Overnight Energy: Dems unveil first bill toward goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 | Oversight panel asks EPA for plans on 'forever chemicals' | EPA finalizes rule easing chemical plant safety regulations

Overnight Energy: Dems unveil first bill toward goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 | Oversight panel asks EPA for plans on 'forever chemicals' | EPA finalizes rule easing chemical plant safety regulations

ZERO BY 2050: Democrats unveiled the first major piece of legislation in their effort to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with a bill that would first push government agencies to reach the goal.

Dubbed the 100 Percent Clean Economy Act, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to oversee the effort which would be undertaken across the government. It tasks each federal agency with using its authority to reach the net-zero goal, using "a substantial change from business-as-usual policies."

"The Federal Government can and must play a leading role in global efforts to minimize climate change and to mitigate its worst effects. By achieving a 100 percent clean economy by 2050, the United States can take a critical step toward meeting that obligation," the bill states.


The bill is the first in what may be several pieces of legislation dedicated to Democrats' goal of reaching a green economy by 2050--a vision they outlined in July and promised to deliver by the end of the year. 

Read more here


Happy Thursday! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill's roundup of the latest energy and environment news. 

Please send tips and comments to Miranda Green, mgreen@thehill.com and Rebecca Beitsch, rbeitsch@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @mirandacgreen, @rebeccabeitsch and @thehill.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.




Yes, it appears 'forever chemicals' are holding up the defense bill: Plans to finish negotiations on the annual defense policy bill by the end of the week are being tripped up by continued impasses over President TrumpDonald John TrumpNational Archives says it altered Trump signs, other messages in Women's March photo Dems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Democratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' MORE's border wall, Space Force and cancer-linked "forever chemicals."

Comments from the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Thursday indicate wide gaps remain on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), despite both saying earlier in the week they expected to finish negotiations by the end of the week. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeSenators take oath for impeachment trial Trump, Democrats set for brawl on Iran war powers Senators see off-ramp from Iran tensions after Trump remarks MORE (R-Okla.) said he remains hopeful of reaching an agreement in principle, but House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithOvernight Defense: Foreign policy takes center stage at Democratic debate | House delivers impeachment articles to Senate | Dems vow to force new vote on Trump's border wall House Armed Services chairman exploring options to stop Trump from taking .2B in DOD funds for wall Pelosi set to send impeachment articles to the Senate next week MORE (D-Wash.) was less optimistic.

"I don't know, it's getting more difficult," Smith said Thursday when asked about finishing negotiations this week.

What does that mean for PFAS? Inhofe, meanwhile, said he's received a letter from House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Trump chooses high-profile but controversial legal team Trump: Impeachment timing intended to hurt Sanders MORE's (D-Calif.) staff saying she would not bring a bill to the House floor without provisions related to a class of chemicals abbreviated as PFAS, which have been leaching into the water supply near military sites.

"A staffer of Pelosi today said that without something in the bill that's not going to be in the bill she's will not bring it to the floor," Inhofe said Wednesday.

"If that doesn't work to her liking, then she won't let us vote on the bill," Inhofe reiterated Thursday.

Pelosi's office denied the existence of a letter.

"There are multiple open items outstanding on the NDAA. Negotiations continue," a Democratic leadership aide said. "We are not going to negotiate through the press." 

Read more about NDAA and PFAS here


The NDAA standoff comes as Dems push for answers from EPA: Democrats on the House Oversight and Reform Committee are asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to turn over documents showing how the agency plans to regulate a cancer-linked chemical that has been leaching into the water supply across the country.

The chemical, abbreviated as PFAS, is widely used in a number of nonstick products like cookware and raincoats. One study found that 99 percent of those tested had PFAS traces in their blood, and it's been deemed a "forever chemical" due to its persistence in both the body and the environment.


It's also been found in the water supply in nearly every state in the country, leading to health issues for people who have been exposed.

In a letter from Reps. Harley RoudaHarley Edwin RoudaOvernight Energy: Appeals court tosses kids' climate suit | California sues Trump over fracking | Oversight finds EPA appointees slow-walked ethics obligations Oversight finds EPA political appointees slow-walked ethics obligations Bloomberg's congressional endorsers grow to three MORE (D-Calif.) and Dan KildeeDaniel (Dan) Timothy KildeePelosi digs in on impeachment rules fight Pelosi faces decision on articles of impeachment Trump shocks, earns GOP rebukes with Dingell remarks MORE (D-Mich.), Democrats argue the agency is taking too long to take action on the substance.

"With EPA's end-of-year deadline quickly approaching for proposed regulation of these toxic 'forever chemicals' it has become increasingly apparent that America's water will not be cleaned without immediate federal action," they wrote.

Rouda and Kildee said lobbying efforts from PFAS manufacturers "have raised serious concerns that EPA will not take action to regulate this toxic 'forever chemicals' by the end of the year."

The two are asking the EPA to turn over a list of all stakeholders, including PFAS manufacturing lobbyists, that the agency has consulted with in weighing regulation.

Read more here



Meanwhile, House Dems are also looking at their own legislation: The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday forwarded major legislation that would target a cancer-linked chemical that is leaching into the water supply, PFAS. The sweeping legislation combines 11 different bills that would bolster monitoring of PFAS while forcing stronger EPA regulation of the substance.

The bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to set a drinking water standard for PFAS. Currently the agency is weighing whether to do so -- a decision the agency said earlier this month they are still committed to making by the end of the year.

The EPA has only issued a voluntary recommendation that water contain no more than 70 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS. 

Read more about the bill here


THE LATEST ROLLBACK: Chemical plants will be less burdened by safety regulations under a new rule finalized by the Trump administration Thursday.

Under the finalized tweaks to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk management program (RMP), chemical plants will be rid of what officials determine to be "unnecessary regulatory burdens," aligning with the wishes of the chemical industry.


"Accident prevention is a top priority of the EPA and this rule promotes improved coordination between chemical facilities and emergency responders, reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens, and addresses security risks associated with previous amendments to the RMP rule," EPA Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerOvernight Energy: Schumer votes against USMCA, citing climate impact | Republicans offer details on their environmental proposals | Microsoft aims to be carbon negative by 2030 Schumer votes against USMCA, citing climate implications EPA appeals board is unconstitutional without reform MORE said in a statement Thursday.

The EPA first proposed the changes to its RMP, a regulation meant to reduce the risks of chemical plant disasters, in May 2018. 

The proposal to tweak the rule aligns with the wishes of the chemical industry, which argued that the previous January 2017 regulatory changes by the Obama administration were too expensive and unnecessarily burdensome. Obama beefed up the RMP regulations in the wake of the 2013 fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, which killed 15 people.

"In fact, accident rates in states that had adopted burdensome elements in the RMP Amendments rule show less decline in accident rates than RMP facilities nationwide under the original rule," EPA's press release read. "Thus, there was little data supporting the claimed benefits of the RMP Amendments."

The plan, also known as the chemical disaster rule, is part of a suite of disaster prevention measures developed by EPA. The Clean Air Act mandates that facilities storing specific chemicals must adhere to the RMP. The first plan was developed in 1996, and nearly 12,500 facilities across the country are regulated under the RMP.

Read more about the reg here



In the Sierra, scientists bet on 'survivor' trees to withstand drought and climate change, the Los Angeles Times reports. 

New Jersey ramps up targets as it looks to go big on offshore wind energy, CNBC reports.

In a first for Massachusetts, Brookline votes to ban oil and gas pipes in new buildings, the Boston Globe reports.

Endangered red panda escapes zoo in south-east France, BBC News reports.


ICYMI. Stories from Thursday...

Democrats unveil first bill toward goal of net-zero emissions by 2050

Deal on defense policy bill proves elusive

Oversight Democrats ask EPA to turn over plans for regulating toxic 'forever chemicals'

EPA finalizes rule easing chemical plant safety regulations

Trump's NOAA pick withdraws, cites health

Supreme Court weighs lawsuit pitting climate scientist against skeptics