TOP PRUITT AND EPA HEADLINES

 

Emails Indicate Pruitt Tried To Recruit Oil Execs For EPA Jobs.

 

NSR Reforms Expected To Exempt Plants From Imminent CPP Replacement.

 

House Republican Says Pruitt Should Resign.

 

EPA To Review Ozone Standard Under Pruitt's New Ground Rules.

 

SAB Details Uncertain Path For Reviewing Trump Approach To Carbon 'Cost.'

 

Environmentalists, Industry Urge High Court To Overturn HFC Rule Vacatur.

 

Science Panel Abolished 3 Subcommittees In Closed-Door Vote.

 

 

OTHER TOP HEADLINES

 

Perry Says DOE Making ‘Progress’ On Coal, Nuclear Plan, But No Timeline.

 

Perry: Strategic Oil Reserve Is For Emergencies, Not Bringing Prices Down.

 

Federal Judge Dismisses Cities’ Suit Against Oil Companies Over Costs Of Climate Change.

 

High Court Gerrymandering Ruling Could Raise Bar For Climate 'Standing.'

 

 

 

White House and Diplomacy

 

 

Federal Agencies

 

EPA

 

Deregulation

 

NSR Reforms Expected To Exempt Plants From Imminent CPP Replacement. According to Inside EPA, “EPA’s proposed rule seeking to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is slated for submission to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) this week, will include tailored reforms to the agency’s new source review (NSR) program that will allow power plants making efficiency upgrades solely to comply with the CPP to be exempt from NSR. One source closely following the replacement rule’s development says it is likely to include several options, with all focused on inside-the-fenceline efficiency improvements and ‘will be accompanied by some further NSR reforms’ that are intended to allow upgrades to improve efficiency at the plant to waive any NSR obligation plants may otherwise face. An EPA spokeswoman says the agency ‘has no information to share at this time’ about the status or contents of the rule. The inclusion of NSR reforms marks a win for labor and industry groups who lobbied administration officials for it in comments on EPA’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that preceded the looming proposal, as well as in comments on an earlier proposal to repeal the CPP, which limited power sector greenhouse gas emissions. Sources also say EPA will not move to finalize the repeal at least until the agency finishes its replacement rule, which is seen as a way to provide more legal cover and certainty to regulated facilities.” [Inside EPA, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

SAB Details Uncertain Path For Reviewing Trump Approach To Carbon 'Cost.' According to Inside EPA, “EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is laying out an uncertain timeline for reviewing the Trump administration’s decision to slash the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric -- a measure of the costs of carbon emissions and thus the benefits of reducing them -- as well as other changes to the assumed benefits of EPA’s rules. In a set of June 21 documents, SAB told the agency it may take up the issue during a review of its cost-benefit regulation that SAB still has not committed to conduct. But the timing of when SAB takes up the SCC and other related issues could be crucial, with numerous EPA proposals to roll back Obama-era regulations on greenhouse gases and other air emissions already pending, and given inevitable litigation over these proposals once they go final. The clarification on the SCC review is included in a broader set of notifications to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in which the SAB formally restates its plans to review the science related to much of the administrator’s agenda rolling back Obama-era climate rules, including upcoming proposals to roll back vehicle GHGs regulations, repeal limits on glider kits, and scuttle GHG limits for new and modified power plants. And it adds some new context on SAB’s decision to examine several analytical methodologies that apply across multiple GHG regulations, even if SAB has not necessarily decided to review all aspects of related rules.” [Inside EPA, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Environmentalists, Industry Urge High Court To Overturn HFC Rule Vacatur. According to Inside EPA, “Environmentalists and chemical manufacturers are asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appellate ruling that largely vacated an Obama EPA rule limiting hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, arguing the ruling ‘destroys’ a core Clean Air Act program. Separate June 25 petitions for a writ of certiorari from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and chemical firms Honeywell and Chemours ask the high court justices to review a split panel ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, et al. In that ruling, the court vacated key parts of EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) rules limiting HFCs in a variety of end uses, finding that EPA lacks authority to require manufacturers that have already ‘replaced’ ozone-depleting products with another non-ozone depleting product to then switch to a new substitute -- even if EPA has since found that the new substitute is better for the environment or public health. The SNAP program was originally intended to address chemicals that destroy the stratospheric ozone layer, and HFCs were crafted as an ozone-friendly alternative to chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals that damage ozone. However, HFCs act as potent short-term GHGs, and the Obama EPA began using SNAP to require manufacturers to use replacement chemicals that do not deplete the ozone layer and have a far lower global warming potential.” [Inside EPA, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

AP | EPA Moving Forward With Review Of Standard For Ozone. According to The Washington Post, “The Environmental Protection Agency will move forward Tuesday with a review of its limit on ground-level ozone, asking the public for input on whether the current standard protects public health — and if it hurts the economy. The Obama administration tightened the ozone standard in 2015, citing health concerns. Industry has said the new limit is too strict. The EPA routinely re-evaluates its standards on a five-year schedule, though it often misses its deadlines. Administrator Scott Pruitt said the ozone review will be conducted by October 2020 even though it’s just getting underway. The public now has 60 days to comment on the standard. Pruitt told the outside advisory panel that makes recommendations to consider ‘economic or energy effects’ as well as health. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging the 2015 standard, saying the ‘EPA set an unattainable mandate ... that will slow economic growth opportunities,’ noting that many areas of the country still don’t meet the more lenient 2008 standard.” [The Washington Post, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

EPA To Review Ozone Standard Under Pruitt's New Ground Rules. According to E&E News, “EPA is launching a review of its 2015 ozone standard under controversial new ground rules that will require consideration of potential economic and energy effects with a timetable for completion before the end of President Trump’s current term. Set to be formally announced in tomorrow’s Federal Register, the move will be the first to be conducted under the terms set last month by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in what was described as a ‘back-to-basics’ memo. Among other features, the memo calls for all reviews of air quality standards for ozone and five other common pollutants to be completed within the statutory five-year schedule set by the Clean Air Act. Pruitt is also ordering an outside panel, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to provide feedback on any ‘adverse public health, welfare, social, economic or energy effects’ that may result from the setting of a new standard or compliance with an existing one. Critics have denounced the latter provision as a ploy to sidestep the requirement that public health be the sole benchmark in setting air quality standards.” [E&E News, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

EPA To Consider Changes To Smog Standard. According to The Hill, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is kicking off the process of reviewing the nation’s ground-level ozone pollution standard, a project likely to take years. In a notice due for publication in the Federal Register Tuesday, the EPA says it’s taking comments from the public to prepare to initial documents for the review to lay out the plan for the review process and the scientific literature on ozone, a component of smog. The review will take place under new standards that President Trump set in an April memo. He instructed the EPA, when setting new air quality rules, to consider factors like ‘adverse public health or other effects that may result from implementation’ of the rules and the extent to which areas have background levels of the pollutants that aren’t caused by human activity. Both factors have long been pushed by industry in an attempt to get more lenient air pollution standards written.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Science Panel Abolished 3 Subcommittees In Closed-Door Vote. According to E&E News, “An EPA advisory panel quietly voted last month to shut down three committees that provided outside expertise on ecological effects, environmental engineering and environmental economics. That step — unanimously approved by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and disclosed only late last week — was a routine management trim driven by the fact that the three panels had little work in recent years, according to the board’s acting staff director and several members. But in the charged environment surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attempts to recast the makeup of the SAB and other advisory committees, news of the decision quickly generated skepticism from his critics. ‘This is just another episode that illustrates how this administration continues to sideline science in the federal government,’ said Yogin Kothari, senior Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of several groups suing to overturn Pruitt’s membership standards for advisory committees. Tom Brennan, acting head of the SAB staff office, said in a statement today that board members ‘unanimously recognized that keeping these three committees does not offset the effort’ of forming and managing them. As is broadly true throughout EPA’s network of advisory panels, he said, the members of those three committees were deemed ‘special government employees’ subject to federal ethics rules and laws ‘regardless of actively working on a project.’” [E&E News, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Takes Credit For Lead Regs Greens Sued To Get. According to E&E News, “EPA is proposing new lead-dust standards to significantly lower acceptable levels for the first time in 17 years. The proposal would quarter the acceptable lead-dust level for floors from 40 to 10 micrograms per square foot and more than halve the acceptable levels for window sills from 250 to 100 micrograms per square foot. Those levels would bring EPA standards in line with those at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The newly proposed standards follow a January federal appeals court ruling that EPA had illegally delayed updating its lead dust regulations, which had been unchanged since 2001. But EPA credits Administrator Scott Pruitt, not the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as being the impetus for the rulemaking. A section of the proposal titled ‘Why is the Agency taking this action?’ explains that Pruitt hosted a February meeting of the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. ‘At the meeting, the Task Force members committed to make addressing childhood lead exposure a priority and to develop a federal strategy to reduce childhood lead exposures,’ the proposed rule says. ‘Today’s proposal is a component of EPA’s prioritizing the important issues of childhood lead exposure.’” [E&E News, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt

 

Staffing

 

Emails Indicate Pruitt Tried To Recruit Oil Execs For EPA Jobs. According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt tried to recruit top executives from oil and gas trading groups to jobs within the agency, according to emails obtained through an Freedom of Information Act request. The emails, by the Sierra Club, show that oil company ConocoPhillips reached out to the EPA after Pruitt met with the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) board of directors. Kevin Avery, a manager of federal government affairs at ConocoPhillips wrote to then-EPA aide Samantha Travis on March 27, 2017, describing Pruitt’s recruitment ‘plea.’ ‘I understand that Administrator Pruitt met with the API executives last week and he made a plea for candidates to fill some of the regional director positions within the agency,’ Avery wrote in an email. ‘One of our employees has expressed interest. He is polishing up his resume. Where does he need to send it?’ … ‘We are not aware of that ‘recruiting plea’ but EPA has sought a diverse range of individuals to serve in the Agency and help advance President Trump’s agenda of environmental stewardship and regulatory certainty,’ an EPA spokesperson said in a statement to The Hill. … ‘This is Scott Pruitt trying to outsource his job to protect our air and water to the exact people responsible for polluting them. Pruitt’s corrupt tenure at EPA has been a dereliction of the duties he swore to uphold. He’s gotten sweetheart deals from corporate lobbyists and then turned around and pushed their agenda, all while trying to enrich himself at the expense of taxpayers,’ Brune said in a statement.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Encouraged Oil Executives To Apply For Top Agency Jobs. According to BuzzFeed, “A month after starting as chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt made a recruiting ‘plea’ to top executives at the American Petroleum Institute, a major oil and gas trade group, according to internal emails obtained by BuzzFeed News. ‘I understand that Administrator Pruitt met with the API executives last week and he made a plea for candidates to fill some of the regional director positions within the agency,’ Kevin Avery, manager of federal government affairs at oil company ConocoPhillips, wrote in a March 27, 2017, email to Samantha Dravis, then a top EPA aide. ‘One of our employees has expressed interest. He is polishing up his resume. Where does he need to send it?’ On April 4, Avery emailed Dravis back, offering the résumés of an interested ConocoPhillips employee, as well as an oil industry veteran and personal friend of one of the company’s executives. Although neither went to the EPA, the emails give yet another example of the Trump administration offering jobs to industry officials and lobbyists. For example, J. Steven Hart, the energy lobbyist linked to Pruitt’s former apartment deal in Capitol Hill, provided the agency with recommendations for staff and science advisers last year, the New York Times reported. In another case, Trump donor Doug Deason submitted a list of names to be EPA science advisers, according to Politico.” [BuzzFeed, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt Was So Sloppy Telling Oil Execs And Cronies He Could Get Them Hired, It's Embarrassing. According to Gizmodo, “Former Bush-era EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman told BuzzFeed that ‘It would be highly unusual to go to a specific industry to try to recruit’ and that usually the EPA usually took recommendations from the White House and Congress. She was joined in her assessment by a former regional director: Former EPA regional director Judith Enck was shocked to hear about Pruitt’s recruiting. ‘I think it’s troubling the head of the EPA is asking the fossil fuel industry for staff recommendations for chief positions,’ Enck told BuzzFeed News. According to the New York Times, the batch of emails obtained by the Sierra Club also shows that Pruitt probably entertained the idea of giving a job to a friend of J. Steven Hart, a DC lobbyist who represented notorious polluter Smithfield Foods and whose wife also happened to be renting Pruitt out an apartment at way below market rate. The Times wrote Hart repeatedly emailed back and forth with Pruitt’s chief of staff regarding potential hires, including both Hart’s personal friend and others desired by Smithfield” [Gizmodo, 6/25/18 (+)]

 

News Of Scott Pruitt’s ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Condo Deal Raises Questions About Criminal Law Violations. According to Think Progress, “According to a Sunday night report by the New York Times, the EPA’s chief of staff discussed hiring a friend of the lobbyist family that owned the Capitol Hill condominium that Pruitt rented for only $50-a-night in 2017. This took place during the same time that Pruitt was staying in the condo and contradicts statements previously made by the administrator during a Fox News interview on April 4 in which he said the lobbyist ‘has no business before this agency.’ In response to the New York Times article, Norm Eisen, former White House ethics czar under the Obama administration, said in a tweet that Pruitt’s relationship with lobbyist Steven Hart and Hart’s wife — the owner of the condo — is looking not only like an ethics violation but a violation of a criminal statute prohibiting government officials from engaging in quid pro quo. In the case of Pruitt, the quid pro quo would be the exchange of the below-market rate on the condo for political favors. … Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the New York Times that the revelations included in the emails show an inappropriate relationship between Pruitt and his landlords. ‘We now have concrete evidence that Scott Pruitt offered to use taxpayer resources to do favors for the lobbyist who gave him a sweetheart deal on a D.C. condo,’ Brune said.” [Think Progress, 6/25/18 (+)]

 

White House Liaison Heads To Las Vegas Office. According to E&E News, “One of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s senior aides moved last month to an agency office in Las Vegas. Charles Munoz, formerly EPA’s White House liaison, is now a senior adviser to Mike Stoker, the Region 9 administrator, whose appointment was announced last month. An EPA Region 9 spokeswoman told E&E News that Munoz, who’s from Nevada, transferred to Las Vegas to help the new regional chief ‘during his transition and to work specifically on environmental issues in the Pacific Southwest.’ … Munoz has had a role in the upheaval at the Trump administration’s EPA. He was named in an April 12 letter by Democratic lawmakers that described allegations by Kevin Chmielewski, the former EPA deputy chief of staff for operations, who clashed with Pruitt. In February, Munoz told Chmielewski that Pruitt wanted him to resign, according to the letter. Further, Munoz was on a call between Chmielewski and Pasquale ‘Nino’ Perrotta, the EPA special agent who led Pruitt’s security detail, who retired earlier this year. Perrotta wanted to go to Chmielewski’s home to retrieve his parking pass and said he ‘didn’t give a fuck who is on this call.’ Chmielewski, who left EPA earlier this year, told E&E News he brought Munoz in on the call between Perrotta and him with the purpose of Munoz serving as a witness.” [E&E News, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Watchdogs Dig For Dirt On Would-Be Pruitt Replacements. According to E&E News, “‘We’re planning for a post-Pruitt world,’ said Austin Evers, executive director with the advocacy group American Oversight. ‘We will be putting together a package of kind of our greatest hits for people other than Pruitt in the coming days,’ he added. ‘FOIAs that are pending now will be paying dividends the minute [Andrew] Wheeler steps in.’ Several organizations that spoke with E&E News said they’re ratcheting up their focus on Bill Wehrum, who leads EPA’s air office; Nancy Beck, who heads the chemicals division; and Wheeler, EPA deputy administrator and presumptive successor if Pruitt leaves. The liberal group Center for American Progress Action Fund is investigating how Wehrum plans to handle potential conflicts of interest stemming from the 31 times he sued the agency while in private practice. Wehrum is now regulating many of his former clients. American Oversight is ramping up what it calls ‘baseline information’ — submitting FOIAs for resumes, past employers and the like. Evers said that helps surface political players who haven’t yet come to light. That could yield more intel about staffers poised to play a larger role in policy decisions given the sizable turnover at EPA amid Pruitt’s many scandals.” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Communications

 

Why A Hollywood Hotshot Emailed Pruitt's Top Aide. According to E&E News, “When a Hollywood super agent wants results, he goes straight to the people in charge. So when Ari Emanuel — the co-CEO of the William Morris Endeavor entertainment company who was fictionalized in the HBO show ‘Entourage’ — had a question about environmental rules, he got in touch with EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson. Emanuel, who’s the brother of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, wanted to talk to EPA officials about importing a polluting ‘people mover’ van from Asia. Ari Emanuel sent a few terse emails to Jackson last summer, according to documents recently released to the Sierra Club under the Freedom of Information Act. ‘Anything going on?’ he wrote on June 7, followed by ‘Is there a good time to talk?’ A source close to Emanuel told E&E News that it’s Emanuel’s style to talk directly with the head of an organization when he wants to get something done … In this case, Emmanuel wanted to import a ‘people mover’ vehicle that he saw while traveling in Asia, the source said. The van was not compliant with U.S. pollution standards, and Emanuel sought EPA’s help in getting it cleared for import. ‘He inquired about ensuring a vehicle was compliant with emission standards,’ Jackson wrote in an email. ‘We were happy to talk with him about the process.’” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Congressional Reactions

 

House Republican Says Pruitt Should Resign. According to The Hill, “Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) is calling on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt to step down, joining a small handful of GOP lawmakers to do so in recent months. ‘Yes, I do,’ Fitzpatrick said at a news conference Monday in Horsham, Pa., when asked if he thinks Pruitt needs to resign. ‘My standard for calling for resignations is an [inspector general] report, an IG study, finding some facts, conclusions of law. And there’s way too much stuff now,’ he continued, according to video recorded by activist environmental group Friends of the Earth. Fitzpatrick said he made his call due to Pruitt’s spending and ethics scandals. But he also said ‘exhibit A’ in the case against Pruitt is a study that the EPA allegedly tried to block from public release. The study looked into the health effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of man-made chemicals that have been found in drinking water sources lately.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Opinion Pieces and Analyses

 

Op-Ed: EPA's Scott Pruitt No Friend To Montana's Environment, Economy. According to an op-ed by Karin Kirk in Montana Standard, “But Montana needs a vibrant economy. We can’t pay the bills with wildflowers. Sometimes we hear that a strong economy and a clean environment are at odds; we can’t have it both ways. But that’s a false choice. Montana’s two biggest industries, outdoor recreation and agriculture, are both dependent on a landscape free from pollution. Whether you lean conservative or liberal, no one wants to see our air and water soiled or our resources used inefficiently. This is why all Montanans should be concerned about what’s going on at the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s leader, Scott Pruitt, is proving to be no friend to Montana’s economy. By looking at Pruitt’s policies, it’s clear whom he really represents. Not you, not me, not any member of the public. His true constituency is corporations. Despite overt efforts to shield his itinerary from public view, limited glimpses of his schedule reveal that his time is dominated by meetings with chemical companies, oil companies, and corporate interests. Unsurprisingly, these meetings have led to rollbacks on protections on public health. Coal ash, pesticides, methane leaks, and trucking emissions are but a sampling of toxins for which Pruitt has relaxed the rules. The premature deaths of 1,600 Americans per year are linked to the trucking pollution, to name just one example.” [Montana Standard, 6/25/18 (+)]

 

DOE

 

Perry Takes The Stage. According to Politico, “When Energy Secretary Rick Perry kicks off the World Gas Conference’s keynote program today, the triennial confab of natural gas industry representatives will likely be looking for Perry to address the elephant in the room: his support for the Trump administration’s push to bail out struggling coal and nuclear plants. A National Security Council memo that emerged earlier this month laid out a key tenet of the administration’s argument — that natural gas ‘pipelines are increasingly vulnerable to cyber and physical attacks,’ leading to potential ‘severe effects on electric generation necessary to supply critical infrastructure facilities.’ Of course, that rhetoric hasn’t played too well within the gas industry. But Perry, likely looking to tamp down that pressure, penned an op-ed Monday, discussing how natural gas is fueling the future. ‘That’s the question we’re asking this week at the World Gas Conference (WGC), which is being held here in the United States for the first time in 30 years,’ he wrote. ‘And the clear answer is American ingenuity and innovation, coupled with freedom and a commitment to developing all of our energy resources.’” [Politico, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Perry Says DOE Making ‘Progress’ On Coal, Nuclear Plan, But No Timeline. According to Politico, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry said today the Trump administration is still churning over how to support coal and nuclear plants on the electric grid that are at risk of retiring, but it has no timeline for taking action. Perry told reporters he’s concerned that some power plants may close before the Energy Department acts. ‘We’re looking at all the contingencies and the different impacts and we’re not ready to make a statement yet,’ he said. ‘There are some processes, policy decisions that are in various places that we’re waiting to get some — not necessarily feedback, but getting their response to some questions asked. We’re not ready yet to say ‘Here is the plan.’ WHAT’S NEXT: Earlier this month, President Donald Trump tasked Perry with crafting ‘immediate steps’ to help ailing coal power plants, but there hasn’t been a timetable from the White House or DOE about when the agency might act.” [Politico, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Perry: Strategic Oil Reserve Is For Emergencies, Not Bringing Prices Down. According to Politico, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry indicated today that the administration had no plans to tap the nation’s strategic petroleum reserves to try to bring down oil and gasoline prices. ‘This is my opinion, that that’s not what the SPR is there for. It’s there for emergencies. It’s there for a legitimate event like a massive hurricane or, for that matter, some other natural disaster,’ Perry told reporters. ‘It’s there for an emergency type of response, not as a market manipulator.’ Perry cited a range of issues that have kept global oil prices high, including constraints in U.S. pipeline capacity, the political and economic turmoil in Venezuela, and the U.S. move to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal. ‘Obviously, we’ve got a market that is stressed from the standpoint of supply,’ he said. Oil prices had eased from the 3-1/2 year highs in recent weeks, but rallied $3 a barrel on Friday despite the OPEC agreement to hike output, raising concerns that U.S. gasoline prices will stay high through the summer driving season.” [Politico, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Perry Mum On Plan To Save Coal, Nuclear. According to E&E News, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry today said he wasn’t ready to give details — or a timeline — for how he plans to follow through with President Trump’s directive aimed at saving struggling coal and nuclear plants. Perry’s meeting with reporters gathered at the Department of Energy’s headquarters in Washington didn’t offer any details when asked about which policy levers the administration is mulling. ‘We’re not ready to make a statement yet,’ Perry said, adding that his agency is still looking at policy implications and gathering information. ‘We’re not ready yet to say, ‘Here is the plan’ ... but we’re making progress.’ Trump tasked the DOE chief and former Texas governor earlier this month with halting a growing string of coal and nuclear plant closures. A leaked document from the internal White House process revealed that the administration is considering invoking DOE’s emergency authorities under two key statutes, the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act. The memo made clear that the Trump administration is basing a bailout on national security grounds, warning of cyber and physical threats to the nation’s natural gas pipeline matrix as usage increases. Grid experts have countered that cybersecurity is not tied to fuel type.” [E&E News, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

DOE Nominees In The Spotlight. According to Politico, “Senate Energy will hear from four DOE nominees today: Teri Donaldson to be inspector general of DOE; Christopher Fall to be director of the Office of Science; Karen Evans to be an assistant secretary for cybersecurity, energy security and emergency response; and Daniel Simmons to be an assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Who are they? Donaldson previously was a partner at DLA Piper LLC in Houston and general counsel to Senate EPW. Evans, who was nominated this month, currently serves as the national director for U.S. Cyber Challenge and was previously administrator for E-Government and Information Technology under former President George W. Bush. Fall most recently was principal deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, while Simmons has served as principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.” [Politico, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Other Agencies

 

Ocean Science Agency Chief Floats Removing ‘Climate’ From Mission Statement, New Focus On Trade Deficit. According to The Washington Post, “A recent presentation by the acting head of the United States’ top weather and oceans agency suggested removing the study of ‘climate’ from its official mission statement, focusing the agency’s work instead on economic goals and ‘homeland and national security.’ Critics say this would upend the mission of the $5.9 billion National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the administration disputes that interpretation, saying the presentation did not intend to create a change of direction at a vast agency that tracks hurricanes and atmospheric carbon dioxide, operates weather satellites, manages marine reserves and protects endangered ocean species, among other functions. NOAA’s mission, the agency says, is ‘to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.’ But in a presentation at a Commerce Department ‘Vision Setting Summit’ earlier this month, Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, the agency’s acting administrator, suggested a change to that mission statement, as well as a new emphasis on tripling the size of the U.S. aquaculture industry within a decade and moving to “reduce the seafood trade deficit.”” [The Washington Post, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Congress

 

House of Representatives

 

GOP Chairman: Chinese May Use US Environmental Laws To Undermine Military. According to The Hill, “House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said Monday that China’s government may be using United States environmental laws to thwart the military. Bishop, speaking Monday on Hill.TV’s ‘Rising,’ said potential Chinese actions to undermine the military are one of the main focuses of a series of investigations his panel recently launched into U.S.-based environmental groups. ‘There is obviously a great deal of concerns,’ Bishop told host Buck Sexton, adding that some of the green groups ‘are claiming that they’re suing the government once every 10 days.’ ‘Last time I was in the Pacific in some of our territories, we had a briefing from some of the military that simply said the Chinese know our environmental laws and they use them against us,’ Bishop continued. ‘We’re trying to explore how deep that actually goes, whether it’s something done on purpose or something just by serendipity. But we’re trying to see where that takes us,’ he said.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

GOP Chairman Takes Aim At Environmental Review Law. According to The Hill, “Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on Monday said Congress ought to make changes to a core environmental law to make it less of a weapon against projects. Bishop, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said on Hill.TV’s ‘Rising’ that the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) permitting process is the main roadblock standing in the way of projects like oil and natural gas drilling on federal land and building more infrastructure. ‘The country passed NEPA ... decades ago, in order to ensure that people have the right to have their voices heard. It is now being misused to ensure people have the right to sue continuously to slow projects down,’ Bishop told ‘Rising’ host Buck Sexton. ‘So projects that can be leased, did all the requirements they need to do, can wait up to 10 years before they can actually get a permit to start being in production. And that does no good for the industry, and it doesn’t do any good for Americans.’ Bishop and his committee have repeatedly acted to try to streamline the environmental review process, with promises that it would not hurt environmental protections.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

The Energy Executive Behind Kevin Cramer's Run. According to E&E News, “Billionaire energy executive Harold Hamm’s fingerprints — and money — are all over North Dakota Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer’s quest for the Senate. Funds linked to billionaire Hamm are a significant part of Cramer’s treasure chest thus far, even as incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D) continues to take in more overall energy dollars. ‘He gives me credibility in the industry, for sure,’ Cramer told E&E News during an interview, noting that the oil executive recently helped arrange a fundraiser for him, featuring Hamm’s home state Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Larry Nichols, the founder of Devon Energy Corp. Influential and willing to leverage his $18 billion wealth, Hamm has backed Cramer’s political career for years. To hear the congressman tell it, it was Hamm, founder and CEO of Continental Resources Inc. and a fracking industry pioneer, who drove him into the Senate race. For months, the congressman said no. He initially rejected pressure from national Republicans, including President Trump, who were desperate for a solid candidate to take on Heitkamp. It took Hamm’s nudging and pledge of support. ‘When Harold talked to my wife, Kris, and he said, ‘Kris, if Kevin does this, if you guys get into this, I will be his national finance chairman.’ That was pretty compelling,’ Cramer said.” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Judiciary And Legal

 

Federal Judge Dismisses Cities’ Suit Against Oil Companies Over Costs Of Climate Change. According to The New York Times, “A federal judge on Monday threw out a closely watched lawsuit brought by two California cities against fossil fuel companies over the costs of dealing with climate change. The decision is a stinging defeat for the plaintiffs, San Francisco and Oakland, and raises warning flags for other local governments around the United States that have filed similar suits, including New York City. The judge, William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, acknowledged the science of global warming and the great risks to the planet, as did the oil and gas companies being sued. But in his ruling, Judge Alsup said the courts were not the proper place to deal with such global issues, and he rejected the legal theory put forth by the cities. ‘The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,’ Judge Alsup wrote in a 16-page opinion. … But Judge Alsup said the issues would more properly be handled by the other two branches of government. ‘The court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches,’ he wrote. … A business group that has been highly critical of the lawsuits, the National Association of Manufacturers, expressed satisfaction with the dismissal of the case. ‘From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,’ said the group’s chief executive, Jay Timmons.” [The New York Times, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Judge Dismisses Climate Suits Targeting Big Oil Companies. According to The Wall Street Journal, “A federal judge on Monday dismissed lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland alleging that five of the world’s largest oil companies should pay to protect the cities’ residents from the impacts of climate change. U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a motion by the companies—BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp.—to dismiss the suits, ruling that while global warming was a real threat, it must be fixed ‘by our political branches.’ ‘The dangers raised in the complaints are very real,’ he wrote. ‘But those dangers are worldwide. Their causes are worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.’ … ‘Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,’ said R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron’s general counsel. ‘Using lawsuits to vilify the men and women who provide the energy we all need is neither honest nor constructive.’ … Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker said the city was ‘disappointed’ by the ruling and is weighing an appeal. ‘These defendants must be held accountable for misleading the American people’ about climate change, said Ms. Parker. A spokesman for San Francisco, John Coté, said the city would decide on its ‘next steps’ shortly.” [The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Judge Accepts Science But Tosses Cases Against Oil Companies. According to E&E News, “Alsup, a Clinton appointee who in March held a high-profile ‘tutorial’ on climate science, said evaluating blame for warming impacts is a political issue and not one for the courts to decide. ‘This order accepts the science behind global warming,’ Alsup said in his ruling. ‘So do both sides. The dangers raised in the complaints are very real. But those dangers are worldwide. Their causes are worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.’ The decision marks a huge blow for climate change activists and other cities pursuing similar lawsuits. It’s a win, meanwhile, for the oil companies and other industry groups that opposed the lawsuit. John Coté, communications director for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said in an email that ‘this is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn’t mean the case is over.’ ‘We’re reviewing the order and will decide on our next steps shortly,’ he added. ‘We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute. Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they’ve caused.’ Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker said that ‘we are carefully reviewing the order and considering all options, including an appeal.’” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Fossil Fuel Suit Dismissed. According to Politico, “U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit Monday brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against five major oil companies. The lawsuit alleged the five companies — BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron — should pay for the anticipated harm from climate change and eventual sea level rise, but Alsup granted a motion to dismiss the case, concluding that ‘although the scope of plaintiffs’ claims is determined by federal law, there are sound reasons why regulation of the worldwide problem of global warming should be determined by our political branches, not by our judiciary.’ NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons applauded the decision in a statement, noting that ‘other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note as those complaints are likely to end the same way.’” [Politico, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

High Court Gerrymandering Ruling Could Raise Bar For Climate 'Standing.' According to Inside EPA, “A new Supreme Court ruling raising the bar for voters to show they have standing to challenge alleged partisan gerrymandering could also limit plaintiffs’ ability to sue over climate change impacts by strengthening the requirement that they show ‘particularized’ harm from the global phenomenon, an environmentalist attorney says. During a June 21 American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education panel discussion on recent developments in standing and other ‘prerequisites’ for judicial review, Earthjustice’s Moneen Nasmith said the high court’s June 18 decision in Gill v. Whitford, which said it is not enough for voters to claim that gerrymandering unfairly tilts the balance of power statewide, could deepen the ‘tension’ courts face in deciding whether climate plaintiffs have standing. ‘The climate cases have a whole laundry list of problems from a standing perspective, and one of them is, it’s going to get hotter for everybody,’ Nasmith said, noting that individual plaintiffs must specify the particular harms they face separate from the population at large. The high court in Gill unanimously held that plaintiffs challenging alleged gerrymandering in Wisconsin had not yet shown that they lived in improperly drawn voting districts, and thus were being harmed as individuals by the practice they sought to ban -- though it split 7-2 on whether the case should be remanded for new proceedings on standing or dismissed outright.” [Inside EPA, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Leading California’s Legal Charge. According to The Hill, “California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) insists that he doesn’t have an ax to grind with the Trump administration, but he’s not afraid to give the president all he’s got when it comes to defending the environment. ‘We’re not looking to pick a fight, but we’re ready for one,’ Becerra says. With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress in addition to the White House, much of the resistance to President Trump’s policies has come at the state level from Democratic attorneys general such as Becerra. For the Golden State, that has meant 19 separate environmental lawsuits since Trump took office, including nine specifically aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The legal onslaught against the administration, and specifically EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, has helped earn Becerra the reputation of an anti-Trump crusader. … ‘Our lawsuits weren’t driven by a desire to be out there first, to challenge an action by the administration simply because they were doing an action. It was because we were protecting California and its people and our values,’ he said. Which, he added, ‘ultimately protects the values and interests of people throughout the country.’ Becerra acknowledges, however, that California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) might have been considering the battle with the White House when he appointed him as the state’s top law enforcement officer.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

 

Allies and Activism

 

Gina McCarthy, Other Obama Officials To Speak At Summit. According to E&E News, “Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and other climate change leaders will join Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday at the Climate Crisis Action Summit. The event, to be held at a high school in Belmont, Mass., and streamed live, will also feature Todd Stern, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and John Holdren, an environmental policy professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Stern was a top international climate negotiator during the Obama years, and Holdren was a science adviser for the previous administration. Both Stern and McCarthy attempted to persuade President Trump and his team to stay in the Paris climate agreement about a year ago.” [E&E News, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Industry and Finance

 

Energy Lobbyists Have A New PAC To Push For A Carbon Tax. Wait, What? According to Vox, “Former Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John Breaux of Louisiana, longtime lobbyists and two of big oil’s most devoted servants, have formed a new political action committee. It is dedicated to the passage of a carbon tax. Wait ... what? Yes, it is true: The PAC is called Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD) and it is educating the public about, and lobbying for, a policy called carbon tax-and-dividend. More specifically, it is pushing a proposal that was released last year by a nonprofit called the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III. AFCD is effectively the lobbying arm of the CLC. The plan would impose a carbon tax starting at $40, ‘rising gradually’ at an as-yet-unspecified rate, with all the revenue returned as per-capita dividends — rebates to individual citizens that the group estimates will start around $2,000 a year for a family of four. AFCD’s CEO, the centrist author and speaker Ted Halstead, has helped bring on board a who’s who of Washington insiders.” [Vox, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Opinion Pieces

 

Op-Ed: Ask The Weather Guys: Is Climate Science A Political Issue? According to an op-ed by Steven Ackerman and Jonathan Martin in Wisconsin State Journal, “These senators, and large numbers of their colleagues, are now many years into a relentless effort aimed at convincing the country that the carefully argued, peer reviewed scientific evidence and conclusions regarding the reality and accelerating threat of global warming is a hoax. They have essentially encouraged the mistaken belief that the science is politically motivated and now argue that the foundation is in the business of funding ‘partisan’ efforts in science education. This is rather like asserting that 2+2=5, counter to the analytical conclusions reached by nearly all mathematicians, and then demanding that public funding of mathematics education and outreach be stopped on the basis that the 2+2=4 crowd is ‘partisan.’ The scientific consensus on climate change is not a political viewpoint — a reality perhaps best illustrated by the recent statements of the new NASA Administrator James Bridenstine, formerly a congressman from Oklahoma and climate change skeptic. Only a month into his new job, when asked about his stance on the issue, he said, ‘I ... know that the climate is changing. I also know that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way. ... We’re putting (CO2) into the atmosphere in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/25/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Even ‘Clean’ And ‘Green’ Energy Have An Environmental Impact. According to an op-ed by Scott Tinker in The Hill, “A growing ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ narrative is taking shape in regards to energy. Renewable energy and batteries are good. Fossil and nuclear energy are bad. The message of the narrative — now learned by kids in school and touted by well intentioned, if not biased, politicians, activists, educators, and even religious leaders — goes something like this: Fossil energy is bad because coal, oil and natural gas produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful emissions, and they require mining and drilling. Nuclear is bad because it produces radioactive waste. Ignoring the fact that fossil fuels and nuclear together comprise some 90 percent of global energy, we are told to ‘keep it in the ground.’ Renewables are good because hydro, solar, wind, waves and tides have low emissions. And biofuels come from plants, which are ‘green.’ Batteries are good because electricity has no emissions. If only it were so simple. Assigning words to energy such as ‘clean’ and ‘dirty,’ or ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ is disingenuous. The unfortunate reality is that all energy, at scale, has environmental effects. We are better served in the long run by open, fact-based conversations in our schools, workplaces, governments and universities about the challenges and benefits of all energy.” [The Hill, 6/25/18 (~)]

 

Research And Analysis

 

Research Raises Alarm On 'Atlantification' Of Northern Ocean. According to E&E News, “A persistent ‘hot spot’ in the Arctic has researchers worried that chilly northern waters — and the unique, cold-loving ecosystems they support — could soon look more like the warm Atlantic. And now, some experts think they know what’s causing the trouble. In a paper published yesterday in Nature Climate Change, a trio of Norwegian researchers argue that declines in sea ice — driven by ongoing climate change — are causing physical changes to the Barents Sea, a kind of gateway region that separates the northern Arctic from the milder, saltier Atlantic Ocean. The Barents Sea has experienced some of the strongest warming in the Arctic, which is already warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world — but until now, it wasn’t totally clear why. The new research, led by Sigrid Lind of the Institute of Marine Research in Norway, suggests that sea ice is a critical stabilizing force in the region, preventing warmer waters from mixing with cooler waters. And recent sea ice declines are allowing for more mixing, which is causing the region to gradually heat up. That could be a major upset for the world’s northernmost ecosystems, the researchers point out in the paper. The transition to balmy Atlantic-like conditions would have ‘unknown effects’ on Arctic-dwelling species, they say — and on the human societies that depend on them.” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

It's Not Your Imagination: Rainstorms Are Getting Worse. According to E&E News, “Scientists are validating U.S. residents’ perceptions that rainstorms are getting more severe. In recent weeks, intense precipitation has inundated the Great Lakes region, the Deep South and the suburbs of major cities along the Atlantic coast. In addition, several cities in Maryland saw serious downpours. Atmospheric researchers say the intense rains are the result of long-rising air temperatures and the rise in the utter size of the storms. Warmer air can hold more water, so storms can produce significantly more rain in a shorter time period. ‘Things are definitely getting more extreme,’ said Andreas Prein, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ‘You just have to look at the records. All areas of the continental U.S. have seen increases in peak rainfall rates in the past 50 years. ... And there is a chance that we are underestimating the risk, actually.’ On Friday, Richmond, Va., got 7.61 inches of rain — more than the city usually gets in the month of June. It surpassed 1955’s record deluge from Hurricane Connie. ‘The storms are worse. The rain is worse. The heat is worse,’ said North Carolina resident Melissa Smith, after a mountain stream overflowed one night, wrecking her yard. ‘Everything is worse.’” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

Doom-And-Gloom Realities Aren't Convincing People To Act. According to E&E News, “The reading public is subject to a never-ending onslaught of horror stories about climate change: The Antarctic is thawing faster than previously thought, sea-level rise could flood more than 300,000 U.S. homes twice a month in decades and India is experiencing a water crisis unlike ever before. But people have a hard time truly comprehending climate change, and it’s not clear that the stories are helping. ‘Climate change has all the hallmarks of an issue which is difficult for people to engage with psychologically,’ said Lorraine Whitmarsh, professor of environmental psychology at Cardiff University in Wales. Recent studies suggest there’s not enough known about whether fear works to communicate the threats of climate change. But other psychologists say fear-based imagery creates passivity in people by making them fearful and guilty. So what does work? Whitmarsh believes activists fighting climate change need to make it personal. ‘Talk to people about the impacts of climate change on things that are important to them, things that they value,’ Whitmarsh said. ‘They may be family, or their local area, or objects or areas that are important to them, rather than talking about distant regions.’ Sometimes it may be better not to use the words ‘climate change’ at all.” [E&E News, 6/26/18 (=)]

 

 

Arizona

 

Arizona Commissioner Prepares To File 80% Clean Energy Rule. According to Utility Dive, “In a letter to fellow regulators and the public, Arizona Corporation Commission member Andy Tobin last week outlined how the commission will proceed in developing a new rule directing utilities to meet an 80% clean energy standard by 2050. Tobin will file a draft version of the rule by July 5, to be discussed at the ACC’s open meeting scheduled for July 19. Tobin announced the plan in January, for utilities in the state to source the bulk of their electricity from renewables and nuclear within about three decades. Along with that, utilities will be directed to deploy 3,000 MW of energy storage by 2030.” [Utility Dive, 6/24/18 (=)]

 

Colorado

 

Op Ed: Colorado's Climate Gap And The Path Forward. According to an op-ed by Ashley Lovell in Westword, “Because of the climate gap, poor and minority communities in our urban centers will breathe even dirtier air than the rest of the state. Denver is notorious for its sub-par air quality — in fact, Denver was just rated the fourteenth most polluted city in America for high ozone according to the American Lung Association. In another terrifying realization pointed out by the Denver Business Journal , zip code 80216 in the northeast corner of the city is the most polluted zip code in the entire U.S. What does this mean for families living in Denver, especially those that fall below the poverty line? It means their heavily-polluted neighborhoods pose a hazard to their health. It means they are projected to suffer from the largest increase in smog associated with climate change. It also means more cases of asthma among children, more missed school days, more unpaid days for the caring parents, less income for families who already struggle to access reliable and affordable transportation and more missed hospital and health care appointments. This is just the beginning in a long list of other concerns that ripple outward as we link climate change to equity, diversity and inclusion.” [Westword, 6/24/18 (+)]

 

Maine

 

Op-Ed: Reducing Maine’s Carbon Emissions Now Will Pay Off Later. According to an op-ed by Marianne Hill in Bangor Daily News, “Flood zones in Maine have expanded, lobsters are moving north, and ticks and Lyme disease are on the rise, according to a University of Maine report. Cities, including Portland, are upgrading their infrastructure, and insurance policies, to cope with rising seas. Billions of dollars will eventually be spent to deal with the effects of climate change. But can we afford to cut greenhouse gas emissions now? Would it make a difference? The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is considering regulations proposed by citizen petition that would cut greenhouse gas emissions in Maine over the 2020-2035 period. July 30 is the deadline for comments. Efforts to reduce emissions have made a difference. Net greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. fell 9 percent from 2005 to 2014, alongside a solid 13 percent growth of real GDP. All but seven states, in fact, decreased carbon dioxide emissions. Maine did its part. We cut CO2 emissions 27 percent between 2005 and 2015. The 10 largest emitters of greenhouse gases here (all in energy and paper) did even better — they cut their emissions by 46 percent over the 2006-16 period alone, thanks largely to new technologies. The proposed rules would maintain this momentum and strengthen the state’s leadership position in this area.” [Bangor Daily News, 6/25/18 (+)]

 

Michigan

 

Conservatives Win Controversial Changes In Michigan’s Proposed New Social Studies Standards. According to The Washington Post, “Michigan is revamping its social studies standards for K-12 public schools, but some of the proposed revisions have sparked criticism after conservative Republicans pushed language changes, including the removal of the word ‘democratic’ in the phrase ‘core democratic values.’ Among the other changes — which are open for public comment before being finalized by state education officials — are the jettisoning of the words ‘climate change’ from some standards as well ‘Roe v. Wade’ and some seminal moments of the civil rights movement. The Ku Klux Klan is mentioned in the proposed new standards, but not as often or specifically as in the earlier standards.” [The Washington Post, 6/25/18 (=)]

 

Ohio

 

Ohio Bill Would Relax Wind Setbacks — And Clean Energy Standards. According to Midwest Energy News, “Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would relax the state’s strict wind turbine setbacks rules but again weaken renewable and energy efficiency standards. The Ohio Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled Wednesday to discuss House Bill 114, which threatens to roll back the state’s on-again, off-again clean energy standards, which resumed 18 months ago after a 2014 law suspended them for two years. The bill has drawn criticism from both wind energy opponents and clean energy advocates. It stops short of making renewable energy standards purely voluntary, as in the Ohio House version passed last year. Instead, it would set the top renewable energy standard target at 8.5 percent in 2022, down from the current law’s requirement of 12.5 percent in 2026. The top energy efficiency target would fall from 22.2 percent to 17.2 percent, with more opt-outs and profits for utilities. An attempted trade-off in the bill would also loosen the state’s strict restrictions on wind turbine placement similar to reforms proposed in a stand-alone bill introduced several months ago by Ohio Sen. Matt Dolan (R-Chagrin Falls). HB 114 is the latest in an ongoing, six-year saga of efforts to weaken Ohio’s clean energy standards, all of which ‘make it difficult to plan for long-term markets and investments,’ said Becky Campbell, manager of regulatory and public affairs for First Solar. In her view, ‘HB 114 represents a step backward,’ compared to other states.” [Midwest Energy News, 6/26/18 (=)]