Daily on Energy: Ryan Zinke shifting Interior Department into an energy agency

Not just royalties: The committee will not be focused solely on royalties, DeVito said. The panel will examine “every financial aspect — the broad spectrum” of issues affecting energy development on public lands and seek to “improve it.”

A force to reckoned with: The committee looks to be “a force under the energy-dominant strategy,” DeVito said. Improving the energy economy will improve the economy for all Americans, he added. Not only will the committee be making recommendations, but it will handle implementation on policy, much like a company would. And that could occur very quickly, he noted.  

Running government like a business: “This is a business committee, this is our board, our shareholders are the American people,” DeVito said. He said the panel could implement policy as soon as “tomorrow,” if need be, noting the recent opening of the Berwind Coal Mine that straddles both Virginia and West Virginia as the kind of action the panel would oversee.

The nominees are: Michael Dourson to run the agency’s chemical office; Matt Leopold to be general counsel; David Ross to run the water office; and William Wehrum’s contentious bid to be the EPA’s top air official. The committee also will consider Jeffery Baran’s renomination to another five-year term on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Wehrum under fire: Democrats have targeted Wehrum, an energy industry lawyer and former EPA official who would oversee a portfolio dealing with climate change regulations. It’s widely considered the second most important EPA job, and Democrats say Wehrum’s industry ties would complicate his ability to re-evaluate carbon emissions regulations that Pruitt has tapped for review.

‘Not a good choice’: Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee, refused to introduce Wehrum, who is a Delaware native, at the hearing.

“He is a good person, but he is not a good choice for this job,” Carper said in his opening remarks.  

Who’s who of clients: Wehrum’s clients have included the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Follow the leader: Wehrum in his opening statement suggested he would be faithful to the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.

“President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have set a clear agenda that I intend to implement if confirmed to this position,” Wehrum said. “The president has issued executive orders that will eliminate needless and burdensome regulations, simplify and streamline compliance obligations, and strike a better balance between the twin goals of protecting human health and the environment and promoting the economic vitality of the nation.”

Dourson also targeted: Dourson has faced scrutiny for his ties to the chemical industry, which he would be expected to regulate. The New York Times reported Dourson founded a consulting group that represented companies that produced chemicals now under EPA review for their public health risks.

Industry ties, science skeptic: Carper said he was “troubled” by Dourson’s record. “Never before has a nominee [for this role] had such deep ties to industry, and recommended industry standards thousands of times less protective than those recommended by regulators,” Carper said.

The Delaware senator invited people who have suffered from exposure to hazardous chemicals to the hearing.

Vow to protect public: Dourson tried to assure critics. “I will dedicate my mind, body and spirit to the work of this office, to working with its staff, to the protection of the American public and its environment from overexposure to pesticides and chemicals,” he said in his opening statement.

Working on ‘package’ of reforms’: Bishop, speaking at an event at the Heritage Foundation with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said he is working on a “broader package” to reform the Antiquities Act to set “reasonable limits” on its future use and “restore it to its original intent.”

Size matters: Bishop has long been critical about how recent presidents, especially former President Barack Obama, have used the Antiquities Act to protect larger and larger swaths of federal land. Bishop noted that the two most recent national monuments in his home state of Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, which was created by President Bill Clinton, total more than 3.2 million acres.

A process issue: “The real issue here isn’t about the ability to create or modify national monuments,” Bishop said. “The issue is that Congress never intended to give one individual the power to unilaterally dictate land management practices for enormous swaths of public lands.”

‘Encouraged’ by Zinke review: Bishop said he is “encouraged” by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review of 27 national monuments, as the Trump administration weighs reducing the size of some of them.

Reminder: Zinke issued a report to Trump in August with his recommendations, but the president has not announced how he will act. According to a memo leaked to the media, Zinke recommended shrinking or changing the boundaries of six national monuments, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, and proposed management changes to four others that could reopen areas to logging, cattle grazing and commercial fishing.

‘Public needs to know’ about potential violations: “Ethical guidelines are on the books to promote transparency and responsible use of taxpayer dollars,” Bishop said. “Federal officials should be held to the highest ethical standard in adhering to these rules. When violations occur, the public deserves to know. When willful violations occur, there should be consequences. When partisan opportunists conflate diligent conformance to scandal, no one wins. Let’s get all facts on the table, ensure taxpayers are protected and proceed with the people’s business.”

Policy review: Bishop and Westerman are requesting documents regarding Interior Department policies and guidelines for secretary travel when using “government-owned, rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.” The lawmakers also want to see how current policies compare to the past. They ask for documents showing “each use of a government-owned, rented, leased, or chartered aircraft by the secretary of the Department of the Interior since Jan. 20, 2009,” the day of Obama’s first inauguration.

How we got here: The Interior Department’s inspector general said Monday that it has started an investigation into Zinke’s use of military and chartered flights. Politico reported last week that Zinke spent $12,000 for non-commercial travel that included speaking to a professional sports team owned by a former campaign contributor.

Not flying solo: Zinke is one of several Cabinet officials to be caught up in the scandal over misuse of public funds for the use of chartered and military flights. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price on Friday afternoon was forced to resign for taking dozens of chartered flights costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Zinke on Friday morning called the issue “a little B.S.”

Graham gives keynote: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who last month endorsed a carbon tax, will give a keynote speech on Thursday. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is looking to introduce new energy efficiency legislation, is also scheduled to address the summit.

Getting bigger: Michele Combs, who is organizing the summit, said she expects this year’s event to be the largest in three years.

“This is our third annual summit, and it gets bigger and bigger every year,” she said. The first year, they had about 300, about 400 in 2016, and this year she expect 500-600 attendees.

The agenda includes a number of clean energy groups, including the American Wind Energy Association and the hydrogen fuel cell groups, as well as solar.   

Try again: “This is quite a misguided effort they need to put back to the shop,” said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla. “Clearly [the Trump administration] are favoring fuel sources that are less competitive today. This will cost consumers dearly.”

Reminder: Perry on Friday asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to create regulations that would change regional power market pricing to reward the “reliability and resilience attributes” of plants that have 90 days of fuel supply on site, which many took to mean nuclear, coal and hydropower.

Tipping the scales: Lawmakers, like the many in the wider energy industry, worry the proposal would upset the last two decades of electricity generation, which have been marked by free competition and little intrusion by the federal government. As coal and nuclear power lose out to cheaper natural gas and renewable power sources such as wind and solar, Castor said the Energy Department shouldn’t be placing bets.

Outdated policy: “I would say the true threat to resiliency is the Trump administration’s allegiance to the policies and the fuel mix of 50 years ago,” Castor said.

Playing politics: Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, appearing at a separate House Science Committee hearing, suggested Perry may be “redefining grid resiliency to accomplish a political agenda.”

Republicans mum: Most Republicans at the hearings avoided directly weighing in on the Perry proposal, instead assuring their support of a generic “all of the above” energy strategy. The few who defended Perry’s plan did so indirectly, with caveats.

Coal in the ‘trash heap.’ “I will confess my district has a lot of natural gas and coal,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., at the Energy and Commerce hearing. “If we were going to a market policy 10 years ago that many are advocating today, wind and solar and even battery storage would be in a lot different position because the market kings would have been the forces that are now being characterized as 50 years old. And to now have those particular fuel sources castigated to the trash heap of history without recognizing the huge investments that our ratepayers have put into those, that creates some interesting issues.”

What Perry wants, Perry doesn’t get: Perry wanted to give 45 days to respond, which infuriated the coalition, which thought nothing less than 90 days would suffice.

Complexity demands more time: “Given the importance and complexity of this issue, we recommend that the commission provide 90 days for interested parties to provide initial comments on the [notice of public rulemaking] and 45 days for reply comments. At a minimum, the commission should provide for a comment period of not less than 60 days,” the coalition said in its Tuesday afternoon filing.

IT’S NOT EASY BEING OBAMA’S EPA CHIEF: Obama’s EPA chief said she is having a hard time watching the Trump administration repeal the regulations she helped spearhead.

“It’s not easy for me to watch, but I’m not despairing in any way,” said Gina McCarthy in an interview with High Country News published Monday. She is taking refuge in the idea that states will pick up the slack, especially on climate change.

What really gets her down: She said the Trump administration’s approach to tearing down Obama’s entire environmental record is a bit hamfisted, suggesting it should be more selective in its approach.  “It’s pretty clear they haven’t really been selective in their thinking, and perhaps that’s the most discouraging thing,” McCarthy said.

“I’d say that the current administration is really relooking and reconsidering just about every decision that’s been made under the Obama administration, and I think they’ve made it clear that they want to rethink all the climate efforts.”

FOIA filing: The free-market think tank said it filed a Freedom of Information Act request, or FOIA, with the State Department on Aug. 31 to obtain correspondence between a pair of former Obama officials and two environmental groups.

Who’s targeted: The group wants the communications of Todd Stern, who led the U.S. negotiating team for the Paris Agreement, and Sue Biniaz, who served as the lead climate lawyer for the State Department for more than 25 years. CEI asked for emails and text messages between Stern and Biniaz, and two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The claim: CEI, suing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says it wants the court to force the State Department to provide the documents, because the agency has not notified the think tank whether it will comply with the request “within the statutory deadline of 20 working days.”

Not their first rodeo: CEI has been the subject of legal complaints itself related to its climate change research. Last year, the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands issued a subpoena of CEI, seeking documents to confirm if the think tank collaborated with Exxon Mobil to play down the effects of climate change.

The attorney general, Claude E. Walker, later revoked the subpoena after CEI claimed he was violating the think tank’s free speech rights.

“When we consider American business as a partner, as opposed to an adversary, we can achieve better environmental outcomes,” Pruitt said.

Smart approach: The new program was started as the pro-business “Smart Sectors” initiative, which will seek to form relationships between the EPA and a number of key business sectors.

Change the narrative: “The previous administration created a narrative that you can’t be pro-business and pro-environment,” Pruitt said. “This program is one of the many ways we can address that false choice and work together to protect the environment.”

Continuing work after deadline: The agency is “continuing to work closely with the states to work through the designations process for the 2015 ozone standard,” said EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman in an email to the Washington Examiner.

Green anger: A number of environmental groups criticized the EPA, saying it is legally obligated to meet the rules by issuing specific information on which areas of the country exceed the pollution standards and must develop strategies to comply with the caps.

Court decision: The EPA had attempted to delay the rules by one year, but a court ruling forced the agency to continue with the regulations. The EPA agreed to abide by the end of Monday.

It’s all fine: Bowman’s statement suggests that the agency thinks it’s is fine to continue deliberating with states on which areas would exceed the standards, which critics say are so strict that many of the U.S.’ park lands would not be able to comply.

Manufacturers and the oil industry argue that most states have not met the 2008 rules for cutting ozone and should be allowed to do that before stricter regulations are imposed. The manufacturers say the strict ozone rules would limit development and economic growth in many of the nation’s regions, especially its metropolitan areas.

Their plan: The group, led by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced a bill that would use excess funds from the Abandoned Mine Land Fund, meant for mine cleanups, and borrow Treasury Department money to pay for retired miners’ pensions each year. The new bill, called the American Miners Pension Act, protects the pensions of nearly 87,000 current beneficiaries and another 20,000 eligible coal miners with vested pensions.

Second chance: Congress this year approved legislation guaranteeing healthcare benefits to about 22,600 coal miners and their families whose companies faced bankruptcy. But the agreement did not address the miners’ pension fund, which is near insolvency.

Bipartisan support: Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Reps. David McKinley, R-W.Va, Peter Welch, D-Vt., and David Norcross, D-N.J., joined Manchin in introducing the legislation. Similar bills on miners’ pensions have seen strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but Republican leaders never brought the legislation for a floor vote.