acc pm 7/27

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. Maine Lists Four Phthalates As Priority Chemicals

   Jul 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has designated four phthalates as priority chemicals under the state's Toxic Chemicals in Children's Products law (CW 10 February 2015).
2. Canada Sets Reporting Requirements For Nanomaterials, Polymers

   Jul 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The Canadian government is requiring manufacturers and importers of 206 nanoscale substances to help it develop a list of nanomaterials in commerce in the country.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

3. Week Ahead: Senate Kicks off Energy Bill Review

   Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Devin Henry
   
   
   The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will begin hearings on its new bill overhauling energy policy.
4. Timing is the Element Most Likely to Change in EPA's Final Clean Power Plan

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire & Energywire

   By Jean Chemnick, Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
   
   
   In countless meetings on the Clean Power Plan with states and energy companies, the most common plea to U.S. EPA has been for more time. More time to work on plans, more time to allow coal plants to retire and more time to move toward final goals.
5. Climate Foes: Obama’s U.N. Promises Don’t Add Up

   Jul 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro

   By Andrew Restuccia
   
   
   Republicans and their conservative allies say the pledges that President Barack Obama is taking to the Paris climate change summit don’t add up.
6. Climate Deal Draft Called Both 'Masterful' and a Precursor to Chaos

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

   By Lisa Friedman
   
   
   Diplomats and environmental activists are giving mixed reviews to a new draft of a global climate accord.
7. Clinton Vows to Make U.S. 'Clean Energy Superpower'

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

   By Jennifer Yachnin
   
   
   Hillary Clinton yesterday unveiled the first portion of her presidential campaign's energy agenda, vowing an aggressive expansion of the nation's renewable energy production while taking aim at the Republican primary field over the GOP's widespread skepticism of climate science.
8. Clinton Dodges Keystone Question

   Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Timothy Cama
   
   
   Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton still won’t take a position on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.
9. Clinton Skirts Talk Of Pipeline At Event Touting Energy Plan

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Jennifer Yachnin
   
   
   Hillary Clinton today again refused to take a public position on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, even as she campaigned for a second day on her newly announced renewable energy platform.
10. Hillary Clinton Declines to Say Where She Stands on Keystone XL

    Jul 27, 2015 | Bloomberg

    By Jennifer Epstein
    
    
    Hillary Clinton declined Monday to weigh in on the Obama administration’s ongoing deliberations over the Keystone XL oil pipeline, avoiding an issue that has become a litmus test for climate activists.
11. WH: Business Buy-In A Boost For Paris Climate Talks

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    A pledge by American businesses to focus on climate-friendly practices should help boost the prospects for an international climate conference at the end of the year, the White House said.
12. Businesses Join White House Climate Push

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Ben Kamisar
    
    
    Thirteen of America’s largest companies are joining President Obama to agree to a slew of policies meant to curb the effects of climate change, the White House announced Monday.
13. Corporations Join in White House Warming Push Ahead of Paris

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick and Lisa Friedman
    
    
    Companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Bank of America will visit the White House today to announce voluntary emissions-reduction pledges to support President Obama's quest for a global agreement on climate change at the end of this year.
14. Paris Accord Means Certainty For Business -- Corporate Leaders

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    A strong international agreement in Paris this year would not only help the planet but give businesses regulatory certainty worldwide, leaders of two major multinationals said today.
15. EPA's McCarthy and Bishop Cupich of Chicago Take a Stand for Energy Efficiency

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Scott Detrow
    
    
    Weeks before the Obama administration unveils its most ambitious plan to date to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, the head of one of the United States' largest Catholic archdioceses stood side by side with U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and indirectly endorsed the effort.
16. Assistant U.S. Attorney Will Lead Bakken Strike Force

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Rick Volk, based in Bismarck, N.D., will head the Bakken Strike Force, designed to target rising crime in the Bakken Shale oil fields.
17. The Supreme Court And The Future Of Environmental Litigation

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Richard O. Faulk
    
    
    Statutory construction has endured a tortured evolution. Where once the Supreme Court’s use of administrative deference was both persistent and expected, such reasoning has attracted ever-increasing scrutiny in recent years.
18. Obama's Alaska Visit To Focus On U.N. Talks, Arctic Council

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    President Obama's visit to Alaska next month for an official event will aim for something in between an official event of the Arctic Council and messaging for the upcoming U.N. climate change conference, the State Department said.
19. More Layoffs Expected at U.S. Energy Firms — Energy Journal

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Christopher Harder
    
    
    U.S. energy companies had been counting on a rebound in crude oil prices in the second half of this year after last year’s plunge, but that hasn’t happened so far. So they’re planning more layoffs and financial maneuvers to deal with a recent, sudden drop in prices to the lowest level in four months, Lynn Cook reports.
20. Ex-Obama Aide: Energy Strategy Falls Short

    Jul 27, 2015 | USA Today

    By Bill Loveless
    
    
    With its newfound abundance of oil and natural gas, the U.S. is producing enough to meet most of its own needs and supply some to other nations.

Transportation News

21. Farm Group Sees Oil Pipelines Easing Everyone's Rail Congestion

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    An agricultural group is betting pipelines can keep grain flowing in the Upper Midwest.
22. No Country for Development: Grass-roots Group Fights to Preserve Texas' 'Last Frontier'

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Lee
    
    
    Opponents of a proposed pipeline through the pristine Big Bend area of Texas got some encouragement last week when federal regulators said they'll conduct an environmental review as part of the project.

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. Maine Lists Four Phthalates As Priority Chemicals

   Jul 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has designated four phthalates as priority chemicals under the state's Toxic Chemicals in Children's Products law (CW 10 February 2015).

   Under the new designation, distributors or manufacturers of children's products containing intentionally-added regulated phthalates must report:a description of the product;the amount and function of the substance;product sales data; and“any other information the manufacturer deems relevant to the reporting of the regulated product,” such as scientific studies or alternatives assessments.

   The rulemaking applies to the following phthalates when used in children's products:di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP);dibutyl phthalate (DBP);benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP); anddiethyl phthalate (DEP).

   Reports will be due within 180 days of the rule's 22 June effective date.

   Children's products covered include:clothing;craft supplies;building and home maintenance products;cosmetic and personal care products;household cleaning products;furniture; andjewellery.

   Used products and food and beverage packaging are not covered by the rule.

   Last year, a coalition of NGOs called on the DEP to list the phthalates as priority chemicals. The group submitted a petition with more than 2,000 signatures (CW 15 May 2014).

   This latest listing brings Maine's priority chemicals list to nine substances. The others are:bisphenol A (BPA);nonylphenol/nonylphenol ethoxylates (NP/NPE);cadmium;mercury; andarsenic (CW 2 July 2014).

   Maine selects priority chemicals from a list of 49 chemicals of high concern that it maintains. The state also lists approximately 1,400 substances as chemicals of concern.

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. Canada Sets Reporting Requirements For Nanomaterials, Polymers

   Jul 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The Canadian government is requiring manufacturers and importers of 206 nanoscale substances to help it develop a list of nanomaterials in commerce in the country.

   This would support prioritisation activities, including risk assessment and risk management.

   Those who last year manufactured, or imported, more than 100kg of the substances must report:

   the basis on which a substance was determined to be in nanoscale form;

   the total quantity manufactured or imported; and

   study titles of any published, or unpublished, data on the substance relating to: physico-chemical properties; bioaccumulation; persistence; toxicity; metabolism; degradation; and its release from the final mixture or product.

   The government is also setting reporting requirements for manufacturers and importers of certain polymers.

   Information to be reported includes:

   the total quantity of the substance manufactured, imported or used;

   the physical form of the substance when it is sold to customers;

   a description of any known, or anticipated, environmental releases;

   technical data sheets, product specification sheets and safety data sheets; and

   study titles that provide data on human health endpoints and ecological study endpoints.

   Preliminary information was collected and published in 2012 for the 603 polymers that Environment Canada and Health Canada had targeted for assessing potential health and ecological risks. The new reporting requirement applies to polymers for which further information is required, says a notice in theCanada Gazette.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

3. Week Ahead: Senate Kicks off Energy Bill Review

   Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Devin Henry

   The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will begin hearings on its new bill overhauling energy policy.

   The Energy and Policy Modernization Act, a 357-page bill to reform federal energy laws, will come before the committee on Tuesday.

   Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairwoman of the committee who sponsored the bill with ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said the panel will likely hold a second day of hearings on the bill Thursday.

   Among other things, the measure would look to speed up liquefied natural gas export application approvals, prepare the electric grid for renewable energy and improve cybersecurity measures and renew a top conservation program.

   The bill looks to increase energy efficiency standards and would end several outdated or redundant government mandates. A House subcommittee approved its version of an energy reform bill this week.

   Neither bill includes a controversial provision to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, though Murkowski said that a vote on the measure is likely within the next few weeks. The Senate Banking Committee will consider that proposal on Tuesday; Murkowski is scheduled to testify.

   Elsewhere, the Senate will continue consideration of a six-year transportation bill. The legislation calls for selling off part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for the bill.

   The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a Tuesday hearing on legislation that determines who pays for oil spills on U.S. territory.

   In the House, the Oversight Committee will hold a hearing on employee misconduct at the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday. The panel’s last hearing on the agency, in April, produced accusations of sexual harassment and on-the-job pornography viewing among employees.

   Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Stephen Burns will testify at a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on NRC licensing on Wednesday. On Thursday, the committee’s Energy subpanel will hold a hearing on power supply vulnerabilities.

   The House Natural Resources Committee’s oversight panel will hold a hearing probing law enforcement tactics on federal land on Tuesday. The full committee will hold a hearing on enforcement of the Endangered Species Act on Wednesday.

   Off Capitol Hill, Murkowski and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) will speak at an Atlantic Council event Thursday on U.S. energy production.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Timing is the Element Most Likely to Change in EPA's Final Clean Power Plan

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire & Energywire

   By Jean Chemnick, Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

   In countless meetings on the Clean Power Plan with states and energy companies, the most common plea to U.S. EPA has been for more time. More time to work on plans, more time to allow coal plants to retire and more time to move toward final goals.

   It's an easy concession for EPA -- one that could go a long way toward ensuring flexibility under the rule without undercutting climate goals, knowledgeable observers say.

   In particular, EPA has heard it should relax the rule's interim goals, which require states to reach an average emissions rate between 2020 and 2029.

   It's a "big problem, and an unnecessary problem, with respect to the real goals of this regulation," said Ken Colburn, a principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project, which advises state regulators tasked with writing carbon-cutting plans to meet state-specific targets.

   Just weeks before the release of the final rule to cut carbon emissions from the power sector, E&E reporters surveyed dozens of stakeholders on their expectations about what EPA and the White House could change. They predicted a number of revisions, many aimed at giving state more options.

   Also on the shortlist are:Tweaks to the "building blocks," or carbon-cutting measures that determined the stringency of state goals.Changes to the baseline year -- 2012 -- used to calculate state starting points.Credit for work done between the starting year and 2020.Guidance on how states could work together or trade compliance credits.A clearer explanation of which states get credit for interstate carbon-reducing efforts.A new methodology for incentivizing nuclear power.Tools to ensure grid reliability.

   Watchers are also eagerly awaiting EPA's federal implementation plan, which would be imposed on states that refuse to write their own compliance plans. That proposal could ask for comment on a number of concepts and could be released with the final rule but will likely come later.

   EPA also could simultaneously release its rule for new power plants, and many are waiting to see whether it will still suggest they should include carbon capture and storage technologies.

   The final rules will answer numerous other questions that could determine how states react and whether entire industries struggle or thrive.The right changes could 'seal the deal'

   "EPA has a wonderful opportunity to get this right" and could achieve significant support from skeptical stakeholders with the right changes to the rule, said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

   "They can seal the deal by showing that they have listened and there are some actions that they could take that cry out for change," he said.

   Foremost would be a "change to the interim compliance period, as almost every stakeholder has recommended, so that most of the initial reductions don't have to be achieved as early as 2020," Becker said.

   That would "take a tremendous amount of pressure off states and utilities to develop a compliance strategy," he said.

   A second move that would lower the political temperature around the rule would be to give states two years, rather than one, to develop an initial compliance plan, Becker said.

   He also expects EPA will fix "some of the technical problems that were included in initial proposal, especially with respect to state targets," as well as give greater credit to actions taken in earlier years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as investments in nuclear, hydro and renewables. "States should not be penalized for taking actions prior to the proposal," he said.

   Jeff Holmstead, a utility industry attorney with Bracewell & Giuliani, said "even states and companies who were supportive of EPA overall had real concerns about the interim targets and said it's just too much too soon."

   "I think all of us are expecting that the way the interim targets work will be more reasonable," Holmstead said.

   Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, said it would be fairly easy for EPA to alleviate the near-term stress of the interim goals, both technically and politically, especially now that U.N. climate negotiations are less focused on national emissions commitments that countries made for 2020 and are more concentrated on the pledges for 2025 and beyond.

   "Without suggesting a sleight of hand, I think the EPA really will want to focus on preserving the rigor -- and possibly increasing the rigor of the 2025 outcome," he said. "And if there are situations where some states need a couple of extra years to get infrastructure in place for the energy transition, it's a relatively easy give for the EPA."

   Bill Bumpers, an environmental partner in the Washington office of Baker Botts, said some states would need relief from the interim compliance period. It won't be possible for them to shift from coal to gas-fired generation as quickly as the rule envisions, he said.

   Bumpers is counsel to a utility-sector group called the Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions that had proposed that EPA let states set their own glide paths for the rule's interim period, which stretches from 2020 to 2029. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and others have all but ruled out that option.

   "I think what they might do is phase it in under a three- or five-year period," Bumpers said. Some states face very steep goals after 2020 that amount to upward of 80 percent of their final target. The agency might allow them a few extra years to ramp down to their interim target without facing the obligation of making up those reductions later in the compliance period -- as the proposed rule requires.

   Another fix is to phase in building block two -- which assesses a state's ability to shift from coal to natural gas use -- more slowly.

   "The interim cliff, the emissions cliff, is all driven by building block two," Bumpers said.

   If reductions assumed from ramping up existing gas plants to 70 percent generation capacity are phased in year after year throughout the interim period, that would allow states more time to make the transition.Some states are counting on changes

   States like Florida and Arizona have said they would be forced to push all or most of their coal plants offline by 2020 to meet that interim goal. Hard-line critics of the rule have likened the timeline to a regulatory "cliff," saying it would pull baseload power off the grid before adequate substitutes are available, raising electricity prices and risking blackouts.

   In a notice of data availability in October 2014, EPA asked for suggestions on easing the interim goals into a "glide path" by allowing credit for early reductions, since 2012.

   "Credit for action between finalization of the rule and 2020 effectively would allow for states to ease into compliance because they could start work earlier and spread it over a longer period of time," explained Matt Stanberry, vice president of market development at Advanced Energy Economy.

   States could get credit for bringing new zero-carbon power online before 2020 -- including nuclear and renewable energy -- and cutting electricity use through demand-side energy efficiency efforts.

   In that same notice, EPA asked for comment on phasing in expectations for states to generate more power from existing natural gas plants. EPA could also just ramp up to the goals more slowly.

   Holmstead noted that states have also asked for more time to submit their plans. Under EPA's draft rule, states working alone would need to submit proposals or outlines of proposals and requests for yearlong extensions by the summer of 2016.

   States working together would have until 2018 to submit plans. But many state officials have said even this extended timeline is not long enough to develop proposals, put them out for comment and, if necessary, get state legislature approval.

   Holmstead also said he doubts EPA could review and approve all the plans by the starting date of 2020, "even if everything goes swimmingly, and the courts uphold it and there are no stays and no delays."

   But the Obama administration could publish the rule now, use it for international negotiations and worry about that timeline later, Holmstead said.What will the safety valve look like?

   EPA's proposed rule issued in June 2014 did not contain a reliability "safety valve" to ensure that power plants needed to keep the lights on are protected for a limited period of time.

   Since then, a broad consensus has developed that there needs to be such a mechanism and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, among others, should be involved.

   Blair Beasley, a senior analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said EPA might not specify how the safety valve would be structured. It could instead require or strongly encourage states to consider reliability when putting their state plans together, she said.

   "I think that's one of the things people are waiting to see: how specifically EPA addresses this issue of reliability," she said.

   EPA could also make revisions to its building blocks, which would change individual state goals.

   Jonas Monast, Climate and Energy Program director at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, expects that the states with the least stringent targets will get tougher goals. The Natural Resources Defense Council has predicted all state requirements will get harder and some of the inequity of state goals could even out. The reduction in emissions rate mandated in each state ranges from 11 percent in North Dakota to 72 percent in Washington.

   "If the state emission targets changed, that means that's going to affect how the states react, what they consider to be viable compliance options," Monast said. "It'll also mean that the formula for coming up with the targets has also changed, and that's going to be important because that's going to be what the litigation's focused on."

   For example, Holmstead said, EPA could lower the 6 percent heat rate reduction that its first building block assumes plants could achieve to run more efficiently. Environmental advocacy groups have said EPA could expand that building block by looking at other improvements plants could make.

   EPA calculated renewable energy expectations for states by looking at the average renewable portfolio standards of other states in the region. Some have said EPA could instead look at what zero-carbon power is actually feasible.

   The agency could expand its natural gas expectations to look at what new plants could be built. Monast said he thinks those changes may be optional for states. He doesn't expect EPA would recalculate state goals based on how many natural gas plants they could construct.

   States have been divided over whether they think EPA's energy efficiency expectations -- a 1.5 percent energy use reduction per year -- are achievable. EPA could address that block differently, too.

   EPA was criticized for how it tried to incentivize nuclear power in the rule. Assuming that 6 percent of the nation's units were at risk of shutting down, the rule put 6 percent of a state's nuclear capacity into its baseline and final goal, hoping to encourage states to keep that amount online.

   The agency also assumed plants planned or under construction were definitely going to work out, yielding complaints from Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee, each of which awaits completion of new units. They say if the plants don't come online, they won't be able to achieve their goals.

   "The treatment of nuclear units was pretty much incomprehensible," Colburn said.

   Colburn agreed that EPA could look at the specific nuclear plants at risk. "There are few enough of them, and they could be worked readily into state baselines," he said.Accounting for renewables needs to be clearer

   States will be wondering how EPA will handle renewable power that flows across state borders and energy efficiency programs in one state that offset power use in another state, Colburn said.

   EPA compared "apples to oranges" when determining who gets credit for renewable power, Colburn said. States generating renewable power had those megawatts included in their baseline, making their goals look easier to achieve. But states purchasing the renewable energy credits associated with that power will likely be able to take credit for it in 2030, he said.

   Air regulators in many states have been discussing "trade ready" programs for states that are short of their goals to purchase compliance credits for renewable energy or energy efficiency from other states.

   Whether EPA offers guidance on how states can trade in a market-based system depends on "how determinative EPA is willing to be in a situation where it can't really tell states what to do," Colburn said.

   But he said any information on multi-state coordination and trading could come after the final rule, as supplemental information.

   "We can't expect that EPA will answers all the questions for all time in this final rule," he said. "This is the first waffle."

   Environmental advocacy groups and conservative utilities alike have praised EPA for its outreach effort.

   But Conrad Schneider, advocacy director at the Clean Air Task Force, cautioned that active listening isn't always a sure sign that EPA will make requested changes.

   EPA has heard from "diametrically different" positions, and "they can't accommodate everybody," he said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Climate Foes: Obama’s U.N. Promises Don’t Add Up

   Jul 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro

   By Andrew Restuccia

   Republicans and their conservative allies say the pledges that President Barack Obama is taking to the Paris climate change summit don’t add up.

   It’s simple math, they argue: The rules and regulations cited by the Obama administration in a March roadmap fall short of the pollution cuts needed to reach the president’s 2025 climate change target.

   “This doesn’t add up, and we shouldn’t be going into an international negotiation with something that we can’t back up here at home,” said Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

   The accounting-focused strategy is meant to raise doubts in foreign capitals about whether the United States can live up to its international climate commitments. Obama has pledged that the U.S. will shrink its carbon dioxide emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, a plan that will require a long-term commitment to low-carbon energy sources — and which could be tossed aside by a Republican president.

   But Obama administration officials argue that their 2025 target is both ambitious and achievable — and they insist that the president’s climate agenda will set the United States on a path toward meeting the goal.

   “We are confident that full implementation of the president’s Climate Action Plan will allow us to deliver against our 2020 goal and provide a solid foundation to deliver against the 2025 goal,” an administration official said.

   The official signaled that reaching the United States’ climate goals will require action by future administrations.

   “All countries will require sustained leadership on climate to achieve their long-term targets,” the official said.

   Obama’s climate agenda includes pending rules to cut emissions from power plants and other sources, as well as a raft of energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives.

   It’s difficult to put forward a blow-by-blow, detailed accounting of exactly how the administration will meet the 2025 target, the administration official added, because several key regulations, such as the EPA’s climate rules for power plants, have not yet been finalized.

   There are several other factors that could affect the U.S. ability to reach the target that are outside the administration’s control, such as the weather, economic growth and the pace of technological advances.

   There’s another reason the administration may be reluctant to detail how it can meet the target: it would require tipping its hand about potential future climate regulations that have yet to even be proposed.

   Supporters of the international effort to combat climate change say it’s possible to meet the 2025 target with an ambitious long-term strategy that will require more aggressive action both from the Obama administration and future presidents.

   A May analysis published by the World Resources Institute, for example, says the U.S. can meet the 2025 target if it strengthens pending climate regulations for power plants, boosts fuel economy standards for vehicles, establishes emissions rules for new airplanes and scales up energy efficiency, among other things.

   “We’ve been careful not to imply that we can just coast to achieving this target. If that were true, the international community wouldn’t look on it favorably,” said Karl Hausker, a senior fellow at WRI and lead author of the report, in an interview. “[Meeting the target] is doable. It’s going to be hard. It’s ambitious, but it is doable.”

   But conservatives say WRI is being overly optimistic.

   The Chamber’s Eule is one of a number of right-leaning energy experts who have led the charge to undercut the 2025 target. He argued in May that the measures included in the administration’s climate road map would fall about 33 percent short of Obama’s target.

   “The Obama administration is trying to set U.S. climate policy for the next 10 years or so. Well, it doesn’t work that way,” Eule told POLITICO, adding that a future administration is under no obligation to continue Obama’s policy agenda.

   Eule made his case earlier this week during a panel discussion for representatives from foreign embassies. And other critics of the administration’s climate plan confronted Rick Duke, the deputy director for climate policy at the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, at a May WRI event about the target, asking why the administration hadn’t released more detail on how it will reach the target.

   Conservatives have at least one green-minded official in their corner. David Bookbinder, who formerly served as the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel and has more recently represented the natural gas industry, also argued that the administration’s road map doesn’t get the U.S. to the 2025 target.

   In an April analysis published by the libertarian Niskanen Center, he projected that the administration’s policies will leave the country 330 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, or 28 percent, short of the 2025 target.

   He argued that it’s unlikely EPA’s climate regulations for power plants will result in big emissions cuts by 2025, given the rule’s implementation timelines and the legal battle it will face. And he said a future administration could easily undercut the regulations by pushing out those timelines even further.

   “It’s arithmetic,” Bookbinder said in an interview.

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Climate Deal Draft Called Both 'Masterful' and a Precursor to Chaos

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

   By Lisa Friedman

   Diplomats and environmental activists are giving mixed reviews to a new draft of a global climate accord.

   The 83-page blueprint unveiled Friday is just slightly scaled back from a previous, unwieldy version and a far cry still from the lean, mean agreement that leaders from 194 countries hope to sign in Paris in December.

   But the co-chairs of the U.N. climate body charged with designing the text did achieve a technical yet critical feat: delineating what information will likely be in a core legal deal that could last for years, and what should be in a separate decision spelling out the processes countries will need to develop in order to set the agreement in motion.

   "The Co-Chairs' new document presents a clearer picture of the possible final outcome, while not omitting any of the options put forward by the parties," officials with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change said in a statement.

   The Paris agreement is aimed at keeping global average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees above preindustrial levels and making all countries responsible for meeting that global goal. As part of that, nations have been submitting emissions targets, known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), that will form the heart of the new accord.

   But the targets are actually just a sliver of what the Paris deal will entail. The complicated legal document, while now somewhat streamlined, continues to be riddled with brackets indicating hundreds of areas where countries disagree.

   "This now creates a structure [negotiators] need to start choice-making," said David Waskow, director of the World Resources Institute's International Climate Initiative. The new text, he said, "laid out many of the key issues that parties will have to make."

   "They've made reasonable suggestions, and they got the conversation started in a helpful way," he said.

   Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed.

   "It's actually masterful the way they've parsed the issues," he said, calling a section outlining what will likely go in the core agreement as "within shooting distance of the 15- to 20-page ultimate agreement that people have been talking about."A document that creates new problems?

   Separating out the legal agreement from the supporting decisions is bureaucratic but critical work. Analysts described the main document as the place for broad agreements about things like the objective of the accord and what will be expected of various countries.

   For example, the core instrument may call for a common method for all countries to monitor, report and verify their emissions cuts -- one of the options in fact offered by the co-chairs. The supporting decision, meanwhile, would spell out the steps that countries will need to develop to make that happen.

   Not everyone was optimistic about the draft. Greenpeace head of negotiations Martin Kaiser in a statement called it "a good effort" but said it has a long way to go.

   "It cannot be a circus-tent for the Paris performers but rather an airtight mandate which forces politicians to produce the necessary policies needed for a just energy transformation for a healthy population and a healthy planet," he said.

   And one person close to the negotiations told ClimateWire there was a worry that by reorganizing the text into new sections, the co-chairs may have created more problems than they solved. The official predicted that the midyear negotiating session, never known for being a place where negotiators get down to business quickly, will be even more chaotic next time.

   "They're going to spend three days fighting over what they are going to talk about. You can predict that," he said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Clinton Vows to Make U.S. 'Clean Energy Superpower'

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

   By Jennifer Yachnin

   Hillary Clinton yesterday unveiled the first portion of her presidential campaign's energy agenda, vowing an aggressive expansion of the nation's renewable energy production while taking aim at the Republican primary field over the GOP's widespread skepticism of climate science.

   In a 3-minute video posted to her campaign website, Clinton reiterated a vow she first made in June to make the United States a "clean energy superpower" while promising to expand the nation's solar capacity 700 percent by 2020 and ensure that renewable energy sources contribute to at least a third of the nation's energy generation.

   "Future generations will look back and wonder, 'What were we thinking? How could we possibly be so irresponsible?' I'm just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain, and I know what's happening in the world is going to have a big effect on my daughter and especially on my granddaughter," Clinton states at the outset of the video, which features footage of children playing, forest fires and windmills but does not show the candidate herself.

   In the video, Clinton then goes on to criticize the Republican presidential primary field, while quotes questioning climate science appear on screen credited to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businessman Donald Trump.

   "It's hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who'd rather remind us they're not scientists than listen to those who are," Clinton states. "You don't have to be a scientist to take on this urgent challenge that threatens us all."

   Clinton then turns back to her energy platform to tout the benefits of renewable energy, pointing to statistics on health and job creation before vowing to set goals for her would-be presidency.

   "First, I will ensure we hit a target of having more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of my first term. Second, we'll set a 10-year goal of generating enough renewable energy to power every single home in America," Clinton states. She adds, "We're on the cusp of a new era. We can have more choice in the energy we consume and produce. We can create a more open, efficient and resilient grid that connects us, empowers us, improves our health and benefits us all. The decisions we make in the next decade can make all of this possible, or they can keep us trapped in the past."

   Clinton further outlined her proposals in a four-page document, including a plan to expand renewable energy production on public lands, as well as continuing to allow fossil fuel production on federal lands.

   In the document, Clinton's campaign calls for "safe and responsible production" while ensuring that "taxpayers get a fair deal for development on public lands, and that areas that are too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table."

   Her energy plan also includes an increase in hydropower generation from existing dams.

   Clinton also proposed a "Clean Energy Challenge," in which the federal government will partner with states, cities and rural communities to improve renewable energy standards.

   That program would include a competitive grant competition for states willing to exceed carbon pollution standards and Solar X, another prize competition for communities that improve rooftop solar installation times and decrease costs.

   Clinton is scheduled to further detail her plans today during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, where she is scheduled to tour the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Central Station.

   During a campaign stop in Ames, Iowa, yesterday, Clinton mentioned her energy plan but expanded on her taped remarks by vowing to assist coal industry workers who would be affected by a shift to renewable energy resources.A promise to coal country

   "I will be very clear, I want to do more to help in coal country," Clinton said at the event,according to The New York Times. She also thanked coal workers "who mined the coal that created the industrial revolution that turned on the lights that fueled the factories, who lost their lives, who were grievously injured, who developed black lung disease."

   The remarks echo comments Clinton made earlier this month during a meeting with Senate Democrats (E&E Daily, July 16).

   Although Clinton has drawn criticism from environmentalists over her refusal to take a definitive stand on the Keystone XL pipeline, her initial energy platform drew praise from the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund.

   "This underscores Secretary Clinton's longtime commitment to confronting the climate crisis," said LCV Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld. "As a senator, Clinton supported comprehensive climate change legislation and efforts to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. As secretary of State, she helped lead international climate negotiations and she created the Climate and Clean Air Coalition with other countries to reduce climate superpollutants like soot and methane. We commend Secretary Clinton for calling out climate change deniers and effectively illustrating the urgent need to act on a defining issue of our time."

   Clinton is the front-runner in the Democratic field but faces a growing challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), as well as competition from former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.

   Sanders is a prominent critic of efforts to expedite construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, while O'Malley has vowed to make a nationwide shift to renewable energy his top priority, with a full transition to clean-energy-powered generation by 2050.

   O'Malley's deputy campaign manager, Lis Smith, took a thinly veiled shot at Clinton's proposals yesterday in a memorandum that listed pages of media praise for the Maryland Democrat, while also highlighting his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and offshore and Arctic drilling.

   Clinton could also face pressure from billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, who on Friday called on presidential primary contenders to pledge a commitment to renewable energy standards of at least 50 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

   Steyer, who hosted a fundraiser for Clinton's campaign earlier this year, praised Clinton yesterday as a "strong leader in solving the climate crisis."

   "Clinton laid out an ambitious framework to put our nation on a path to a clean energy economy that will create millions of jobs -- and in the coming months, we look forward to hearing more details about her proposals to tackle climate change," Steyer said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Clinton Dodges Keystone Question

   Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Timothy Cama

   Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton still won’t take a position on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

   During an Iowa speech on climate change Monday, Clinton refused to weigh in on the project. She argued that because she served as President Obama's secretary of State when the pipeline was under consideration, it would be inappropriate for her to comment.

   “No other presidential candidate was secretary of state when this process started, and I put together a very thorough, deliberative, evidence-based process to evaluate the environmental impact and other considerations of Keystone,” Clinton said at the Des Moines event.

   “So I will refrain from commenting, because I had a leading role in getting that process started, and I think that we have to let it run its course,” she continued.

   Clinton's comments are likely to further infuriate environmentalists, who have criticized her for years for avoiding the project’s controversy and declining to weigh in on oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other environmental measures.

   Late Sunday, Clinton released the first piece of her climate platform, setting goals for solar power and renewable energy installation if she takes the White House.

   Environmentalists applauded the goals as a good first step, but also say she should provide more detail on what she would do to tackle climate change.

   For nearly seven years, the Obama administration has been taking various steps to evaluate TransCanada Corp.’s application to build the Keystone pipeline, which would run from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast.

   Since the pipeline would cross the Canadian border, Clinton took a leading role in the evaluation up until 2013, a role Secretary of State John Kerry is now responsible for.

   She used the Monday speech to talk further about her climate plan, saying, “America needs to lead this fight, not go MIA.”

   Clinton also said she would roll back tax incentives that help the oil industry and use them to help clean energy industries.

   But she dodged a question on whether she would seek to impose a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, saying she would outline later how she’d propose to pay for the expansion of renewable energy sources.

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Clinton Skirts Talk Of Pipeline At Event Touting Energy Plan

   Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Jennifer Yachnin

   Hillary Clinton today again refused to take a public position on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, even as she campaigned for a second day on her newly announced renewable energy platform.

   During a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, Clinton reiterated the energy platform her campaign unveiled yesterday, including vows to vastly expand the nation's solar capacity by 2020 and ensure that renewable energy sources contribute to at least a third of the nation's energy generation.

   "As president, I'll do everything I can to lead us toward that clean energy future," said Clinton, who also said she would "defend" the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.

   Clinton, who announced her energy platform in a video yesterday, also reiterated that she will back an expansion of the renewable fuel standard and work to end tax benefits to the fossil fuel industry, asserting oil and gas have "too many advantages in our tax code" (E&E Daily, July 27).

   But Clinton also continued to refuse to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline, pointing to her role in creating the project's review process during her tenure as secretary of State.

   "I will refrain from commenting because I had a leading role in getting that process started, and we have to let it run its course," she said today, responding to a reporter's question.

   Clinton's refusal to either endorse or decry the project has drawn criticism from environmentalists, as well as her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, who have openly opposed the project.

   The former first lady did acknowledge, however, that the project's potential carbon emissions could sway the Obama administration's decision on whether to permit the pipeline.

   "I'm confident that the pipeline's impact on global greenhouse gas emissions will be a major factor in that decision as the president has said," Clinton said.

   Clinton also skirted a question on whether she would endorse a carbon tax to pay for her energy proposals, which include competition grant programs to both reduce carbon emissions and improve rooftop solar installation times.

   "A lot of these changes will pay for themselves. There will be front-end money needed," Clinton said. "There are ways of making those investments and getting a return on the investments that will ... benefit the American taxpayer. I will be talking about energy and climate security. I will be talking about modernizing North American infrastructure, about safe and responsible production, especially making sure taxpayers get a fair deal for development on public lands and areas that I think are too sensitive for production."

   She added: "There are investments we need to make that will pay off today, tomorrow and years ahead."

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Hillary Clinton Declines to Say Where She Stands on Keystone XL

    Jul 27, 2015 | Bloomberg

    By Jennifer Epstein

    Hillary Clinton declined Monday to weigh in on the Obama administration’s ongoing deliberations over the Keystone XL oil pipeline, avoiding an issue that has become a litmus test for climate activists.

    After launching the first part of her agenda aimed at combating climate change, the former secretary of state told reporters in Iowa she “will refrain from commenting [on Keystone] because I had a leading role in getting that process started and we have to let it run its course.”

    Clinton said that during her time as President Barack Obama's top diplomat, she “put together a very thorough, deliberative, evidence-based process to evaluate the environmental impact” of the proposed pipeline, which would run from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska.

    Before launching her presidential campaign, Clinton refused to comment on the pipeline permit approval process, saying she didn't want to preempt or influence the process. Monday was the first time she’d been asked since entering the race in April.

    Other candidates running for the Democratic nomination have seized on Clinton’s caution and attacked her for refusing to take a definitive stance.

    “I have helped lead the opposition against the Keystone pipeline,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said earlier this month as Clinton visited Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I don’t believe we should be excavating or transporting some of the dirtiest fuel on this planet. I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue.”

    Minutes after Clinton spoke Monday, Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's campaign criticized Clinton for what it described as a lack of leadership. “Governor O'Malley is opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline because we can't move to a clean energy future if we continue to rely on dirty, short-term fossil fuel fixes,” deputy campaign manager Lis Smith said in a statement. “Real leadership is about forging public opinion on issues like Keystone—not following it. Every Democrat should follow his lead and take a stand to commit to ending our reliance on fossil fuels.”

    Clinton acknowledged that the pipeline is a politicized issue and stressed that she is in a unique position.

    “No other presidential candidate was secretary of state when this process started,” she said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. WH: Business Buy-In A Boost For Paris Climate Talks

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    A pledge by American businesses to focus on climate-friendly practices should help boost the prospects for an international climate conference at the end of the year, the White House said. 

    Companies participating in the push the White House announced Monday each proposed a series of climate-based benchmarks that they would use to reduce their impact on global warming. 

    Brian Deese, President Obama’s top climate adviser, said that the companies’ proposals are meant to showcase the private sector's commitment to a United Nations climate conference in Paris this December.

    “Our engagement with these companies today is around their commitment to supporting a strong outcome in Paris because of the logic — the economic, business, and environmental logic — of having a strong international agreement,” Deese said on a press call Monday. 

    A broad international agreement at the conference is a key goal for President Obama’s climate agenda for the remainder of his term, but it’s been tough sell both internationally and at home. 

    A November climate agreement between the U.S. and China was meant to demonstrate the willingness of the world’s two largest carbon emitters to commit to a greenhouse gas reduction plan.

    Domestically, Republicans have been skeptical about the legality and the effectiveness of a climate treaty. The White House is looking to rebuff those concerns with the private sector pledges they announced on Monday.   

    “This is about demonstrating the American business community’s support for a strong outcome and demonstrating U.S. leadership from the U.S. business community, which will be important.” Deese said. 

    Representatives from some of the participating companies plugged the Paris conference on Monday.

    “We think Paris is a big deal, we think it’s critical that the business community get behind government and ensure that we really do use Paris as the opportunity to really move the world in the right direction,” said Rob McKnight, the chief Sustainability Officer at Alcoa, an aluminum manufacturer that pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 50 percent by 2025

    Microsoft, which joined fellow tech giants Apple and Google in signing the pledge, said it would look to purchase 100 percent renewable energy to run its datacenters and other facilities. Rob Bernard, the company’s chief environmental strategist, said the Paris conference is a “great opportunity to drive, really, expectations and transformation" for the climate.

    “Having certainly on a worldwide level on where multiple countries, not just the United States, stand on the future would be a great thing,” he said.

    Thirteen companies — representing $1.3 trillion in revenue and $2.5 trillion in market capitalization — joined the pledge on Monday, according to the White House. Officials said a second round of company commitments will come out this fall, ahead of the Paris talks.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Businesses Join White House Climate Push

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Ben Kamisar

    Thirteen of America’s largest companies are joining President Obama to agree to a slew of policies meant to curb the effects of climate change, the White House announced Monday.

    “Climate change is a global challenge that demands a global response, and President Obama is committed to leading the fight,” the White House said in a statement.

    “And while the United States is leading on the international stage and the federal government is doing its part to combat climate change, hundreds of private companies, local governments, and foundations have stepped up to increase energy efficiency, boost low-carbon investing, and make solar energy more accessible to low-income Americans.”

    The group of companies includes Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart. The White House noted that the combined group represents a market capitalization of at least $2.5 trillion.

    Each company will announce personalized measures meant to slash emissions and position it for sustainable practices. Those announcements represent “at least $140 billion in new low-carbon investment and more than 1,600 megawatts of new renewable energy,” according to the White House.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Corporations Join in White House Warming Push Ahead of Paris

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick and Lisa Friedman

    Companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Bank of America will visit the White House today to announce voluntary emissions-reduction pledges to support President Obama's quest for a global agreement on climate change at the end of this year.

    The White House announcement will involve more than a dozen companies from a variety of sectors, including many that have previously taken steps to reduce their impact on warming either on their own or as part of other collaborations with the Obama administration.

    Secretary of State John Kerry will give remarks at the White House roundtable event in the absence of President Obama, who is traveling in Kenya. White House climate adviser Brian Deese and Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern also will attend.

    The 13 participating companies will pledge to spend a collective $140 billion to combat warming and will endorse "a strong outcome in the Paris climate negotiations," according to the White House.

    The other participants in the American Businesses Act on Climate Pledge are Alcoa Inc., Apple Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill Inc., General Motors Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., PepsiCo Inc., United Parcel Service Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

    Many of the same companies have been involved in the numerous previous announcements the White House has rolled out over the last few years on climate change adaptation or mitigation. Coca-Cola and UPS already belong to a public-private initiative called the National Clean Fleets Partnership, for example, which seeks to improve the fuel efficiency of companies that operate large vehicle fleets. Google provided cloud storage space to house data for the administration's Climate Data Initiative, which was launched last year to help the public and local governments gain access to federally collected information about the effects of warming. The company played a similar role in last month's Climate Services for Resilient Development partnership, which aims to help local communities adapt.

    In a statement this morning, the White House said the pledges show the private sector "is committed to stepping up and doing its part" to combat warming.

    "While the United States is leading on the international stage and the federal government is doing its part to combat climate change, hundreds of private companies, local governments, and foundations have stepped up to increase energy efficiency, boost low-carbon investing, and make solar energy more accessible to low-income Americans," the statement said.

    Climate advocates said that today's effort has been several months in the making and is part of a global climate change agreement in which cities, states, businesses and others are being mobilized to announce emissions cuts as well as national governments.

    "Combating climate change cannot be tackled by governments alone," said Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. She praised the White House's effort to bring in businesses, arguing that private industry is where investment and innovation starts.

    Meanwhile, she said, businesses need to challenge the notion that only a handful of them are reducing their carbon footprint or building sustainability into their supply chains.

    "I think people think it's just a small group of companies that have a green outlook. That is not the case," Jacobson said. "This is a mainstream corporate activity."

    The announcement comes a week before U.S. EPA is widely expected to release its final Clean Power Plan together with rules for new and modified power plant carbon dioxide. Former EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, who is now president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said in a statement that the pledges are an affirmative step toward an agreement in Paris.

    "And the business community will be essential to mobilizing the technology, investment and innovation needed to transition to a low-carbon economy," Perciasepe said. While governments in the developed and developing world have made strides recently toward a meaningful agreement, "the strong support of business leaders for climate action, like that exhibited today, can only help to strengthen that will," he said.

    Commitments vary by company. Alcoa, for example, has already pledged to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of its operations by 30 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. It adds a promise to cut absolute greenhouse gas output by half in 2025.

    Bank of America has previously pledged $50 billion for low-carbon financing and will now increase that to $125 billion by 2025 through lending, investing, capital raising and other services. GM committed to reduce carbon intensity from facilities 20 percent by 2020 over a 2010 baseline and promote renewable energy use and reduce waste.

    The White House plans to play host to a second set of climate commitments this fall, and Kerry, who has made combating warming a priority of his State Department tenure, will convene a forum on climate finance ahead of the Paris negotiations.

    The accord, expected to be signed in Paris in December, will include a component for local governments and the private sector, dubbed "non-state actors." That work is critical, activists said, because the emissions cuts that countries alone have pledged for Paris are so far not enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Paris Accord Means Certainty For Business -- Corporate Leaders

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    A strong international agreement in Paris this year would not only help the planet but give businesses regulatory certainty worldwide, leaders of two major multinationals said today.

    Speaking on a call organized by the White House to tout business support for a strong international emissions-reduction agreement, representatives of software giant Microsoft Corp. and aluminum producer Alcoa Inc. said they had much to gain if the United Nations' talks in December are successful.

    "We think Paris is a big deal," said Kevin McKnight, chief sustainability officer for Alcoa. "We think it's critical that the business community get behind government and ensure that we really use Paris as the opportunity to really move the world in a new direction."

    "Having certainty on a worldwide level of where multiple countries, not just the United States, stand on the future would be a great thing," said Rob Bernard, chief environmental strategist for Microsoft.

    Microsoft and Alcoa are two of the 13 major corporations that today backed President Obama's quest for a climate accord and rolled out new emissions and efficiency commitments of their own topping a combined $140 billion. Representatives from the companies met at the White House today with Secretary of State John Kerry, Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and climate adviser Brian Deese, among others.

    Deese said on the same call this morning that private-sector support would be crucial to the White House's efforts to help secure an accord. Today's rollout, he said, "is about demonstrating the American business community's support for a strong outcome and demonstrating U.S. leadership from the U.S. business community, which will be important."

    The White House has touted the policies laid out in the president's 2-year-old Climate Action Plan as evidence of U.S. leadership on climate. U.S. EPA is poised to finalize the plan's centerpiece -- the sweeping Clean Power Plan for existing generating units -- in the very near future.

    No utilities participated in today's rollout, though energy producer Berkshire Hathaway Energy was on the list of companies committing to emissions reductions. But manufacturers have said the power plant rule could affect them both by increasing the cost of the energy they use and by setting a precedent for future rules that might target their emissions directly.

    McKnight said a global agreement on emissions could help protect U.S. businesses from being placed at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors.

    "We are an energy-intensive, trade-exposed business," he said. "So it is critical that we have a climate agreement globally that creates a level playing field globally for all companies, so that we have an opportunity to compete effectively on a level playing field."

    Alcoa maintains a membership in the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have both been active foes of administration environmental policies -- including the forthcoming EPA power plant rules. Asked about that association, McKnight said the two organizations have broad interests.

    "There are times when they take positions that are not exactly aligned with the positions of some of their member companies, and I guess that's the most I would say on that," he said.

    The White House plans to play host to a second round of industry commitments this fall, but Deese said today's rollout was targeted at major companies that have been industry leaders on emissions reduction.

    "We are hoping that over the course of the next few months we will see broad participation across the U.S. business community," he said. "We're going to encourage that."

    Participants in today's rollout will be asked to reach out to the companies they have business relationships with to encourage them to make commitments, Deese added.

    Alcoa, which previously had a carbon intensity target, promised today to cut its absolute emissions by half compared with 2005 levels by 2025.

    Microsoft promised to become carbon neutral, purchasing all of its renewable energy to operate all of its data centers, offices, labs and manufacturing facilities and purchasing offsets to balance its emissions from business air travel. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which is linked to business magnate Warren Buffett, pledged to double its investment in renewable energy to total $30 billion.

    Apple Inc., Bank of America Corp. Cargill Inc., Coca-Cola Co., General Motors Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., PepsiCo Inc., United Parcel Service Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. also made pledges today.

    While today's pledges were voluntary, Deese said regulatory triggers are also needed to allow the United States to meet its commitment of cutting greenhouse gases between 26 percent and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.

    "Our goal is to look for ways to send long-term incentives that can help drive investment and drive innovation," he said. "But we're going to need a strong regulatory framework in this context."

    Mindy Lubber, president of the green investment group Ceres, echoed this sentiment. "Realistically, voluntary commitments alone will not get us the meaningful reductions we need. Strong carbon-reducing policies are hugely important, beginning with final EPA rules to curb U.S. power plant emissions by 30 percent," she said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. EPA's McCarthy and Bishop Cupich of Chicago Take a Stand for Energy Efficiency

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Scott Detrow

    Weeks before the Obama administration unveils its most ambitious plan to date to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, the head of one of the United States' largest Catholic archdioceses stood side by side with U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and indirectly endorsed the effort.

    "Let us not be afraid to say we need change, we want change," Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich said Friday at an event highlighting the archdiocese's energy efficiency efforts. "We welcome environmental policies that balance the imperative to preserve human dignity with the need to encourage commercial success. We applaud regulation that recognizes that we are accountable for the common good."

    Cupich never directly mentioned the Clean Power Plan, which aims to lower the power sector's carbon footprint by 30 percent. But, speaking immediately after the archbishop, McCarthy did. "The Clean Power Plan will help the U.S. lead the global charge for climate action, just as Chicago and the archdiocese are leading the charge for action right here," she said.

    Cupich isn't the first Catholic leader to voice support for EPA's climate efforts. In June, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to oppose amendments blocking or delaying the Clean Power Plan. "As government leaders, we ask you to resist any effort to impair the development of a national carbon standard and instead to support our nation's ability to address this urgent global challenge confronting the human family," he wrote on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (ClimateWire, June 30).

    Still, Friday's Chicago event demonstrated the Catholic Church's commitment to turning the values expressed in Pope Francis' recent encyclical, "Laudato Si'," into environmentally friendly policies, as well as the Obama administration's eagerness to embrace moral and religious themes for its climate change agenda.

    "When it comes to our moral obligation to act, faith leaders have an enormously powerful voice," McCarthy said. "And when we act together we protect our health, our economy and our way of life for generations to come."Parochial schools begin to track energy use

    McCarthy has hit on similar themes in recent appearances at Georgetown University and at a White House event honoring religious leaders. She visited the Vatican earlier this year to discuss the Clean Power Plan with some of Francis' top advisers (ClimateWire, July 20).

    And Francis and other church leaders have made it clear they're willing to engage directly with the political process to promote environmental stewardship and a lower-carbon economy. Last week, Francis hosted liberal-leaning mayors from around the world at a two-day Vatican conference devoted to climate change. The pontiff and politicians, including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, signed a joint statement urging a "rapid transformation to a world powered by renewable and other low-carbon energy" (ClimateWire, July 22).

    Chicago is one of the largest American archdioceses to embrace Francis' environmental priorities, though Cupich pointed out its green efforts predate the encyclical. McCarthy and Cupich held the event at a solar-panel-equipped parochial school to highlight the archdiocese's increased emphasis on energy use benchmarking.

    Beginning this year, 40 archdiocese-owned buildings will begin tracking and reporting their energy use to the city. Cupich said the ultimate goal is for every church-owned facility in the region to track and report energy use, in order to begin the process of implementing more efficiency efforts.

    McCarthy was eager to endorse the benchmarking goal. "The most important thing is, this is an education process," she said. "It's an opportunity to see where the energy -- where your money is going. How much you're using. And that gives you the information you need to start using energy-efficient products."

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Assistant U.S. Attorney Will Lead Bakken Strike Force

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Rick Volk, based in Bismarck, N.D., will head the Bakken Strike Force, designed to target rising crime in the Bakken Shale oil fields.

    Volk will supervise about 50 prosecutors and law enforcement officers assigned to the local, state and federal task force to investigate and prosecute organized crime in the oil patch, covering a conglomerate of crime ranging from gun running to drug and human trafficking to counterfeit and fraud operations.

    His primary focus is to target crime in Indian Country.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. The Supreme Court And The Future Of Environmental Litigation

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Richard O. Faulk

    Statutory construction has endured a tortured evolution. Where once the Supreme Court’s use of administrative deference was both persistent and expected, such reasoning has attracted ever-increasing scrutiny in recent years. This shift became evident over the past term, in which the Court’s concerns over deferential interpretation and the dangers of the growing “administrative state” resulted in decisions that curbed regulatory power and liberated the Court to pursue its traditional duty to “say what the law is.”

    By hauling up the deferential anchor, the Court has entered uncharted jurisprudential waters, embarking on a new and perhaps even more controversial voyage – choosing between text and context.

    The most significant statutory construction case of the term, indeed of the last several years, came in King v. Burwell, the most recent episode in a series of attacks against the ACA (Obamacare).  There, the Court faced seemingly clear text that mandated forfeiture of subsidies in states that refused to set up their own “exchanges” for health insurance.  Since the IRS was the federal agency charged with implementing the subsidy programs, it claimed that its interpretation was entitled to Chevron deference – a doctrine by which the responsible government agency’s interpretation is accepted because it is deemed to be “expert” in interpreting the statutes it administers.  Game, set, match – right?  The majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, held otherwise.

    The IRS has no particular expertise in designing or creating health policy, said the Court.  Since they weren’t “expert” in the area, they deserved no deference whatsoever.  But shouldn’t that have left us with the text of the law? And if so, isn’t the text controlling?

    Apparently not. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion found a trump card: context.  The majority, viewing the ACA “as a whole” and placing the issue against the broader backdrop of congressional intent to provide universal coverage – and not to deny it arbitrarily on mere accident of terminology – held that the overriding intent mandated coverage even if the “most natural reading” of the actual text suggested otherwise. 

    So the ACA survives – not because of its text – but because, placed in context with Congress’ remedial purpose, a destructive “natural reading” must be rejected. 

    In hindsight, we should have seen this coming. Justice Roberts gave us a preview earlier in the term when he joined the majority in Yates v. United States, holding that a fisherman’s decision to discard illegally caught fish did not constitute the destruction of evidence within the meaning of the Sarbanes Oxley Act.  Certainly, destroying evidence to conceal wrongdoing is illegal, but imprisoning someone for throwing away a few fish – as opposed to destroying hard drives, documents, and other records relevant to Sarbanes Oxley prosecutions – goes far beyond any reasonable interpretation of the Act. Viewed in context, fish aren’t computers or financial records. Simply because an overzealous prosecutor can frame charges within statutory text doesn’t mean it is legitimate to do so.

    Is there mischief in Burwell?  Of course there is – but does it really make sense to presume that Congress intentionally inserted a “poison pill” into a comprehensive law? Or to infer that an inadvertent error in a major piece of legislation should be allowed to undermine the central reason the law was passed in the first place?  Surely it is more reasonable to effectuate a law’s purpose and intent in context, rather than to undermine a remedial statute by focusing on a single word at odds with an overarching policy goal.  At least in Burwell, the majority thought about such things, rather than putting on blindfolds and deferring to the agency’s uninformed point of view.

    So what does this mean for future energy and environmental cases?  We can only hope that it means the Court will pay more attention to a substantive analysis of statutes – instead of taking deferential “short cuts” based on fictional agency “expertise.”  In the controversy surrounding the president’s Clean Power Plan, for example, one hopes that the Court will read, compare and accept a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act – one which recognizes that Section 111(d) cannot, by its terms or its context, be used to regulate facilities obviously governed by a different section of the Act. Chevron deference is completely inappropriate when the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable.

    The problems generated by the passage of two versions of Sec. 111(d) may or may not call for contextual analysis, but merely deferring to the EPA’s interpretation – which will, of course, support its own position as an advocate – serves only to resolve the issue without solving it.  The rule of law requires the best interpretation the judiciary can provide, not the most convenient one coined by an interested party.

    It is the duty of the Judiciary to “say what the law is.”  Separation of powers is enshrined in our Constitution as a founding principle, but the Supreme Court has all too often placed a heavy thumb on the scales of justice by improperly deferring to interpretations coined by the Executive Branch.  In a real sense, separating the powers is only part of the judiciary’s responsibility – its ultimate duty is to balance them to ensure that no Constitutional branch exceeds the boundaries of its authority.

    Faulk is a partner at Hollingsworth LLP, Washington, DC;  senior director of the Initiative for Energy and the Environment, Law & Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia.

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Obama's Alaska Visit To Focus On U.N. Talks, Arctic Council

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    President Obama's visit to Alaska next month for an official event will aim for something in between an official event of the Arctic Council and messaging for the upcoming U.N. climate change conference, the State Department said.

    "This conference will, however, help to focus attention on the challenges and opportunities that the Arctic Council intends to address and highlight how a region vulnerable to climate change is experiencing and responding to these impacts, helping to drive political will for ambitious action at" the U.N. meetings in Paris, the State Department said in a statement.

    Though the agenda is still being developed, the visit by the president, Secretary of State John Kerry and foreign ministers will also include scientists, policymakers and Alaska residents.

    The State Department also said the conference "will discuss individual and collective action to address climate change in the Arctic; raise the visibility of climate impacts in the Arctic as a harbinger for the world, and the Arctic's unique role in global climate change; identify ways that Arctic innovators are responding to these critical challenges; and share opportunities to prepare and respond to other issues in the changing Arctic" (Erica Martinson, Alaska Dispatch News, July 24).

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. More Layoffs Expected at U.S. Energy Firms — Energy Journal

    Jul 27, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Christopher Harder

    U.S. energy companies had been counting on a rebound in crude oil prices in the second half of this year after last year’s plunge, but that hasn’t happened so far. So they’re planning more layoffs and financial maneuvers to deal with a recent, sudden drop in prices to the lowest level in four months, Lynn Cook reports.

    A speedy rehiring of drilling rigs coupled with the possibility of new Iranian oil on the market have pushed down prices more than 20% over the past six weeks. So, for example, oil-field service providers have announced job cuts deeper than initially declared and warned of more layoffs to come. Halliburton Co. and Baker Hughes Inc., two big companies that plan to merge, disclosed last week that they cut 27,000 jobs between them, double the 13,500 announced in February. ConocoPhillips has already cut nearly 1,500 jobs so far this year but is planning more layoffs this fall that could number into the thousands.

    “Everybody was hopeful, but it feels like the hangover is dragging on,” said Dennis Cassidy, managing director of oil and gas at global consulting firm Alix Partners.

    The impact of low oil prices isn’t limited to U.S. energy companies. Firms world-wide have shelved $200 billion of new-project spending, the Financial Times reports.

    Big Coal is also struggling amid low prices, and Arch Coal Inc. is a strong reflection of that, Spencer Jakab writes. Arch has seen its stock plummet about 99.7% in the past five years to 20 cents, analysts see the company reporting a loss on Thursday, and no analysts see a profitable year anytime in the future. But at least a reverse stock split set for Monday should help boost share value a bit.

    COMPANIES TO PLEDGE $140 BILLION TO CUT EMISSIONS

    One of the issues the coal industry struggles with is environmental regulation, and more than a dozen U.S. companies plan to pledge to invest more than $140 billion in efforts to cut carbon emissions, Amy Harder reports. The companies include Bank of America Corp., General Motors Co., Cargill Inc. and Alcoa Inc.

    It’s part of a new White House initiative leading up to the United Nations climate-change summit later this year. The Environmental Protection Agency as soon as next week is set to issue final rules cutting carbon emissions from U.S. power plants.

    MARKETS

    Oil prices kicked off the week in the red pressured by a rout in Chinese stock markets and continuing worries about the worldwide oversupply of crude.

    Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, fell 0.3% to $54.44 a barrel on London’s ICE Futures exchange. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, West Texas Intermediate futures for delivery in September were trading down 0.4% at $47.95 a barrel.

    
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Ex-Obama Aide: Energy Strategy Falls Short

    Jul 27, 2015 | USA Today

    By Bill Loveless

    With its newfound abundance of oil and natural gas, the U.S. is producing enough to meet most of its own needs and supply some to other nations.
    
    So, why hasn’t Washington done more to promote exports of oil and gas to Europe, Asia and other regions and taken other steps to bolster energy security around the world?
    
    James Jones, a former national security adviser to President Obama, raised that question the other day before a business audience in Washington, and laid much of the blame on his ex-boss.
    
    Jones, a retired commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, has criticized U.S. treatment of energy policy since leaving the White House in 2010, and he continues to do so as world events bring fresh attention to the strategic importance of energy.
    
    “The U.S. finds itself quite surprisingly in a position to show, if we wish, enlightened leadership with regard to energy and global climate,” Jones said at a conference sponsored by the consulting firm Navigant and the law firm Dentons.
    
    “This is in sharp contrast to Russia’s policy of using energy as a blunt instrument of national power and a means of influencing international behavior wherever it can.”
    
    In short, Jones maintains that national security and economic security are inextricably connected in today’s world, and that both should receive the same high-level attention at the White House. But he says that’s not the case.
    
    “I have to admit that I failed in trying to incorporate energy security as a core competency of the National Security Council,” he said.
    
    Now, opportunities for the U.S. to compete more in global energy markets are increasing with the outpouring of oil and gas from the nation’s shale reserves. Among them are providing exports to Europe, now heavily dependent on Russia for supplies, as well as to China and other developing nations.
    
    “We’ve had fights over the export of natural gas, and we’ll have fights to come probably over the export of petroleum. We’ve almost given up our leadership in the nuclear field … ,” he said. “These are all things we can and should impact, but until we embrace the idea that we need a national strategy that’s articulated and well understood, we’ll probably just keep muddling through.”
    
    In fact, the Department of Energy has approved a number of applications to export liquefied natural gas, with the first of those shipments expected later this year. Critics of the process say it takes too long and back legislation that would expedite consideration, while some U.S. industrial consumers of gas worry that exporting LNG with raise prices here.
    
    As for oil exports, Congress slapped a ban on them in 1974 in the midst of oil shortages and lines for gasoline, and only recently has given the matter a fresh look, amid differences of opinion within both Republican and Democratic ranks.
    
    Meanwhile, the strategic importance of oil crops up routinely in U.S. dealings with other nations, including the recent agreement by Washington and other five other world powers with Iran over Teheran’s nuclear program.
    
    “We should make no mistake about the fact that energy is at the forefront of anything we agree to with regard to Iran, and certainly with regard to Iraq,” he said of two nations with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. “In Asia, the Chinese appetite for the security of its energy sources fuels its ambitions.”
    
    Despite his pointed message, Jones isn’t entirely critical of the Obama administrationon energy matters. For example, he said he sees “brilliant leadership” from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who has worked with Republican lawmakers on natural gas and oil export issues and produced a report on U.S. energy infrastructure.
    
    “He’s on the right path, but he needs the support of decision makers,” Jones said of Moniz.
    
    Not surprisingly, Jones’ views are disputed by others who served longer in the Obama administration.
    
    “A central part of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is linking energy security and national security,” Jason Bordoff, a former special assistant to Obama for energy and climate change and now the director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said when asked about Jones’ comments. “I saw this firsthand at the National Economic Council and the National Security Council where I worked.”
    
    Among the steps taken by the administration to better coordinate energy and national security was establishment of a new energy bureau at the Department of State, Bordoff said.
    
    But Jones isn’t persuaded that enough has been done.
    
    “The U.S. is less vulnerable now than at any time since the 1970s to oil supply disruptions and international price manipulation,” Jones said. “But we have not yet taken the steps to treat energy as a top-rung energy and environmental security issue that it has now become.”
    
    Bill Loveless – @bill_loveless on Twitter – is a veteran energy journalist and television commentator in Washington. He is a former host of the TV program Platts Energy Week.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

21. Farm Group Sees Oil Pipelines Easing Everyone's Rail Congestion

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    An agricultural group is betting pipelines can keep grain flowing in the Upper Midwest.

    The American Farm Bureau Federation doesn't expect farmers to pump lentils through steel pipes, although a recent study commissioned by the nonprofit said "they would be delighted to do so" were it physically possible.

    Instead, the study published last week concludes oil pipelines would ease pressure on congested rail networks that corn and soybean shippers now share with milelong trains hauling crude.

    Though railroads move more coal and intermodal shipments than crude, "you can't take them off the rail -- you can't put those into pipelines," noted Elaine Kub, an independent grain market analyst who assembled the white paper for AFBF. "That's why the biggest part of relieving rail congestion has to come from the oil."

    Despite increasing nearly 20-fold since 2010, railbound petroleum products account for a fraction of overall U.S. freight traffic. But based on Kub's findings, crude oil's relatively tiny stake of rail traffic "is the most problematic for agriculture," both because of safety concerns and because "oil's rail routes directly pull resources, like locomotives, personnel, and track capacity, away from grain service."

    In states such as North Dakota, with its booming crude oil production and limited access to waterways, farmers are especially dependent on railroads to move products to market, according to AFBF chief economist Bob Young.

    "The surge in rail transportation of crude oil has affected that ability and timing in recent years," he said last week. "Construction of new pipelines would certainly be a more effective way to move that product to market."

    In statements and in meetings with surface transportation authorities, railroads such as Warren Buffett's BNSF Railway Co. have denied putting crude oil on the fast track over grains. Executives attributed the slow service through much of last year to icy weather, the record fall 2013 harvest and a recovering economy that boosted demand for freight transport across a range of industries. BNSF is on track to invest a record $6 billion in its domestic track network this year to help relieve the stress, and other railroads have followed suit with their own multibillion-dollar pledges.Pipelines 'the most logical solution'

    A few refiners complained of poor rail service in late 2014, seemingly backing railroads' claims that they weren't giving the oil industry special treatment (EnergyWire, Oct. 30, 2014).

    Kub sought to downplay the traffic disputes that left energy and agricultural representatives trading barbs through much of last year (EnergyWire, Sept. 4, 2014).

    "It's not the railroads' fault, and it's not the crude oil industry's fault," she said of congestion that cost the average North Dakota corn farmer roughly $10,000 in lost profit, according to her study. "It's just that going forward, taking [oil] off the rails and putting it into pipelines is the most logical solution."

    Pipeline companies have seized on rail problems as a reason to get their projects up and running. Energy Transfer Partners, which is proposing a 450,000-barrel-per-day pipeline to ferry oil from the Bakken Shale play in North Dakota to Patoka, Ill., has said the connection "will reduce the current use of rail and truck transportation to move Bakken crude oil to major U.S. markets."

    "The Dakota Access Pipeline will free up rail capacity for the transportation of crops and other commodities currently held up by crude oil cargos," Energy Transfer claims.

    Efforts to attach dollars to all of the holdups have fallen flat due in part to data limitations. When a North Dakota State University economist slapped a $67 million price tag on farmers' losses during the first four months of 2014, he faced scrutiny from outside experts and the study containing the estimate was eventually withdrawn (EnergyWire, Sept. 23, 2014).

    For her own report, Kub modeled what would happen to grain shipping capacity under different scenarios, such as building out pipelines, improving rail and barge infrastructure, or investing across multiple freight methods. Her study cites data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggesting Upper Midwest farmers may have earned $570 million less for their products in 2014, compared to what they would have earned in a season without rail bottlenecks.

    "The value of this study is in putting the numbers on the pain and being able to document that expanding freight can be a solution," Kub said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. No Country for Development: Grass-roots Group Fights to Preserve Texas' 'Last Frontier'

    Jul 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Lee

    Opponents of a proposed pipeline through the pristine Big Bend area of Texas got some encouragement last week when federal regulators said they'll conduct an environmental review as part of the project.

    They may still be out of luck on their larger goal of blocking the pipeline.

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed last week to conduct an environmental review of the pipeline's border crossing near the twin cities of Presidio, Texas, and Ojinaga, Chihuahua. While the border section is only a few thousand feet of the 143-mile project, FERC also said it would review the cumulative effect of the entire pipeline and look further into whether the whole line falls under federal or state jurisdiction.

    The distinction between state and federal regulations is crucial. FERC can hold public meetings, consider alternate routes and has the authority to reject a pipeline entirely if it's not in the national interest.

    The decision came after months of pressure from a grass-roots group, state and federal officeholders, county commissioners and dozens of local landowners. Most of them are concerned about bringing any kind of industrial activity to the Big Bend.

    "It's the last frontier and it belongs to all of us," said Mattie Matthaei, vice president of the Big Bend Conservation Alliance.

    The three counties of the Big Bend -- named after a sweeping curve in the Rio Grande River that serves as the U.S.-Mexico border -- cover an area the size of Maryland, dotted with low mountains, canyons and desert. It's been largely spared from oil and gas development or any other industrialization, so it remains one of the few rural outposts that lives up to the Texas image of big skies and open vistas. The landscape has been used as the backdrop for a string of movies, including 1956's "Giant" and 2007's "No Country for Old Men."

    In 2010, President Obama and then-President Carlos Salinas of Mexico designated the Big Bend a "natural area of binational interest."

    A subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP, a pipeline conglomerate controlled by Dallas billionaire Kelcy Warren, applied to FERC in May for permission to build the border crossing section of the pipeline. The company said in its application that most of the pipeline wasn't involved in interstate commerce, even though it was being built to serve the border crossing and will connect to pipelines serving electrical plants in Mexico.

    The line will start at the Waha natural gas hub northwest of Fort Stockton, pass within 2 miles of the town of Alpine and run about 10 miles east of Marfa before reaching the border. Energy Transfer plans to bore under the Rio Grande.Loose Texas rules spur federal push

    Texas has been criticized for years over its lax regulation of pipelines. Until recently, a pipeline company could fill out a one-page application and declare itself a public utility with the power to condemn private property for right of way (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014).

    That was one of the issues that the Big Bend Conservation Alliance raised as it began organizing to fight the pipeline. The group has a few hundred members, a few thousand dollars in its budget and only recently hired an attorney, Matthaei said.

    The group has successfully pushed for the commissioners in two of the affected counties to file comments with FERC, along with the Alpine City Council. The Brewster County Groundwater Conservation District rejected a plan to draw 9 million gallons of water for the pipeline's construction, according to local media reports.

    U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican whose district includes the Big Bend, got involved in June. He wrote to FERC saying Energy Transfer had provided him only "cursory responses" when he asked about the project.

    "I am concerned that my constituents are not being treated in an open, transparent and respectful manner," he wrote.

    It's not clear whether FERC will side with the protesters and assert control over the whole pipeline. And even if it does, FERC has approved other cross-border projects in Arizona and other parts of Texas.

    For its part, Energy Transfer is taking the protests in stride. Vicki Granado, the company's Dallas-based spokeswoman, said dozens of landowners quietly support the project.

    Energy Transfer says on its website the pipeline will create construction jobs and contribute $7.1 million a year in local property taxes. It could also help spur economic development in the Big Bend region, where there are few jobs outside the agriculture and tourism sectors. Also, there won't be any compressors on the pipeline outside the Waha hub, which will lessen its impact.

    "This is not anything different than either we've done or FERC has done on other projects where we've had border crossings," Granado said. "For us it's just the normal course of business."

    Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below