and to my knowledge they followed it in all instances.’” [CNBC, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Quietly Advances Planned Regulatory Overhaul. According to E&E News, “While EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s ‘secret science’ plan has garnered a good deal of publicity and criticism, another proposal that could transform the agency’s rulemaking process has largely flown under the radar. EPA last month quietly submitted a proposal titled ‘Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process’ to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The proposal is in the prerule stage and is under standard review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. EPA has not yet published a draft version. Like the ‘secret science’ plan, this proposal could have profound consequences for EPA’s overall approach to assessing the need for new or stiffer regulations to protect public health and the environment. But while the ‘secret science’ plan would restrict the types of studies that can be used in crafting new regulations, this proposal would improve the cost-benefit analyses that provide the economic justification for new rules.” [E&E News, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Senate Democrats Press Trump Administration On Chemicals Report. According to Politico, “Eleven Senate Democrats are calling on the Trump administration today to release a scientific assessment of a groups of chemicals that POLITICO reported Monday the White House and EPA officials sought to block. ‘If this report is accurate and administration officials sought to suppress release of critical public health information in the interest of avoiding a ‘public relations nightmare,’ it is an unacceptable failure of leadership and a failure to protect public health,’ the lawmakers wrote in letters to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, HHS Secretary Alex Azar, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. The Democrats, led by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, demanded the release of all internal documents relating to the buried report. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (Del.) and Appropriations Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy (Vt.) were among the letter’s signatories. Pruitt told a Senate Appropriations panel today that he did not know his staff had intervened with the chemical assessment. ‘I was not aware that there had been some holding back of the report. I think it is important to have all information in the marketplace,’ Pruitt said in response to questions from West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito whose state has struggled with contamination from the chemicals.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Senator To Pruitt: EPA Meddling In Health Study ‘Unconscionable.’ According to Politico, “Senate Democrats tore into Scott Pruitt on Wednesday, blasting the Environmental Protection Agency’s meddling in a report on toxic chemicals as ‘unconscionable’ and calling the EPA administrator’s mounting ethics controversies an embarrassment to the agency. ‘You’re trailing a string of ethical lapses and controversies, they’re an embarrassment to the agency, an embarrassment to Republicans and Democrats alike,’ Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) told Pruitt at a Senate hearing. ‘Forget about your own ego and your first class travel and your special phone booths and all these things that just make you a laughingstock and your agency a laughingstock.’ … ‘It’s incomprehensible to the people in Bennington and in Vermont why an agency that works for them — their tax dollars are paying for it — whose charge it is to protect their health, turns their back on them and tries to hide health dangers,’ Leahy said in his opening statement. West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito also pressed Pruitt on his agency’s intervention on the study, prompting him to deny that he had a hand in it. ‘I was not aware that there had been some holding back of the report. I think it is important to have all information in the marketplace,’ Pruitt said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Legal Defense Fund In Place — Pruitt. According to E&E News, “Under tough questioning this morning from Senate Democrats, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said he has established a legal defense fund as he grapples with multiple ethics investigations. ‘Yes, it has been set up,’ Pruitt said when asked by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) at the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. The EPA chief said his attorney is working with the Government Accountability Office to make sure the fund is established appropriately. Van Hollen also asked Pruitt if he would disclose donations to the fund so the public can see who’s financing his defense. ‘They will be published, yes,’ the administrator said. Pruitt’s public confirmation of his legal defense fund comes as his and his top aides’ actions have become subject to several probes by the EPA Office of Inspector General, GAO and others. The EPA chief’s travel, security, rental of a condo linked to lobbyist whose firm’s clients have business before the agency, and other alleged ethics problems have come under scrutiny. Today’s hearing was scheduled to discuss President Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget proposal for EPA, but it served as another opportunity for Pruitt’s Democratic critics to question the administrator about the wide-ranging ethics allegations. ‘It’s hard to know what to begin with today,’ said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the subcommittee’s ranking member. ‘Every day, there seems to be a new scandal, and you at the center of it.’” [E&E News, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Protesters Hold Up 'Fire Him' Signs Behind Pruitt During Hearing. According to The Hill, “Protesters attending a Senate hearing Wednesday on the Environmental Protect Agency’s (EPA) 2019 budget request held signs behind embattled EPA chief Scott Pruitt urging President Trump to ‘fire him’ over recent scandals. Three protesters could be seen on C-SPAN cameras holding the signs early Wednesday morning behind Pruitt, coming in to view when he answered questions from senators about his spending at the top environmental watchdog agency. At some point, the protesters holding the signs appeared to walk out or removed the signs, as they could no longer be seen behind Pruitt minutes later into his testimony. Pruitt has weathered a deluge of negative press coverage in recent weeks, including reports that he directed aides to come up with ‘official’ reasons to travel to preferred travel destinations when he joined EPA and rented a condo from the wife of a top energy lobbyist. Democrats have called on Trump to fire Pruitt over the scandals, which they have challenged run counter to Trump’s campaign promise to ‘drain the swamp’ of government corruption in Washington. During Wednesday’s hearing, Pruitt was lectured by Democrats, including Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), about his spending habits at the EPA as lawmakers discussed the agency’s 2019 budget request. ‘Forget about your own ego and your first class travel and your special phone booths and all these things that just make you a laughing stock, and your agency a laughing stock,’ Leahy told Pruitt.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt: Meeting With Hugh Hewitt Before EPA Decision Led To 'Good Things.' According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt acknowledged Wednesday that his personal meeting with right-leaning radio host Hugh Hewitt last fall helped with the EPA’s decision to act on a polluted California site. But Pruitt also told lawmakers that he didn’t understand how the October meeting with Hewitt could be interpreted as nefarious, noting that the California site was already under consideration for placement on his personal priority list of Superfund sites. ‘Good things came out of that meeting and that decision,’ Pruitt said while speaking Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. ‘I’m not entirely sure why there would be criticism around us taking a concerted action to addressing Superfund sites and taking accountability, whoever brings that to our attention,’ Pruitt added. Pruitt met with Hewitt and his law firm that represents the Orange County Water District last October, according to internal emails obtained by Politico earlier this month. Six weeks after the meeting, on Dec. 8, the Orange County North Basin contaminated site was placed on Pruitt’s list of Superfund cleanup sites.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Didn’t Pay Aide For Apartment Hunt. According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt didn’t pay a close aide to search for apartments for him, which one senator said is illegal. Millan Hupp, a top scheduling aide to Pruitt, searched for apartments for him to live in, in an arrangement first reported by the Washington Post last month. At a Senate Appropriations Committee subpanel hearing Wednesday, Pruitt said that Hupp’s apartment-hunting work didn’t happen during the hours she was working at the EPA, diffusing a potential issue over outside work during government time. ‘All activity that I’m aware of that was engaged in by the individual that you’re speaking about occurred in personal time,’ Pruitt told Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the subpanel’s top Democrat. But Pruitt potentially opened up another can of worms by saying that he did not personally pay Hupp for her apartment hunting. ‘No, I did not,’ Pruitt said. Udall pointed to regulations that prohibit federal employees from doing unpaid, voluntary work for their superiors.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Says Meeting Victims’ Families Moved Him To Push For Chemical Ban. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today said he will push to finalize a ban on the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers following a recent meeting with the families of several people who have died from exposure to the chemical. ‘The meeting I had with those families helped cement the process that we’re taking,’ he told Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) at an appropriations hearing. Pruitt said EPA would finalize a rule the Obama administration proposed in January 2017 that would ban the chemical’s use in paint strippers. Long-term exposure to the chemical can cause liver toxicity, liver and lung cancer and ultimately death. ‘This is a matter that we needed to act on, in my view, sooner than what we did,’ Pruitt said. The final rule is essentially the same as the ban proposed by the Obama administration in January 2017, Pruitt said, although he said EPA is working to clarify some language regarding the military’s use of methylene chloride, also known as DCM.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

AP | Senators Press Scott Pruitt Over Lavish Spending In EPA Hearing Wednesday Morning. According to Tulsa World, “Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt faced tough questioning Wednesday from senators about ethics investigations involving his travel spending, security precautions and large raises for young aides. A leading GOP senator expressed concern that the allegations are overshadowing the Trump administration’s pro-business regulatory rollbacks. ‘I’m being asked, really constantly asked, to comment on security and on housing and on travel. I’m reading about your interactions with representatives of the industries that you regulate’ instead of being asked about EPA policy actions, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who heads a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, told Pruitt at a hearing normally expected to focus on budget matters. New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, the subcommittee’s top Democrat, cited the Government Accountability Office’s finding in April that Pruitt’s purchase of a $43,000 private office booth for telephone calls broke federal law because the EPA failed to notify Congress in advance of an expenditure over $5,000. Udall accused Pruitt of continuing to flout legal requirements to inform lawmakers about that and other big-ticket spending, and ‘treating your position of public trust as a golden ticket for extravagant travel and fine dining.’” [Tulsa World, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

EPA Chief Tells U.S. Lawmakers He Has Fund To Fight Off Ethics Complaints. According to Reuters, “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said on Wednesday that he now has a legal fund in place to help him fight off a growing list of allegations against him related to his spending and reported ethical missteps in office. … The controversies have triggered some 12 investigations by the EPA’s inspector general, congressional committees and the White House. A Government Accountability Office probe concluded last month that the EPA had violated the law by spending $43,000 on a soundproof phone booth for Pruitt’s office without first notifying lawmakers. … Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski – chair of the Appropriations subcommittee – said in her opening remarks that she welcomed some of Pruitt’s regulatory agenda but the ethics issues were a distraction. ‘Unfortunately, I am concerned that many of the important policy efforts you are engaged in are being overshadowed,’ she said. ‘There are some legitimate questions that need to be answered,’ she said. Pruitt told the panel that he understood the concerns, but added that ‘some of the criticism is unfounded and exaggerated.’ … Pruitt said his attorney was working with the Government Accountability Office to make sure that his legal defense fund was run properly. All donations to the fund would be published and available to the public, he said, and he committed ‘absolutely’ not to accept any donations from lobbyists or companies that have business before the EPA. When asked if he would commit to not accepting anonymous donations for the fund, Pruitt said his lawyers handle them and would follow official guidelines.” [Reuters, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

At Senate Hearing, Scott Pruitt’s Spending And Ethics Once Again Take Center Stage. According to The Washington Post, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt received a less-than-warm welcome from both Republicans and Democrats as he returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for a Senate budget hearing, which was dominated initially by questions about his spending and ethics decisions. ‘I am concerned that many of the important policy efforts that you are engaged in are being overshadowed because of a series of issues related to you and your management of the agency,’ said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Appropriations Committee. ‘Instead of being asked about the work you are doing … I’m being asked, really constantly asked, to comment on [your] security, housing and travel.’ While agreeing with many of Pruitt’s policy moves, Murkowski said that when it comes to his ethics, ‘I do think there are legitimate questions that need to be answered.’ Democrats were hardly as charitable. ‘Every day there seems to be a new scandal and you at dead-center,’ said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who called Pruitt’s management of the agency ‘disastrous’ and his tenure there ‘a betrayal of the American people.’” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Dem Senator Mocks Pruitt Over Alleged Security Threats: 'Nobody Even Knows Who You Are'. According to The Hill, “Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) chided Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt on Wednesday for racking up more than $100,000 in expenses on first-class flights, telling him that ‘nobody even knows who you are.’ ‘What a silly reason you had to fly first class, because of a danger to you, unless you flew first class,’ Leahy told Pruitt at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing for the EPA. ‘Nobody even knows who you are.’ ‘Oh, somebody might criticize you? You got security people that we’ve never seen before. But you have to fly first-class?’ Leahy continued. ‘Oh, come on.’ Pruitt has come under fire for a number of questionable expenses and arrangements in recent months. Politico reported in March that the EPA administrator had spent more than $105,000 on first-class flights, in addition to $58,000 spent to charter private and military planes.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Defends Superfund Listing That Followed Hewitt Meeting. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency was discussing potential action on an Orange County, Calif., Superfund site ‘well before’ conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt arranged a meeting on the issue. ‘Good things came out of that meeting and the decision,’ Pruitt told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee today. ‘I’m not entirely sure why there would be criticism around us taking concerted action to address Superfund sites and get accountability — whomever brings that to our attention.’ POLITICO first reported that EPA added the Orange County North Basin site to Pruitt’s list of sites targeted ‘immediate and intense’ action just weeks after the Hewitt-arranged meeting occurred. But the comments did not placate Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the top Democrat on the spending subcommittee. ‘The idea is that there’s been scientific analysis and through analysis on the list, and then special friends get to get on the list that’s been created by the agency,’ Udall said. ‘Looks a little bit fishy to me.’” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Says WOTUS Process Remains On Track To Wrap Up In 2018. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said his efforts to repeal and replace the Obama administration’s Waters of the U.S. rule remains on track to be completed by the end of the year, despite a White House listing suggesting it had slipped. Pruitt told a Senate Appropriations panel this morning that he plans to finalize the withdrawal of the Obama-era rule in the third quarter of this year, with a final replacement rule in place ‘by the end of the year.’ The proposed rewrite rule will be released for public comment ‘late this month or early next month,’ he said, even though the rule has not yet been sent to the White House for interagency review. The proposal is expected to drastically reduce the number of streams and wetlands across the country that are protected under the Clean Water Act — the type of major regulation that often spends weeks undergoing White House review. The timeline Pruitt described today is the same one he has been discussing for months, although the White House’s Unified Agenda recently changed the expected time frame for the rules, with the rewrite rule not listed there for proposal until August and the final version not scheduled until September of 2019.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Udall: Pruitt Broke Law By Having Aide House-Hunt For Him. According to Politico, “Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) today accused EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt of violating federal law by having an aide look into possible apartment rentals for him on personal time without being paid. Pruitt said an aide — ‘a long-time friend of my wife and myself’ — took those actions entirely ‘on personal time’ and added he did not pay the aide for her work. The aide in question is Millan Hupp, an EPA scheduler and advance staffer who has worked for Pruitt since he was Oklahoma attorney general. ‘It doesn’t cut it that they’re a friend or that kind of thing,’ Udall, ranking member on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, said. He added that federal law requires that any subordinate — even if they volunteer — be paid fair market value for their work or it’s considered a gift. ‘That’s in violation of federal law,’ Udall said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Says He Was Unaware Of Interference With HHS Chemical Study. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said he did not know that his staff had worked to block a scientific assessment of a hot-button class of chemicals. ‘I was not aware that there had been some holding back of the report. I think it is important to have all information in the marketplace,’ Pruitt said in response to tough questioning from West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. Capito pressed Pruitt at a Senate hearing today to ‘encourage this information to come forward’ before an EPA summit on the chemicals next week. ‘I appreciate the fact that you are trying to reach the scientific limit that would impact any kind of health impacts in our areas, regardless of who has to remediate and what the remediation costs are going to be,’ she said, alluding to the fact that cleanup requirements would create major costs for the Defense Department and chemicals manufacturers. Concerns about those impacts were raised by a White House staffer in internal emails, POLITICO reported on Monday. Pruitt said that the option of regulating the chemicals PFOA and PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act remains on the table, along with the option of listing it as a hazardous substance for the purposes of Superfund cleanups. ‘We need to take concrete action to address these things,’ Pruitt said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Confirms He’s Set Up A Legal Defense Fund. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt confirmed today he’s established a legal defense fund as he faces a dozen federal investigations from government watchdogs and Congress. ‘It’s been set up,’ Pruitt said in response to a question from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). Pruitt said donations to the fund would be made public pursuant to disclosure requirements and said he would not solicit donations from lobbyists or corporations with business before the agency. He later noted he would not personally seek contributions himself ‘since that’s done by attorneys and others.’ The EPA chief said his attorney ‘who’s done this for a number of years’ has worked with Government Accountability Office ‘to make sure it’s done properly.’ Pruitt said he would follow the advice of White House Office of Legal Counsel with regard to anonymous donations to the fund. But Van Hollen was not convinced: ‘I really don’t think you’re taking this issue of public trust seriously,’ he said.” [Politico, 5/15/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Doesn’t ‘Recall’ Demanding Sirens On His Vehicle. According to The Conversation, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said today he didn’t remember demanding his security detail turn on their lights and sirens to beat Washington traffic and get to a restaurant. ‘I don’t recall that happening,’ he said in response to Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), top Democrat on a Senate Appropriations subcommittee. But Udall shot back by referencing an email from Pruitt’s former security chief, Pasquale ‘Nino’ Perrotta, that said ‘Administrator Pruitt encourages the use’ of those lights and sirens. Udall’s office has not released that email. That comes as POLITICO reported that Perrotta goaded and encouraged such behavior on security matters. CBS News reported in April that an agent on Pruitt’s security detail was reassigned after questioning his demands to use the lights and sirens on his vehicle. In a separate move today, two top Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats — Tom Carper (Del.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) — called on EPA’s inspector general investigate whether Perrotta steered agency business to his private firm.” [The Conversation, 5/15/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Disavows EPA Tweet Aimed At Democrats. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said his agency was wrong to issue a tweet last month that criticized Democrats who voted against the confirmation of an EPA official. ‘I was unaware of the tweet and that shouldn’t have occurred,’ Pruitt said at a Senate appropriations hearing. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) argued that the tweet ‘mocked’ Democrats, allegedly in violation of laws about social media use by federal agencies. The April tweet read: ‘The Senate does its duty: Andrew Wheeler confirmed by Senate as deputy administrator of @EPA. The Democrats couldn’t block the confirmation of environmental policy expert and former EPA staffer under both a Republican and a Democrat president.’ Pruitt declined several times to personally apologize for the tweet, saying multiple times that ‘The agency should not have done that.’ Udall has asked the Government Accountability Office to review the matter.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Says He’s Taken Steps To Avoid Future Controversies. According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt blamed ‘processes’ at the agency not being followed for some of his ongoing spending and ethical issues, but told Senate Appropriators he had taken steps to avoid similar issues going forward. ‘There have been decisions over the last 16 or so months, that as I look back, I would not make those same decisions again,’ Pruitt said in response to the panel’s Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). ‘I share your concerns about some of these decisions. I want to rectify those going forward,’ Pruitt continued. ‘I also want to highlight for you that some of the criticism is unfounded and I think exaggerated. And I think it feeds this division that we’ve seen around very important issues affecting the environment.’ Pruitt highlighted the decision to install a $43,000 phone booth in his office as one he’d taken steps to avoid going forward, pointing to a memo that gave three top staffers authority today to approve spending above $5,000 on his behalf. He did not mention the swirl of controversies around them until asked by Murkowski, instead focusing his opening remarks on efforts to address the Superfund cleanup backlog, rolling back Obama-era regulations and making agency operations more efficient.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Leahy Blasts Pruitt Over EPA Meddling In Chemical Study. According to Politico, “Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called efforts by the White House and political officials at EPA to block the assessment of perfluorinated chemicals ‘unconscionable,’ pointing to a community in his state that is grappling with contamination of that chemical. ‘It’s incomprehensible to the people in Bennington and in Vermont why an agency that works for them — their tax dollars are paying for it — whose charge it is to protect their health, turns their back on them and tries to hide health dangers,’ Leahy said in an opening statement. POLITICO reported Monday on internal emails that show Trump administration officials called the chemicals assessment ‘a potential public relations nightmare,’ since it was poised to detail health risks at lower levels of exposure than EPA has previously said was safe. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, told POLITICO he spoke with his counterpart at HHS and the head of the subagency working on the report about the issue. Leahy said the administration’s intervention with the study has shaken Americans’ trust in their government. ‘Your toxic agenda to make the United States more polluted and less safe has extended beyond environmental policy and actually affected the confidence the American people should have in their government,’ he said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Udall Asks GAO To Look Into Political EPA Tweet. According to Politico, “Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) announced this morning he’d asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether EPA violated the law with an April 13 tweet from the agency’s official account bashing Democrats for delays in confirming Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler. In addition, Udall said the government’s Office of Special Counsel is looking into whether the tweet violated the Hatch Act, which limits political involvement by federal employees. ‘These two investigations into EPA’s single tweet encapsulate a running theme: a disregard for ethics and a disregard for taxpayer dollars,’ Udall, top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees EPA spending, said. The tweet in question said: ‘The Senate does its duty: Andrew Wheeler confirmed by Senate as deputy administrator of @EPA. The Democrats couldn’t block the confirmation of environmental policy expert and former EPA staffer under both a Republican and a Democrat president.’ GAO is already looking into whether Pruitt’s appearance in an industry video calling for public comments on efforts to repeal the Waters of the U.S. regulation violated the law.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Murkowski Says Pruitt Must Answer 'Legitimate Questions' On Ethics. According to Politico, “Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Senate panel overseeing EPA’s budget, said there are ‘legitimate questions that need to be answered’ about the ethics scandals plaguing Administrator Scott Pruitt. ‘Unfortunately, I am concerned that many of the important policy efforts that you are engaged in are being overshadowed because of a series of issues related to you and your management of the agency,’ Murkowski said at the opening of a Senate Appropriations Interior-EPA subcommittee hearing. Murkowski lauded Pruitt’s work to repeal the Waters of the U.S. rule and Clean Power plan, but said instead she is being asked, ‘really constantly’ about Pruitt’s sweetheart condo rental deal from a lobbyist, 24/7 security and frequent first class travel. Pruitt is facing a dozen investigations from federal watchdogs over those and other controversies. Sen. Tom Udall, the panel’s ranking member, excoriated Pruitt. ‘It needs to be said that your tenure at the EPA is a betrayal of the American people,’ he said, criticizing not just the ethics scandals, but also his regulatory rollbacks. ‘This isn’t cooperative federalism, it’s flat-out abandonment,’ he said.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt: ‘I Don’t Recall’ Asking Security Agents To Use Sirens. According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt told senators Wednesday that he doesn’t ‘recall’ asking his security detail to use lights and sirens when driving him through Washington, D.C. The New York Times reported last month that Pruitt had asked his security agents and driver to use lights and sirens in non-emergency situations to get to certain appointments faster, including dinner at a French restaurant, and that an agent was removed from the security detail for pushing back. Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee panel that oversees the EPA’s budget, asked Pruitt repeatedly if that report was true. ‘I don’t recall that happening, Sen. Udall,’ Pruitt said. ‘There are policies that the agency follows, the agents follow. And to my knowledge, they followed it in all instances.’ Asked again, specifically, if he had requested the use of lights and sirens, Pruitt again denied knowledge. ‘No, I don’t recall that,’ he said. The denials came despite claims earlier Wednesday by Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Dems Claim Pruitt's Former Security Chief Intervened To Hire Business Associate. According to The Hill, “Two Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspector general (IG) look into the business dealings of Administrator Scott Pruitt’s former head of security. Ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) asked the IG office Tuesday to look into a number of issues related to Pasquale Perrotta’s employment and role at the EPA, including his work at an outside security firm he partly owned, his involvement in choosing Edwin Steinmetz — his outside business associate — to conduct security sweeps at the agency, and how he worked with Pruitt to advance his security needs. The two senators have been active in investigating allegations surrounding Pruitt and have interviewed a number of former and current EPA employees about Pruitt’s security requests and other ethics concerns.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Tells Senators: ‘I Share Your Concerns About Some Of These Decisions.’ According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt took an early conciliatory tone during a Wednesday Senate hearing in response to questions about his ethical and spending scandals. Given time by Senate Appropriations Committee subpanel Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to respond to criticisms, Pruitt conceded that some of the controversial decisions were not handled properly. ‘Some of the areas of criticism are frankly areas where processes at the agency were not properly instituted to prevent certain abuses from happen,’ Pruitt said. ‘There have been decisions over the last or so 16 months that, as I look back on those decisions, I would not make the same decisions again,’ he continued. He referred specifically to criticisms about a $43,000 soundproof phone booth EPA built in his office, saying, ‘that was a process where there were not proper controls early to ensure a legal review of the obligation of the agency to inform Congress’ and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO determined last month that Pruitt violated a law that required the EPA to notify Congress before spending $5,000 to furnish Pruitt’s office. ‘As the leader of the agency, it is my responsibility’ to crack down, Pruitt said.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Reactions

 

Pruitt's Standing Slips Among Hill Republicans. According to E&E News, “Scott Pruitt for now appears to be staying in President Trump’s good graces, but political support for the embattled EPA administrator seems to be waning on Capitol Hill. Just this week alone, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa became the first GOP senator to publicly muse that it might be time for Pruitt to go, telling reporters that he was ‘done playing around’ with EPA over the direction of the renewable fuel standard, which is crucial to his corn-growing state. … Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has grown weary of fielding questions from reporters about allegations involving Pruitt, bluntly let him know it at the outset of the hearing. While praising the direction of policy at EPA during Pruitt’s tenure, she lamented that those efforts were being overshadowed by a barrage of negative headlines about ethical questions she deemed ‘legitimate.’ … While Murkowski and other subcommittee Republicans largely kept their questions focused on policy, Pruitt was pressed by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) on allegations that EPA was responsible for a delay in releasing a toxicology report on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been an issue in her home state. Pruitt denied knowledge of a delay.” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

Schwarzenegger To Pruitt: Drink Contaminated Water 'Until You Tap Out Or Resign.' According to The Hill, “Arnold Schwarzenegger tweeted a jab at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt on Wednesday after reports that the EPA intervened to stop the publication of a federal study that would have set stricter levels for toxic chemicals in drinking water. ‘I’m a simple guy so I have a simple remedy when people like Pruitt ignore or hide pollution: if you don’t have a problem with Americans drinking contaminated drinking water, drink it yourself until you tap out or resign,’ Schwarzenegger tweeted. ‘I’m a simple guy so I have a simple remedy when people like Pruitt ignore or hide pollution: if you don’t have a problem with Americans drinking contaminated drinking water, drink it yourself until you tap out or resign. https://t.co/RwPpGJPthE’ — Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) May 16, 2018 The former California governor’s suggestion follows the release of internal Trump administration emails this week that showed EPA officials were concerned about a public relations ‘nightmare’ that could stem from another agency’s expected plans to strengthen standards for fluorinated chemicals in water.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Opinion Pieces and Analyses

 

Op-Ed: Crank Up The Siren. Scott Pruitt Has An Emergency. According to an op-ed by Dana Milbank in The Washington Post, “Turn on the flashing lights and crank up the siren: Scott Pruitt has an emergency. President Trump’s embattled EPA administrator is an important man. He does not like to wait in traffic. So, he reportedly let it be known that he wanted his security detail to use police lights and sirens when taking him to the airport, meetings and social events — even though such emergency equipment is for, well, emergencies. Confronted Wednesday by a Senate committee, Pruitt said the siren-and-lights thing was a false alarm. ‘There have been reports that you encouraged the use of lights and sirens on your motorcade even though there wasn’t an emergency,’ said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). ‘I don’t recall that happening,’ Pruitt maintained. Udall rephrased. ‘You personally requested that on a number of trips,’ he charged. ‘No,’ Pruitt insisted. ‘I don’t recall that.’ It was then that Udall revealed a just-released February 2017 email from Pruitt’s head of security, Pasquale ‘Nino’ Perrotta. Subject: ‘Lights and Sirens.’ The body consisted of one line: ‘Btw — Administrator encourages the use.’ … Throw that log on Pruitt’s five-alarm blaze of cartoonish corruption, as his explanations go up in smoke.” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Guess How Many Death Threats Scott Pruitt Received To Justify His 24/7 Security Detail? Zero. According to an op-ed by Scott Martelle in Los Angeles Times, “Maybe Scott Pruitt was just prescient. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency infamously has assigned himself a 24/7 security detail because, he and the EPA explained, he received threats after taking over the agency. But the EPA’s inspector general sent a letter Monday to members of Congress stating that the EPA’s senior White House advisor put in the request before Pruitt even started the job. The Washington Post reported Monday that the advisor, Don Benton, anticipated threats in response to expected actions by Pruitt. ‘There will be several Executive Orders signed when [Pruitt] is sworn in that will likely stir the hornets nest,’ according to an email the Post said Benton had sent to EPA security officials that also cited other past security issues for EPA personnel. Pruitt earlier claimed that an ‘unprecedented number of death threats’ led to his round-the-clock protection. The inspector general did confirm that there have been investigations into 14 threats to Pruitt, but only one person had been arrested. BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold tweeted earlier this month that he filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the EPA for records of death threats against Pruitt. ‘EPA said it had zero records,’ Leopold reported. So now we have a top Trump administration official wasting tax dollars on luxury travel, building himself a secure phone booth in his office and offering an untruth in defense of his special security detail. In other words, he fits right in.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/16/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Pruitt’s EPA Disregards The Science Behind The Clean Air Act. According to an op-ed by Bernard Goldstein in The Hill, “In the name of ‘cooperative federalism,’ Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is out to gut one of the finest examples of cooperative federalism in environmental law — that of setting outdoor air pollutant standards. The basic approach was worked out almost a half-century ago in the 1970 U.S. Clean Air Act, with minimal amendments since. It calls for the setting of uniform national outdoor standards for some of the worst pollutants, solely based upon the protection of public health with an adequate margin of safety. These federal standards are necessary to avoid a ‘race to the bottom’ in which states compete to attract industry through providing the weakest health-based standards. Each national standard is reviewed every five years, beginning with an internal scientific compilation and evaluation of the relevant worldwide scientific literature. This and other EPA documents related to the standard are then intensely reviewed by the congressionally-mandated Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.” [The Hill, 5/16/18 (+)]

 

DOE

 

Sources: Trump Keeps Pressure On Perry For Coal Plant Relief. According to Politico, “President Donald Trump is keeping the pressure on Energy Secretary Rick Perry to bail out struggling coal and nuclear plants, but so far the energy secretary hasn’t settled on a strategy to get it done, sources tell POLITICO. Pressed by donors at a May 5 fundraiser in Ohio, a frustrated Trump told a staffer to get Perry on the phone to tell him to take action on the issue — at least the fifth time Trump has given orders to use federal authorities to help the coal and nuclear power industries. Among the options Perry is still poring over are the Defense Production Act, the Federal Power Act and the 2015 highway bill, dubbed the FAST Act, and even asking DoD to pay plants to provide power to military bases, but it’s not clear that any of those offer a legally defensible way to save the plants. The Energy Department has been participating in interagency meetings at the White House, and sources said the Defense Department, with its mammoth budget and sway on crucial issues, could play an important role in the effort.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

U.S. Coal Alliance Is Only A 'Conversation' — DOE Official. According to E&E News, “The Energy Department’s fossil fuels chief said a controversial effort by the United States to establish a global alliance to promote coal and natural gas is ‘not yet ready for prime time.’ DOE Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg said the so-called Clean and Advanced Fossil Fuel Alliance is still at a preliminary stage. He was speaking at a meeting of coal industry representatives and advocates. ‘There’s been some discussion about it, some conversation, primarily led at the White House, but it is a proposal,’ Winberg said during a panel hosted by the World Coal Association. ‘So it’s not ready yet for prime time.’ The idea of an international consortium to advance cleaner coal and natural gas technologies around the world was first floated at the U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany, last November by then-White House energy adviser George David Banks. Banks, who credits Energy Secretary Rick Perry with the idea, is still involved in shaping the proposal despite his departure from the Trump administration earlier this year. E&E News first reported on Tuesday that the original idea of a multilateral collaboration had expanded, and the administration is now weighing the creation of a central institution to promote fossil fuels.” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

Perry Mum On Plans To Save 'Indispensable' Coal. According to E&E News, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry touted ‘clean coal’ technology today but refuted reports his department is trying to bail out the struggling industry. Perry joked he was the first secretary in a ‘pretty good spell’ to pay a visit to the World Coal Association, which met today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to discuss how to build more efficient, lower emission plants with technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). While he defended the Department of Energy’s various efforts to stem the tide of coal-fired power plant retirements nationwide, Perry did not address requests for him to take specific emergency actions to save facilities — namely those operated by bankrupt utility FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and their top customer, mining company Murray Energy Corp. ‘Contrary to what you’ve heard in the press, this is not about the fate of any one company, nor is it just a regional economic issue,’ he said. ‘This administration views the premature retirements of coal and nuclear power as a natural security issue.’ … ‘I hear many of them fret about how can they obtain our resources given the political constraints of their energy options,’ he said. ‘This administration is removing those constraints in our own country,’ he added. ‘And now we are deploying every form of energy we have, and the U.S. is in a remarkably better position’ geopolitically.” [E&E News, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Other Agencies

 

Lack Of Industry Reps Doomed Climate Panel — Documents. According to E&E News, “The Trump administration disbanded a NOAA advisory committee on climate change last year amid concerns that the panel lacked adequate industry representation, according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. At issue: the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment, a 15-member panel of academics, industry representatives, government officials and nonprofit representatives tasked with deciding how to use the National Climate Assessment for long-term resilience planning. The Trump administration let the panel’s charter expire last August, quietly ending its two-year run. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the administration last year, alleging that NOAA failed to respond to its request for documents related to the committee’s termination. A judge ordered the release of documents in three bursts, the second of which is due at the end of June. As first reported by The Washington Post, the first batch of documents reveals a back-and-forth between political officials and career staff arguing whether the committee’s charter should be renewed. In the exchange, George Kelly, then NOAA’s deputy chief of staff, said it was troubling that the committee had few industry representatives.” [E&E News, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Wilbur Ross Declined To Endorse His Own Department's Climate Science Findings. According to The Washington Post, “Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross declined to defend the work of climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), noting the agency’s numerous reports on global warming have been reviewed less favorably by some critics. During a talk at the National Press Club on Monday, Ross was asked by an audience member whether he accepts ‘NOAA findings that humans are the primary drivers of climate change.’ NOAA is a division of the Commerce Department. Ross started his response by saying, ‘I’m not going to get into the climate debate.’ Then he dove in: ‘Commerce Department’s NOAA has issued various reports that reflect the thinking of their scientists, and those reports in general have been reviewed, sometimes favorably, sometimes less so by other people in that field. So I think I’ll just let that record speak for itself.’ A Commerce Department spokesperson declined to comment further. Ross, before he took office, promised not to obstruct climate research under his purview. But by declining to endorse the research his department produced, Ross seemed to be pulling a page from the playbook of other Trump officials at departments such as the Environment Protection Agency who are aggressively trying to dismantle the Obama administration’s policies.” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Congress

 

House of Representatives

 

Lawmaker Says Tumbling Rocks Are Causing Seas To Rise. According to E&E News, “The Earth is not warming. The White Cliffs of Dover are tumbling into the sea and causing sea levels to rise. Global warming is helping grow the Antarctic ice sheet. Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming. A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements. The purpose of the hearing was to focus on how technology could be deployed for climate change adaptation. But the hearing frequently turned to the basics of climate science. Many of the questions by Republicans and Democrats alike were directed to Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said he was bothered that established climate science has not been questioned more by the committee, which has accused federal climate scientists of fraudulently manipulating climate data and subpoenaed their records. ‘I’m a little bit disturbed by, No. 1, over and over again, I hear, ‘Don’t ever talk about whether mankind is the main cause of the temperature changing and the climate changing,’ he said. ‘That’s a little disturbing to hear constantly beaten into our heads in a Science Committee meeting, when basically we should all be open to different points of view.’” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

House's EPA FY19 Bill Revives Contentious Workforce 'Reshaping' Effort. According to Inside EPA, “The House’s pending fiscal year 2019 spending bill for EPA revives a prior Trump administration effort to fund workforce ‘reshaping’ at the agency that union officials fear could lead to massive staffing cuts, in contrast to FY18 omnibus funding legislation that did not provide backing for an effort to buy out experienced staff. The ultimate fate of the workforce effort remains unclear given that the Senate has yet to weigh in on EPA’s budget, and Democrats are also already objecting to other cuts contained in the House plan. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s interior panel has not released its FY19 legislation for EPA, although it held a May 16 hearing on President Donald Trump’s request to cut the agency’s funding from its current $8.05 billion to $6.1 billion. The House’s FY19 bill would only cut the agency’s funding by $100 million down to $7.958 billion, a modest cut compared to prior GOP efforts to slash the agency’s funding that primarily targets EPA’s science and rulemaking accounts for reductions while boosting state grants and Superfund spending. But it contains a proposal to provide what sources say is up to $31 million for workforce reshaping efforts, such as buying out long-term, experienced agency staffers. The provision is another indication that lawmakers appear likely to continue to wrestle over agency staffing and resources.” [Inside EPA, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

House Appropriators Advance Energy-Water Bill. According to Politico, “The House Appropriations Committee advanced its fiscal 2019 Energy-Water appropriations bill today by a vote of 29-20, with Democrats voting against a host of policy riders. The $44.7 billion bill puts total funding at $1.5 billion above 2018 enacted levels and boosts spending for the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers. It provides additional funding for fossil fuels and nuclear research while making cuts to renewables and energy efficiency programs. Funding in the bill is $8.17 billion above President Donald Trump’s budget request. Republicans blocked Democratic amendments to add policy riders that would have restored funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and ARPA-E to 2018 levels. Republicans also voted down an amendment offered by subcommittee ranking member Marcy Kaptur that would have struck eight bundled policy riders, including one to legislatively repeal the Waters of U.S. rule and another that seeks to block a court-ordered change in operations of dams along the Columbia and Snake River systems. Kaptur said the WOTUS repeal measure was simply a poison pill rider. ‘It is the WOTUS bill itself that is the poison pill,’ GOP Rep. Mike Simpson responded. It failed on a vote of 30-19.” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Judiciary And Legal

 

Greens Fret As Trump, McConnell Remake Federal Judiciary. According to E&E News, “Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a senior member of both the Judiciary and Environment and Public Works committees, told E&E News in an interview this week that Republican special interests have been ‘steamrolling’ judicial nominees through the Senate. ‘If you look at the right-wing groups behind the effort to pack these courts, a lot of that comes out of the fossil fuel industry,’ said Whitehouse, specifically citing the influence of the Koch brothers, coal interests and Exxon Mobil Corp. Whitehouse said the picks have an impact on how various environmental laws are interpreted, but he said that in many instances, conservative judges can ‘close off’ the courts to even taking up cases related to environmental law violations. ‘The main strategy is to keep them out of the courtroom. If you are a polluter, you want to be in Congress where money and influence can control outcome,’ Whitehouse said. He added that more conservative courts could limit environmentally related tort claims and make it harder for stringent federal environmental standards to take precedence over more slack state laws.” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

Holding Court. According to Politico, “The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet today to consider a slate of nominees, including two that have drawn the ire of environmentalists. The League of Conservation Voters have sent letters to senators on the nominations of Andrew Oldham, to be a circuit judge for the 5th Circuit, and Michael Truncale for the Eastern District of Texas. In a letter Wednesday, LCV President Gene Karpinski lays out how Truncale previously referred to EPA as a ‘job killer,’ and in an earlier letter, the group outlines how Oldham questioned EPA’s legitimacy.” [Politico, 5/17/18 (=)]

 

Trump Mining Pollution Rule Change Challenged. According to The Washington Post, “Environmental groups challenged the Trump administration in federal court Wednesday over its rejection of an Obama-era proposal that would have required mining companies to prove they have enough money to clean up their pollution. The Idaho Conservation League, Earthworks, Sierra Club and other groups filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. asking it to review last year’s move to drop the rule. An attorney for the environmental groups said the reversal under Trump leaves taxpayers responsible into the future for mining pollution that fouls waterways and endangers public health. The proposal applied to ‘hard-rock’ mines that extract gold, iron, lead and other minerals, but not coal. Mining industry representatives and members of Congress from Western states pushed to kill the rule, arguing it was unnecessary and duplicated cleanup requirements already enforced at the state and federal level.” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

 

Allies and Activism

 

Greens Sue Pruitt For Not Imposing Hardrock Cleanup Rules. According to Politico, “Environmental groups today sued EPA over agency chief Scott Pruitt’s decision last year not to impose new insurance requirements on hardrock mining companies. Law firm Earthjustice filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It challenges EPA for not issuing any final regulations under Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Enacted in 1980, the Superfund law required EPA to draft standards for financial assurances — the bonds, sureties or other forms of collateral that guarantee a company mining gold, copper or other minerals will clean up its mines. Those rules were not drafted until environmentalists sued decades later. In 2015, a federal court gave EPA a Dec. 1, 2017, deadline to publish finished assurance regulations. The Obama administration had proposed additional bonding requirements, but under Pruitt, the agency reversed course. Last December, EPA determined new standards were ‘not appropriate,’ heeding state and industry concerns. ‘EPA is confident that modern industry practices, along with existing state and federal requirements, address risks from operating hardrock mining facilities,’ Pruitt said in a statement then. ‘Additional financial assurance requirements are unnecessary and would impose an undue burden on this important sector of the American economy and rural America, where most of these mining jobs are based.’” [Politico, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Opposition Groups

 

AZ Clean Energy Constitutional Amendment Would Shut Down Nuclear Power In State. According to The Heartland Institute, “California hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer is pushing a ballot measure in Arizona to amend the state’s constitution requiring utilities to get 50 percent of their electricity from favored renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2030. The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, HCR 2017 increases the current renewable power mandate from its present requirement of 15 percent by 2025, in an attempt to reduce the carbon dioxide generated from electric power production in the state to fight climate change. Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the owner of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde), warns if voters approve this constitutional amendment, its nuclear plant would have to close in six years instead of continuing to generate electricity for 27 years as its current operating license permits. Palo Verde is the largest source of electric power in Arizona, providing 36 percent of the state’s electricity. By comparison, non-hydro renewables in Arizona, dominated by solar power, generate about 4 percent of the state’s electricity. Coal produces about 25 percent and natural gas about 30 percent of the state’s electric power.” [The Heartland Institute, 5/17/18 (-)]

 

Republican AGs Request Federal Court Dismiss California Climate Lawsuit. According to The Heartland Institute, “The AG’s brief provides a number of reasons they argue Alsup should dismiss the cities’ lawsuit. For instance, the AGs argue whether or not to address climate change is a matter best left to the legislative branch of government, not the judiciary. ‘Plaintiffs’ objections to fossil fuel use are based in public policy, not law, and are thus not appropriate for judicial resolution,’ the brief argues. The AGs also say the cities’ claims could ‘jeopardize our national system of cooperative federalism,’ by allowing certain cities or states dictate energy policies to the nation as a whole. This argument echoes Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s reasoning for re-evaluating California’ Clean Air Act waiver to set emissions standards tighter than federal limits. ‘Cooperative federalism doesn’t mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,’ Pruitt said in a statement earlier in April when announcing EPA was rescinding Obama era fuel economy standards and timetables.” [The Heartland Institute, 5/17/18 (-)]

 

Research And Analysis

 

Someone, Somewhere, Is Making A Banned Chemical That Destroys The Ozone Layer, Scientists Suspect. According to The Washington Post, “Emissions of a banned, ozone-depleting chemical are on the rise, a group of scientists reported Wednesday, suggesting someone may be secretly manufacturing the pollutant in violation of an international accord. Emissions of CFC-11 have climbed 25 percent since 2012, despite the chemical being part of a group of ozone pollutants that were phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. ‘I’ve been making these measurements for more than 30 years, and this is the most surprising thing I’ve seen,’ said Stephen Montzka, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who led the work. ‘I was astounded by it, really.’ … The finding seems likely to prompt an international investigation into the mysterious source. Officially, production of CFC-11 is supposed to be at or near zero — at least, that is what countries have been telling the U.N. body that monitors and enforces the Montreal Protocol. But with emissions on the rise, scientists suspect someone is making the chemical in defiance of the ban. ‘Somebody’s cheating,’ Durwood Zaelke, founder of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and an expert on the Montreal Protocol, said in a comment on the new research. ‘There’s some slight possibility there’s an unintentional release, but … they make it clear there’s strong evidence this is actually being produced.’” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Most Americans Say Climate Change Affects Their Local Community, Including Two-Thirds Living Near Coast. According to Pew Research Center, “Roughly six-in-ten Americans (59%) say climate change is currently affecting their local community either a great deal or some, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Some 31% of Americans say the effects of climate change are affecting them personally, while 28% say climate change is affecting their local community but its effects are not impacting them in a personal way. As is the case on many climate change questions, perceptions of whether and how much climate change is affecting local communities are closely tied with political party affiliation. About three-quarters of Democrats (76%) say climate change is affecting their local community at least some, while roughly a third of Republicans say this (35%). But politics is not the only factor related to these views. Americans who live near a coastline are more likely than those who live further away to say climate change is affecting their local community. Two-thirds of Americans who live within 25 miles of a coastline (67%) say climate change is affecting their local community at least some. In contrast, half of those who live 300 miles or more from the coast say climate change is affecting their community.” [Pew Research Center, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Humans Are Causing Massive Changes In The Location Of Water Around The World, NASA Says. According to The Washington Post, “A 14-year NASA mission has confirmed that a massive redistribution of freshwater is occurring across Earth, with middle-latitude belts drying and the tropics and higher latitudes gaining water supplies. The results, which are probably a combination of the effects of climate change, vast human withdrawals of groundwater and simple natural changes, could have profound consequences if they continue, pointing to a situation in which some highly populous regions could struggle to find enough water in the future. ‘To me, the fact that we can see this very strong fingerprint of human activities on the global water redistribution, should be a cause for alarm,’ said Jay Famiglietti, a researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the authors of a study published in Nature on Wednesday.” [The Washington Post, 5/16/18 (=)]

 

Energy Jobs Cut Into Red And Blue State Divide. According to E&E News, “Solar energy firms employed about 250,000 people nationwide who spent a majority of their work time on solar in 2017 and 100,000 who did part-time solar work, with the total down 24,000 jobs, or 6 percent, from the year before, the authors said. But two-thirds of the decline was in the states of California and Massachusetts. In 29 other states, with politics swinging both right and left, red and blue, ‘the solar industry actually grew,’ said David Foster of the Energy Futures Initiative, who led the same research when it was started in the Energy Department under Moniz. EFI took over the project when the Trump administration’s DOE did not budget it last year. Philip Jordan, principal researcher at the BW Research Partnership, which conducted the employer survey first for DOE under Moniz and now with the EFI project, said that the solar job drop in California and Massachusetts might reflect a slowdown in the heavy sales promotions of rooftop solar. The improved productivity of rooftop installations may be a factor, too. Almost 650,000 jobs (26 percent) in the report’s motor vehicle sector involved work on increasing fuel economy or transitioning to alternative fuels. Jobs involving hybrid vehicles and alternative motor vehicles totaled 220,000, down almost 40,000 from the year before. However, jobs supporting development of all-electric vehicles rose sharply, and 23 percent of firms in motor vehicle parts got all of their revenue in products that increase vehicle fuel economy, a significant jump, the report said.” [E&E News, 5/17/18 (=)]