Vanity Fair – U.S.

Can Scott Pruitt Poison the Environment Enough to Save His Job?

Bess Levin, Vanity Fair            April 5, 2018 

The future of Trump’s favorite polluter looks hazy.

The past couple months have been less than ideal for pollution enthusiast Scott Pruitt. At first, headlines about his expensive (taxpayer-funded) travel habit were mostly indistinguishable from similar scandals plaguing other Trump administration Cabinet members. More recently, however, negative stories about the anti-E.P.A. administrator have been tumbling out of his agency on a near daily basis. In the past week alone, we learned that Pruitt was living in a top lobbyist’s D.C. townhouse for just 50 bucks a night—when similar accommodations would have set him back several multiples of that rate—and just happened to approve a deal for one of his landlord’s water-polluting clients to expand a pipeline project after it had the distinction of receiving the second-biggest fine in the history of the Clean Water Act. On Monday, word leaked to The Washington Post that Pruitt’s staff had considered leasing a $100,000-a-month private jet to accommodate his luxe “travel needs”; on Tuesday, sources whispered to The Atlantic that Pruitt had bypassed the White House to give substantial pay raises to two of his closest aides.

Up until recently, it appeared that Pruitt’s job, if not safe, was at least as secure as anyone else’s in an administration in which casual corruption is a venial sin and job security hinges on the whim of a mostly unhinged president. By Wednesday, however, the White House’s stance on the Pruitt Situation seemed to have shifted markedly. For the first time, spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said publicly that “The president’s not” O.K. with the E.P.A. chief‘s actions. She also declined to confirm reports that Trump rang up Pruitt in recent days to offer support. “We’re reviewing the situation. When we have had the chance to have a deeper dive on it we’ll let you know the outcomes of that,” Sanders added. “But we’re currently reviewing that here at the White House.” To those familiar with the roundabout way that Donald Trump slowly exfoliates aides who become irritants, the chilly response looked like a kiss of death.

Perhaps recognizing the gravity of his situation, Pruitt attempted to control the damage Wednesday, with mixed results. “I’m dumbfounded that that’s controversial,” he told the Washington Examiner, referring to his lobbyist-sponsored living situation. Asked by Fox News if the arrangement contradicted Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp,” Pruitt acted shocked: “I don’t think that that’s even remotely fair to ask that question.” In other interviews, he suggested that the leaks are part of a liberal plot against him, with his enemies willing to “resort to anything” to stop him from deconstructing Obama’s environmental regulatory regime. Speaking to The Washington Times, Pruitt said he was under attack by a “bastion of liberalism,” which apparently forced him to sign a rental agreement that virtually anyone could’ve told him was ethically problematic at best. In Axios, an unnamed Pruitt defender appeared to channel his view of the world, telling the outlet that “this is really about ideology, driven by folks on the left who don’t like” his agenda, and that the bad press is allegedly coming from a recently dismissed political appointee. (That person, when contacted by Politico, denied the accusations and suggested that the E.P.A. is trying to deflect attention by attacking people who have questioned Pruitt’s decisions.)

Over at the White House, Chief of Staff John Kelly is said to be extremely miffed he wasn’t warned in advance that Trump’s E.P.A. head was a ticking time bomb, telling Pruitt in a phone call that “the flow of negative and damning stories needed to stop.” “[It] was not a friendly buck-up call at all,” is how one administration official described the chat to the Daily Beast. Yet for all the major lapses in judgment—practically a job requirement for Trump staffers, given their track record—Pruitt still has one thing going for him: he’s been the most “effective” member of Trump’s Cabinet, which in this case means he’s proven especially adept at gutting the agency he was tasked with running 14 months back. Trump may not appreciate the negative attention Pruitt is getting—and he certainly hates the positive attention, such as a New York Times headline last month, “Scott Pruitt, Trump’s Rule-Cutting E.P.A. Chief, Plots His Political Future”—but he loves what Pruitt has done for his industry pals. “As long as [Trump] feels Pruitt is effective and on his side, he’s probably fine,” one source close to the administration told the Daily Beast.

Pruitt, for his part, made sure to lay things on particularly thick while announcing the rollback of Obama’s car emissions rules this week. “This president has shown tremendous courage to say to the American people that America is going to be put first,” he said at the gathering. With the rollbacks, Pruitt added, “the president is again saying America is going to be put first.” Time will tell whether Pruitt is still around by the time those rules go into effect.

Bloomberg

EPA Chief Denies Knowing Who Raised Aides’ Pay in Heated Fox Interview

By Ari Natter     April 4, 2018

Scott Pruitt. Photographer: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a heated interview with Fox News that he doesn’t know who at the agency raised the pay of two aides in defiance of the White House — the latest controversy to engulf him.

Pruitt, in an interview aired Wednesday, said he wasn’t the one who gave the raises and “I don’t know” who did.

“It should not have been done,” Pruitt says. “There will be some accountability”

The Atlantic, citing a source it didn’t identify, reported Tuesday that Pruitt last month used a provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act to boost the salaries of two aides by tens of thousands of dollars after the White House refused to go along with raises he had proposed.

Pruitt has been under fire over revelations that he rented a Capitol Hill condo from the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist whose firm has clients regulated by the EPA. The unconventional lease terms permitted Pruitt to pay $50 only on days his bedroom in the unit was actually occupied — with a total of $6,100 in payments over a roughly six-month period last year.

An EPA ethics adviser said the rental arrangement met federal guidelines and didn’t violate a gift ban.

Pruitt said he didn’t know who authorized the pay raise when pressed by Fox News’ correspondent Ed Henry over whether he would hold accountable the person who authorized the raise.

“You don’t know? You run the agency. You don’t know who did it?” Henry asked. “One of them got a pay raise of, let’s see, $28,000 the other was $56,000. Do you know what the median income in this country is?”

Pruitt said “No.”

“I found out this yesterday and I corrected the action and we are in the process of finding out how it took place and correcting it,” Pruitt responded.

— With assistance by Jennifer A Dlouhy

New York Magazine

The Daily Intellegencer

Trump Administration Declares War on California’s Environmental Standards

By Ed Kilgore           April 3, 2018 

The fight against smog was one of many factors that made California a national and global leader in environmental protection. Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

In an expansion of its war of words and lawsuits with the state of California over immigration policy, the Trump administration is issuing a dual threat to the Golden State’s right to police its own environment. One prong of this attack involves a lawsuit to invalidate a novel California law that seeks to give the state the right of first refusal for the sale of federal lands within its borders. The second renews an effort by the George W. Bush administration to revoke a long-standing waiver California has held to offer tougher Clean Air Act standards than the federal government, which has led it to adopt fuel-economy standards adopted by 12 other states (and emulated internationally).

The attempted land sale “veto,” which expands state authority over federal property to an unprecedented extent, would appear to offer the administration the best odds of a reasonably quick victory in the courts. But California’s Democratic politicians and environmental activists will ensure that Team Trump takes a beating in the court of public opinion for its eagerness to sell off public lands (roughly half the state of California) for private development.

The auto-emissions fight, however, is an old one, dating back to the days before the Environmental Protection Agency was founded and the Clean Air Act as we know it today was developed, when California, famously beset by smog, was a pioneer in environmental regulation. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments authorized waivers allowing California (and states choosing to adopt California’s standards) to exceed federal standards for air quality, including those governing automobile emissions. Subsequent administrations continued to reissue waivers, and California (usually supported by the auto industry itself) set the pace for the country and much of the world, until the Bush administration balked at a 2002 California law imposing significantly higher fuel-economy standards than it supported nationally. After formally denying renewal of the Clean Air Act waiver in 2007, the feds were tangled up in regulatory and legal actions until Barack Obama took office and called off the dogs.

What distinguishes the Trump effort from its predecessor is that the Bush administration was supporting its own less ambitious initiativeto strengthen fuel-economy standards for autos. Team Trump, led by Mr. Fossil Fuel himself, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, is trying to lower federal standards significantly. And its clientele in this revanchist effort includes oil companies fearing clean-energy cars and also an auto industry that now sees an opportunity to batten on low oil prices and the consequent consumer lust for gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.

The fight to bring back dirtier cars won’t be easy, though, as the New York Times reports:

“Even at the federal level, the president’s announcement alone will not be enough to immediately roll back emissions standards, a process expected to take more than a year of legal and regulatory reviews by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. The Trump administration would then need to propose its own replacement fuel-economy standards.”

And then the administration would face the same tough fight in the courts that eventually thwarted Bush, and with fewer possible grounds for compromise, as the Los Angeles Times notes:

“Pruitt’s legal ability to revoke California’s authority is uncertain and any such move could be tied up in court for years. In the meantime, auto companies would be faced with the complicated and costly prospect of building and selling two different sets of cars — one for California and the other states that follow its standards, and one for the rest of the country.”

The resisting states account for more than a third of all car sales. Although automakers have been hopeful some deal could be brokered, perhaps with California agreeing to weaken the more immediate targets in exchange for federal buy-in to more aggressive goals through 2030, that is looking increasingly unlikely.

Pruitt says he’s not interested in making such concessions, and California officials say they see no reason to go along with his rollback.

Indeed, Pruitt’s not sounding the least bit conciliatory:

“[Pruitt] signaled that he aimed to make California fall in line. The Obama administration, he said, “made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality, and set the standards too high.” California’s history of setting its own emissions rules “doesn’t mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Mr. Pruitt said.”

California’s strategy undoubtedly relies on the hope that the clock will run out on the Trump administration’s drive to preempt tougher fuel-economy standards because Trump himself will be evicted from office in 2020. Between now and then, however, the rhetoric will be as hot as a climate-change-driven summer day in Southern California. Governor Jerry Brown, who was attorney general of the state when it successfully fought off the Bush administration’s assault on higher fuel-efficiency standards, is accepting the call to battle:

“California Governor Jerry Brown said Monday the EPA’s decision represents a “cynical and meretricious abuse of power [that] will poison our air and jeopardize the health of all Americans.”

If the president and his people think it will help them with their “base” to pick fights with California and its alleged secular/socialist/hippie character, they’ll get their money’s worth.