Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Recent Industrial Accidents in China and United States Underscore the Need for Urgent Action on Chemical Facility Safety
Aug 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Ronald White
On Aug. 12, an industrial accident in Tianjin, China killed at least 114 people – including 21 firefighters – and injured roughly 700 more residents. Another 70 people, including 64 firefighters and six policemen, are still listed as “missing.” -
EPA Names OSWER Emergency Management Director
Aug 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA has named Reggie Cheatham to head the waste office's emergency management division -- which oversees chemical security policy and emergency response programs for oil spills and chemical and radiological releases -- just months after findings from an internal review were revealed indicating the office lacks a vision and appears less focused on Superfund removal actions. -
(ACC Mentioned) This Prominent Opponent Of Climate Action Has Taken Massive Amounts Of Money From Big Oil Companies
Aug 18, 2015 | Think Progress
By Ryan Koronowski
The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), aprominent critic of environmental and renewable energy initiatives, is getting even more of its funding from fossil fuel energy companies than previously thought. -
McCain Slams EPA Carbon Plan as Ariz. Power Producer Stops Burning Coal
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
As Tucson Electric Power moved last week to halt coal burning from its south-side power plant, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a group of TEP employees he is against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which requires utilities to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 standards and will hit coal use. -
Obama’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Hurts economy
Aug 18, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sarah K. Magruder Lyle and Alfredo Ortiz
Affordable, dependable energy is crucial to everyone, especially the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions like schools and hospitals. -
EPA Unveils Plan to Slash Methane Emissions
Aug 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
EPA unveils plan to slash methane emissions -
EPA Proposes Crackdown on Methane Emissions
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA today proposed methane rules for new and modified oil and natural gas operations, setting in motion a regulatory apparatus that eventually could cover leakage from the entire sector. -
Economic Argument Shifting on Tighter Ozone Standard Benefits
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
As more air pollution is captured from industrial facilities, the benefits get progressively smaller until they are outweighed by the costs. So goes the conventional wisdom of air pollution control. -
Clinton Breaks with Obama on Arctic Drilling
Aug 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor and Brianna Ehley
Hillary Clinton distanced herself Tuesday from President Barack Obama’s decision to approve offshore drilling in the Arctic — a move that quickly brought her attack from the GOP but may shore up her support among skeptical environmentalists. -
Clinton: Arctic Drilling ‘Not Worth the Risk’
Aug 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the current drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean is “not worth the risk.” -
Pa. Recommends Tougher Rail Inspections on Crude-Carrying Lines
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee and Blake Sobczak
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's administration wants railroads to inspect their tracks more frequently, lower their train speeds, and use more technology to lower the risk of fires and explosions from crude oil being shipped through the state.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
Aug 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Ronald White
On Aug. 12, an industrial accident in Tianjin, China killed at least 114 people – including 21 firefighters – and injured roughly 700 more residents. Another 70 people, including 64 firefighters and six policemen, are still listed as “missing.” It is just the most recent example of the catastrophes that can occur when countries don't have adequate safety requirements for industrial facilities.
Some may think massive disasters like this can’t occur here in the United States. They should remember West, Texas.
Shortly before 8 p.m. on April 17, 2013, a fertilizer storage and distribution facility in West, Texas exploded, killing 15 people, injuring more than 200, and destroying over 150 buildings, including three schools. Had the explosion occurred during the day, scores of children could have died.Serious accidents occur at U.S. chemical facilities almost on a daily basis.
Over 400 chemical facility accidents have occurred just in the two years since President Obama issued his August 2013 executive order on improving federal chemical facility safety policies.
The leak of over 326,000 pounds of the toxic chemical butadiene from a Shell Oil facility in Deer Park, Texas on Aug. 9 is one recent example of this danger. Fortunately, no workers were injured and no health problems have been reported in the surrounding community so far. But, the Shell facility is one of dozens of industrial plants that put almost 2,300 kids attending several schools in Deer Park at risk from a major chemical disaster. Approximately 10,000 people live within the two-mile area around the Shell facility that the company reports would be directly affected by a “worst-case” accident.
The Shell Oil facility incident is only one of several chemical facility accidents in just the past week. On Aug. 14, a series of explosions and a massive fire rocked the DrillChem chemical plant in Conroe, Texas, which manufactures oil industry-related chemicals. The next day, an accidental release of sulfur dioxide from the Hydrite Chemical Co. facility in Terre Haute, Indiana reportedly sent at least 20 people to local hospitals. This accident could have been much worse. The company reports that a worst-case accident involving a release of sulfur dioxide could impact up to 110,000 people living within 13 miles of the facility.We don't have to live with the threat of chemical disasters in our backyards.
One in every three schoolchildren in America today attends a school within the self-reported vulnerability zones of 3,400 of our most hazardous chemical facilities. We’ve passed a number of important laws to protect the health and safety of our families and children over the years – the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Food Safety Modernization Act. But one area that has proved surprisingly resistant to effective oversight is toxic chemicals.
However, we don’t have to resign ourselves to living under the constant threat of disastrous chemical accidents. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was poised to require chemical facilities to use inherently safer processes and technologies to reduce the risks of a chemical release to communities. Unfortunately, in 2002, the Bush administration scuttled those requirements.
The EPA has indicated it will again consider requiring facilities to use safer chemicals and processes where available and feasible in a forthcoming proposal to revise its chemical facility safety program. Such a requirement has been a key recommendation of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the nation’s independent government agency that investigates chemical facility accidents, for improving our nation’s effort to preventchemical facility accidents.
Once EPA issues its chemical facility safety proposal, expected in September, the public will have a chance to weigh in and demand that the program require that these dangerous facilities use the safest chemicals and technologies available. Anything less will continue to leave our communities at risk for a chemical disaster.
-
EPA Names OSWER Emergency Management Director
Aug 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA has named Reggie Cheatham to head the waste office's emergency management division -- which oversees chemical security policy and emergency response programs for oil spills and chemical and radiological releases -- just months after findings from an internal review were revealed indicating the office lacks a vision and appears less focused on Superfund removal actions.
Cheatham was appointed director of the Office of Emergency Management, part of the Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response (OSWER), July 19, after serving as acting director for just over a year, according to an EPA spokeswoman. Cheatham previously headed OSWER's Federal Facilities Restoration & Reuse Office for two-and-a-half years.
Cheatham was picked to be acting director of OEM in June 2014 after the retirement of Lawrence Stanton, who had headed OEM since 2011. At the same time, OSWER Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus launched an internal strategic review of the office.
The internal review found OEM lacks a vision to squarely establish priorities and appears to be heavily focusing on homeland security duties at the expense of its responsibilities related to Superfund removal actions, rule-making and preparedness programs it runs, according to a source familiar with the report developed as a result of the review.
The source said the report suggested that OEM take note of this imbalance because OEM's regulatory responsibilities are now increasing due to an executive order issued by President Obama aimed at boosting chemical facility safety, as well as the increasing transport of large volumes of oil and the office's core emergency response responsibilities under the Superfund removal program.
-
Aug 18, 2015 | Think Progress
By Ryan Koronowski
The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), aprominent critic of environmental and renewable energy initiatives, is getting even more of its funding from fossil fuel energy companies than previously thought.
According to an analysis by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting (FCIR), the group’s funding — which had been known to include at least $1 million from ExxonMobil — can in fact be traced to several other fossil fuel companies.
The FCIR reported that the NBCC’s sponsors included utilities, trade groups, and fossil fuel companies that have opposed action to cut carbon pollution: Chevron, Southern Company, Gulf Power, Koch Industries, Georgia-Pacific, and the American Chemistry Council.
The ExxonMobil Foundation has disclosed the grants it provides for years, and thus has been known to be a significant funder of the NBCC. The foundations affiliated with oil giant Chevron and coal-heavy Southern Company in particular do not disclose grants were previously not public funders of the organization.
“NBCC has been shilling for the interests of big oil and and maybe coal and utilities interests going back nearly 20 years,” Kert Davies, the director of the Climate Investigations Center, told ThinkProgress. “To date, all we have been able to confirm was ExxonMobil’s financial stake in NBCC. Ultimately, stopping climate and other environmental protections are not the interests of ‘black business’, but the interests of very very big business.”
“The National Black Chamber of Commerce should take a firm stand against the misinformation being spread by these industries,” Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said in a statement in early August. “I believe that we should all be on the side of families, not industry polluters. I urge the NBCC to cut ties with these groups immediately.”
Last week, the Washington, D.C.-based NBCC hosted its annual conference in Florida. The Sunshine State has beenground zero in a fight over increasing access to solar power. Instead of embracing a ballot initiative that seeks to allowordinary people to purchase solar power directly from other consumers, as conservative groups like Floridians for Solar Choice have, the NBCC “decried the Shady Solar Amendment as misleading” in a release.
Harry C. Alford, president and CEO of the NBCC, said in the statement that his concern was over “potential increases in electric service rates and higher state and local taxes” should the amendment pass.
FCIR puts the source and scope of Alford and NBCC’s fossil fuel funding into perspective. Reporter Francisco Alvarado notes that Alford’s “opposition to clean energy initiatives has help[ed to] create a substantial revenue stream for the National Black Chamber of Commerce.” Looking at IRS tax filings, Alvarado found that the NBCC brings in around $1 million a year, “with most of the money coming from large companies that oppose clean energy initiatives.”
“It’s a lot of money given the organization’s small staff,” Alvarado wrote. “The National Black Chamber of Commerce lists just two key employees on annual IRS filings — Alford and his wife.”
Robert Bullard, dean of the school of public affairs at Texas Southern University and arguably the foremost pioneer of the environmental justice movement, has said the NBCC has misrepresented the interests of the African American community for years. He posted a comment on FCIR’s article via his Facebook account to criticize the NBCC:
The National Black Chamber of Commerce for more than a decade has been spreading propaganda and talking points of the white U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Most black folks know Harry Alford does not represent them or the black business community at large. One need only peruse his organization’s thin membership and major contributor list to understand what’s really going on. This is not rocket science. African Americans were essential in the founding of the U.S. environmental and climate justice movement because our communities are disproportionately and adversely impacted.
The group’s opposition to policies seeking to cut pollution and increase renewable energy stretches back to the late 1990s, when the NBCC fought against the Kyoto protocol.
In August 1997, the NBCC approved a resolution opposing U.S. participation in any meaningful U.N. climate pact like the one to be negotiated in Kyoto, Japan later that year. The resolution said that “the NBCC dedicates itself to educating its members, constituents, and others that there is no scientific reason for limits on greenhouse gas emissions.” It stated concerns that climate action would disproportionately impact urban areas and black-owned businesses.
A portion of NBCC’s “Resolution on Global Climate Change.”
CREDIT: SCREENSHOT
Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) bills itself as “an internationally recognized, Washington D.C.-based economic research and management consulting firm with expertise in economic forecasting, litigation support and expert witness testimony, analysis of energy, environmental and electric utility issues, and labor markets.”
Roger Bezdek, MISI’s president, has been with the firm for nearly 30 years, and has spoken at past NBCC conferences. MISI has written reports for ACCCE, the “clean coal” industry group, on “the social benefits of carbon” pollution. Bezdek has given presentations on the same topic, earning a Washington Post op-ed debunking his climate denier views.
Bezdek’s firm has a history of working with NBCC. In 2000, MISI did an analysis (pdf download) about the likely economic impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on minority communities in the United States, sponsored by the NBCC and several other minority business groups. Its conclusion: “by virtually any economic, employment, or social criterion, Blacks and Hispanics will likely be seriously harmed by implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.”
MISI recently updated that analysis for the same collection of business groups in a report called, “”Refusing to repeat past mistakes: How the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol would disproportionately threaten the economic well-being of Blacks and Hispanics in the United States.”
In June, MISI authored a report just for the NBCC about the impact EPA’s proposed carbon rule would have on minority communities. It concluded, once again, that “these regulations would have serious economic, employment, and energy impacts at the national level and for all states, and the impacts on low-income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe.” This report relied on thoroughly debunked studies from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and NERA Economic Consulting about the alleged costs of EPA’s proposed rule.
During his speech announcing the EPA’s final carbon rule for existing power plants, President Obama noted that an African American child was twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma.
“Even more cynical, we’ve got critics of this plan who are actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities,” Obama said. “Even though climate change hurts those Americans the most, who are the most vulnerable.”
African American communities are disproportionately impacted by all kinds of fossil fuel pollution, including carbon pollution, which can trap heat and pollutants. This damages air quality and triggers asthma and heart attacks.
Alford testified before Congress earlier this year against EPA regulations limiting ground-level ozone levels, one of more than a dozen appearances before various committees. These statements do not help African American communities, according to Dr. Michael Dorsey, interim director for the Energy and Environment Program at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
“This testimony harms African Americans,” Dorsey told ThinkProgress earlier this year. “Alford’s false claims about energy are a triple threat — they harm African Americans in their wallets, they harm them in their lungs, and they threaten the environments they live in. He doesn’t even represent black business, it’s criminal.”
The NBCC’s rival, the U.S. Black Chambers (USBC), fully supports President Obama’s recently released Clean Power Plan (CPP).
Ron Busby, the USBC’s president and CEO, wrote members a letter explaining why his organization gave “strong support” to the CPP.
“The USBC supports any endeavor that will create businesses and jobs, stimulate the economy, increase employment while simultaneously creating a safe and healthy living environment in the U.S., preeminently, those underserved communities that are hit the hardest,” Busby said in the letter.
-
McCain Slams EPA Carbon Plan as Ariz. Power Producer Stops Burning Coal
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
As Tucson Electric Power moved last week to halt coal burning from its south-side power plant, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a group of TEP employees he is against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which requires utilities to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 standards and will hit coal use.
TEP's president, David Hutchens, explained the utility's move, which drew praise from environmentalists.
"With the current low cost of natural gas, ending our use of coal at the Sundt Generating Station is a cost-effective way to improve our environmental performance while preserving the reliability of our local electric service," Hutchens said.
McCain said that while EPA's reduction in Arizona's goals eased the burden on the state, the plan could still hurt Arizona ratepayers.
"When the president issues executive orders without the approval of Congress, it's not the right way to go. It sets a precedent," McCain said. "I don't think there's any doubt this will raise rates for consumers -- not just your consumers but all consumers" (Tony Davis, Arizona Daily Star, Aug. 13). -- KS
-
Obama’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Hurts economy
Aug 18, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sarah K. Magruder Lyle and Alfredo Ortiz
Affordable, dependable energy is crucial to everyone, especially the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions like schools and hospitals. Anything that makes energy more expensive and less dependable should be viewed with disdain.
A case in point is a slightly revised version of EPA’s 111(d) Rule, better known as the Clean Power Plan, that President Obama announced last week will go forward. The administration’s plan to federally manage the electricity system and impose higher energy costs on everyone is bad news for American citizens, the economy, and job creation.
The plan requires states to reduce carbon emissions by nearly one-third from 2005 levels by 2030. States will be left with little choice but to implement a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or dramatic energy efficiency mandates in order to achieve this target, making this one of the most expensive EPA regulations ever.
The administration says the rule is necessary to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change. But carbon emissions have already dropped by 10 percent since 2005. This development is largely because of the country’s increased use of natural gas, as a result of the domestic shale gas revolution.
The Clean Power Plan, however, ignores this development and instead includes mandates and quotas to move from traditional energy to renewable energy forms like wind and solar. The problem is that energy sources must be sustainable and while that may be the case in the future, wind and solar make up less than 5 percent of the electricity supply today.
The transfer from productive energy forms to relatively unproductive forms puts the nation at a competitive disadvantage with other countries in terms of creating economic activity. It also threatens the reshoring of manufacturing jobs that has occurred in recent years as companies are drawn to the U.S. to take advantage of our relatively cheap energy. For instance, as of June of this year, chemical companies have announced 238 new projects in the U.S., valued at over $145 billion dollars, which will create over 383,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2023. The administration should not be creating policies that will increase costs to manufacturers and deter this much-needed economic growth.
In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Economic Research Associatesestimate that the Clean Power Plan proposed by EPA last year would cost the economy tens of billions of dollars each year. The president’s version, which requires even larger reductions in carbon emissions, is likely to have an even bigger negative economic impact.
The most obvious victim of the rule will be coal plants, many of which will need to shut down in order for states to come close to reaching EPA’s ambitious targets. This is another step towards the president’s 2008 election promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry, despite the fact that millions depend on coal as their main electricity source.
The rule’s ramifications go beyond just impacting the 80,000 Americans who work in the coal industry and the hundreds of thousands more employed servicing them. By leaving states with seemingly no other options than to try and transfer to relatively unproductive energy sources, this rule will jack up the price of electricity – by double-digits in NERA’s estimate.
Given that almost everyone pays for electricity – both directly and indirectly (as an input in other products) – this rule will hit the wallet of nearly every American. And because the economically disadvantaged spend around three times the percent of their incomes on energy as the rich, the law will disproportionately hurt them. So much for the president’s talk of reducing income inequality.
Rather than plowing forward with such a burdensome regulation, the administration and EPA should support the principles behind the reduction in carbon already taking place by allowing energy development to occur under a sensible and transparent regulatory environment.
A flourishing energy sector is a major engine of the economy, providing the country with power, producing hundreds of thousands of good jobs, and keeping the environment clean. The Clean Power Plan is a step backward – moving us farther away from this vision.
Magruder Lyle is vice president of Strategic Initiatives, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and member of the Job Creators Network and its National Women’s Coalition advisory board. Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network.
-
EPA Unveils Plan to Slash Methane Emissions
Aug 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
EPA unveils plan to slash methane emissions
The regulations, part of President Obama’s climate agenda, are opposed by industry groups.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulation Tuesday to limit emissions of the potent natural gas methane from the oil and gas sector.
The draft rule is part of an Obama administration strategy to cut methane emissions by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels over the next decade.
EPA officials said the rule — which focuses on new and modified oil and gas production sources – won’t meet that goal alone, but the agency stopped short of saying it would need to issue rules for existing natural gas operations to hit the benchmark.
“We do project that our proposal will achieve significant reductions to benefit the climate and public health on the way to meeting that goal,” said Janet McCabe, the EPA’s point person on clean air policies.
Green groups lauded the rule on Tuesday while the oil and gas industry lashed back. The reaction was the inverse of that on Monday, when the Obama administration handed the oil industry a major victory by approving an Arctic drilling plan for Royal Dutch Shell.
The proposed rule is the newest plank in President Obama’s environmental agenda, and it’s designed to help put the U.S. on the path toward meeting the emissions reductions goals it has proposed as part of an international climate push.
Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan, a rule designed to cut carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 32 percent by 2030, earlier this month. McCabe said the methane rule would build on that effort.
Methane, the key component of natural gas, has a high impact on global warming — up to 25 times that of carbon dioxide. McCabe said the rule would cut between 340,000 and 400,000 short tons of methane annually in 2025, equivalent to 7.7 to 9.0 million metric tones of carbon dioxide.
The EPA’s proposed rule would require drillers to use advanced new technologies to track and block leaks — both accidental and purposeful — during the production and transmission of oil and gas. Officials are looking to finalize the rule in 2016 after a public comment period.
As natural gas production in the U.S. has skyrocketed in the U.S., there have been growing concerns about methane leaks. The Obama administration has said more needs to be done to cut down on those emissions in the years ahead, and it’s pushing multiple rules from both the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management to get that done.
“What I am saying that as we move forward, additional opportunities will be identified in order to get to that goal,” McCabe said.
Tuesday’s proposal was already receiving plaudits from green groups, but would meet fierce resistance from the oil and gas sector.
The industry notes that methane emissions are already declining — up to 11 percent since 2005 from the natural gas sector, based on EPA numbers — and officials say they have a financial interest in curbing emissions on their own.
When the EPA announced a voluntary program to track emissions from the industry last month, interest groups like the American Petroleum Institute said they could support opt-in efforts to work with the EPA on emissions.
“API supports a common sense regulatory approach that builds on cost-effective controls already required by EPA for new equipment,” API President Jack Gerard said in a statement Tuesday.
“Combined with smart, voluntary efforts for existing sources, this approach will continue to lower methane emissions. To avoid undermining American competitiveness, we urge the EPA to coordinate its efforts and not add duplicative rules.” -
EPA Proposes Crackdown on Methane Emissions
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA today proposed methane rules for new and modified oil and natural gas operations, setting in motion a regulatory apparatus that eventually could cover leakage from the entire sector.
Addressing four of the five segments that EPA considered regulating, the draft rule would require the oil and gas industry to find and repair leaks, capture natural gas from the completion of hydraulically fractured oil wells, limit emissions from new and modified pneumatic pumps on well pads, and limit emissions from several types of equipment used at natural gas transmission compressor stations.
It would not cover emissions from liquids unloading, though the agency will take comment on whether that segment should be added to a final rule.
EPA said the proposed standard for new and modified source methane will help avoid between 340,000 and 400,000 short tons of methane emissions in 2025. It is written under Section 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act, the same section that EPA used to control power plant carbon dioxide pollution. And like the new source carbon rule, the law stipulates that EPA must next consider whether to use Section 111 (d) to rein in existing sources in the same category.
The draft rule is combined with rules for volatile organic compounds that EPA air chief Janet McCabe said would complement its reductions.
"Together, these actions set a course for responsible development of this valuable and abundant domestic resource," she said on a call with reporters. "They will help reduce waste of valuable resources, deliver more product for sale, and they will better protect our climate and our health."
The methane draft was combined with a proposal that would apply a 2012 rule requiring gas wellheads to use green completion technology on oil-producing wellheads. Another proposal would tighten restrictions for wellheads in ozone nonattainment areas -- a restriction that could apply to more operations this fall when EPA releases a long-awaited revision to its ozone rule. Both would capture methane as a co-benefit while limiting volatile organic compounds. A fourth proposal would limit emissions from operations on American Indian lands.
The Bureau of Land Management also is putting the finishing touches on a new rule for venting and flaring on federal lands that will come out in September, and EPA rolled out a new voluntary program for petroleum sources last month.
On a call with reporters yesterday, Mark Brownstein, an associate vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, said environmentalists were eager to see what the proposal would contribute toward the president's stated goal for petroleum-sector methane emissions reduction. But he said rules for future operations alone wouldn't be enough.
"It's very clear that we're going to need regulation for existing sources in order to achieve the 40 to 45 percent reduction, so the question will be how far down the road will this particular proposal take us to addressing existing sources and what else could we expect to see from the administration over the coming year to get us there," he said.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said earlier this year that EPA planned to start with a rule for new and modified petroleum-sector methane sources because that was where the growth in emissions was coming from. She noted that the industry had expressed enthusiasm for voluntary efforts to curb emissions from existing wells and said it would be up to the industry to show progress.
"Hopefully by the time people begin to look at what are the next steps we have to take here beyond what we've already announced, that those steps will already have been taken," she said at the time (Greenwire, Jan. 16).
McCabe said the draft requirements for methane and VOCs would indeed fall short of the 40-45 percent goal, weighing in at roughly a 30 percent reduction compared with 2005 levels. But she noted that other agencies are also taking steps to rein in emissions and that EPA would continue to solicit input to "identify appropriate steps to take" to reduce leakage. The rules will be open for public comment for 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.
The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, has said that no additional federal regulation is needed to persuade the sector to reduce emissions. Leaks that are cost-effective to plug are being plugged, petroleum advocates say, because doing so allows gas producers to capture and sell more of their product. And each of these new restrictions from EPA and BLM applies a new "burden" to domestic producers, they contend.
"All of this is in the backdrop of when methane emissions have been dropping according to EPA inventories, and as a result of natural gas use, CO2 emissions from power plants have reached a 27-year low," Howard Feldman, regulatory chief at the American Petroleum Institute, said on a call yesterday.
Feldman noted that McCarthy has not indicated whether EPA has plans to regulate existing wellheads. And environmentalists also say the agency has scant time to complete such a rulemaking before President Obama leaves office at the beginning of 2017.
Methane reduction is a component of Obama's broader pledge to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025 -- the core of the U.S. negotiating position ahead of climate negotiations in Paris at the end of this year. And the oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane in the United States, contributing what EPA estimates to be 7 million metric tons of the powerful greenhouse gas pollutant each year (E&ENews PM, April 15). Empirical studies backed by EDF and others put that estimate significantly higher.
-
Economic Argument Shifting on Tighter Ozone Standard Benefits
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
As more air pollution is captured from industrial facilities, the benefits get progressively smaller until they are outweighed by the costs. So goes the conventional wisdom of air pollution control.
But recent research is throwing that paradigm on its head. A new study has found that the benefits of controlling the precursors to ozone pollution actually increase significantly through time as more pollution is controlled.
"Early results found that what we thought was the consensus in environmental economics isn't actually true, and we gradually set up a more comprehensive study to look at this," said Amir Hakami, an author of the study and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Environmental Engineering. "Very early on, we also realized that this has very important, significant implications. All the long-term planning is based on the assumption that the benefits diminish as we go forward into the implementation of policy."
Some companies are also hoping to change the traditional economics on air pollution control with newer technologies that can capture more pollution and better monitor air quality.
The net result: The break-even point where air pollution control costs outweigh benefits may be moving further into the future.
The findings come as U.S. EPA is considering tightening the national ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb. Ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight.
EPA is relying on both "known" and "unknown" controls to achieve its proposed range for a new standard. In other words, a new standard will be met by a mix of controls that already exist and technologies that have yet to be conceived or commercialized.
The reliance on "unknown" controls has spawned heavy criticism by groups representing industries that would be forced to reduce emissions, which argue that costs will run in the billions of dollars.
A widely cited study commissioned by the National Association for Manufacturers found that a 65 ppb ozone standard would cost the economy up to $140 billion a year from 2017 to 2040. The study found that because most of the controls needed to meet a tighter standard were "unknown," power plants would likely close and cars would have to be sold for scrap.
EPA, however, has said that the overall benefits of a new ozone standard would outweigh costs by 3-to-1.
The new study set to be published by the team at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, should be taken into consideration as EPA considers implementing a tighter ozone standard, Hakami said. It has been accepted for publication by the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
In it, the authors analyzed the marginal benefit -- or the monetized benefit to society of reducing 1 ton of air emissions -- tied to both stationary and mobile sources in the United States. They based benefits on premature death linked to ozone pollution and used emission data from 2007.
According to a pre-publication version of the study, when it comes to ozone pollution, reducing emissions nationwide for all sources leads to increasing marginal benefits "without exception." Benefits increased by 1.5 times and 2.5 times, respectively, for 40 percent and 80 percent reductions in man-made emissions of precursors to ground ozone.
This is significant, according to the authors, because of widely accepted economic theories that project marginal benefits will decrease as more air pollution is controlled. In other words, it's accepted wisdom that there's a point of diminishing returns to pollution control.
"As you go further into abatement and pollution levels decrease further and further, it becomes more expensive to control," Hakami said of that conventional wisdom. "At the very early stages of abatement, you're going for the low-hanging fruit. The first steps for control are inexpensive. But after you have installed control technology, going further and reducing emissions further becomes more and more expensive.
"At some point, it's not economically justified to go any further."
Hakami said that the unique chemistry of ozone pollution contributed to the increasing marginal benefits.
"In essence, NOx reductions are like rolling a stone down a hill," said Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a regulators group. "The impact on ozone starts slowly, but as you get farther down the hill, the reductions really pick up speed."Companies aim for cheaper controls
Companies that have developed new technologies to control and monitor ozone precursors are also trying to shift the traditional economics on pollution by developing cheaper controls.
New LED lighting technology, for example, is making ozone monitoring more economical, according to Hari Venugopalan, an executive at LED maker Crystal IS.
Light-emitting diodes themselves are typically more expensive than mercury lamps, but the overall system ends up being cheaper because it needs fewer pieces of equipment. The useful life of the LED light bulb is also longer.
Along with providing for more sensitive measurements, the LED system provides a faster response time for developers of emission controls.
"The trend towards measuring lower and lower levels of concentration needs technologies which can measure lower and lower levels of ozone," Venugopalan said.
Conventional control for nitrogen oxides, a key ozone precursor, typically involves installing selective catalytic reduction and other expensive technologies that aim to capture emissions of NOx at the back end of the industrial process.
Washington-based ClearSign Combustion Corp., formed in 2008, says that the answer is instead addressing pollution at the front end, rather than at the smokestack.
"I like to think of it in terms of prevention versus cure. Typically what happens is that you have an industrial process. You burn a fuel that creates pollutants," said Geoff Osler, the company's chief marketing officer. "What are we going to do with those? The traditional approach has always been, how do we clean up these stake gases now that we've created a problem?"
ClearSign has developed a technology for industrial-scale gas-fired systems that reduces NOx that is created when fuel is burned. The company has been working for several months with Aera Energy LLC, a company owned jointly by Shell Oil Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp., to install its "Duplex" control on once-through steam generators.
For a larger-scale system, ClearSign charges between $150,000 to $250,000. Osler estimates that a customer can get paid back for the technology within 18 months and begin saving because it'll need less fuel than for conventional NOx controls.
The company earlier this month announced that it has installed the technology on a Tesoro Corp. refinery in California.
But Osler said that ClearSign still fits in the category of "unknown" controls because it has yet to commercialize the technology across the United States.
"We think that by preventing those pollutants from being created, that it really disrupts the economics of emissions control to the point that it makes the national ozone standard something that become practically applicable," Osler said. "I know that's kind of a big thing to say."
The research team in Canada is currently studying particulate matter and so far believes that it'll get the same results of compounding benefits. In their ozone study, the researchers concluded that there are economic incentives for higher levels of pollution control.
"Standards are not supposed to be set with economics in mind, but in reality, EPA does consider benefits and costs," Hakami said. "This just adds to the weight of evidence that we could go further if we consider and if we include this compounding nature."
Backers of a tighter ozone standard have also urged EPA to consider the study as it nears a court-ordered Oct. 1 deadline to finalize its proposal.
"I believe the EPA and the White House should take a close look at this study as we reach the crunch time on the ozone issue," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It refutes the arguments of those who claim it would cost too much to set a more protective smog standard."
-
Clinton Breaks with Obama on Arctic Drilling
Aug 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor and Brianna Ehley
Hillary Clinton distanced herself Tuesday from President Barack Obama’s decision to approve offshore drilling in the Arctic — a move that quickly brought her attack from the GOP but may shore up her support among skeptical environmentalists.
“The Arctic is a unique treasure,” the Democratic front-runner wrote on Twitter. “Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk.”
The message was signed “H.,” indicating Clinton’s personal endorsement.
GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush quickly bashed Clinton’s stance. “Wrong,” hetweeted back at her. “Being more-anti energy than Obama is extreme. We should embrace energy revolution to lower prices & create US jobs.”
And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumped on Clinton’s continued silence on the most divisive environmental controversy of Obama’s presidency, his six-years-and-counting deliberation on whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
“Still waiting to hear your position on Keystone,” Christie told Clinton on Twitter. “#AnswerTheQuestion”
Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short piled on, saying in a statement: “Hillary Clinton’s politically-motivated silence on the Keystone Pipeline is even more untenable in the face of her opposition to yet another job-creating energy project. Once again, Hillary Clinton is reminding voters she’ll say or do anything to get elected.”
Clinton, who was secretary of state when the administration seemed on the verge of approving Keystone in late 2011, has faced pressure from green groups for refusing to say whether the president should approve or reject it.
She also faces opposition in the Democratic primary from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who have staked out ground to her left by opposing Arctic drilling and offshore drilling in general. And the speculation that Vice President Joe Biden may jump into the race would certainly revive hopes from green groups who see him as a likely opponent of Keystone as well.
Even Clinton’s tweet on Arctic drilling left some wiggle room on how strong a position she was taking. She didn’t explicitly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision Monday to allow Shell to drill for oil and gas in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, for example —or even mention Shell by name.
Still, her remark expands upon “doubts” she expressed about Arctic exploration in an interview last month with a New Hampshire television station. “I will be talking about drilling in general, but I am skeptical about whether or not we should give the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic,” she said at the time.
The Interior Department’s decision Monday enraged environmental groups like Greenpeace, which said the president, who is set to speak about climate change in Alaska later this month, “can’t have it both ways.”
Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard had nothing but praise for Clinton on Tuesday.
“Hillary Clinton got it right on the Arctic,” Leonard said in a statement. She added: “The next President will be responsible for saving the Arctic, so it’s vital we hear where all the candidates stand.”
Andrew Restuccia contributed to this report.
-
Clinton: Arctic Drilling ‘Not Worth the Risk’
Aug 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the current drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean is “not worth the risk.”
A campaign spokesperson later tweeted that Clinton’s message is in reference to off-shore drilling in the Arctic Ocean, an issue that has become a flashpoint for environmentalists.
Clinton’s tweet comes the day after the Obama administration gave Royal Dutch Shell final approval to explore for oil beneath the Chukchi Sea off the northeastern coast of Alaska.
The decision is controversial, and green groups have blasted Obama for allowing Shell to move forward. Environmentalists have warned that the Arctic region and its ecosystem are sensitive to potential oil spills and that cleaning them up would be especially difficult.
Clinton has previously said she was “skeptical” about drilling in the Arctic, telling a New Hampshire news outlet in July that, “I don’t think it is a necessary part of our clean energy, climate change agenda.”
Her clarified position is likely to bolster her standing among greens, some of whom have previously questioned her focus on environmental issues.
Clinton began rolling out her climate change agenda last month but didn't address several issues important to environmentalists, including Arctic drilling.
Clinton’s two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have both previously come out against Arctic and offshore drilling.
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, a former governor of Florida, responded with his own tweet on Tuesday.
"Wrong," the Bush campaign tweeted to Clinton. "Being more-anti energy than Obama is extreme. We should embrace energy revolution to lower prices & create US jobs."
—This post was updated at 11:31 a.m.
-
Pa. Recommends Tougher Rail Inspections on Crude-Carrying Lines
Aug 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee and Blake Sobczak
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's administration wants railroads to inspect their tracks more frequently, lower their train speeds, and use more technology to lower the risk of fires and explosions from crude oil being shipped through the state.
Wolf (D) commissioned a report on oil transportation safety after a string of accidents in the United States and Canada, including one in July 2013 that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec (EnergyWire, June 10).
Allan Zarembski, a professor at the University of Delaware, analyzed accident data for the last 10 years and made 27 recommendationsaimed at reducing the number of derailments and preventing rail cars from rupturing if they're in an accident.
"The railroads are doing many of the things that we say -- the question is, can we get the railroads to do it at a level where we reduce the risk further?" Zarembski said on a conference call with reporters.
Pennsylvania is on the receiving end of 20 to 50 trains per week loaded with crude oil from North Dakota and other new fields opened up by the U.S. fracking boom. It's been a boon to the refineries, most of which used to depend on Middle Eastern oil arriving by sea.
But there are few pipelines connecting to the East Coast, so producers have shipped most of the new oil in rail cars.
The trend may have peaked. Forty-seven percent of the crude produced in North Dakota was shipped by rail in June, the first time since August 2012 that the rail percentage has been below 50 percent.
Separately, the Association of American Railroads said its members moved 111,000 cars of crude in the second quarter of 2015, down 16 percent from the peak of 132,000 cars in the third quarter of 2014.
The U.S. Transportation Department proposed tougher construction standards for the tank cars used to ship oil and ordered railroads to share information with state emergency management councils about their train routes and the types of oil they transport.
Some activists and politicians have suggested rerouting oil trains around populated areas. Zarembski said that's not always practical.
"If the destination is Philly, it's hard to reroute around Philly," he said.Recommendations
The report recommends that railroads use ultrasonic tests and machines that measure the alignment of rails, rather than relying on visual inspections and hand-held measurements. Other devices should be used to detect defective wheels and overheated bearings that can cause accidents, it said.
At the state level, the report said the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission should fill a vacant rail inspector job and consider funding another inspector. It encouraged emergency management officials to continue collecting information about oil-train routes, share the data with local fire departments and other first responders, hold emergency drills, and make sure that local departments have enough equipment to handle emergencies.
Wolf already has recommended lowering train speeds to 35 mph in cities with more than 100,000 people. He sent a letter to the CSX and Norfolk Southern railway managers in May. Their response has been "disappointing," John Hanger, Wolf's secretary of planning and policy, said on the conference call.
The railroads were noncommittal in their responses to the report. Both have pushed for stronger tank car standards -- a move that wouldn't impose any costs on their operations -- and said in statements yesterday that they're already sharing information and using some of the technology Zarembski recommended.
Fred Millar, a hazardous materials consultant who's been critical of current oil-train regulations, said the report failed to mention other options, such as beefing up insurance requirements or imposing fees on oil-carrying trains to pay for extra inspections.
"This report betrays an extraordinary complacency with the status quo," he wrote in an email.
Zarembski said on the conference call he wanted to focus on changes that are easily achievable.
"If the railroad and the state agree to do it, there's no impediment for them to do it," he said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested