TOP PRUITT HEADLINES

 

The E.P.A.’S Ethics Officer Once Defended Pruitt. Then He Urged Investigations.

 

Dem Calls For Hearings On Allegations Pruitt Retaliated Against Staffers.

 

Emails Reveal Close Rapport Between Top EPA Officials, Those They Regulate.

 

Advisory Board Wants To Review 'Secret Science' Proposal.

 

EPA Still Eyeing 'Platform' For Climate Science Debate.

 

Pruitt's Reading List From The Public? 'Global Warming For Dummies.’

 

 

OTHER TOP HEADLINES

 

EPA Deputy Promises To Recuse Himself From DOE Emergency Authority Matters.

 

Senators Tout Bipartisan Bill To Speed Permits With Two-Year 'Goal.'

 

CEI, Groups Against Kigali.

 

 

 

Federal Agencies

 

EPA

 

Deregulation

 

Senators Tout Bipartisan Bill To Speed Permits With Two-Year 'Goal.' According to Inside EPA, “A bipartisan pair of senators is touting legislation that would extend a 2015 law intended to speed environmental review and permitting of large federal infrastructure projects, aiming to broaden the number of projects that qualify for help under a special permitting council and codify a two-year ‘goal’ for completing permits. Sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the bill, S.3017, would also remove a seven-year sunset on the permit streamlining provisions enacted in the 2015 highway bill known as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Among other things, section 41 of the FAST Act established the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, which is intended to help certain large federal infrastructure projects navigate the permitting process by coordinating agencies’ efforts on a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and posting updates on the process on a public dashboard. Portman and McCaskill’s legislation would also codify a portion of one of President Donald Trump’s infrastructure executive orders that allows the steering council to assist federal agencies on projects that do not qualify for formal help from the council.” [Inside EPA, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Secret Science

 

Advisory Board Wants To Review 'Secret Science' Proposal. According to E&E News, “An EPA advisory panel is formally seeking the chance to weigh in on the agency’s disputed plan to limit the types of scientific studies used in crafting new regulations. In a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the Science Advisory Board urged him to ‘request, receive and review’ its advice before moving ahead with the proposed rule released in April. Not only does the proposal focus on ‘EPA’s foundational policies related to the use of science in rulemaking,’ but it could also ‘influence policy development and guidance across the government,’ according to the letter, signed by SAB Chairman Michael Honeycutt and posted on the board’s website today. … Honeycutt’s letter is a follow-up to the board’s vote late last month to review the proposal. While the draft ‘cites several valuable publications that support enhanced transparency, the precise design of the proposed rule appears to have been developed without a public process for soliciting input specifically from the scientific community,’ Honeycutt wrote. The 44-member SAB learned of the proposal only after Pruitt publicly unveiled it April 25, his letter indicates. Among the specific issues that might benefit from SAB review are the definition of critical concepts like ‘replication’ and ‘validation,’ along with the handling of epidemiologic studies based on confidential human subject data, he added.” [E&E News, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Interstate Air Pollution

 

EPA Says It Doesn’t Need New ‘Good Neighbor’ Air Pollution Rule. According to The Hill, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday said that it doesn’t need to write a new regulation to comply with a legal requirement to address air pollution that blows across state lines. The Clean Air Act’s ‘good neighbor’ provision mandates that the EPA work to ensure that pollution from certain states doesn’t make air quality worse in downwind states. In Friday’s released finding, the EPA said that as it relates to the 2008 regulation limiting smog-forming ozone pollution, the agency has already taken the actions necessary to comply with the ‘good neighbor’ standard. Specifically, a 2016 update to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule went far enough to regulate states’ ozone pollution and will meet the legal standard once it is implemented, the EPA said. In a statement accompanying the proposal, the EPA criticized the 2016 rule, saying it was a top-down approach that unfairly imposed federal mandates on states. ‘Based on progress in reducing concentrations and precursor emissions of ozone, this proposed action will close out the CSAPR approach to ‘good neighbor’ obligations, which has involved the imposition of federal implementation plans and lingering uncertainty for our state partners,’ said Bill Wehrum, head of the EPA’s air office.” [The Hill, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

EPA Proposes Using CSAPR To Meet 'Good Neighbor' Obligations. According to E&E News, “EPA is proposing to rely on the latest version of its interstate air pollution rule to satisfy ‘good neighbor’ requirements for its 2008 ground-level ozone standard, under a draft determination released this afternoon. Instead of imposing additional ‘top-down’ regulations, the agency would use the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update, which is geared to reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides from coal-fired power plants in 22 states mainly in the eastern United States, according to a news release. ‘Starting this year, we expect states to step up to address these interstate obligations and EPA has identified technical tools and flexibilities to facilitate these plans,’ agency air chief Bill Wehrum said in the release. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed the draft determination today in accordance with a court-ordered deadline. The order came in response to a lawsuit brought by Connecticut and New York alleging that federal regulators were illegally overdue in addressing ozone-forming emissions from other states.” [E&E News, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

EPA Interstate Finding Prompts Questions On Meeting 2015 Ozone NAAQS. According to Inside EPA, “PA’s proposed finding that its existing Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) satisfies states’ Clean Air Act ‘good neighbor’ mandate to cut interstate transport of air pollution for the 2008 ozone standard is prompting questions on what steps the agency might take to help states meet the stricter mandate for the 2015 ozone standard. While the June 29 finding applies only to the 2008 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb), it has implications for the more-stringent 2015 NAAQS of 70 ppb because the agency is signaling it will not pursue another sweeping federal program like CSAPR, which ultimately created a cap-and-trade ozone reduction program for 22 states. Instead, the agency is indicating that the onus will be on states to curb interstate pollution. The finding is a set-back for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) that had been looking to EPA to craft a broad federal ozone reduction program in order to help them reduce ozone levels in upwind states, which the OTC states say is vital for them to attain the 2015 NAAQS. And it follows the agency’s recent decision to propose rejecting Clean Air Act petitions from two OTC states seeking direct EPA regulation of specific ozone industrial sources in upwind states. EPA air policy chief William Wehrum has previously said his preference is for states to craft their own state implementation plans (SIPs) to mitigate interstate ozone problems, rather than for EPA to issue another trading rule. Those SIPs, required under the air law, are due this October for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.” [Inside EPA, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt

 

Ethics Allegations

 

The E.P.A.’S Ethics Officer Once Defended Pruitt. Then He Urged Investigations. According to The New York Times, “The chief ethics officer of the Environmental Protection Agency — the official whose main job is to help agency staffers obey government ethics laws — has been working behind the scenes to push for a series of independent investigations into possible improprieties by Scott Pruitt, the agency’s administrator, a letter sent this week says. The letter is the first public acknowledgment that Kevin S. Minoli, who has frequently defended Mr. Pruitt’s actions since he took over the agency in February 2017, is now openly questioning whether Mr. Pruitt violated federal ethics rules. The investigations recommended by Mr. Minoli include an examination of how Mr. Pruitt rented a $50-a-night condominium on Capitol Hill last year while he was being lobbied by J. Steven Hart, the spouse of the condo’s owner, according to a federal official with firsthand knowledge of the inquiries, who asked not to be named since the details of the investigation are intended to remain confidential. In March, Mr. Minoli defended Mr. Pruitt’s lease for the condo, saying that Mr. Pruitt paid what appeared to be fair market value. He subsequently learned that Mr. Hart, who at the time was chairman of the lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, had repeatedly intervened with the E.P.A., and with Mr. Pruitt directly, on behalf of the lobbying clients that included Smithfield Foods and Coca-Cola.” [The New York Times, 6/30/18 (=)]

 

Top EPA Ethics Official Discloses That He Has Urged Additional Investigations Into Scott Pruitt. According to The Washington Post, “Kevin Minoli, who focuses on ensuring that EPA employees abide by federal laws governing conduct, told the Office of Government Ethics in a letter dated Wednesday that he had recommended the new inquiries after ‘additional potential issues regarding Mr. Pruitt have come to my attention through sources within the EPA and media reports.’ The letter, first reported Saturday by the New York Times and obtained independently by The Washington Post, does not spell out the precise actions that triggered Minoli’s concern. But a government official with direct knowledge of the inquiries, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because details have not been released publicly, said the referrals involved instances in which Pruitt potentially misused his position, such as having subordinates help with his housing search, inquire about a mattress or secure tickets to the Rose Bowl. Federal standards of conduct bar public officials from accepting free services or gifts from their subordinates, and from using their position for their own financial benefit.” [The Washington Post, 6/30/18 (=)]

 

EPA's Chief Ethics Officer Recommends Investigations Into Pruitt Allegations: Reports. According to The Hill, “The top ethics official at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is calling for a series of independent investigations into possible ethics violations by the agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, according to multiple media reports. In his letter to the Office of Government Ethics, the official, Kevin Minoli, wrote that ‘additional potential issues regarding Mr. Pruitt have come to my attention through sources within the EPA and media reports,’ according to The Washington Post. The New York Times first reported the letter on Saturday, after it obtained a copy through a Freedom of Information Act request. Among the issues into which Minoli has requested investigations is Pruitt’s rental of a Capitol Hill condo owned by the wife of an influential lobbyist, the Times reported. Media reports have indicated that Pruitt paid far below market rate at just $50 per night. Minoli had initially approved the request, among other decisions, the Post reported. Minoli has also asked for an examination of allegations that Pruitt had an aide help him with personal matters, including searching for housing during work hours, according to the Times.” [The Hill, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Ethics Official Urged New Investigations Into Pruitt. According to E&E News, “EPA’s top ethics official has referred additional allegations against Administrator Scott Pruitt to agency investigators, potentially widening the inquiries into whether Pruitt used his public office for personal gain. Kevin Minoli, the designated ethics official for EPA, disclosed last week in a letter obtained by E&E News that he had passed on recent reports of Pruitt’s ethics troubles to the agency’s internal watchdog. ‘Since your letter in April, additional potential issues regarding Mr. Pruitt have come to my attention through sources within EPA and media reports,’ Minoli said in the letter to David Apol, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics. ‘Consistent with my obligations under Office of Government Ethics regulations, I have referred a number of those matters to EPA’s Inspector General and have provided ‘ready and active assistance’ to the Inspector General and his office.’” [E&E News, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

AP | EPA Ethics Official Pushing For Investigations Of Pruitt. According to The Washington Post, “The Environmental Protection Agency’s chief ethics official says he is pushing for a series of independent investigations into Scott Pruitt’s actions as administrator of the federal agency. In a letter to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, EPA ethics official Kevin Minoli writes that ‘potential issues’ regarding Pruitt have surfaced through sources within the EPA and media reports since April. Minoli writes that he has referred ‘a number’ of those matters to the EPA’s inspector general. He says all are either under consideration for acceptance or under active investigation. Minoli’s letter, first reported Saturday by The New York Times after the newspaper received a copy of the letter through a Freedom of Information request, doesn’t specify the issues referred for investigation. News media have reported Pruitt’s rental of a condo from a lobbyist’s spouse, his use of staff to handle personal matters and other practices. Pruitt faces more than a dozen federal inquiries into his spending and management practices as EPA administrator, according to the Times.” [The Washington Post, 6/30/18 (=)]

 

EPA Ethics Official Pushed For Pruitt Investigations. According to CNN, “A top Environmental Protection Agency ethics official disclosed in a letter to the US Office of Government Ethics that he has referred ‘potential issues’ related to agency chief Scott Pruitt to the EPA’s internal watchdog for investigation. In the June 27 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by CNN, Kevin Minoli, the EPA’s principal deputy general counsel and designated agency ethics official, wrote that ‘potential issues regarding Mr. Pruitt have come to my attention through sources within EPA and media reports’ and that he has ‘referred a number of those matters to EPA’s Inspector General.’ The New York Times first reported Saturday on the letter, which was sent to David Apol, the acting director and general counsel for the US Office of Government Ethics. Pruitt’s leadership at EPA has been the subject of intense scrutiny as he faces criticism and questions over his spending habits and ethical judgment. He is facing multiple inquiries into his actions as EPA administrator from ethics watchdogs, federal auditors and congressional committees. An EPA spokesperson said in a statement to CNN that the letter ‘reports back to the OGE on a number of administrative and staffing issues, some of which predate the Trump Administration.’” [CNN, 7/1/18 (=)]

 

The EPA's Top Ethics Official Is Urging More Investigations Into Scott Pruitt. According to Gizmodo, “While the EPA Inspector General is already behind several of the investigations, the Times writes that this is the first public indication Pruitt is facing a rebellion from the ethics chief, who previously was one of his defenders: ‘The letter is the first public acknowledgment that Kevin S. Minoli, who has frequently defended Mr. Pruitt’s actions since he took over the agency in February 2017, is now openly questioning whether Mr. Pruitt violated federal ethics rules.’ The letter itself is mum on the specific allegations involved. But according to the paper, one key issue is Pruitt’s relationship with a lobbyist, Stephen J. Hart, whose spouse rented him out the $50-a-night condo in DC. Hart worked for notorious polluter Smithfield Foods, and Minoli seems to have reversed his prior position and now seems quite interested in whether Pruitt arranged some kind of quid pro quo: ‘In March, Mr. Minoli defended Mr. Pruitt’s lease for the condo, saying that Mr. Pruitt paid what appeared to be fair market value. He subsequently learned that Mr. Hart, who at the time was chairman of the lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, had repeatedly intervened with the E.P.A., and with Mr. Pruitt directly, on behalf of the lobbying clients that included Smithfield Foods and Coca-Cola.’” [Gizmodo, 7/1/18 (+)]

 

Red Team Blue Team

 

EPA Still Eyeing 'Platform' For Climate Science Debate. According to Politico, “EPA isn’t planning to move forward with Scott Pruitt’s previous plan for a red team-blue team climate science debate, but the agency is still considering how it can provide a platform to hear dissenting views on the issue, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum told reporters today. ‘We’re not doing red team-blue team right now, but we’re still talking about ways we can provide a platform for people to express a spectrum of views on climate issues,’ he told reporters after the World Gas Conference. ‘So, stay tuned.’ ‘[Administrator Scott Pruitt] thinks, at a minimum, it’s important to give everybody a voice in this process. And that’s progress in and of itself,’ Wehrum added. Emails from earlier this year showed Pruitt pushed multiple times to get the climate science debate off the ground last year before it was eventually scrapped due to White House opposition. Scientists have slammed such a debate as a poor way to examine the underpinnings of the conclusion that human activity is driving climate change.” [Politico, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Outside Influence and Communications

 

Emails Reveal Close Rapport Between Top EPA Officials, Those They Regulate. According to The Washington Post, “The communication between the lobbyists and one of Pruitt’s top policy aides — detailed in emails the agency provided to Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.) — open a window on the often close relationship between the EPA’s political appointees and those they regulate. Littered among tens of thousands of emails that have surfaced in recent weeks, largely through a public records lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, are dozens of requests for regulatory relief by industry players. Many have been granted. In March 2017, for example, a lobbyist for Waste Management, one of the nation’s largest trash companies, wrote to two top EPA appointees seeking reconsideration of ‘two climate-related rules’ affecting business. (Another lobbyist ‘sings your praises,’ she told the pair.) The EPA subsequently delayed a rule targeting methane emissions from landfills until at least 2020. Less than six weeks later, a representative of the golf industry wrote Samantha Dravis, then-associate EPA administrator for the Office of Policy, that ‘our guys’ had been ‘amazed at the marked difference between our meeting today and the reception at EPA in years’ past. The chief executive of the World Golf Association later sent his own email reminding Dravis of ‘our specific interest in repeal of the Clean Water Rule’ — a rule the agency is now reviewing.” [The Washington Post, 7/1/18 (=)]

 

You’ve Got Mail. According to Politico, “Pruitt wrote only one email in 10 months to anyone outside the agency, as POLITICO reported earlier this month — a curious practice, greens said, considering the secretive nature of Pruitt’s EPA. But new documents released under FOIA from the Sierra Club show Pruitt instead had a penchant for ‘snail mail’ in the early months of 2017, sending physical mail to various oil and gas executives, the Times’ Eric Lipton explains in series of tweets.” [Politico, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

MSNBC Ends Hugh Hewitt's Show. According to Washington Examiner, “Conservative political commentator Hugh Hewitt’s MSNBC show officially ended after being on the air for a little more than a year. Hewitt made the announcement on his program Saturday, the day his show regularly aired. ‘I’m remaining on the network as a contributor,’ he said. ‘I’ll appear as a guest on MSNBC shows and I will continue as a guest on [NBC’s] ‘Meet the Press.’ Hewitt was recently reprimanded by his bosses at NBC after it was reported last month that he had not publicly disclosed that he had facilitated a meeting between his own personal legal contacts and EPA head Scott Pruitt regarding an environmental issue in California. Hewitt’s show was launched early last year when Trump first came into office. Hewitt had been an on-again-off-again supporter of the president during the 2016 campaign but after the election, he was mostly sympathetic to the White House.” [Washington Examiner, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

White House and Congressional Reactions

 

How Will Pruitt Exit EPA? Riding High Unless Trump Fires Him. According to E&E News, “When Scott Pruitt’s tenure ends, he might head to the hills of Oklahoma, but it’s unclear whether the Sooner State would give him another shot at elected office. The EPA administrator is at the center of a host of scandals involving his use of taxpayer cash and management of his agency. So far, President Trump has offered support for his embattled EPA chief, even as a growing number of Republicans and conservative media figures call for Pruitt’s ouster. Few political observers believed that Pruitt — who’s widely thought to aspire to a higher office — would stick around for Trump’s full term. But how he leaves EPA might affect his prospects. ‘It all depends on what happens to him at the EPA,’ said Frank Keating, a former Republican governor of Oklahoma. ‘If he serves and resigns early and resigns at the time the administration ends, then obviously there would be no negative. On the other hand, if the president dismisses him, then that could be a very serious negative if he were interested in a political life in Oklahoma.’ Pruitt’s credentials in Oklahoma are solid because of his deregulatory actions that benefit the oil and gas industry, Keating added. And Pruitt’s tenure as attorney general and as a state senator have already proved he can win over voters there.” [E&E News, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

Dem Calls For Hearings On Allegations Pruitt Retaliated Against Staffers. According to The Hill, “A Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee is calling for hearings on allegations that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt used official resources to retaliate against former staffers. ‘Amid the ongoing backlash against Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s many alleged ethics violations, reports have surfaced of additional professional misconduct,’ Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) wrote in a letter to committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). ‘I urge you to convene hearings to reveal the full extent of this Administration’s use of official resources and executive power to defame and retaliate against whistleblowers and others who reveal ongoing ethics violations in the Trump Administration.’ Krishnamoorthi’s letter follows a story Thursday from the Daily Beast that reported claims that Pruitt sought to use his authority to defame EPA staffers he believed had betrayed him.” [The Hill, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Other Reactions

 

Pruitt's Reading List From The Public? 'Global Warming For Dummies.’ According to Politico, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has some of the nation’s leading climate scientists working for him, but if he’s looking for a refresher on the science, he could just reach for one of the copies of ‘Global Warming for Dummies’ sent to him. The former Oklahoma attorney general who has long doubted mainstream climate science received at least 11 books on climate change from the public after taking the helm of the agency last year, according to records released to the Sierra Club on Friday under the Freedom of Information Act. The titles ranged from Pope Francis’ 2015 climate encyclical ‘Laudato Si’ and Rachel Carson’s seminal environmental book ‘Silent Spring,’ to the two copies of ‘Global Warming for Dummies,’ a 2008 entry in the popular explainer series. A few alternative titles were also sent Pruitt’s way. ‘To Scott Pruitt — Warmest regards on a ‘hot topic,’ read the inscription from Harlow A. Hyde, who mailed him a copy of his book ‘Climate Change: A Brief History of the Last 50 Million Years,’ which argues that global warming will increase precipitation and boost the economy by increasing crop yields.” [Politico, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt Opinion Pieces and Analyses

 

Op-Ed: The Swamp Is Trying To Drown Scott Pruitt — Don't Let It Happen. According to an op-ed by Jenny Martin in Washington Examiner, “Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt has become a target. Every day, it seems, a new ‘revelation’ is dug up, and then promptly blown out of proportion about his work, his integrity, his professionalism. One has to wonder: Is this journalism, or the latest Washington obsession? Some of Pruitt’s critics point out that he eliminated from the EPA’s Science Advisory Board any person who had a conflict of interest, specifically anyone who had received grants from the EPA. Here, at least, the critics are accurate — Pruitt did enforce a commonsense conflict-of-interest policy. The critics’ conclusion that this action somehow makes Pruitt unfit to serve, however, is laughable. That Pruitt took the extra steps to establish new ethics standards for his agency is commendable and should be replicated across the government. The media worked itself into near-hysteria for a week, questioning the ethics surrounding Pruitt’s Rose Bowl tickets, where his home-state Oklahoma Sooners were playing. The media, having little interest in fact-checking these stories, jumped to the conclusion that Pruitt must have gotten tickets from a firm associated with an energy company. The only problem with this manufactured scandal? Pruitt purchased the tickets on his own, the same way you or I would have purchased tickets.” [Washington Examiner, 7/2/18 (-)]

 

‘There’s No Happier Person In America Right Now Than Scott Pruitt.’ According to The New Republic, “Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau has given lots of interviews since Wednesday, when Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. Most have focused on how Kennedy’s absence from the court will help Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, in his quest to vigorously dismantle America’s environmental protection laws. But Parenteau says his interviews thus far have lacked an important sentiment: ‘No one talks about how weird it is,’ he said. ‘It,’ here, is the fact that the head of the EPA is actually attacking rules to protect clean air and water. The American public may have gotten used to Pruitt’s agenda, he said, but ‘This still isn’t a normal thing.’ Normal or not, it’s happening. Right now, the Pruitt EPA’s attempts to undo regulations around clean air, water, and the environment face court challenges by environmental groups and attorneys general in Democratic states. Should those cases reach the Supreme Court (and many will), Kennedy’s retirement and replacement will have a huge effect on how they’re decided. ‘There’s no happier person in America right now than Scott Pruitt,’ he said. Kennedy’s departure represents the loss of the Supreme Court’s so-called ‘swing vote’—the justice who most often determined whether a law was upheld or struck down. ‘One can comfortably say that he was the single most influential justice for environmental law over the past 30 years,’ Richard J. Lazarus, a Harvard law professor, told The New York Times. ‘Many of those cases were sharply divided, but the one constant was that Kennedy was in the majority in every single case but one.’” [The New Republic, 6/29/18 (+)]

 

Andrew Wheeler

 

EPA Deputy Promises To Recuse Himself From DOE Emergency Authority Matters. According to Politico, “EPA Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler has promised to stay away from anything to do with the Energy Department’s work to bail out coal plants, in addition to any specific business his former clients have before his own agency. As a former lobbyist, Wheeler helped Murray Energy lobby the Energy Department to use Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to order coal plants to remain operational, an effort to prop up an ailing industry battered by low gas and renewables prices. In a recusal memo released Friday by EPA following a Freedom of Information Act request, Wheeler notes that one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders bars him from working on any issue for which he previously lobbied — ‘including, for example, Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act.’ The only issue specific to EPA from which Wheeler said he is recused is Energy Star, the appliance efficiency program. Disclosure records show Wheeler lobbied EPA on Energy Star for manufacturer Whirlpool in 2013. Wheeler also agreed to recuse himself from any ‘particular matter’ involving his former firm, Faegre Baker Daniels, as well as his former clients. Aside from Murray, the list includes ethanol group Growth Energy, uranium miner Energy Fuels Resources and utility Xcel.” [Politico, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Pruitt's Deputy To Keep Distance From Coal Giant. According to E&E News, “Deputy EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has pledged to stay away from his former lobbying clients, including coal giant Murray Energy Corp. Wheeler’s recusal statement, obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act, listed eight past clients of his that may have ‘environmental interests’ that could intersect with his duties at EPA. Before joining the agency as Administrator Scott Pruitt’s lieutenant, Wheeler was a lobbyist at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting. Along with Murray Energy, Wheeler detailed other players in the energy sector he once represented, including Energy Fuels Resources Corp., Growth Energy and Xcel Energy Inc. The EPA deputy also noted International Paper Co., Martin Farms Inc., Sargento Food Inc. and Underwriters Laboratories as prior clients that have interests before the agency. Wheeler also said in his statement that he had lobbied on Energy Star, the energy efficiency program helped managed by EPA. The Trump administration has proposed under its latest budget plan to change up funding for the program, having it financed through user fees rather than agency dollars. Wheeler said his recusal, dated May 24, applies to issues he lobbied on not just before EPA but other agencies, as well, such as Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. That provision of the law grants emergency authority to the federal government to boost electric power.” [E&E News, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

DOE

 

FERC’s Friday Night News Dump. According to Politico, “Regulators at FERC have known that one day they would have to decide how they would move to protect the power markets they oversee from the state-enacted energy programs, particularly those that support nuclear units, that are tilting the playing field. A divided FERC waded in Friday night in a way that raised concerns among climate advocates and consumer groups about the future of the markets and the viability of state energy initiatives. So ... what happened? PJM Interconnection, which runs the market that spans 13 states, came to FERC with two proposals this spring for ‘mitigating’ state energy programs in its capacity market that ensures enough power plants are available to provide electricity. FERC didn’t like either PJM plan. But the commission’s three Republican members ordered PJM to rewrite its current market rules, declaring they were ‘unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory.’ The order — which was published at 8:45 p.m. Friday — stated the current rules didn’t protect competition in the capacity market against ‘unreasonable price distortions and cost shifts’ from the state policies that are keeping older, uneconomic plants resources in operation or subsidizing new power technologies that aren’t yet competitive. Axing the current rules may indicate that FERC’s tolerance for state programs may be over. In a late-night tweetstorm, Democratic FERC Commissioner Rich Glick took issue with the move, writing that the agency shouldn’t use its authorities to restrain state efforts to address global warming. ‘Doing so puts the Commission on the wrong side of history in the fight against climate change,’ he said.” [Politico, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

Other Agencies

 

'Climate Change' Axed From Sustainability Report. According to E&E News, “The Treasury Department listed ‘climate change resilience’ as one of its sustainability goals in a 2016 report to the White House. That goal was jettisoned in a draft version completed under the Trump administration. A draft copy of a sustainability report from Treasury dated July 2017, obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the agency scaled back its references to climate change during President Trump’s first year in office. Under an Obama-era executive order, federal agencies were required to file reports annually on how they would meet 10 environmental goals, such as greenhouse gas reductions, renewable energy investment, water use at their buildings and conservation. In its 2016 report, the Treasury Department addressed all 10 goals, including ‘Goal No. 10: Climate Change Resilience.’ The 2017 report — which has not been published by the agency — copies, often verbatim, from the earlier document. But the term ‘climate change’ does not appear in its 34 pages, and the section where ‘Goal No. 10’ is supposed to be does not exist. The file itself is several pages shorter than the 2016 document.” [E&E News, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

Judiciary And Legal

 

SCOTUS

 

Curtain Falls On Sleepy Term For Environmental Law. According to E&E News, “Major interstate water disputes highlighted a Supreme Court term that was generally light on environmental law. In the latest case, justices on Wednesday handed a partial victory to Florida in the long-running Southeastern water wars over the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. They also decided the correct legal venue for a key Clean Water Act battle and split on extending Washington tribal treaty fishing rights to salmon habitat. Otherwise, not much. But while the term may have been somewhat sleepy for environmental issues, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s surprise retirement — announced just a few hours after the court issued the Florida v. Georgia decision, has rocked the environmental law world. This past term was ‘the calm before the storm,’ said Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Not only will there be a fierce confirmation battle on Capitol Hill to replace the moderate justice, but the Supreme Court has several environment-related matters already on its docket for next term, including the court’s first Endangered Species Act case in more than a decade. Depending on when the new justice is confirmed, he or she could have a hand in deciding the outcomes of those cases.” [E&E News, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

Clinton Impeachment Saga May Play Role In Nomination. According to E&E News, “Among legal professionals and Supreme Court justices, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a stellar reputation as a staunch, articulate conservative on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His environmental rulings have pleased the right. But before he joined the bench in 2006, the Yale Law School graduate made his bones as one of the lead lawyers in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s protracted investigation of President Clinton. Democrats still fume over Kavanaugh’s contributions to Starr’s efforts. ‘He produced, with substantial assistance from you, a lengthy report that frequently dwelt on salacious details from President Clinton’s personal life,’ Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Kavanaugh at his 2004 Senate confirmation hearing. Schumer, now the Senate minority leader, and most other Democrats would almost certainly oppose a Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court for reasons beyond his several-year tenure on Starr’s team. Environmental groups, among others, have been stockpiling ammo from Kavanaugh’s opinions (Greenwire, June 28). Kavanaugh prominently dissented, for instance, from a 2014 appellate court decision upholding EPA standards to curb mercury and other pollutants from power plants. Kavanaugh countered that EPA had failed to properly consider costs” [E&E News, 6/29/18 (=)]

 

 

Opposition Groups

 

CEI, Groups Against Kigali. According to Politico, “The Competitive Enterprise Institute and more than 20 other national and state groups will send a letter to the president today, opposing the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol — an Obama-era treaty limiting global use of hydrofluorocarbons, a climate change-causing coolant. The letter outlines how the amendment would do ‘far more economic harm than environmental good,’ adding that the environmental benefits are minimal. ‘It is not just consumers who will be harmed by the Kigali Amendment,’ they write. ‘So too will millions of businesses and property owners that rely on air-conditioning or refrigeration — hotels, restaurants, office buildings, rail and truck refrigerated transport — and public buildings, such as schools, churches, theaters, and indoor sports facilities.’” [Politico, 7/2/18 (=)]

 

Opinion Pieces

 

Op-Ed: Lawmakers Rally To Keep Pruitt From Transparently Restricting Science. According to an op-ed by Amanda Rodewald in The Hill, “Changes to the scientific review process of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed by Administrator Scott Pruitt last year are back in the spotlight. In particular, there is growing concern about the ‘transparency rule,’ — what many have dubbed the ‘secret science’ rule. The transparency rule specifies the types of scientific evidence that may be used in rulemaking and requires that all scientific and technical information (e.g., data, protocols, computer codes, and models) used by the agency be publicly available online in a form that allows independent analysis and reproduction of results. The transparency rule sounds reasonable, if not desirable, at first pass. However, the required level of disclosure and accessibility often are not achievable, especially within timeframes necessary for decision-making and regulatory activities. As explained in a joint statement from editors of five prestigious scientific journals, not all data can be publicly available. In these cases, reviewers have confidential access to key data and can evaluate the rigor of the study design, analysis, and interpretation of findings — a long-standing scientific norm. Most worrisome, the transparency rule will prevent use of many public health or large-scale environmental studies, especially in light of laws and responsible research practices protecting the confidentiality of human subjects and private property. In this way, the rule will disproportionately affect public health studies relative to those focused on costs or economic impacts that are less likely to involve human subjects.” [The Hill, 7/2/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Oil Industry Traded Safety For Energy Dominance. According to an op-ed by Elizabeth Klein in The Hill, “No longer is the focus on safety first — the very mission of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement — which will only compel less-well-meaning companies to continue to cut corners. The Deepwater Horizon disaster laid bare the unfortunate reality of decades of insufficient oversight. Multiple investigations pointed to a deficient safety culture and an atmosphere where the need to get to the big plays and produce under-budget prevailed. Far from being a rare, ‘white whale’ event, the disaster was just about the least surprising event that could have occurred in the Gulf. At a New Orleans vigil in 2011 to mark the one-year anniversary of the catastrophe, a local rabbi was quoted as saying: ‘People are quite rightly asking: How and when, and by whose insistence and stubborn support, will the public’s mind be refocused upon what happened in the Gulf?’ Eight years after that disaster, we should again be asking that question.” [The Hill, 7/2/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: After Ellicott City, Good News For The Environment. According to an op-ed by Chante Coleman in The Washington Post, “In late May, residents and business owners in historic Ellicott City were just closing the books on a 2016 flood there when they were forced to watch again as water overwhelmed their community. A severe storm had brought about 10 inches of rain in three hours. Flooding like this has occurred frequently in Ellicott City for decades, but it is not geographically unique. In recent weeks, we have seen flooding on the Mall in Washington , in Prince George’s County, in Old Town Alexandria and in the neighborhoods of West Baltimore. Yet, the tragic and deadly event in Ellicott City sparked a lively debate among residents, engineers, environmentalists and state and local officials. How could a 1,000-year flood occur twice in two years? Is the flooding related to poor development practices that remove forests and pave over the land? Are we lacking critical flood-reducing infrastructure? Is the land sinking? Is climate change playing a role? The answer: all of the above.” [The Washington Post, 6/30/18 (+)]

 

 

Colorado

 

Op-Ed: Fires Are White-Hot Signs Of Climate Change In Our Backyard. According to an op-ed by William Anderegg in The Denver Post, “My first backpacking trip as a kid was in Bear Creek in southwest Colorado where the Burro Fire is now incinerating thousands of acres of forest. Fishing poles in hand, my brother and I hiked from fishing hole to fishing hole in the shade of tall spruce and fir trees. Many of the most wonderful times in my childhood involved hunting and fishing trips across Colorado with my family. Like many in southwest Colorado, I suspect, I’ve been watching the billowing smoke plumes, now visible from outer space, of the Burro and 416 Fires with an ever-sinking feeling in my stomach. I’m now a scientist who studies our western forests and, unfortunately, I’ve got some bad news. Massive wildfires like the 416 and Burro Fires have the fingerprints of climate change all over them. Scientists have been studying fires and trying to predict fire risk for decades. The drivers of fires are complicated and there’s a lot of random chance involved in any given fire, but there are some crystal clear big-picture patterns. First, the West has been warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions coming from our cars, power plants, and other sources. Hotter temperatures mean lower snowpacks, earlier snowmelts, and drier forests – sound familiar from this year? All of these factors are associated with years with lots of big fires. We have been conducting research on the San Juan National Forest for a decade and I can tell you first-hand from walking around the crispy forest last week that the trees and fuels are drier than they have been in a long while.” [The Denver Post, 6/28/18 (+)]