Bill to expedite small exports nears House vote: “Days after a Department of Energy rule expediting the approval process for
small-scale natural gas exports took effect, congressional Republicans are moving toward passing a bill that would codify it into law. H.R. 4606 from Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) would automatically grant approval to applications asking to export 0.14 billion
cubic feet of gas per day or less, which do not require an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. It's set to be considered by the House Rules Committee today, with a vote on the House floor likely to follow close behind. The
language is effectively identical to a rule that DOE finalized on July 25 and took effect on Aug. 24. Some Democrats opposed the legislation as it advanced through the Energy and Commerce Committee, and debate over the bill this week will likely center on
whether it's necessary to duplicate a rule that's already been implemented. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the committee's ranking member, says it's not. "There are drawbacks to codifying a proposed rule with such a prescriptive volume requirement," he wrote
in a dissent on the committee's report of the bill. "For example, should the circumstance arise where exporting 0.14 Bcf/d of LNG is no longer in the public interest, then Congress would have to enact a new law to make changes," Pallone continued. Democrats
are also concerned the bill would remove consumer protections and could allow applicants to avoid the scrutiny needed for larger projects by splitting them up into smaller segments, as well as potentially contributing to higher gas prices and exacerbating
climate change. But Johnson and his fellow Republicans say a congressional mandate is needed to give more certainty and a clear timetable to American companies looking to export gas to emerging markets in the Caribbean and Latin America. Passing the bill in
Congress would prevent a future DOE from simply reversing the agency's rule. "Regulations change from administration to administration, so H.R. 4606 would codify the new rule into law," said Ben Keeler, a spokesman for Johnson.”
[E&E News, 9/4/18]
https://goo.gl/qP6jUe
Huffman bill favors agriculture in Point Reyes National Seashore: “Rep. Jared Huffman has introduced a bill that would bolster
the continuance of dairy and beef cattle operations within the Point Reyes National Seashore. “This bill provides a measure of support for the continuation of sustainable ranches and dairies as part of the fabric of our spectacular Point Reyes National Seashore,
without compromising any environmental standards and consistent with the current General Management Plan update process,” Huffman wrote in a statement last week. A lawsuit brought by conservation groups challenging continued agricultural operations within
the park was settled in July 2017 with the understanding that the management plan would be updated. That updating process is currently underway. Huffman’s proposed legislation, H.R. 6687, elicited a scathing reaction from the Western Watersheds Project and
the Resource Renewal Institute, two of the groups that filed suit. The groups issued a joint press release asserting that the bill “would fundamentally reverse National Park Service management of Point Reyes National Seashore to prioritize the livestock industry
over public uses and interests.” Huffman denies this; he says his bill would do several things. First, it would clarify that the term “agricultural property” used in amendments to the Point Reyes National Seashore enabling act also includes certain ranches
in the northern portions of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area which have long been managed by Seashore personnel. Many of the cattle ranches in the park have been operated by the same families since the 1860s. Second, it would direct the Secretary of
the Interior to manage agricultural properties to maintain working dairies and ranches. That would include managing tule elk “to ensure separation from working dairies and ranches on agricultural property to minimize conflicts.” The bill would authorize the
Interior Secretary to consider working with Indian tribes as an option for managing tule elk herds. Third, the bill would direct the Interior Secretary to complete the General Management Plan update process, including National Environmental Policy Act review.
The legislation would authorize issuance of leases or special use permits of 20 years. But in a statement, Deborah Moskowitz, president of the Resource Renewal Institute, wrote, “Representative Huffman’s bill is a cynical attempt to throw a wrench into this
open and democratic process for the benefit of a tiny interest group of dairy ranchers who have long enjoyed such preferential treatment as below-market land leases, taxpayer-supported services and exemptions from environmental requirements.’”
[Marin Independent Journal, 9/1/18]
https://goo.gl/ZBCv9X
Panel revisits cost of permitting, environmental reviews:
“House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lawmakers on Thursday will discuss the cost of delays associated with environmental reviews and permitting for infrastructure projects. The permitting
and environmental review processes for land, water, transportation and other infrastructure initiatives can be lengthy and complex because they involve multiple laws, regulations and agencies. Streamlining the federal permitting process and modernizing America's
infrastructure are among President Trump's major priorities. In February, the administration unveiled its plan, including a recommended $200 billion in new federal spending and reforms to the permitting process that would create a "one agency, one decision"
framework for environmental reviews. The first public comment period on the administration's proposal to streamline National Environmental Policy Act regulations, which underpin environmental permitting for the entire federal government, ended in August. Supporters
of a significant overhaul say permitting and environmental reviews have become mired in red tape, and the delays are costing money but also hurt communities in need of better roads, bridges and waterways. But others have criticized the effort as a thinly veiled
attempt to undermine important environmental protections embedded in laws such as the Clean Water Act and NEPA. Several legislative measures are floating around the House and Senate that aim to expedite federal permitting and improve the management of infrastructure
projects. Thursday's joint hearing between the Intergovernmental Affairs and Interior, Energy and Environment subcommittees will look at those ideas as well as other proposals.”
[E&E News, 9/4/18]
https://goo.gl/3mPE6M
Farm bill conferees to hammer out conservation, forest policy:
“The House-Senate conference committee crafting a 2018 farm bill will meet for the first time this week, as lawmakers try to sort out competing approaches to conservation, low-income nutrition and
other programs. Although most of the heavy work falls on committee staff and the top four leaders of the House and Senate agriculture committees, the meeting of conferees could shed light on which direction a final bill seems likely to go. And, as Senate Agriculture
Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has told reporters in recent weeks, the meeting will allow plenty of time for speeches. The conference committee has 56 members, including 47 from the House. Negotiators have made progress toward resolving differences, according
to Roberts. But a committee spokeswoman said a draft conference report likely won't be ready to distribute at the meeting, a goal Roberts told reporters last week he would like to reach. Less than a month remains before the 2014 farm bill expires on Sept.
30. While Roberts has sidestepped questions about extending the current farm bill, lobbyists following the legislation say at least a short-term extension seems likely. The big issue separating the House and Senate is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. The House-passed version of H.R. 2 would tighten employment requirements to qualify for the program, which Democrats universally oppose. The Senate version, agreed to by Democrats, would make more modest changes that Roberts has said accomplish similar
goals of program integrity…
The bills take different approaches on forest policy. The House calls for bigger categorical exclusions, of up to 6,000 acres, from the National Environmental Policy Act for forest-thinning projects to reduce wildfire risks, for instance. Democrats have opposed
softening NEPA, and forest policy groups say it isn't clear whether Congress has the appetite to fight over that issue with the farm bill expiring soon.”
[E&E News, 9/4/18]
https://goo.gl/Uy7UVB
California: Dodd’s California Wildfire Bill Heads to Governor’s Desk: “Lawmakers approved a comprehensive wildfire safety
plan that will prevent future infernos like those that have been ravaging the state while protecting utility ratepayers from bearing unfair costs. Senate Bill 901 was approved on votes of 29 to 4 in the Senate and 45 to 10 in the Assembly. It heads next to
Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. “From the start of this year, my highest priority was and remains responding to past wildfires and preventing future tragedies,” said Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, chairman of the bipartisan conference committee that drafted the
bill. “My goals were simple – to stand up for constituents and ensure they recovered all they are entitled to for the damage they suffered, protect Californians from new wildfires and destruction, hold electric utilities accountable and protect the long-term
interests of ratepayers. I believe this bill achieves those aims.” SB 901 attacks the wildfire problem on multiple levels including requiring better forest management practices, increased fuel reduction efforts, the de-energizing of electric utility power
lines in extreme weather and a general hardening of the utility grid. It also protects ratepayers against bearing unfair costs, in part by authorizing the use of ratepayer protection bonds for utilities. Without the debt stabilization mechanism for utilities,
the corporations could face higher borrowing costs or even bankruptcy, which will translate into significantly higher rates, Senator Dodd said. According to the bill, “under specified conditions, CEQA would not apply to prescribed fire, thinning, or fuel reduction
projects undertaken on federal lands to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire that have been reviewed under the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The bill would also provide that CEQA would not apply to the issuance of a permit or other
project approval by a state or local agency for these fire, thinning, or fuel reduction projects.”
[East County Today, 9/4/18]
https://goo.gl/Hd2h31
Army Corps' new pipeline review reaches same conclusions:
“Does the Dakota Access pipeline present a big risk to American Indian tribes? The federal government is sticking with its original answer: no. In a court-ordered analysis finalized last week, the
Army Corps of Engineers concluded it doesn't need to revisit its 2016 approval of the now-operating oil project, which crosses a section of the Missouri River considered sacred by some tribes. The development came in court filings late Friday. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia last year found that while the Army Corps had largely complied with the National Environmental Policy Act when greenlighting the 1,172-mile pipeline, it failed to closely study three areas: environmental justice concerns,
impacts to tribal hunting and fishing rights, and whether the pipeline's effects would be "highly controversial." Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, allowed the pipeline to continue operating while the government conducted its supplemental review. After
studying the issues, the Army Corps concluded last week that there was no need to reconsider the agency's 2016 permit approval or conduct any additional analysis under NEPA. The corps briefly summarized its findings in Friday court filings and noted that a
full analysis of more than 100 pages is undergoing a confidentiality review before public release. Dakota Access has been at the center of a heated battle over energy, tribal rights and environmental impacts for years. But far from a footnote to the emotional
fight, the Army Corps' new analysis will likely serve as a hook for another round of litigation. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led the legal campaign against the Energy Transfer Partners project, immediately panned the government's conclusions. "The
Army Corps' decision to rubberstamp its illegal and flawed permit for DAPL will not stand," tribal Chairman Mike Faith Jr. said in a statement. "A federal judge declared the DAPL permits to be illegal, and ordered the Corps to take a fresh look at the risks
of an oil spill and the impacts to the Tribe and its Treaty rights. "That is not what the Army Corps did," he said. "Instead, we got a cynical and one-sided document designed to paper over mistakes, not address the Tribe's legitimate concerns." Faith noted
that Standing Rock is reviewing the agency's latest decision to determine how to move forward. The tribe could take the matter back to federal court.”
[E&E News, 9/4/18]
https://goo.gl/CWybc8
Army Corps of Engineers releases Pebble scoping document: The Army Corps of Engineers on Friday posted the scoping document
for the environmental review it will perform for the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska. Scoping, or determining what issues to study, is an early step in the process under the National Environmental Policy Act. The 306-page document was developed after receiving
public comment and holding nine meetings in Alaska. It doesn't make any conclusions about the proposed mine itself, instead only identifying matters for study, ranging from impacts on nearby fisheries to climate change to preserving important archaeological
sites. The Corps projects releasing a draft environmental impact statement in January and a final EIS in late 2019.
[POLITICO, 9/4/18]
https://goo.gl/2hi6sL
Justin McCarthy
Communications Director, NEPA Campaign
The Partnership Project
1101 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 USA
T: (202) 650-0327
C: (540) 312-3797
E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org
The Partnership Project, a registered 501 (c) (3) non-profit, is a collaborative effort of over 20 of the country’s most influential advocacy organizations, including Sierra Club, Defenders
of Wildlife, League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice, and Natural Resources Defense Council.