HAPPY TUESDAY!!! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news. Please send tips and comments to Rebecca Beitsch at rbeitsch@thehill.com. Follow her on Twitter: @rebeccabeitsch. Reach Rachel Frazin at rfrazin@thehill.com or follow her on Twitter: @RachelFrazin.

Signup for our newsletter and others HERE. 

Programming note: Wednesday, December 23 will be the last edition of Overnight Energy this year. We’ll be back on January 4, 2021! Have a great holiday season!!! 

ADVERTISEMENT

UNDER WATER: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday finalized a rule that will speed notification to homeowners who are drinking lead-tainted water but does not force cities to move more quickly to replace the lead pipes that deliver it.

The agency’s new lead and copper rule was a top priority for EPA Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerOVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA revises lead rule, sidestepping calls for more stringent standards | In massive energy investments, some see just a start OVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA revises lead rule, sidestepping calls for more stringent standards | In massive energy investments, some see just a start EPA revises lead rule, sidestepping calls for more stringent standards MORE, who once called water quality one of the most pressing issues for the agency given that “most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out.”

“Today, the U.S. is announcing the first major update of the lead and copper rule in nearly 30 years. This historic action strengthens every aspect of the lead and copper rule, and will help accelerate reductions of lead in drinking water to better protect our children and communities,” Wheeler said in an event to roll out the rule.

The rule for the first time requires monitoring for lead at primary schools and child care centers and requires cities to notify residents of potential lead exposure within 24 hours. But it doesn’t enact the stricter limit on lead levels in water that advocates argue is necessary to protect health.

It also decreases the speed at which utilities will be on the hook to replace the lead service lines that connect homes to the water supply — a move critics say means lead tainted pipes will remain underground for another 30 years.

“It’s a do nothing rule,” said Betsy Southerland, director of the Office of Science and Technology at the EPA’s Office of Water during the Obama administration. 

“It maintains the exact same lead actions levels we had in 1991 with definitely some improvements in monitoring and notification, but it doesn’t take action on the more substantive thing of replacing more lead service lines than if they had done nothing at all.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Schools and child care centers must be tested every five years under the rule, and it also pushes utilities away from sampling methods that advocates agree may have underestimated the amount of lead present in homes.

The rule also creates a 10 parts per billion (ppb) “trigger” level, where cities would be required to reevaluate their water treatment processes and possibly add corrosion-control chemicals to city water.

But it keeps the current 15 ppb level that requires cities to begin replacing the nation’s estimated 6 million lead service lines that connect homes to city water supplies — the underlying source of lead contamination. 

Cities will now be required to replace just 3 percent of lead service lines each year rather than the previous 7 percent. EPA also will require cities to do the replacements for two years, rather than just one. The replacements are not required until a city detects high lead levels in 90 percent of the tested taps.

EPA has argued the rule will help ensure that more pipes get replaced by requiring cities to do a census of the lead service lines within their system and still requiring cities to replace pipes even if later testing is below the action level. 

“While the old rule, theoretically, included a 7 percent replacement rate, it was riddled with loopholes and off ramps,” Wheeler said. “We only saw 1 percent being replaced. With our new requirement of 3 percent, we’ll see three times the replacement rate under the old rule.”

The rule does require cities to do full lead service line replacements, avoiding the temporary spike in lead level that can result from cutting into a lead line and replacing only the city-owned side of the line.

But critics still don’t see the replacement figure as being stringent enough.

Read more of their critiques here. 

IN RELATED NEWS:

-The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday tightened standards for how much lead can remain as dust on surfaces such as floors and window sills after lead removal activities, in a move that environmentalists said doesn’t go far enough.

The agency argued that its move will better protect children from dangerous exposure to lead, which can damage the brain and nervous system and slow growth and development.

“This overdue regulation is yet another example of the Trump Administration’s commitment to reduce sources of lead exposure and to provide a healthier environment for our children,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a statement.

Opponents, however, pointed to agency calculations showing measurable effects on children who are exposed to lead at the level set by the new standard.

ADVERTISEMENT

“How can EPA say this designates a safe level when kids are going to be losing IQ points if they have that level of lead in their homes?” asked Eve Gartner, the managing attorney for Earthjustice’s Toxic Exposure and Health Program.

Read more on that here.

-The Flint, Mich., City Council voted to approve its $20 million contribution to a proposed $641 million settlement over lead-contaminated water in the city on Tuesday. 

Read more on that here. 

A SPARK: Monday’s passage of a spending bill that includes a number of energy and climate provisions is a big deal to the energy industry and environmental activists, though some say this is just a starting point for enacting President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenNewsom taps Shirley Weber to serve as California secretary of state White House wishes Birx well after she announces retirement Karl Rove tears into Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell over election claims MORE’s climate vision. 

Included in the legislation are provisions to reduce the use of a climate-warming pollutant, spur renewable and nuclear energy development and encourage fossil fuel producers to use technology that captures carbon emissions.

Biden called the relief bill a “down payment” on multiple crises facing the U.S.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Congress did their job this week, and I can and I must ask them to do it again next year,” he said.

The $900 billion legislation invests in almost every type of energy, including the renewables that Biden has promised to expand under his plan. But it also invests significantly in nuclear energy, an emission-free source often promoted in conservative circles but sometimes opposed by environmentalists due to its expense and toxic waste.

Though in some ways the legislation is the most significant energy bill Congress has passed in some time, there are those who stress that while Biden may have the funding, he’ll still have to push to make his policies a priority.

“Not all energy funded in [the] omnibus we consider clean,” Kirin Kennedy, deputy legislative director with the Sierra Club, told The Hill, adding that the group hopes to see a strong commitment from the new administration on fossil fuels.

“When it comes to other industries, we’re going to continue to work with stakeholders to make sure mitigation things are put in place and there’s a just transition on jobs and making sure communities aren’t being contaminated, whether that’s with nuclear waste storage or other toxic waste,” Kennedy added.

But for industry groups, the bill ends a years-long battle to gain research and development funds, investments, and tax credits for technology they fear won’t be viable in the future without assistance in the present.  

And Republicans have vowed to follow through with the Biden administration to ensure that multiple types of energy get dedicated resources.

ADVERTISEMENT

“A big factor in this agreement is the recognition that we have to develop a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies, so it’s important that this legislation is implemented consistently with Congressional intent,” Science, Space and Technology Committee Ranking Member Lucas Frank LucasFrank Dean LucasOVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA revises lead rule, sidestepping calls for more stringent standards | In massive energy investments, some see just a start OVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA revises lead rule, sidestepping calls for more stringent standards | In massive energy investments, some see just a start In massive energy investments, some see just a start MORE (R-Okla.) said in a statement to The Hill. “We want this work to begin immediately.

“We’ll be conducting oversight of the incoming administration to make sure the focus stays on transformational R&D to keep the U.S. the leader in clean energy technology,” he added, referring to research and development. 

Read more on the omnibus here. 

WHAT WE’RE READING:

Norway’s Supreme Court Makes Way for More Arctic Drilling, The New York Times reports

Trump welcomed climate deniers. What now for them? E&E News reports

In last-minute move, Trump administration removes nearly 475k acres from ANWR oil lease sale, Alaska Public Media reports

US businessmen are close to exploiting Ethiopia’s oil plans in a multibillion-dollar scheme, Quartz reports

ICYMI: Stories from Tuesday and Monday night…

In massive energy investments, some see just a start

EPA tightens lead dust standards that environmentalists say don’t go far enough

Canada blocks Chinese takeover of Arctic gold mine citing national security

Flint City Council approves $20M portion of settlement over lead-tainted water

EPA revises lead rule, sidestepping calls for more stringent standards

In a court ruling hailed by health advocates, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will now have to collect data on asbestos imports into the U.S., a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

Health advocates have argued that the years-old regulations didn’t give the agency enough data to sufficiently evaluate asbestos risks to the public.

“We think that this is a public health disaster that EPA hasn’t done their job,” said Linda Reinstein, co-founder and president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which advocates for banning the substance, in a statement after the ruling.

ADVERTISEMENT

Health risks linked to asbestos exposure include lung cancer, mesothelioma and a lung disease called asbestosis. Asbestos is largely used by the chemicals industry, though Reinstein’s group says it has identified a number of household products containing the substance, including toys and a type of duct tape.

The EPA in 2018 denied a request by advocacy groups to expand the asbestos information it gathers. The agency said at the time that through its research and stakeholder outreach, it believes it “is aware of all ongoing uses of asbestos and already has the information.”

Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, disagreed, writing this week that asbestos-containing products that the agency identified during the rulemaking process “appear to be only the tip of the iceberg.”

He argued that gaps in the agency’s information make it so that the models it uses to evaluate the risk of asbestos don’t have the ability to “make accurate assessments that capture all ‘reasonably available’ data.”

Agency data is used in its rulemaking regarding asbestos.

Last year, the EPA promulgated a rule that it said would limit uses of the substance; critics questioned why the agency didn’t pursue an outright ban.

Asked about the court decision, an EPA spokesperson said Wednesday that the agency was reviewing the ruling.

Chen’s decision requires the agency to alter its Chemical Data Reporting rule to “address the information-gathering deficiencies.”

Markets on Thursday opened slightly up for a shortened Christmas Eve trading day.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average opened up 70 points, or 0.2 percent, and the S&P 500 opened up 9.4 points, or 0.3 percent. The NASDAQ was similarly up 35 points, or 0.3 percent.

Markets will close at 1 p.m. Thursday for the holiday, and will not reopen until Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The final days of December tend to be good for stock markets, in a phenomenon known as the “Santa Claus Rally.” The average return over the 7-day period over the last 70 years has been 1.33 percent, according to LPL Financial.

But drama in Washington could yet throw the Santa Rally off its trail. President TrumpDonald TrumpMcCarthy to offer UC request to revisit foreign spending in omnibus GOP senator on Trump pardons: ‘This is rotten to the core’ Trump pardons Manafort, Stone and Charles Kushner in latest round MORE implicitly raised the possibility of vetoing a mammoth, $2.3 trillion year-end funding bill, which would lead to a government shutdown Monday night, allow unemployment programs supporting millions of people to expire, and put off more federal COVID-19 relief.

On Tuesday night, he demanded that the already-passed bills be rewritten to include $2,000 stimulus checks instead of the $600 checks Congress agreed to.

The Trump administration has ordered another 100 million doses of Pfizer and BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine, Pfizer announced Wednesday.

Under the agreement, Pfizer and BioNTech will supply a total of 200 million doses to the U.S., the company said in a statement. The deliveries are expected to be completed by the end of July 2021. The deal will also give the government the option to buy up to 400 million more doses.

“With these 100 million additional doses, the United States will be able to protect more individuals and hopefully end this devastating pandemic more quickly,” Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing our work with the U.S. government and healthcare providers around the country.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Securing more doses from Pfizer and BioNTech for delivery in the second quarter of 2021 further expands our supply of doses across the Operation Warp Speed portfolio,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement.

“This new federal purchase can give Americans even more confidence that we will have enough supply to vaccinate every American who wants it by June 2021,” Azar added.

The announcement comes shortly after the Trump administration was reported to be nearing a deal to secure tens of millions more doses of the vaccine ahead of schedule.

ADVERTISEMENT

The development, which was first reported by The New York Times late Tuesday, would help the government offset an expected vaccine shortfall of more than 100 million doses by the spring as part of public health officials’ quest to vaccinate every American by the middle of next year.

Pfizer’s vaccine was the first to gain authorization for emergency use from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the first doses of which were administered to doctors, nurses and some public officials earlier this month.

The agreement would reportedly include the federal government utilizing the Defense Production Act, a decades-old law that allows the executive branch to direct private companies to make goods in times of national crisis or war. Such authorization would eliminate red tape and help Pfizer secure raw materials needed for manufacturing the vaccine.

The company estimates that if it can gain access to those materials, it can make 70 million additional doses.

Representatives for the company have been trying to broker a deal with the federal government since September, and have been frustrated by a lack of response, the Times reported.

Separately, a second vaccine made by pharmaceutical company Moderna was authorized for emergency use by the FDA last week and has been rolled out for usage as part of the government’s aggressive Operation Warp Speed program.

Operation Warp Speed is on track to vaccinate 40 million Americans by the end of the month, according to The Associated Press.

Pfizer would not confirm its ongoing negotiations with the federal government regarding additional vaccine doses.

“We continue to work collaboratively with the U.S. government to get doses of our COVID-19 vaccine to as many Americans as possible,” the company said in a statement. “The company is not able to comment on any confidential discussions that may be taking place with the U.S. government.”

President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenNewsom taps Shirley Weber to serve as California secretary of state White House wishes Birx well after she announces retirement Karl Rove tears into Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell over election claims MORE, who himself received the coronavirus vaccine this week, has pledged to continue the Trump administration’s aggressive vaccination program, vowing to immunize 100 million Americans in 100 days.

–Dominick Mastrangelo and Nathaniel Weixel contributed to this report, which was updated at 8:04 a.m.

Congress is preparing for a clash with President TrumpDonald TrumpSenators reach deal on Fed powers, setting stage for coronavirus relief passage Close to 200 organizations allegedly hacked by Russia: cybersecurity firm Trump floated naming Sidney Powell as special counsel for election fraud investigation: reports MORE over a mammoth defense bill that could result in the first veto override of his presidency, just a month before he leaves office.

Trump’s threat to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could scramble Congress’s year-end schedule; lawmakers had been hoping to leave town once they pass a forthcoming deal to fund the government and provide year-end coronavirus relief.

But leaders are warning that if Trump vetoes the bill they are prepared to return to Washington to vote on trying to override. Trump has issued eight vetoes, none of which have been successfully overridden.

ADVERTISEMENT

House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Congress passes bill to avert shutdown as coronavirus talks drag into weekend House passes two-day stopgap bill to avoid shutdown MORE (D-Md.) and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Biden’s Pentagon pick puts Democrats in a bind OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Biden taps ex-Obama chief for VA | Shutdown looms amid standoff | SCOTUS rules on rape cases in military MORE (D-Wash.) have indicated that dealing with this particular veto would be worth members flying back D.C.

“It’s not great … timing, traveling during a pandemic and all that. We do have the proxy voting here. But yes, if the president vetoes it, we will come back and vote to override,” Smith told reporters in a recent conference call.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Lawmakers expect COVID-19 relief deal soon McConnell: ‘Cooperation and focus’ needed to finalize COVID-19 deal MORE (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said that “if the House overrides, we will come back. If they sustain it with their vote, we won’t.”

Under the rules governing vetoes, Trump has 10 days, not including Sundays or the day the White House receives a bill, to veto. That means he has until Dec. 23 to veto the NDAA and kick the fight back to Capitol Hill.

If Trump drags out his veto, which lawmakers worry he will, that could set up a rare post-Christmas vote that gives Congress a tight time frame to try to override and get the defense bill, which passed with majority-proof votes initially, into law.

“It seems to me that what he’s doing is waiting until the 23rd,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Pompeo: Russia ‘pretty clearly’ behind massive cyberattack Lawmakers call for Trump to take action on massive government hack MORE (R-Okla.). “That’s just a suspicion that I have.”

ADVERTISEMENT

To successfully override Trump, both the House and Senate would need to vote before noon on Jan. 3, when the 117th Congress will start.

Because the House passed the defense bill first initially, it will need to vote first, and if it falls short, the veto effort in Congress is immediately squashed.

If the House votes to override, a first for Trump, the matter goes to the Senate, where senators say they could hold a final vote on a veto override on the morning of Jan. 3 before the 117th Congress is sworn in.

Opponents of overriding the president’s veto could drag out procedural hurdles by forcing a cloture vote, requiring the override effort to initially get 60 votes, according to the Congressional Research Service. To ultimately override in the Senate, as in the House, will require two-thirds support.

The House would need to send the veto message to the Senate by Dec. 29 to overcome any procedural hurdles and finish by Jan. 3, a Democratic House aide told The Hill.

Lawmakers had hoped a strong enough vote would dissuade Trump from vetoing the bill, which passed the House 335-78 and the Senate 84-13, with GOP senators back-channelling with the president to try to get him to back down.

And they are arguing that a recent massive hack of an IT group that contracts with the government suspected to have been carried out by the Russians only strengthens their case that the bill needs to be quickly signed into law.

“This year’s national defense bill contains over two dozen provisions that would make critical progress in cybersecurity, including provisions that would help ensure the resiliency of our nation’s nuclear command and control systems,” six House Armed Services Committee Republicans, including outgoing ranking member Mac Thonberry (Texas), incoming ranking member Mike RogersMichael (Mike) Dennis RogersCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Space Force expected to live on past Trump era Lawmakers call for Trump to take action on massive government hack MORE (Ala.) and GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Top GOP lawmakers call for Swalwell to be removed from Intelligence Committee GOP leaders pinched by pro-Trump bid to reverse election outcome MORE (Wyo.), said in a statement.

But Trump and the White House have doubled down on his threat several times, reiterating his complaints that it would not repeal a tech liability shield, would rename Confederate-named military bases and would put up roadblocks to Trump’s orders withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Germany.

The president also recently added an unspecified gripe that the NDAA is weak on China, despite the fact that the bill would create a $2.2 billion fund specifically to counter China, among other provisions aimed directly at Beijing. Those provisions have been a major selling point for the bill among Republicans.

“I will Veto the Defense Bill, which will make China very unhappy,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “They love it. Must have Section 230 termination, protect our National Monuments and allow for removal of military from far away, and very unappreciative, lands. Thank you!”

Asked this week to explain Trump’s China concerns, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed back to his demand to repeal Section 230.

ADVERTISEMENT

Neither the original House-passed defense bill nor the original Senate bill included a repeal or reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that gives online platforms liability protection for content posted by third parties while allowing them to make good-faith content moderation efforts.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Biden says Lindsey Graham is a ‘personal disappointment’ as a former colleague GOP signals no support for relief ‘down payment’ MORE (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally, introduced a stand-alone bill Tuesday that would sunset Section 230 in 2023 and spoke with Trump about the legislation this week.

“If he wants to have a debate and a vote on Section 230 I think we should do that. Is that enough to prevent him from doing the veto, I don’t know,” Graham said of their conversation.

But it’s unlikely Graham’s proposal would get a vote with Congress racing to wrap up its work for the end of the year.

An attempt to override Trump’s veto would force Republicans to pick between siding with the president, who retains a tight grip on the party’s base, or helping pass a defense bill that has been signed into law for the past 59 years.

Two GOP senators, Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleySenators reach deal on Fed powers, setting stage for coronavirus relief passage Coronavirus relief deal hinges on talks over Fed lending powers Senate GOP absences snag Trump nominees MORE (Mo.) and Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonCoronavirus relief deal hinges on talks over Fed lending powers Congress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Defense bill battle showcases 2024 GOP hopefuls MORE (Ark.), already voted against the final defense bill after supporting the Senate’s initial version. Both are members of the Armed Services Committee and considered potential 2024 presidential candidates.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I would not vote to override,” Hawley told reporters.

Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Trump signs bill to keep government open amid relief talks On The Money: Congress passes bill to avert shutdown as coronavirus talks drag into weekend | Federal Reserve fight imperils relief talks MORE (R-Wis.), who is up for reelection in 2022 and has been tying himself closely to Trump, declined to say how he would handle a veto of the NDAA.

“I’m hoping he doesn’t veto,” Johnson said, adding that it is “unfortunate” that Trump had tweeted about his veto threat.

Johnson, asked again if he would override, said,  “I’ve got to see what his veto message is.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSenators reach deal on Fed powers, setting stage for coronavirus relief passage Coronavirus relief deal hinges on talks over Fed lending powers Senate GOP absences snag Trump nominees MORE (R-Ky.) hasn’t said how he would handle a veto override attempt.

A veto would likely scramble the overwhelmingly bipartisan coalitions that helped pass the bill earlier this month. While some Democrats who voted against the defense bill have said they will flip to support a veto override, leadership is also expected to lose some Republican votes.

ADVERTISEMENT

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyCongress barrels toward veto clash with Trump Sunday shows preview: US rolls out first doses of coronavirus vaccine; Congress close on stimulus deal GOP congressman says he’s more worried about COVID-19 vaccine than disease itself MORE (R-Calif.) has said he would vote to sustain Trump’s veto, telling reporters that he didn’t believe Republicans “vote to override a veto” of a president they’ve worked with.

Graham also signaled that, for now, he wouldn’t support a veto override unless there’s “some breakthrough” in the tech fight.

“I’m going to stick with the president and his effort to get something done on 230,” he said. “If it takes using the NDAA as leverage so be it.”

The Cayman Islands has reduced the sentence for a U.S. woman who violated the island’s coronavirus protocols, BuzzFeed News reported, citing local media.

Skylar Mack, an 18-year old pre-med student a Mercer University, was sentenced to four months in jail for not following the 14-day isolation period for visitors on the island when she went to a ski competition that her boyfriend, Vanjae Ramgeet, was participating in.

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeals reduced Mack’s four-month prison sentence to two months, according to the Cayman Compass.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mack tested negative for the virus when she arrived in the Cayman Islands on Nov. 27 to visit Ramgeet, Jonathan Hughes, the couple’s attorney told NBC’s “Today” on Monday. The couple went to a jet ski event that that Ramgeet was competed in, and Mack left her electronic monitoring device at home.

The couple was initially sentenced to 40 hours of community service and a $2,600 fine after pleading guilty to disobeying COVID-19 restrictions. However, a prosecutor pushed for a harsher sentence.

Attorneys for Mack and Ramgeet appealed to the Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the Cayman Compass reported, arguing that the judge placed a heavy weight on public outrage. The Cayman News Service reported that the lawyers also said the couple had been made an example of.

Ramgeet, who was charged with aiding and abetting his girlfriend, also had his sentence reduced to two months, BuzzFeed reported. He was also stripped of his competition’s prize.

Hughes told BuzzFeed that the couple was grateful that the court decided to hear the case “with such urgency.”

“Whilst it was our hope that Skylar would be able to return home to resume her studies in January, we accept the decision of the Court and look forward to receiving its written reasons in due course,” he told the news outlet.

Mack’s grandmother Jeanne Mack told “Today” on Monday that her granddaughter was “pretty hysterical,” adding, “She cries. She wants to come home.” Jeanne Mack also said she wrote a letter to President TrumpDonald TrumpGeorgia Senate candidate Ossoff backs Trump’s call for K checks White House wishes Birx well after she announces retirement Pelosi responds to Trump: Let’s push for K checks ‘this week’ MORE asking for his help in the case.

A coalition of environmental groups is suing the Trump administration after it lifted protections for Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, expanding logging in the nation’s largest old growth forest.

The October rule from the U.S. Forest Service exempts the Tongass from the so-called Roadless Rule, a Clinton-era regulation designed to limit logging by restricting road access within forests.

Under the Trump administration’s changes, the nearly 9.4 million acres of inventoried roadless land in the Tongass would once again be considered suitable timberlands. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“The large roadless areas of the Tongass provide outstanding habitat for a remarkable diversity of wildlife. Stripping protections from this forest to allow for road construction, clear cut logging, and other destructive activities will degrade water quality, accelerate climate change impacts, and threaten local economies,” Tracy Stone-Manning, associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation, said in a release announcing the suit. “The U.S. Forest Service ignored public input from Indigenous tribes, local communities and tens of thousands of people across the country, and it violated the law. The administration left us no choice but to go to court to protect this remarkable place for future generations.” 

The suit, filed by a coalition of 13 environmental groups on behalf of several tribes, argues the Forest Service did not properly consult with Alaska tribes when making their decision or fully weigh the environmental consequences of the decision.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the Forest Service, did not respond to request for comment.

Courts have already questioned the Trump administration’s plans for the forest. In March, a U.S. district court judge wrote the agency failed to fully consider the environmental impacts of a project that opened logging in more than 1.8 million acres of the Tongass over the next 15 years. 

The suit also follows a report from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General finding that the Forest Service wrongly awarded the state of Alaska a grant to prepare their own environmental analysis for the project.

ADVERTISEMENT

The funding was improperly taken from a pot of money designed to help communities prevent and suppress wildfires. But Democrats who requested the investigation along with tribes in the area feel the money showed the Trump administration was determined to open the area without weighing Native American concerns.

“The need for this litigation is a mark of shame upon the federal government for violating the trust and responsibilities it has to the Indigenous peoples of the Tongass. It is equally a stain upon the State of Alaska which colluded with the Trump Administration to circumvent scientific analysis to achieve a desired political outcome,” said Robert Starbard, tribal administrator of the Hoonah Indian Association. 

Starbard said his association stopped coordinating with the Forest Service “when it became clear that our involvement was purely to provide political cover and lend legitimacy to a corrupted process with a preordained outcome. The Roadless Rule decision is fatally flawed and ignores the advice and expertise of the Tribal cooperating agencies and omits significant issues and concerns.”

– WWE Superstar Darren Young was included in a list of gay athletes in an article done by CNN today covering the story of NFL prospect Michael Sam coming out. Other athletes listed included UFC’s Liz Carmouche, Robbie Rogers, Brittney Griner and Jason Collins.

– There’s a good chance that tonight WWE will begin promoting the February 24th edition of RAW, which emanates from Green Bay, Wisconsin. The company is looking to get a big rating for the show, which is the post-Elimination Chamber edition of the show, as well as the night of the WWE Network launch. As noted, The Undertaker and Hulk Hogan are both expected to appear.

Details On When CM Punk WILL RETURN To WWE + Hogan/Taker WWE Return News

(Credit: F4WOnline.com)