Some things seem predictable about volatile energy rule

From an Editorial of the Morgantown Dominion Post, August 15, 2019

It was almost predictable that the other shoe would drop. And that the other shoe would be on the other foot. But what was not predictable were some of the toes on that other foot, among other things.

In 2016, 27 states sued the Obama administration to block the Clean Power Plan (CPP). That plan, launched in 2015 was designed to reduce power plant emisssions 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Some estimates show our country is already anywhere from a third to two-thirds of the way to meeting that goal despite that lawsuit resulting in a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court. That stay bought time for the Trump administration to begin repealing the CPP following the president’s election.

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eliminated the CPP and replaced it with a new rule — the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE). What the ACE does is constrict the EPA’s regulatory responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, setting a low bar on emissions nationwide and empowering states to determine their own limits, among other things.

This week, 21 states, the District of Columbia and six major metropolitan areas sued the Trump administration over its move to ease those restrictions.

Their lawsuit argues not only is the Trump administration trying to prop up an outdated industry — coal — but the ACE is also bad for emerging new energy markets. Of course, it also notes that the science of climate change is indisputable and also comes at a human cost — additional air pollution as a result of the ACE will cost thousands of additional lives, according to the EPA’s own analysis.

Of course, some are going to immediately turn this into a political argument and by all appearances it looks like it. The 27 states that sued the Obama administration were Republican-led while the 21 suing the Trump administration are Democratic-led states.

But a closer look at these 21 states presents some problems with that argument. For one thing, four of those states — Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — all voted to elect President Trump in 2016. Another thing that might be disconcerting for pro-coal business groups and some of our state’s leaders, is Maryland and Virginia also joined Pennsylvania in this lawsuit.

Numerically, these 21 states represent nearly two-thirds of the nation’s population, too. We reject any efforts, and hope courts do too, to roll back carbon restrictions.

It’s unlikely our newspaper will sway the nation’s high court to reject efforts to repeal the Clean Power Plan. But technological trends, energy markets and the power sector decarbonizing faster than expected just might.

By the way, that is predictable.

The CPP or an ACE in the hole

Editorial of the Morgantown Dominion Post, Sunday, June 23, 2019

Call it a policy of diminishing returns or retreats from a worsening climate crisis. We’re never going to sway the Trump administration on its decision to short circuit the Clean Power Plan. But technological trends and markets might, not to mention the power sector continuing to decarbonize faster than expected.

Yet, last week the Trump administration finalized its so-called Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

Our first question to those who put politics and self-interest above competitive markets is: How can we ever expect to win a war against the primary laws of economics? You know, if there’s a demand, someone will provide the supply, as long as the incentives are high enough.

And why even if Longview Power’s president and CEO, that operates the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired plant in the world, according to him, says it’s probably the last of its kind why think otherwise Especially when he tells you next thing that’s why Longview is developing an advanced gas-fired combine cycle plant beside its coal plant.

Finally, why would you ignore gains, that by some estimates show our country is already anywhere from a third to two-thirds of the way to meeting the Clean Power Plan’s goal of reducing carbon emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030?

After all, aren’t happy days here again for the economy, despite the nation’s utilities already having drastically lowered emissions.

Most have no delusions about coal ever reaching the production numbers of the past and the outlook for this industry here and nationwide is uncertain, at best; grim, at worst.

Though some maintain you dance with the one that brought you, natural gas ditched coal more than a decade ago. More exactly, the advent of fracking around 2008 was to natural gas production what Elvis was to rock ’n’ roll.

But that was hardly the only front where the “war on coal” was waged. Increased use of renewables; heightened energy efficiencies; volatile international markets; and the depletion of thick, easy-to-mine seams all followed.

The decline in the coal industry is relentless, and though this decline may be slow and drawn out it’s just a matter of how low must it go. We reject any efforts, and hope courts do too, to roll back carbon restrictions, especially with the concerns about the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

Our country and our planet has a lot to lose, including our health, if we fail to address climate change. Rewrite the rules however you want, but any notion of coal’s resurgence is contrary to the way markets work and technology advances.

The ACE is certainly no ace in the hole for the coal industry. Indeed, it can only dig it and us into an even deeper one — at our own peril.

Coal-fired power plants generate fine particulate pollution

From an Article by Lisa Friedman, New York Times, May 20, 2019

Photo: The Hunter power plant in Castle Dale, Utah, which burns an estimated 4.5 million tons of coal a year.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the health risks of air pollution, a shift that would make it easier to roll back a key climate change rule because it would result in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.

The E.P.A. had originally forecast that eliminating the Obama-era rule, the Clean Power Plan, and replacing it with a new measure would have resulted in an additional 1,400 premature deaths per year. The new analytical model would significantly reduce that number and would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules if it is formally adopted.

The proposed shift is the latest example of the Trump administration downgrading the estimates of environmental harm from pollution in regulations. In this case, the proposed methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires. Many experts said that approach was not scientifically sound and that, in the real world, there are no safe levels of the fine particulate pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

Fine particulate matter — the tiny, deadly particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream — is linked to heart attacks, strokes and respiratory disease.

The five people familiar with the plan, all current or former E.P.A. officials, said the new modeling method would appear in the agency’s analysis of the final version of the replacement regulation, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which is expected to be made public in June.

Asked on Monday whether the new method would be included in the agency’s final analysis of the rule, William L. Wehrum, the E.P.A. air quality chief, said only that the final version would include multiple analytical approaches in an effort to be transparent. He said the agency had made no formal change to its methodology.

“It’s a very important issue, and it’s an issue where there has been a lot of debate over what the right approach is,” Mr. Wehrum said.

The E.P.A., when making major regulatory changes, is normally expected to demonstrate that society will see more benefits than costs from the change. Experts said that, while benefits would appear on paper in this case, the change actually disregards potential dangers to public health.

“Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. He called the expected change a “monumental departure” from the approach both Republican and Democratic E.P.A. leaders have used over the past several decades and predicted that it would lay the groundwork for weakening more environmental regulations.

“It could be an enormously significant impact,” Mr. Revesz said.

The Obama administration had sought to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan by pushing utilities to switch away from coal and instead use natural gas or renewable energy to generate electricity. The Obama plan would also have what is known as a co-benefit: levels of fine particulate matter would fall.

The Trump administration has moved to repeal the Obama-era planand replace it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which would slightly improve the efficiency of coal plants. It would also allow older coal plants to remain in operation longer and result in an increase of particulate matter.

Particulate matter comes in various sizes. The greatest health risk comes from what is known as PM 2.5, the range of fine particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. That is about one-thirtieth the width of a human hair.

The E.P.A. has set the safety threshold for PM 2.5 at a yearly average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. While individual days vary, with some higher, an annual average at or below that level, known as the particulate matter standard, is considered safe. However, the agency still weighs health hazards that occur in the safe range when it analyzes new regulations.

Industry has long questioned that system. After all, fossil fuel advocates ask, why should the E.P.A. search for health dangers, and, ultimately, impose costs on industry, in situations where air is officially considered safe?

Mr. Wehrum, who worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for chemical manufacturers and fossil fuel businesses before moving to the E.P.A., echoed that position in two interviews. He noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.

“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Mr. Wehrum acknowledged that the administration was considering a handful of analyses that would reduce the prediction of 1,400 premature deaths as a result of the measure.

He called the attention given to that initial forecast “unfortunate” and said the agency had included the figure in its analysis to show the varied results that can be achieved based on different assumptions.

Mr. Wehrum said the analyses the agency is conducting “illuminate the issue” of particulate matter and the question of what level is acceptable for the purposes of policymaking. He said new approaches would allow for public debate to move ahead and that any new methods would be subject to peer review if they became the agency’s primary tool for measuring health risks.

“This isn’t just something I’m cooking up here in my fifth-floor office in Washington,” Mr. Wehrum said.

Roger O. McClellan, who has served on E.P.A. advisory boards and as president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, an industry-financed research center, said that the data for health risks below the particulate matter standard was weak and that he did not accept the argument that agencies must calculate risk “down to the first molecule of exposure.”

“These kinds of approaches — that every molecule, every ionization, carries with it an associated calculable health risk — are just misleading,” Mr. McClellan said.
To put the matter in perspective, most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits. On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety. But that doesn’t mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 m.p.h., or even 25.

Jonathan M. Samet, a pulmonary disease specialist who is dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, said the most recent studies showed negative health effects well below the 12-microgram standard. “It’s not a hard stop where we can say ‘below that, air is safe.’ That would not be supported by the scientific evidence,” Dr. Samet said. “It would be very nice for public health if things worked that way, but they don’t seem to.”

Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit research organization that is funded by the E.P.A. and industry groups, acknowledged there was uncertainty around the effects of fine particulate matter exposure below the standard.
He said it was reasonable of the Trump administration to study the issue, but he questioned moving ahead with a new system before those studies are in. “To move away from the way this has been done without the benefit of this full scientific peer review is unfortunate,” he said.

Original CPP to benefit society & industry

From an Article by Timothy Cama, The Hill News, July 10, 2018

The Trump administration is taking a big step forward in its effort to replace the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants with a more industry-friendly alternative.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that on Monday it sent a proposed rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

The OMB review, an internal process that checks for compliance with various laws and administration priorities, is the final step before the rule can be released publicly and made available for public comment.

The EPA hasn’t revealed the contents of the proposal. The Trump administration in December requested public input on ideas for a replacement.

The rule would replace the Clean Power Plan, the main pillar of former President Obama’s climate change agenda that sought a 32 percent cut in carbon emissions from the country’s power sector by 2030. States were allowed to decide how best to accomplish that goal.

The Obama rule was put on hold by the Supreme Court in 2016 as a result of litigation led in part by then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Pruitt went on to become EPA administrator before resigning last week under the cloud of numerous scandals.

Pruitt and President Trump prioritized repealing the Clean Power Plan, and Pruitt formally proposed undoing it last year, an action that has not yet been made final.

Sources familiar with the EPA’s deliberations say the agency wants to write a regulation that focuses almost exclusively on making coal-fired power plants more efficient. That would result in minimal reductions in carbon emissions, and environmentalists say emissions could in turn increase since coal plants would be cheaper to operate.

While Pruitt initially did not want to replace the Clean Power Plan, industry leaders pushed him in that direction, arguing that doing so would reduce the risk of climate-change lawsuits against companies, as well as future lawsuits against the EPA for not regulating greenhouse gases.

Both Pruitt and current acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler have expressed skepticism of the scientific consensus that the climate is changing and that human activity is the primary cause.

Science News of August 14, 1912

Hello, and Happy New Year everyone.

Barbara Brown (LWVMM Board Sec.) and I attended the public meeting in Charleston on the proposal to rescind the Clean Power Plan. It was very interesting and informative and we were surprised at the number of people who spoke in support of the CPP.

If you are opposed to rescinding the CPP, you need to make your voice heard before the January 16 deadline. And as much as I hate to say it, this is your opportunity to participate in our governance, so even if you agree that the CPP should be rescinded, you should take the opportunity to make that known, too.

Vicki Conner, Morgantown
League of Women Voters

Please consider sending in comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355-0002

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Big Win in the Big Apple

From Bill McKibben, 350.org, January 10, 2018

Today we have news of a mighty win: one of the planet’s central cities has gone fully on the attack against the fossil fuel industry, which means the tide is finally turning in the climate fight.

Just an hour ago we stood with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio as he made two major announcements: New York’s pension funds will divest from the big oil and gas companies, and the city is suing the biggest of these corporations for the climate damage they’ve caused.

This is a huge moment in our fight to stop climate change. A city as iconic as New York could trigger a wave of action against the fossil fuel industry from other powerful cities and states around the U.S. and globally. For that to happen, we need each and every one of us to continue to demand change.

Join me, Senator Bernie Sanders, and many other powerful movement leaders and grassroots organizers to discuss this massive victory and how we can build on this momentum to forge a Fossil Free world together — Tune in on Jan 31st via livestream at a watch party near you.

When we dreamed up the idea of fossil fuel divestment in 2012 we thought: some colleges and churches will do this. We didn’t dare dream that half a decade later the richest city in the world would be leading the charge. As one of the financial centers of the world, New York sends a powerful message about the fiscal folly of fossil fuels.

And not only is New York City divesting, it is also taking those most responsible to court. Fossil fuel companies – and their lies and lobbyists – are to blame for the climate crisis we’re in and it’s high time they’re held to account.

It also shows us what is possible when we step up and fight back. New Yorkers, still reeling from Superstorm Sandy, fought long and hard for this win. Now we need more people to take up this fight in their communities. There’s no excuse for any city or state, any province or region, any pension fund or portfolio, to be in business with this industry.

Find out what you can do in your city or town to work towards climate justice on Jan 31st. Join (or host) a watch party with your community to talk about what climate action is possible in 2018.

The time has come, Bill McKibben, 350.org

P.S. The announcement during today’s press conference involved Mayor Bill de Blasio, Comptroller Scott Stringer, Public Advocate Tish James, Naomi Klein, myself, and many more.

>>> The 350.org is building a global climate movement. Become a sustaining donor to keep this movement strong and growing.

Mary Anne Hitt and Michael Bloomberg ask for support of the Clean Power Plan (CPP)

Today Michael Bloomberg visited Sierra Club’s office in Washington, D.C. and announced an increased commitment to retire America’s coal plants and transition the U.S. economy to a clean energy future. With the generosity of Bloomberg Philanthropies and others, we will amplify our existing success to achieve ever more ambitious goals — building a healthier, cleaner, more prosperous world.

This follows the Trump administration’s announcement of their plan to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Obama’s landmark regulation on carbon pollution for power plants.

“The Trump administration has yet to realize that the war on coal was never led by Washington — and Washington cannot end it,” said Bloomberg. “It was started and continues to be led by communities in both red and blue states who are tired of having their air and water poisoned when there are cleaner and cheaper alternatives available… Without any federal regulations on carbon emissions, those groups have combined with market forces to close half the nation’s coal-fired power plants over the past six years — and with this new grant, we aim to reach 60 percent by the end of 2020.”

Add your voice to Michael Bloomberg’s! Tell the EPA you support limits on carbon pollution and oppose their “Dirty Power Plan.”

Bloomberg Philanthropies’ generosity comes at a great time, adding to our existing momentum as we fight for clean air, water, and the climate and allowing us to build on our existing achievements:
This year, AEP and Xcel both announced the two largest clean energy projects in US history. Retiring coal plants have opened up new market opportunities for renewable energy, which has raced to fill them and is now cheaper than coal in most parts of the country.

Along with dozens of allies, the Beyond Coal Campaign has helped secured retirement commitments for 11 coal plants since Trump’s inauguration — that’s one plant every 24 days. We are now just a handful of plants away from securing retirement commitments from half of America’s coal fleet.

Additionally, because of work from Beyond Coal and allied groups, the largest coal export terminal in North America is dead, the last of six Northwest proposed coal export terminals to be defeated by tribal and community leaders.

And just this week, in the 48 hours since EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, nearly 60,000 Sierra Club members and supporters have submitted a comment to EPA opposing this.

We know Michael Bloomberg has our back. Do you? Take thirty seconds and submit your comment to EPA now to save the Clean Power Plan!

Carbon pollution from coal power plants sickens our families and makes climate change worse. Previously, the EPA estimated that the Clean Power Plan would prevent 90,000 asthma attacks, 300,000 missed work and school days, and 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030. These health impacts of climate change disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income families. This means that any attempt to dismantle the Clean Power Plan is an added assault on the most vulnerable populations among us.

For the health of our families and safety of our future, as monster storms and wildfires pummel our nation, we must keep the Clean Power Plan in place. But Trump’s EPA wants to repeal the Clean Power Plan completely.

Now that the EPA has announced its plan, we must fight back. Let’s flood the comment inbox with thousands of messages of support for strong climate action like the Clean Power Plan. If enough of us speak up, we may be able to keep the Clean Power Plan in place. Will you add your voice?

As the EPA takes this drastic action, let’s speak up to defend the Clean Power Plan — and the health and safety of our communities.

To defending strong climate action,

Mary Anne Hitt
Director, Beyond Coal Campaign
Sierra Club

Do not discard the CPP!

EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court

Coalition of states, cities and green groups urges D.C. Court of Appeals to reject Trump administration request to stall decision on cornerstone climate regulations

From an Article by John Cushman, Inside Climate News, April 6, 2017

The Trump Administration is seeking to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s climate policies.

A coalition of states, cities and environmental groups filed twin briefs on Wednesday accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of trying to “perpetually dodge” court decisions that could keep alive the Clean Power Plan, which the Trump Administration wants to dismantle.

They urged the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the administration’s new petition to put the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s climate policies, into an indefinite state of limbo, while the EPA sends the rule back to the drawing board.

The appeals court heard oral arguments in the case months ago and should be ready to rule at any time. A quick ruling could, within a year, put the regulations on the docket of the Supreme Court, which issued a stay in 2016.

The tussle over how to proceed now that President Donald Trump has ordered the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan suggests that those who favor the rule are more eager for an appeals court verdict than those who oppose it.

A prolonged delay would “concretely harm” people living in their states, the brief said—”many of whom have sought for more than a decade to compel EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.”

The brief even made a veiled threat that if the courts ultimately rule that states have no recourse under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2, they might fall back on a tactic that worked for them in the past: suing polluters under common law for the “nuisance” of intense storms, rising seas and damage to public health.

That was a reference to an earlier lawsuit, Connecticut v. American Electric Power, which was tossed out when the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act pre-empted common law.

The brief noted that it’s not clear how the EPA could even conduct a thorough review of the Clean Power Plan under Trump’s latest budget proposals. Recently leaked draft documents describe deep cuts to staff working on climate change, including the score of lawyers working on the Clean Power Plan for the agency’s general counsel.

In a companion brief, several environmental groups made similar complaints. The Trump team’s motion to put the case in abeyance, they wrote, is an atttempt “to do what it could not do otherwise: effectively and indefinitely suspend a duly promulgated rule without proposing, taking comment on, justifying, or defending in court any legal or factual premises that might support such a result.”

The briefs cited extensive precedents for rejecting the Trump argument. But one might carry particular weight: a ruling on April 3, when the Supreme Court itself rejected a comparable request for an abeyance on a different rule, under the Clean Water Act.

“An order mothballing this case would leave our millions of members with no federal protections in place from this dangerous pollution with long-term impacts,” the green groups pleaded. “Moreover, the combination of the judicial stay and abeyance would leave scant incentive for EPA to act.”

See also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net

Tom Steyer speaks volumes for everyone

This Billionaire Determined to Save our Planet

From an Article by Nick Stockton, Wired Magazine, March 23, 2017

Tom Steyer isn’t your average California tree hugger. The former hedge fund manage— number 1,121 on Forbes’ wealthiest people list, with $1.61 billion — was once best known for turning $15 million into $30 billion in about two decades.

But then he went hiking. Steyer and environmental activist and author Bill McKibben spent a day trudging through the Adirondacks. Not long after, Steyer parted ways with the leadership of his company and his oil and gas investments, began to fight the Keystone XL pipeline, and then reinvented himself as a one-man superfund for climate causes. His organization, NextGen Climate, has spent $170 million over the past four years advocating for policies and politicians that help the environment and advance renewable energy.

It’s an uphill battle. Steyer was the largest single donor on either side of the 2016 election—$86 million of his own money. Yet climate change skeptics rule the federal government and many statehouses. Somehow, though, Steyer isn’t acting like a loser. Since November he’s become an even more vocal representative of the nearly two-thirds of Americans who do think human-caused climate change is a real problem. He talked to WIRED about California’s role in science, his own po­litical ambitions (“governor” has a better ring to it than “former hedge fund manager,” right?), and whether Donald Trump could ever possibly, conceivably help save the planet.

WIRED: So Keystone XL has been revived, the Clean Power Plan is in peril, and the former CEO of Exxon is our secretary of state. How are you?

Steyer: I know there are five stages of grief, but my parents raised me to pull up my socks when times get tough. So I really never had the luxury of feeling bad, because right after the election I felt like we needed to figure this thing out.

What is NextGen going to do?

We have been cosponsoring marches with immigrants’ and women’s rights groups. We’ve been running ads against Trump’s nominees and policy positions. And we’ve been organizing resistance activities on the college campuses where we established ourselves during the campaign. We will continue to go on the offensive each time the administration attempts to derail global actions to stop climate change.

During the confirmation hearings for Rex Tillerson, Scott Pruitt, and others, you guys took out attack ads. What’s your goal?

Those guys disagree with us on almost every point. One of the things we strongly believe—and Tillerson was a perfect example—is that the people Trump nominated consistently put corporate interests ahead of American interests. We feel it’s important to get citizens to be reminded of this common thread: that the new administration doesn’t hate working against climate change, they don’t hate science—they just love oil and gas profits.

There’s a wide swath of rural Americans who are happy and hopeful for Trump. Are you reaching out to them?

After the election, the first thing I wanted to know was how our voter registration work on 370 campuses across the country affected turnout. We monitored 12 precincts where there were a lot of millennials and saw that voter turnout was up overall. And turns out, we did do well at rural schools. What we are still trying to figure out is whether that turnout voted Republican or Democrat. That is, if those new voters brought our messaging about politicians who supported climate action to the voting booth.

Given what you know about how policy moves markets, what will we give up when Trump pulls the US out of the Paris agreement?

I was in business for 30 years, and my experience is that the best way to operate is to work fairly and closely with partners over a long period of time. The most expensive way to do business is to do it deal by deal, each of which is highly contentious. If deal by deal is the model, where instead of partners or allies we have counterparts and competitors, that is very expensive, difficult, and dangerous. OK, so look at the Paris agreement: It’s going to force the developed world to change its energy sources. That means the US could be the leader in developing renewable technology for more than a billion people—a huge incoming market—who don’t have electricity at all.

The Paris agreement was a great achievement of American leadership. So the idea that we’re going to walk away and give up leadership of 194 countries, and walk away from our position as a leader in the world for the past 100 years, will be an incredibly expensive and dumb thing to do.

Are there any Republican climate leaders?

You know, we all act like it is an incredible triumph if a Republican shows the remotest respect for climate science. When Kelly Ayotte—who has a dismal 35 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters—voted for the Clean Power Plan, a lot of people said, “Oh, she’s really an environmentalist.” But that’s ignoring her record and the reason why it’s so hard for her and other Republicans to stand up for the environment in this political climate, because they have to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. I think there are a lot of Republicans who know the truth and would like to do the right thing but don’t understand how.

Solar and wind energy costs have been coming down for decades. Why aren’t they replacing fossil fuels faster?

There are a lot of subsidies for oil and gas, things like tax breaks and access to markets. That’s partly because there’s a lot of volatility in the oil and gas markets. Fossil fuels are raw materials that have to be extracted and processed. Wind and solar energy are different. The only costs associated with them are technological. WIRED readers should be familiar with the idea that technology gets better and cheaper every year. That’s not true about fossil fuels. The techniques we use to withdraw them might get better every year, but the price has actually risen over time. If you take away subsidies from fossil fuels, wind and solar are actually cheaper.

You believe businesses can provide solutions to climate change but only with the right government policies. Is that era over?

Well, most of the energy regulation in the US comes from the state level, which lets states like California pursue more ambitious emissions regulations. It also lets states with lots of renewable energy coordinate to share it when needed, but federal regulations would help more.

The issue is going to be, to an extent, what the new administration will do to subsidize fossil fuels—how they can make dirtier fuel, which is more expensive, more attractive. Maybe that means leasing public lands at low prices. But the only thing they can really do to ensure long-term drilling is put in infrastructure, like pipelines.

Do you think there is any chance for Trump to not be awful for climate?

[Long pause.] I don’t think there’s any chance that Trump is going to step up and do the right thing out of the conviction that it’s the right thing to do. But, you know, you can’t really say what’s going to happen, because the world does tend to surprise us. If you didn’t learn that in 2016, then you weren’t paying attention.

In January, in an op-ed for The Sacramento Bee, you wrote about creating “the broadest coalition possible, one that embraces our shared values and delivers on the promise of a better future for all Americans.” You even echo Obama’s “Let’s get to work.”

Maybe he stole that from me!

Well, it reads like you are a guy getting ready to run for office.

[Slaps table.] Well, our mission statement is: “Act politically to prevent climate disaster and promote prosperity for every American.” So are we broadening our message? That’s always been our message. Whatever I do, and I honestly don’t know what it is, will be consistent with that effort.

Sent from my iPhone

Senate Confirms Scott Pruitt to Head Environmental Protection Agency 52 – 46

From an Article by Leigh Ann Caldwell, NBC News, February 17, 2017

The U.S. Senate Friday confirmed Oklahoma attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA in a party-line 52-46 vote.

Democrats did all they could to delay the final vote, holding another all-night session to highlight their opposition to the Oklahoma attorney general for his past battles with the regulatory agency he is now tasked to run.

Their opposition intensified after a judge ruled late Thursday that Pruitt must release a tranche of emails pertaining to his relationship with the oil and gas industry during his time as attorney general. It’s a request he’s denied for more than two years until a judge said he must comply. Despite the order, the vote on his confirmation remains slated for this afternoon.

As attorney general, Pruitt has sued the EPA and fought the agency trying to regulate the fracking boom in his state of Oklahoma. He has also questioned the impact of climate change, and during his confirmation hearing said his own views on the issue are “immaterial.”

Democrats took particular issue with Pruitt’s seemingly cozy relationship with the oil industry. He faced sharp questions over a letter his office sent to the EPA accusing the agency of overestimating the amount of methane released into the air from drilling natural gas wells. The New York Times found the letter was written almost entirely by lawyers from one of Oklahoma’s largest oil companies.

Pruitt has attributed political contributions from oil and gas companies and his close ties to the oil industries to the importance the companies have to the Oklahoma economy.

Democrats urged that his confirmation vote be delayed until February 27 when they return from their week-long recess and after the first batch of judicial-ordered emails are to be released on Tuesday.

“No lawyer in a trial would ever go to trial without known the evidence in the case,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said. But Republicans went forward, saying those calls were another excuse for delay.                              

“If it wasn’t one thing it would be another,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “The effort has been to delay the nominations that they make controversial as long as possible in order to play into their left wing base which will not accept the results of the election.”

Pruitt is the latest nominee to be approved on mostly a party line vote. Because Democrats changed Senate rules in 2013, cabinet nominees are able to pass with the support of just a simple majority instead of the previously required 60 votes.

>. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >

Judge Orders Release Of EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt’s Fossil Fuel Emails

From an Article by Dominique Mosbergen, Huffington Post News, February 16, 2017

A state judge has ordered Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s office to release thousands of documents related to Pruitt’s communications with the energy industry. The Thursday ruling comes the day before a scheduled Senate vote on Pruitt’s nomination to run the Environmental Protection Agency.

Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons of the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled that the attorney general’s office will have until Tuesday to turn over more than 2,500 emails and other documents. The watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy, with legal representation from the American Civil Liberties Union, had filed a lawsuit against Pruitt earlier this month, alleging that his office had violated Oklahoma’s open records law.

The lawsuit claimed that Pruitt, who has served as Oklahoma’s attorney general since 2011, had failed to respond to nine open-records requests seeking communications between his office and members of the fossil fuel industry, including Koch Industries, Peabody Energy and the National Coal Council. The requests had been filed as far back as January 2015.

“We are doing this because these emails should be released so that people can properly vet his record before the Senate votes to confirm him,” Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy, told Reuters earlier this month.

On Thursday, Judge Timmons criticized the attorney general’s office for its “abject failure” to abide by the open-records act, according to the watchdog group.

Pruitt, whose nomination as EPA administrator was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 2, is scheduled to face a full Senate confirmation vote on Friday, February 17th, before the release of emails.

Environmentalists and public policy groups are calling for the vote to be postponed until all his Big Oil documents have been released and can be examined.

“Senate Republicans are attempting to jam through a nominee who fails any basic test of transparency and honesty required from a public official. Has Scott Pruitt lied to the American people? What favors did he give the oil and gas industry in exchange for their support? Until we have the answers, this nomination can go no further,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, in a statement Thursday. 

Senate Democrats have also pushed for the vote to be delayed until they can review the communications demanded in the lawsuit. “These records are needed for the Senate to evaluate Mr. Pruitt’s suitability to serve in the position for which he has been nominated,” Democratic members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee wrote earlier this week.

Republicans are forcing through Scott Pruitt’s nomination while he refuses to answer @EPWDems‘ questions. We object! Americans object!

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) February 16, 2017
Trump picked the worst group of cabinet nominees in the modern history of America. But EPA nominee Scott Pruitt is the worst of the worst.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 16, 2017
Pruitt, who sued the EPA 13 times as attorney general, has been heavily scrutinized for his ties to the energy industry. Since 2002, he’s received more than $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel sector. As attorney general, he’s been accused of prioritizing industry interests over the health and wellbeing of the environment and his constituents.

In 2014, The New York Times reported that Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general had formed an “unprecedented, secretive alliance” with major oil and gas companies to undermine environmental regulations. Pruitt also joined industry players ― including Oklahoma Gas and Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, an industry-backed nonprofit ― in filing lawsuits to stop regulations.

Hundreds of former and current EPA officials have urged the Senate to refuse to confirm him. Almost 800 former EPA staffers signed a letter expressing their opposition. The New York Times reported Thursday that droves of employees at the agency have been calling on their senators to vote “no.”

“It is rare,” James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, told the Times about the wave of activism from EPA employees. “I can’t think of any other time when people in the bureaucracy have done this.”

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Elizabeth Twp. includes Monongahela & Youghiogheny Rivers

Facing opposition, Invenergy eyes second site for Elizabeth gas plant, southeast of Pittsburgh

From an Article by Daniel Moore, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 7, 2017

Facing a lengthy legal dispute with Elizabeth Township, a Chicago-based energy developer wants to move its proposed natural gas-fired power plant to what it hopes will be a less contentious plot of land.

Invenergy, which has for more than a year pursued putting a 550-megawatt plant in the township, is offering Elizabeth commissioners a deal: It will drop its court challenge if they allow the plant to go forward on the site of a scrap yard, roughly 10 miles from the original site. The township’s zoning board rejected the original plan in June.

Nick Cohen, director of thermal development at Invenergy, said he had met with many people who were part of successfully halting the company’s efforts to begin developing the original site along the Youghiogheny River, which had been contaminated with coal sludge and industrial waste in the 1980s.

“The idea is to try to find a site that’s still in Elizabeth Township but not where the people of Mt. Vernon neighborhood will be,” Mr. Cohen said, referring to the community closest to the site proposed last year.

Mr. Cohen said he believes the plant has plenty of backers — the company submitted the names and addresses of nearly 500 supporters as evidence in its court challenge — but hopes the move could help win over more.  “We’ve heard from a lot of the opposition,” he said. “There’s no doubt they’re a force in the township.”

Mr. Cohen was scheduled to appear at a commissioners’ meeting Monday night to share the company’s change of plans. The new site, he said, will be on a property currently owned by Casturo Iron & Metal, a McKeesport company, and used as a junkyard.

The new site is zoned rural-residential, according to county zoning maps, and Mr. Cohen acknowledged the company would have to again seek a change in zoning.

It’s unclear to what extent opponents, some of whom organized under the name Protect Elizabeth Township, would be appeased by the move. The site change would not negate the damage a plant would do to the environment, said Krissy Kasserman, Youghiogheny Riverkeeper.

“Regardless of location, a gas-fired power plant like this has no place in Elizabeth Township,” said Ms. Kasserman, who oversees protection of the entire Youghiogheny watershed. “It’s a residential area. There are a lot of homes nearby. The concerns we had about the Fiore property are the same concerns we have about this property.”

Hearings in the company’s lawsuit, filed in July against the zoning board, have been postponed at least twice.  “We’re committed to Elizabeth Township because there are a lot of people who want to see the benefits,” Mr. Cohen said.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net