Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/25
-
(ACC Mentioned) US PE Inventories Rise for 2 of 3 Major Grades
Sep 25, 2015 | ICIS News
US polyethylene (PE) inventories in August rose for two of the three major grades, marking the second month in a row that supply has increased, according to industry data released on Thursday. -
(ACC Mentioned) North American PS Sales, Supply Down on Benzene
Sep 25, 2015 | ICIS News
By David Love
North American polystyrene (PS) sales for August were down by 5% from the same month a year ago, according to data made available on Thursday by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The statistics include data from the US, Canada and Mexico. -
'Critical Momentum' on Saicm 'Could be Lost', Warns Ipen
Sep 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The International POPs Environment Network (Ipen) says next week’s conference on the UN’s key chemical safety programme, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), must address the issue of what happens after the programme’s current mandate expires in 2020. -
Guest Column – ICCM President
Sep 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Richard Lesiyampe
This month in Geneva, Switzerland, stakeholders of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) must agree to accelerate the pace towards the 2020 goal for chemicals. -
Claims Against Pharmacia for PCB-Laced Caulk Tossed
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Claims against Pharmacia Corp. were derailed Sept. 23 when the District of Massachusetts ruled the Town of Lexington, Mass., failed to show the company was liable for PCB-laden caulk installed at an elementary school 54 years ago (Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., 2015 BL 308708, D. Mass., No. 12-cv-11645, 9/23/15). -
Cyber Leaders Hold Out for Real Action During Chinese President's Visit
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
As Chinese President Xi Jinping wraps up his visit to the United States this week, American business leaders will look for shreds of progress on perhaps the most divisive issue facing the two countries: cybersecurity. -
(ACC Mentioned) Better Days Coming for Natural Gas
Sep 24, 2015 | Investing Daily
By Robert Rapier
While oil prices this year have traded at lower levels than I expected, natural gas prices have been mostly in line with my expectations. -
Smith Alleges White House Political Tampering with Ozone Rule Science
Sep 24, 2015 | Politico
By Alex Guillén
House Science Chairman Lamar Smith is sounding alarm bells over reports that the White House is pushing EPA to set a lower ozone standard than the agency has proposed. -
French Energy Company Capitalizes on low LNG Prices in Texas
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
French energy company Total SA has announced it will build a $2 billion steam cracker plant in Texas to capitalize on the United States' now-cheap liquefied natural gas. -
House Oil Export Vote Delayed Until October: Aide
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
House leadership has delayed a vote on legislation to end the 40-year ban on most crude oil exports until the week of Oct. 6, a Republican aide confirmed to Bloomberg BNA. -
White House Open to Export Talks as Bill Advances -- Heitkamp
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
A key Senate Democrat supportive of lifting the nation's crude export ban said yesterday that the White House remains open to negotiating as long as clean energy incentives, conservation or other provisions are on the table. -
Enviros Push Commerce for Crude-Export Documents
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups are taking the Obama administration to court over information about crude oil exports. -
New Spending Bill Free of Environmental Riders
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A new version of a Senate bill that would fund the federal government through Dec. 11 is, like its predecessor, free of any major policy provisions that would affect environmental issues. -
Analyst Cites Risk in Doing Nothing on Clean Power Plan
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
States and power generators banking on Republican control of the White House after the 2016 election or a U.S. Supreme Court decision voiding the Clean Power Plan have adopted a “risky” strategy and could lose out on key opportunities under the program, an energy policy and emissions trading authority said Sept. 24. -
Climate Rule Could Prompt Emissions Trading
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
U.S. states from the Pacific Coast to the Midwest may allow companies to trade the right to emit global warming pollution, spurred on by the Obama administration's new climate change rules. -
Oil & Gas Sector Doubts Need For Proposed EPA Methane Emissions Limit
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas industry groups used EPA public hearings this week to question the agency's proposed first-time limit on emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from the sector, noting that the previous 2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) drilling air rule already achieves methane cuts as a co-benefit of other pollution controls. -
States, Industry Urge D.C. Circuit To Scrap EPA Power Plant Air Toxics Rule
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
Several states and industry organizations are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate entirely EPA's power plant air toxics rule, saying the Supreme Court's decision faulting the agency for not considering costs before developing the regulation shows it is invalid and should not remain in effect. -
Behind the Final Rule's March to the Federal Register
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are awaiting the final rule's publication in the Federal Register so that challenges in both the courts and on Capitol Hill can move ahead. -
N.D. Governor Says He Has 'Direct Questions' for EPA
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Gov. Jack Dalrymple plans to meet with top U.S. EPA officials next week to protest how his state was treated in the final version of the Clean Power Plan. -
D.C. Circuit Weighs Texas' Push For Parallel Challenges To EPA SSM Rule
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is weighing a push by Texas to create two parallel suits over EPA's rule forcing 36 states to remove Clean Air Act waivers during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) periods, with Texas arguing its challenge raises legal issues distinct from other states' lawsuits. -
Foes of Stricter Ozone Standard Get Ready for EPA Decision
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Congressional activity on the national ozone standard is heating up as U.S. EPA nears a deadline next week to choose a final new limit. -
GOP Lawmaker Queries EPA, OMB On Ozone Dispute
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, is seeking answers from the Obama administration over claims that EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) are at odds over the limit that the agency should select for its imminent revised ozone ambient air standard. -
Final CWA E-Reporting Rule Extends Deadlines Following States' Concerns
Sep 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA's final rule requiring electronic reporting of most water discharge data appears to give states more of the implementation flexibility they sought in comments on the proposal, extending compliance deadlines for many water permitting programs to five years while softening provisions that would have sent data to federal regulators first in some conditions. -
Railroad Sector Suit Claims EPA CWA Rule 'Ditches' Exclusion Too Narrow
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Railroad industry groups have filed suit over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule claiming that its exclusion for certain “ditches” is too narrow and could hinder the sector's ability to maintain safe operations, pursuing litigation separate from a slew of existing cases over the rule in order to highlight the industry's concerns. -
Inhofe Will 'Take a Look' at Super-Pollutant Bill
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Jean Chemnick
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) was unmoved by Pope Francis' plea for Congress to tackle climate change but signaled yesterday he's willing to consider a bipartisan measure targeting so-called climate super-pollutants. -
Regional Leaders from Around World Sign Pledge to Reduce Carbon Pollution
Sep 24, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney
Mayors and regional leaders from around the world welcomed Pope Francis’s arrival in New York on Thursday by signing a pledge to drastically cut carbon pollution, joining a growing movement of local jurisdictions that are pushing for aggressive action on climate change regardless of what national governments choose to do. -
Pope Francis's Congressional Climate Call Short, but Pointed
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Anthony Adragna
In a speech before a Republican-led Congress that has rebuffed calls for climate action, Pope Francis Sept. 24 made a short but direct plea for them to “avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Could a Safety Regulation Crisis Derail Chemical Distributions?
Sep 24, 2015 | Chem.info
By Andy Szal
A top chemical industry group is calling on Congress to extend a deadline for railroads to comply with federal safety regulations. -
Senate Subcommittee to Hold Pipeline Safety Hearing
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee will hold a hearing on pipeline safety oversight Sept. 29, the day before authorization for those programs is set to lapse, the committee announced Sept. 24. -
PennEast Seeks Approval for $1 Billion Shale Gas Pipeline
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan N. Crawford
The group behind the proposed PennEast Pipeline is seeking regulatory approval for the 118-mile natural gas link serving the northeast U.S.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US PE Inventories Rise for 2 of 3 Major Grades
Sep 25, 2015 | ICIS News
US polyethylene (PE) inventories in August rose for two of the three major grades, marking the second month in a row that supply has increased, according to industry data released on Thursday.
The figures from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) confirmed initial estimates showing that inventories rose during the month by about 1% and that supply has loosened.
Inventory for the most popular high density (HDPE) grade increased almost 4% while that of low density (LDPE) edged up less than 1%. The only grade that did not rise, linear low density (LLDPE), showed inventory declining about 1%.
The inventory figures arrived this week with the second monthly drop in PE contracts, which fell by -4 cents/lb for September.
Major US PE producers include Chevron Phillips Chemical, Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, Formosa Plastics, LyondellBasell, NOVA Chemicals and Westlake.
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American PS Sales, Supply Down on Benzene
Sep 25, 2015 | ICIS News
By David Love
North American polystyrene (PS) sales for August were down by 5% from the same month a year ago, according to data made available on Thursday by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The statistics include data from the US, Canada and Mexico.
The figures from the ACC reflect the current scenario of price weakness in the market, driven largely by the sharp drop on feedstock benzeneprices over the last few months. US PS producers lowered September prices by 9 cents/lb, and prices are expected to weaken again in October– as some buyers received mid-September price cuts.
Month on month, sales fell by 3% in August, the ACC said. Year to date, sales fell by 1% in August.
August PS supply was also down by 5% from the same month a year ago, according to the data, reflecting the seasonal increase in demand.
Month on month, supply fell by 5% in August, the ACC said. Year to date, supply fell 1% in August.
Major PS producers include Styrolution, Total and Americas Styrenics.
-
'Critical Momentum' on Saicm 'Could be Lost', Warns Ipen
Sep 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The International POPs Environment Network (Ipen) says next week’s conference on the UN’s key chemical safety programme, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), must address the issue of what happens after the programme’s current mandate expires in 2020.
In proposals published this week, it says that if the conference fails to do so, and Saicm expires, “there will be a gap; and critical momentum will be lost.”
Next week, representatives from over 100 countries will converge on Geneva for the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4). The meeting will seek to guide progress towards Saicm’s aim of minimising the adverse impacts of chemicals on humans and the environment by 2020, and is the last before this deadline.
Ipen’s proposals say meeting the goal is "highly unlikely" as most of the objectives identified in the Saicm Global Plan of Action are "still far from being achieved" and most emerging policy issues "are just beginning to be understood and addressed". In addition, new challenges will emerge as chemical production and use rapidly expands in developing and transition countries.
To plan ahead, Ipen says intersessional meetings should be held in 2016, 2018 and 2019. A high-level session at ICCM5 in 2020 could then consider and adopt post-2020 institutional arrangements for sound chemicals management.
Beyond 2020, Saicm should also use the enabling capabilities and frameworks it is currently developing, to take action at national and local level to minimise and eliminate sources of exposure to hazardous chemicals, says the group.On Saicm’s so-called “emerging policy issues”, the group says:all countries should ban lead paint by 2020;individuals’ and communities’ right to know about chemicals in products should be ensured;electronics manufacturing processes, products and disposal methods should not involve hazardous chemicals;a protocol is needed to evaluate the safety of nanomaterials in products entering the market; andendocrine disrupting chemicals should be identified and their hazards addressed.
It also reiterated its support for setting up a Global Alliance to phase out highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) – which was suggested by African countries at a preparatory Saicm meeting, last year (CW 17 December 2014). A similar approach has been taken to lead in paint.
ICCM4 will consider a proposal to address the substances from the Food and Agriculture Organization, Unep and the World Health Organization.
-
Sep 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Richard Lesiyampe
This month in Geneva, Switzerland, stakeholders of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) must agree to accelerate the pace towards the 2020 goal for chemicals.
For those that need reminding, the goal [which was agreed on at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa] is to ensure that by 2020 chemicals are produced and used in ways that protect human health and the environment. In Dubai in 2006, stakeholders agreed that Saicm was to drive the process.
In order to measure progress, it was also agreed that, every two years, a meeting would take place – known as the International Conference on Chemicals Management. There have been three sessions so far, the last held in Nairobi in September 2012.
ICCM4
The fourth session takes place between 28 September and 2 October and will be a milestone in international efforts to take action on the sound management of chemicals and waste, as we head towards 2020.
As president of the conference, I believe the actions and decisions we take, at this pivotal session, will have a far-reaching effect on our success in meeting our global commitment to the 2020 goal. We plan for the stakeholders to agree a programme of work and prioritise activities that will catalyse the process of reaching the goal. I know we are well prepared.
As a nominee of the African region, I appreciate the big challenges that Africa faces in addressing chemical risks and more importantly, dealing with short-life products that contain hazardous chemicals resulting in hazardous waste, which Africa is ill equipped to dispose of in an environmentally sound manner. In 2014, the World Health Organisation (WHO) produced a report that stressed the vulnerability of Africa to the hazards posed by chemicals. Happily, we shall address them in the context of Saicm.
Preparatory work
The preparatory work for ICCM4 has come from information provided through consultation with stakeholders, regional meetings, and the second Open-Ended Working Group, last December, and it has been thorough. We are well positioned to act on a number of key issues at this conference.
Critical to this is to appreciate that regions are at different stages. In Dubai, we developed some concrete actions that need to be taken at local, national and global levels. I am encouraged that many countries have taken on those actions and more.
Nevertheless, new scientific evidence and data show that there are new and emerging issues that also need to be considered urgently. At the fourth session, the five united national regions will inform us of what they are doing and, more importantly, what they can do for others to achieve this common goal.
Tools
We have also thought of some tools to help achieve this. First, the so called Overall Orientation and Guidance (OOG) goal is expected to be the strategic policy outcome of ICCM4. It provides direction and outlines the approaches we expect all Saicm stakeholders to take. The document includes some concrete aspects required at the national level, including the 11 basic elements that underpin sound chemicals management identified in Saicm’s Overarching Policy Strategy.
Key benchmarking is progress made on the practical aspects of emerging policy issues. At ICCM4 stakeholders will be able to consider environmental performance index (EPI) work plans for the period leading up to 2020. These have been developed by the EPI lead organisations. I hope that these plans, which will detail the activities aimed at enhancing cooperation and collaboration, may be used as a basis for formulating a possible conference resolution that brings the operational side of the OOG to life.
Additional EPIs
In addition, the conference will consider three proposals on environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants as a new emerging policy issue; a voluntary international programme for information on chemicals in products (CiP); and the next steps for highly hazardous pesticides as an issue of concern. Stakeholders feel that the current momentum of Saicm can also accommodate these three urgent issues. Stakeholders will also review and consider elements of a draft resolution on nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials.
Post-2015 agenda
I am also mindful that the post-2015 development agenda is likely to be adopted by the UN the week before ICCM4. We should be ready and willing to serve this new global development agenda through the multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder platform of the Strategic Approach. We know that the sound management of chemicals and waste is an essential and cross-cutting element of sustainable development and of great relevance to that agenda. I cannot emphasise that enough.
High level section
The ICCM4 Bureau has also decided to include a high-level section at ICCM4 to emphasise the urgency of acting now for environmental, health and economic reasons. Ministers, heads of agencies and organisations, chief executive officers, high-level heads of delegations and other participants are expected to attend. This is critical because, in Dubai, ministers made their Ministerial Declaration a key plank of Saicm. Ten years down the line, the ministers may wish to comment on progress and renew the mandate. This will energise the process for reaching the 2020 goal.
We want to reinvigorate participants who have already committed to Saicm, and inspire wider stakeholder engagement. I believe that making connections between the Strategic Approach and the proposed sustainable development goals – and opportunities arising from their implementation – are a major opportunity to promote the chemicals and waste agenda among governments, industry, the private sector and civil society.
The high-level section will address sound management of chemicals from an industry and a sustainable development and health perspective. We plan to run three dialogue sessions on: making chemicals management more efficient through collaboration between policy sectors; the benefits of the multi-stakeholder approach for implementation of the sustainable development goals; and partnerships between different stakeholders as a key to success.
There will also be some discussion about the need to address the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020.
Beyond 2020
As we focus on achieving the 2020 goal, discussions on “what next?” have not been straightforward. However, the ICCM4 Bureau has prepared a note on the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020, which will be put to the conference. It references the outcomes of the country-led consultative process on enhancing cooperation and coordination within the chemicals and waste cluster, entitled “Strengthening the sound management of chemicals and wastes in the long term”.
I encourage the conference to consider this, and the linkages with the post-2015 development agenda, to formulate a resolution setting out recommendations and actions for the longer term.
As we head towards this pivotal meeting, I urge all of Saicm’s many stakeholders to commit, to cooperate, to be aware and to take ownership of the work that needs to be done. If we can engender this spirit, I expect we shall be able to reach consensus on the matters that are critical to Saicm and bring us closer to the 2020 goal.
Dr Richard L Lesiyampe is also principal secretary, Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Regional Development, Kenya.
Chemical Watch would like to know if you think Saicm is sufficiently relevant to industry. Please take our poll that runs until the end of September.
We also encourage you to join our Chemical Watch subgroup on LinkedIn, which aims to encourage discussion and understanding on the work of Saicm and topics discussed at ICCM4. Join the Saicm and ICCM4 subgroup here.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch Forum
-
Claims Against Pharmacia for PCB-Laced Caulk Tossed
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Claims against Pharmacia Corp. were derailed Sept. 23 when the District of Massachusetts ruled the Town of Lexington, Mass., failed to show the company was liable for PCB-laden caulk installed at an elementary school 54 years ago (Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., 2015 BL 308708, D. Mass., No. 12-cv-11645, 9/23/15).
Lexington sued to recoup cleanup costs for polychlorinated biphenyls at the school, but the court said the town didn't make its case against Pharmacia on several fronts.
There was evidence the company manufactured 97 percent of PCBs from 1950 to 1978, but Lexington didn't establish the chemical was defective, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said. Nor were the risks of PCBs reasonably foreseeable when the school was built in 1961, almost two decades before Congress banned PCBs in 1979.
The court granted summary judgment to Pharmacia and dismissed some claims in a putative class action brought by Lexington against Pharmacia, Solutia Inc. and Monsanto Co. in 2012. The proposed class includes Massachusetts school districts with one or more buildings with PCBs above the levels established by the Environmental Protection Agency.
A related suit against Monsanto was dismissed last March. In that case, the District of Massachusetts held the company's lawful manufacture and sale of PCBs for use in the construction of its public schools wasn't a sufficient basis to hold it liable under that state's Superfund law (58 DEN A-15, 3/26/15).
PCBs in Elementary School
Lexington tested the PCB levels of Estabrook Elementary School in 2009, shortly after the EPA issued guidelines for indoor air for schools constructed between 1950 and 1978.
Those tests revealed PCB levels above EPA limits in caulk at the school, as well as its indoor air. The town began a remediation project and sued Pharmacia and other defendants to recover its costs, alleging design defect and failure-to-warn claims.
Pharmacia moved for a summary judgment, citing insufficient evidence that it manufactured the PCB used in the school's caulk, the lack of any cognizable injury and an absence of expert testimony proving the PCBs were inherently defective.
The company also asserted that Lexington's failure-to-warn claim was deficient because the risks of airborne PCB levels weren't reasonably foreseeable in 1961, when the caulk was installed.
Injury Date in Question
Lexington provided enough evidence only to support its claims that Pharmacia was the sole domestic source for PCBs from 1950 to 1978, and that it suffered a cognizable injury, the court said.
Pharmacia argued that third-party caulk manufacturers decided whether to add PCBs to their caulk products, and at what level, but the court said Lexington's evidence was sufficient to avoid a summary judgment on that element.
The company also questioned whether Lexington stated an injury capable of redress.
A wrinkle in Massachusetts law requires “privity of contract” between a plaintiff and a defendant to prove a breach of warranty arising from an injury—but only if the injury occurred before Dec. 16, 1973. Here, Pharmacia argued that hurdle defeated Lexington's design defect claim because the operative date of injury is 1961.
Lexington countered that privity with Pharmacia wasn't necessary because the town couldn't detect the injury until at least 1980, when PCB testing methods were first developed, or as late as 2009, when the EPA issued its guidelines for schools' indoor air.
Analogy to Asbestos Patient?
Lexington also asserted the injury to its “sick building” was akin to an asbestos patient who manifests symptoms decades after exposure.
The court said that analogy was imperfect.
“Unlike an asbestos patient, the property of Estabrook, including the indoor air, would not have manifested any symptoms of its ailment because airborne PCBs are not detectable absent testing,” the court said.
The sum of the evidence, however, revealed that Lexington couldn't have been reasonably aware of the PCBs dangers before 1973, the court said, finding sufficient proof of a cognizable injury.
Other elements of Lexington's design defect claim didn't fare as well.
The court faulted the town for not supporting its claim with expert testimony and rejected its assertion that the design defects in PCBs are within the lay knowledge of the jury. It also disagreed with Lexington's assertion that proof of a specific defect wasn't necessary because Congress banned the chemical in 1979.
“While Congress's eventual ban of PCBs is indicative of their inherent danger, the fact that Congress banned PCBs does not demonstrate that the risks addressed by Congress in 1979 were reasonably foreseeable in 1961, when the construction of Estabrook was completed,” the court said.
Comparison to Cigarettes, Lead Paint
PCBs could be seen as the analogue of cigarettes and lead paint, the court said, pointing out that a product's inherent danger does not, in itself, prove that it is defectively designed. And the defective condition cannot arise from harmful ingredients “that are characteristic of the product,” the court said, citing Godoy v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 319 Wis.2d 91 (Wis. 2009).
Here, “Lexington must point to some aspect of Pharmacia's design of PCBs, not the mere presence of PCBs, to sustain its claim for design defect,” the court said.
The town's failure-to-warn claim failed for the same reason.
“Just as Lexington could not identify its injury absent the appropriate testing technology, it is unclear how Pharmacia was to warn of the same injury even though it could not be discovered at the time Lexington acquired the PCB-laden caulk,” the court said.
Requests for comment sent to counsel the Town of Lexington and Pharmacia weren't successful Sept. 24.
Judge Denise J. Casper wrote the opinion.
Sher Leff, as well as Creed & Gowdy represented the Town of Lexington, Mass. Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, and Kennedy & Madonna and Anderson & Kreiger also represented the town.
-
Cyber Leaders Hold Out for Real Action During Chinese President's Visit
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
As Chinese President Xi Jinping wraps up his visit to the United States this week, American business leaders will look for shreds of progress on perhaps the most divisive issue facing the two countries: cybersecurity.
Several U.S. technology executives aired their concerns over rampant cyber espionage at a roundtable with Xi in Seattle on Wednesday. But despite the Chinese leader's assurances that he would root out and punish those responsible for bad online behavior, many in the private sector are looking for something more concrete to emerge from meetings in Washington, D.C.
President Obama has said he will not shy away from cybersecurity conflicts during face-to-face talks with his Chinese counterpart, scheduled to continue today.
"We are preparing a number of measures that will indicate to the Chinese that this is not just a matter of us being mildly upset, but is something that will put significant strains on the bilateral relationship if not resolved," Obama said at the Business Roundtable earlier this month, referring to Chinese cyber theft of trade secrets and past examples of industrial spying.
One of the most well-known cases in the energy sector did not rely on computer hacking at all, but involved a former employee of Massachusetts-based clean technology firm American Superconductor Corp. In 2011 the worker confessed to having sent AMSC's proprietary software codes to Chinese wind turbine builder Sinovel Wind Group Co., crippling AMSC's business in China.
More recently, in 2014, the U.S. Justice Department accused five Chinese military officers of stealing proprietary information and blueprints from several U.S. companies.
"Candidly, cyber is an issue where we have not made the kind of progress we have wanted to make," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications at the White House, said in a recent call with reporters. "We have not seen the types of steps that give our companies greater assurance. We've been very forthright about that [with China]."
In the run-up to Xi's visit to the United States -- his first as China's leader -- there was speculation that the Obama administration would bring new economic sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals accused of walking off with U.S. secrets. Obama issued an executive order in April freeing up the use of sanctions against hackers who damage core U.S. interests, but so far the new sanctions regime hasn't been used publicly.
Senior White House officials have said they would prefer to pursue the matter behind the scenes and come up with an international framework for cyber norms. On Saturday, The New York Times reported that Obama and Xi may work out a pact on targeting critical infrastructure -- such as the electric grid -- with cyber weapons.
Professor Shen Dingli, associate dean of international studies at Fudan University in Shanghai and an expert in China-U.S. security relations, said he hopes China and the United States can strike an accord over "crucial areas such as banking, energy and data security."
"I hope it will also have a verification protocol, to really add to the trust and confidence building between the two countries," he said in an email, although he added that the difficulty in attributing cyberattacks will pose challenges to both sides.
Experts say U.S. businesses won't be satisfied unless an agreement goes beyond arms control to restore confidence in IP protection.
"If the discussion is truly for pledging not to use critical infrastructure [cyber] attacks in peacetime, then it's pointless, because no one was going to attack critical infrastructure during peacetime anyway," said Robert M. Lee, a former Air Force cyber warfare operations officer who researches control system cybersecurity at King's College London. "What the private sector is looking at is not critical infrastructure protection -- they're looking for actual discussions around the IP of these companies."
Both Lee and Dingli noted that any cyber agreement between the two countries would not likely cover the kind of cyberespionage routinely carried out by agencies such as the U.S. NSA, which is known to have targeted China-based firms including Huawei Technologies. China, for its part, is widely believed to have stolen millions of highly sensitive documents on U.S. government workers from the Office of Personnel Management, although the White House has not publicly accused Beijing of orchestrating the attack.
"You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did," U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at a conference in June.
He has stopped short of saying definitively that China was behind the OPM hack.Actions on 'irritants'
Caroline Atkinson, Obama's deputy national security adviser for international economics, singled out IP theft as one of the major "irritants" to the bilateral economic relationship.
"We believe that it's in China's interest and our interest that China move to reaffirm the protection of intellectual property and allow market forces to play a decisive role in the economy," she said.
Publicly, China agrees. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly denied any government ties to cyber theft, and Xi doubled down on those claims in a policy speech in Seattle on Tuesday night.
"The Chinese government will not, in whatever form, engage in commercial theft, and hacking against government networks are crimes that must be punished in accordance with law and relevant international treaties," Xi said through an interpreter, adding that his country would be open to restarting high-level talks with the United States on cybersecurity concerns.
Dan Kritenbrink, senior director for Asian affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, told reporters before Xi's speech that he would not take the leader's comments at face value.
"We would welcome a commitment on the part of the Chinese not to engage in this type of behavior," he said. "But the focus of course has to be on actions and not simply words."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Better Days Coming for Natural Gas
Sep 24, 2015 | Investing Daily
By Robert Rapier
While oil prices this year have traded at lower levels than I expected, natural gas prices have been mostly in line with my expectations. Following the unseasonably cold winter of 2013-14 that depleted natural gas inventories, a mild summer and normal winter – along with record natural gas production in the U.S. – allowed gas inventories to return to normal. There have been no major surprises since that have moved the natural gas market in either direction, so prices have remained depressed this year as I expected.
The longer term picture for natural gas producers is still bullish. The EPA is aggressively phasing out coal, and natural gas still looks to be the biggest beneficiary. The first liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in continental U.S. is set to open within the next six months, with more to follow.
Chemical manufacturers are also taking advantage of low U.S. gas prices. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as of July 238 new chemical manufacturing projects were planned in direct response to low U.S. gas prices. These projects represent $145 billion in capital investment, mostly by foreign companies, and will eventually consume a significant share of the U.S. gas supply. In fact, the ACC also reports that nearly 40% of these projects have been completed or are under construction, and that is beginning to show up in the industrial natural gas demand numbers which have risen every year since 2009:
On the demand side, the U.S. Energy Information Administration recently reported that natural gas production across all major shale regions is projected to decrease this month for the first time ever. Thus, a future with higher demand and potentially lower supply is a pretty good bet, and that should drive natural gas prices higher over the next few years.
In this week’s Energy Strategist I am going review the key metrics for many of the biggest natural gas producers, and examine their outlook in light of current and projected gas prices. Here are some highlights.
ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is the world’s leading publicly traded natural gas producer. Here are the top 10 in terms of gas production during Q2 2015 in descending order, along with some key metrics:
EV = Enterprise Value in billions as of Sept. 21EBITDA = Earnings in billions before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization for the trailing 12 months (TTM)Debt/EBITDA = Net debt in billions at the end of Q2 divided by TTM EBITDAFCF = Levered free cash flow in billions for the TTMRes = Total proved oil and gas reserves in billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) at year-end 2014Gas = Average natural gas production for the most recent fiscal quarter in billion cubic feet per dayOil = Average oil production for the most recent quarter in million cubic feet per dayCR = Current Ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities)Gas = Percentage of reserves that were natural gas at year-end 2014The world’s six integrated supermajors are also the world’s six largest natural gas producers, but of course they have a lot going on besides natural gas production. The only pure exploration and production (E&P) companies in the top 10 are ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK).
If we remove the integrated companies and just focus on the top 10 pure oil and gas producers with the greatest revenues from natural gas, the list looks like this:
Gas Rev = Revenue from natural gas for fiscal 2014 in billionsGas Res = Year-end 2014 natural gas reserves in trillion cubic feetHowever, most of these companies still derive the majority of their revenue from oil production. So if we want to look at the top 10 “purest play” natural gas companies, the list looks quite a bit different. Here, I limited the rankings to companies that obtain more revenues from natural gas sales than from oil sales. Here were the top 10 sorted in descending order by enterprise value:
(Cabot’s EBITDA and related metrics show the effect of a $771 million non-cash impairment charge taken in December to account for the diminished value of non-core oil fields in east Texas. Adding back that sum would yield metrics much more in line with the competition.)This table comprises the E&Ps that are the largest predominantly gas companies in North America. Besides CONSOL, which is a gas/coal company, these companies are oil and gas companies — with the emphasis on gas. These companies will be the focus of this week’s Energy Strategist.
-
Smith Alleges White House Political Tampering with Ozone Rule Science
Sep 24, 2015 | Politico
By Alex Guillén
House Science Chairman Lamar Smith is sounding alarm bells over reports that the White House is pushing EPA to set a lower ozone standard than the agency has proposed.
In letters today to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Smith points to unconfirmed media reports that EPA has suggested a final standard of 70 parts per billion, but that White House officials are looking to set it at 68 ppb.
"Any new lower ozone standard is unnecessary at this time and could cause devastating harm to the economy," Smith wrote. "However, it is even more troubling that whatever scientific analyses used by EPA to determine its final recommended limit are being disregarded by White House officials for purely political reasons."
He demands EPA and the White House hand over all communications on the ozone rule, and asks for committee interviews with Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Howard Shelanski, Council on Environmental Quality Director Christy Goldfuss, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe and EPA policy chief Joel Beauvais. The deadline is Oct. 8.
EPA is slated to finalize the rule by Oct. 1 under a court agreement.
-
French Energy Company Capitalizes on low LNG Prices in Texas
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
French energy company Total SA has announced it will build a $2 billion steam cracker plant in Texas to capitalize on the United States' now-cheap liquefied natural gas.
The new Port Arthur plant will break down LNG with steam and pressure to make up to 2.2 million pounds per year of ethylene, a product used in everything from plastics to electronics.
Cheap natural gas from U.S. shale reserves has Total Refining and Chemicals President Philippe Sauquet ready to expand.
"In the United States, we want to capitalize on the shale gas revolution during which gas prices have plunged 66 percent," Sauquet said in a statement.
Total partnered with BASF SE, a German company, in ownership of its current Port Arthur petrochemical site. Total said it's talking with others about potential co-venturers for the new steam cracker.
Total said Wednesday that final decisions on the project were expected next year, with a finished product in 2019 (Jordan Blum, Fuel Fix, Sept. 23). -- MB
-
House Oil Export Vote Delayed Until October: Aide
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
House leadership has delayed a vote on legislation to end the 40-year ban on most crude oil exports until the week of Oct. 6, a Republican aide confirmed to Bloomberg BNA. The legislation (H.R. 702) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was planned for next week. The delay comes as Congress turns to passing a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded before funding expires at month's end.
-
White House Open to Export Talks as Bill Advances -- Heitkamp
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
A key Senate Democrat supportive of lifting the nation's crude export ban said yesterday that the White House remains open to negotiating as long as clean energy incentives, conservation or other provisions are on the table.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's (N.D.) comments came as the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee scheduled a markup Thursday of her legislation to lift the ban.
Heitkamp said during an interview that she's in discussions with the Obama administration and pivotal agencies about ending the decades-old ban, and comments from White House officials earlier this month did not signal that the president is completely opposed.
"You have to read very carefully to what they said, which wasn't 'No, never, this would be the worst idea in the world,'" Heitkamp said. "It was 'It can't be done in isolation,' and I think you heard that both from the White House and Hillary Clinton. We hope to have this resolved before Hillary Clinton would have any role in decisionmaking."
Heitkamp was referring to comments White House spokesman Josh Earnest made at a briefing last week, in which he said lifting the ban should occur at the Commerce Department, not on Capitol Hill.
Earnest also said the White House would not support Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton's bill, H.R. 702, to lift the ban (E&ENews PM, Sept. 15).
The full House could vote on Barton's bill as early as next week (E&E Daily, Sept. 24).
"What you heard from both [the White House and Clinton] is it's got to have a broader dialogue on this issue," she said, adding that it's unlikely language to lift the export ban could move on its own. "It maybe could ... but it certainly won't get enough votes to sustain a veto."
The Senate Banking Committee yesterday announced it would mark up Heitkamp's bill, S. 1372, the "American Crude Oil Export Equality Act," on Thursday.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the panel's chairman, had told reporters earlier this month that the legislation could move through his committee, and Heitkamp rejected the notion that Shelby waited to hold the vote until she reached a deal with other senators or the White House.
"Folks interested in this aren't necessarily on the committee anyway, and they aren't all on the Energy Committee, so moving these bills out gives us an opportunity to have that dialogue," the senator said.
-
Enviros Push Commerce for Crude-Export Documents
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups are taking the Obama administration to court over information about crude oil exports.
The Center for Biological Diversity and ForestEthics filed suit yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that the Department of Commerce withheld documents the groups were entitled to under the Freedom of Information Act.
The groups submitted the FOIA request to Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security in November 2014, seeking information about the agency's authorization of crude oil exports since January 2013, along with any related environmental analysis.
The suit is part of a broader attempt by environmentalists to challenge the Obama administration's approval of certain crude oil exports. Though Congress has banned most crude exports, pressure is rising to lift the ban, and the administration can already approve certain deals that are found to be in the national interest.
Exports rose from 44,000 barrels per day in 2009 to 351,000 barrels per day in 2014, the suit says, thanks to the country's skyrocketing production of oil from hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in recent years. CBD and ForestEthics say a move toward exports fuels more environmental degradation from production.
"President Obama's secretive approval of crude oil exports hurts our climate and exposes more people and wildlife to fracking pollution," CBD attorney Jean Su said in a statement. "Hiding these actions under a shroud of secrecy is not just bad policy, but unlawful."
According to the lawsuit, BIS responded to the FOIA request by saying it did not have any documents to offer related to environmental analysis and would not provide authorization documents because the Export Administration Act of 1969 exempts such information from FOIA.
The law has since expired, but BIS told the groups that the FOIA exemption was incorporated into EAA-related regulations that have been extended through executive orders. The groups criticized the agency's reliance on the FOIA exemption in the lawsuit, arguing that BIS was conflating the regulations and the expired law.
The Department of Commerce did not respond to a request for comment.
-
New Spending Bill Free of Environmental Riders
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A new version of a Senate bill that would fund the federal government through Dec. 11 is, like its predecessor, free of any major policy provisions that would affect environmental issues.
The bill (Amendment No. 2680 to H.J. Res. 61) is a continuing resolution that would avert a government shutdown, which could occur at the end of this month when funding for the current fiscal year expires.
A nearly identical continuing resolution (Amendment No. 2669 to H. J. Res. 61) failed a Sept. 24 procedural vote in the Senate due to Democratic objections to the resolution's language cutting off all federal funding to the group Planned Parenthood (184 DEN A-7, 9/23/15).
The Planned Parenthood language has been stripped from this new version of the continuing resolution. Other than the removal of this language, no other changes to the resolution have been made, according to Laura Brooks, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
The resolution contains an across-the-board cut of nearly a quarter of a percentage point for all federal agencies to comply with the sequester-mandated budget caps for the 2016 fiscal year. It also contains a few minor policy provisions, such as additional funding for emergency wildfire suppression as well as a measure that gives the Energy Department some flexibility over how it spends its uranium enrichment cleanup funds.
Earlier versions of an appropriations bill that would have funded the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and other related agencies contained dozens of policy provisions aimed at blocking the Obama administration from issuing new regulations on water jurisdiction, climate change and many other issues (132 DEN A-13, 7/10/15).
The Senate could cast a final vote on this new continuing resolution as early as Sept. 28, barring a weekend session. After that, it would go to the House, where its fate is highly uncertain.
Note: Bloomberg Philanthropies provides financial support for Planned Parenthood.
-
Analyst Cites Risk in Doing Nothing on Clean Power Plan
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
States and power generators banking on Republican control of the White House after the 2016 election or a U.S. Supreme Court decision voiding the Clean Power Plan have adopted a “risky” strategy and could lose out on key opportunities under the program, an energy policy and emissions trading authority said Sept. 24.
Andrew Weissman, chief executive officer of the energy market research firm EBW Analytics Group and, said the nation could be saddled with significant political and legal ambiguity over the Clean Power Plan for several years. In this climate, he said some state regulatory agencies and utilities would be tempted to wait out the political and legal storms.
Weissman, however, advised against a do-nothing posture.
“There may essentially be ambiguity about the legal status through most of the period between now and 2022,” Weissman, also counsel to the law firm Haynes and Boone LLP, said during a presentation in Chicago. “So the question becomes, what do states do in the medium term? This will be a political process, and there will be states that decide to do nothing, but that will be a very risky approach. There are some very important options that go away if you don't act.”
On Aug. 3, the Environmental Protection Agency released its final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Among other things, the rule establishes a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state.
The standard requires state regulatory agencies to implement state plans for achieving carbon emissions targets. The federal program is expected to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).
Compliance Timeframe
One important benefit coming to proactive states would be a longer timeframe for compliance.
States submitting either their final plans or an initial submission to the EPA by Sept. 6, 2016, would have until Sept. 6, 2018, to complete their plans. Many observers see this provision as a strategy for quickly herding reluctant states into the clean power framework.
Weissman said Republican governors and legislators from several states are pinning their hopes on the 2016 elections as a strategy for managing their state's duties under the Clean Power Plan. He noted, however, that elections are uncertain. Moreover, the program could become more rigorous if a Democrat wins the White House.
“If Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are elected, this program will certainly go forward and may be tightened,” he said.
Weissman also dismissed suggestions that the plan would be struck down quickly by a sympathetic Supreme Court. He said final legal certainty wouldn't likely emerge for three years or four years, and it is unclear whether the court, in its current configuration, would be sympathetic to states seeking to defeat the clean power initiative.
State Have Viable Option on Lawsuit
Weissman conceded that the 16 states suing the EPA have a viable legal argument for challenging the Clean Power Plan. The states contend the plan should be voided because it usurps state authority over intrastate energy policy. Moreover, the states said the EPA is overstepping its authorities under Section 111(d) by requiring emissions reductions from activities beyond the boundaries of power plants.
While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could issue a decision supporting the Clean Power Plan, Weissman said the challenge by the states would ultimately have to be decided before the Supreme Court. He said any decision by the high court would likely be narrow, and attorneys for both the EPA and the states would aggressively pursue Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing voter.
“The decision will boil down to how Justice Kennedy and John Roberts decide,” Weissman said. “I would say, at least for Roberts who is a conservative, I think there is a real good chance he will vote yes (supporting the states), but of course I don't know. So, could it be stopped by the court? I think there is a real serious possibility.”
Weissman's comments came during the EPA Clean Power Plan Issues and Planning Forum in Chicago. The program was sponsored by EBW Analytics Group and the energy consulting firm Pace Global.
-
Climate Rule Could Prompt Emissions Trading
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
U.S. states from the Pacific Coast to the Midwest may allow companies to trade the right to emit global warming pollution, spurred on by the Obama administration's new climate change rules.
Dozens of states, including a group of 13 in the western U.S. and a 15-state group in the Midwest, are discussing markets for emissions linked to climate change, Dirk Forrister, president of the International Emissions Trading Association, said in an interview Sept. 24 at a conference on pollution trading in New York.
The rules, designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, “have really given states a lot of new options to consider,” Forrister said.
Power-industry executives, regulators and clean-air advocates told the conference the regulations, unveiled last month, will encourage states and regions to form greenhouse gas markets (180 DEN A-4, 9/17/15).
The rules are “a major step forward in moving toward an emissions trading program for the country,” Jared Snyder, an assistant environmental commissioner for New York State, said during a panel discussion.
California and nine northeastern states already trade pollution rights. New York, part of the northeast market, is advising other states interested in following the model, Snyder said.
Options Available
Under carbon markets in Europe, parts of the U.S. and China, large emitters such as factories and power plants may either take measures to cut pollution or buy surplus greenhouse-gas credits from others.
While the federal government won't force states to adopt trading plans, the regulations are designed to make the option as easy as possible, Joseph Goffman, an associate assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, said at the conference.
“We think that's the best way to create an investment environment, an operating environment, that gets you the reductions, the innovations we want, and all at the lowest cost,” Goffman said.
A group of western states from California to the Dakotas and another led by the Minneapolis-based Great Plains Institute are discussing emissions markets, Forrister said. They're taking steps even as states and companies that reply on coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, press lawsuits challenging President Barack Obama's plan. Most of the Republicans running to succeed Obama have vowed to undo the regulations if elected in 2016.
Obama and close to 40 heads of state will meet at the United Nations in New York on Sept. 27 to push forward negotiations on a global agreement to rein in greenhouse gases. The power plant rule, a key part of U.S. efforts to cut emissions, includes a model trading plan for states and offers credits toward emissions targets for utilities that embrace clean energy projects.
Flexible Pathways Provided
“What they've done here is provide a lot of pathways to have flexibility to move credits and allowances across state lines,” said Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions and a former EPA deputy administrator. “What we have here is a breakthrough to really move the country in that direction.”
The rules offer utilities cost-effective options to switch to new power sources, said Brian Wolff, an executive vice president for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based trade group for investor-owned utilities.
“There was a lot of flexibility there,” Wolff said at the conference. “When you look where the assets are as far as clean energy goes, we needed a way to push that forward, and I would say they found a way to do that.”
Pollution trading is expected to gain traction if world leaders can negotiate a global warming pact in Paris in December, the World Bank said in a report. Thirty-eight countries and regions will have carbon-pricing systems by 2017, covering about 12 percent of global emissions, up from 5 percent in 2011, the bank said.
-
Oil & Gas Sector Doubts Need For Proposed EPA Methane Emissions Limit
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas industry groups used EPA public hearings this week to question the agency's proposed first-time limit on emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from the sector, noting that the previous 2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) drilling air rule already achieves methane cuts as a co-benefit of other pollution controls.
Environmentalists however used their testimony at the recent hearings to reiterate their support for mandatory caps on the potent GHG methane. But they also urged EPA to broaden the scope of the proposed rulemaking to include additional oil and gas sources, such as liquids unloading and compressors at well sites. They also want EPA to increase the frequency with which operators would be mandated to conduct leak inspections at facilities.
EPA held field hearings Sept. 23 in Dallas, and Denver, on its package of proposed oil and gas air rules that includes an update to the NSPS' volatile organic compound (VOC) limits and the first-time methane controls at new drilling operations; draft guidelines for reducing ozone-forming VOCs from existing drilling; and other proposals. The agency is also planning to hold a Sept. 29 hearing on the proposed rules in Pittsburgh.
The proposed NSPS update would set first-time emissions limits for methane from the industry, as well as set VOC and methane controls for some sources not regulated under the 2012 rules, such as hydraulically fractured oil wells and downstream compressors and other equipment.
Industry officials in their hearing testimony said the rule would be unnecessarily burdensome given methane and VOC cuts from the 2012 NSPS, and that it could duplicate efforts from other federal agencies.
“The 2012 final rule indirectly regulates methane by regulating 'natural gas as a surrogate for VOC,'” according to testimony from American Petroleum Institute's (API)'s Matthew Todd, who spoke at the Texas hearing. API argues that since methane is the main component of natural gas, there are no additional emissions reductions to be gained from replacing the “surrogate regulatory concept” with direct methane limits.
Pending Rulemakings
Todd's testimony also urged the agency to avoid possible regulatory duplication, warning that the proposed NSPS is a “small slice” of the pending regulations the industry faces, which include EPA's proposed control techniques guidelines (CTG) for existing oil and gas sources that are out of attainment with the ambient air standards for ozone and forthcoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rules for flaring of methane on public lands.
EPA and BLM should coordinate the rulemakings to allow a minimum of 30 days overlap, which would require EPA to extend its comment deadline of Nov. 17 by 60 days, Todd argued.
“Without this overlap, industry will not have the chance to understand the cumulative impacts and provide meaningful feedback to avoid conflicting requirements across the separate agencies,” he said.
Similarly, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) said in its prepared testimony presented at the Colorado hearing that EPA should consider what the public health benefit of the rules would be and whether the rulemaking is necessary given that “the 2012 rules have barely had time to take effect.”
COGA also urged EPA to reconsider using Colorado's landmark 2014 methane rules as a model for its NSPS, saying the state rules are in the early stages of implementation and “there have been bumps along the road,” and do not yet yield any data on the regulatory burden and costs associated with the controls.
“Thus, it would be premature for EPA to use Colorado’s estimates to justify new federal rules, and it would be inadequate rulemaking to merely adopt the Colorado rules nationwide,” COGA said.
Environmentalists' Testimony
Environmental groups, meanwhile, used their testimony at the EPA hearings to step up their calls for the agency to broaden the rulemaking to capture more sources.
Clean Air Task Force's Darin Schroeder wrote in testimony presented at the Texas hearing that EPA should expand the proposal to include liquids unloading, intermittent pneumatic controllers and compressors at well-sites, which are not currently covered by the 2012 rules.
Moreover, environmentalists are reiterating calls for EPA to swiftly pursue methane rules for existing drilling operations under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act after issuing a final NSPS, arguing that the air law does not grant EPA unlimited discretion regarding when it must issue existing source rules for a sector once it initiates an NSPS.
David Lyons of the Environmental Defense Fund said in testimony presented at the Texas hearing, “We respectfully urge EPA to build from this important step and take action to address emissions from existing sources,” Schroeder said. He added that EPA must “quickly” issue a 111(d) rule to curb methane from existing sources.
While the agency is directly regulating methane for the first time, environmentalists are pressing their calls to regulate methane from existing sources under section 111(d). The agency did use 111(d) to regulate GHGs from existing power plants in its recent climate rule for that sector, but is pushing the CTGs instead for existing drilling operations in lieu of a direct limit on methane.
During an Aug. 18 press call, EPA's acting air chief Janet McCabe declined to say whether the agency would pursue an existing source methane standard, saying that "we're not ruling anything out."
McCabe said that for now EPA will focus on the proposed NSPS. "We're really focusing on this proposal for today and the conversations we expect to have on this proposal," she said, calling the proposed rule an "important step to get us significantly along the way" to reducing methane emissions from the sector by 40-45 percent, the goal that President Obama set as part of his broader administration-wide effort to reduce methane emissions.
-
States, Industry Urge D.C. Circuit To Scrap EPA Power Plant Air Toxics Rule
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
Several states and industry organizations are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate entirely EPA's power plant air toxics rule, saying the Supreme Court's decision faulting the agency for not considering costs before developing the regulation shows it is invalid and should not remain in effect.
Leaving the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule in place would have minimal benefit but impose massive costs on industry, the states and industry groups argue in a Sept. 24 joint motion to govern future proceedings in remanded D.C. Circuit litigation over the rule. For example, they say that annual recordkeeping costs associated with the MACT will cost power companies an average of $158 million each year.
EPA separately counters that vacatur would create significant regulatory confusion, and that based on cost data already in the rulemaking record it can quickly address the high court's criticisms of the cost issue.
The agency in its motion to govern proceedings says “remand without vacatur will allow EPA to address the Supreme Court’s limited holding on an expedited basis, preserve the important public health and environmental benefits achieved by the Rule, and avoid regulatory uncertainty and significant complications for other important EPA programs, without significant disruptive consequences for regulated sources.”
Environmentalists and other states supportive of the MACT agree with EPA that the court should leave the rule in place to retain its public health and environmental protections. They also echo the agency's claim that it can easily address the high court's ruling by issuing a new justification for the rulemaking that includes consideration of costs.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling June 29 in Michigan v. EPA found the agency erred by not assessing costs in its initial finding that the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. The majority of justices rejected EPA's defense that it considered costs later on when setting the rule's actual air toxics limits.
The high court remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit, which in 2014 had issued a per curiam ruling that upheld the rule in a case known as White Stallion Energy Center, et al. v. EPA, et al.
EPA previously told the court that it planned to seek remand of the rule to the agency without vacatur. EPA says it will work to meet a self-imposed spring deadline for crafting a new assessment of the costs associated with its finding that a utility air toxics rule is appropriate and necessary.
But the coalition of 21 states and several industry groups opposed to the rule argue in their new motion that the high court decision effectively invalidates the rule, and that complete vacatur of the MACT is the only option.
“These motions address a simple question: after the Supreme Court has held that an agency exceeded its statutory authority when promulgating a rule, may this Court on remand allow the rule to remain in effect? When a rule has a deficiency this serious, the answer is equally simple: no. An agency’s rule cannot continue to have the force of law, imposing binding obligations on private citizens, when it has been declared unlawful and ultra vires,” the filing says. Ultra vires means beyond one's legal power or authority.
Costs Assessment
The petitioners argue that the Michigan decision means EPA cannot regulate power plant air toxics until it issues an appropriate and necessary finding that includes consideration of costs.
It says the case is “in some ways the inverse” of the D.C. Circuit's recent decision rejecting as premature suits over EPA's proposed greenhouse gas rule for power plants. According to the new motion, “If a proposed rule does not have the effect of law, then it is even less appropriate for an unlawful rule to be left in place and to have the effect of law -- to determine rights or obligations or to impose legal consequences.”
The filing also says that EPA's requested remand of the rule without vacatur would be “unusual,” saying EPA “fully explained” its reasoning behind crafting the MACT and that the high court rejected it.
“Here, there is no uncertainty as to whether EPA unreasonably interpreted 'appropriate' when it deemed costs irrelevant to its decision whether to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants. Instead, EPA explained at length its view that 'costs should not be considered' when making its initial decision whether it is 'appropriate' to regulate” power plants' air toxics emissions with a MACT, “and the Supreme Court, after fully considering EPA’s explanation, held that EPA’s action is unlawful. Because EPA’s explanation was complete and the Supreme Court specifically rejected it, remand without vacatur is not available,” the filing says.
The states and industry groups argue that EPA must first examine the question of whether regulating utility air toxics is appropriate and necessary, including consideration of costs, prior to any rulemaking.
Vacating the rule, which is also known as the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), would not be “disruptive” because many coal-fired plants have either retired or converted to natural gas rather than complying with the rule, the filing says. Those decisions will not be reversed if the court vacates the rule, it adds.
Ongoing Requirements
Vacatur is also appropriate, the agency's critics argue, because the MATS will continue to impose costs such as the $158 million recordkeeping requirements if the court leaves it in place.
“While the economy will never recover the lost time-value of the billions of dollars of capital costs that power plants have already spent to comply with the unlawful Rule (even if some version of the Rule were to lawfully promulgated in the future), the ongoing compliance costs are also significant,” the filing says.
The industry groups that signed on to the filing are the White Stallion Energy Center, the National Mining Association, the Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition, and the Oak Grove Management Company. The states supporting the filing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. -- which unsuccessfully asked the D.C. Circuit to stay one of the MATS emission limits as applied to a facility it operates -- on Sept. 24 also filed a motion to govern future proceedings that backs the call to vacate the rule entirely.
Should the D.C. Circuit reject those calls, then the company in its filing asks the court to suspend MATS requirements pending the outcome of EPA's eventual revised appropriate and necessary finding and any legal challenges to that decision.
“[I]f the Court decides not to vacate the Rule, Tri-State requests that the requirements of the Rule be suspended for the small number of power plants that face a compliance deadline in April 2016 and must decide, well in advance of that date, whether to shut down or spend millions of dollars on new control equipment that may or may not be required, depending on EPA’s response to Michigan and potential judicial review of that response,” Tri-State says.
Health Protections
EPA in its motion to govern future proceedings counters that the court should remand the rule to the agency without vacating it, saying it will work on an expedited schedule to craft a new appropriate and necessary finding.
“In summary, because EPA intends to act quickly on remand, and remand without vacatur would preserve important public health and environmental protections, and prevent significant disruption to state implementation of other EPA programs, without significant disruptive consequences for regulated sources, remand without vacatur is warranted,” says the Department of Justice on the agency's behalf.
A coalition of environmental and public health groups, as well as states that support the rule, say in their Sept. 24 motion to govern future proceedings that the D.C. Circuit “has been particularly reluctant to vacate rules when doing so would disrupt regulatory requirements that protect public health and the environment.”
The filing argues that scrapping the rule entirely would sacrifice important public health protections associated with the regulation's limit on air toxics from power plants.
They also argue that EPA can easily fix the problem identified by the Supreme Court by issuing a revised appropriate and necessary finding that considers costs.
“Michigan does not remotely suggest that EPA’s error is incurable. The Court concluded that EPA had relied upon an unreasonable interpretation of the statute to foreclose consideration of cost, not that the Agency could not justify the substance of the regulations under a proper interpretation,” the groups say. “There are compelling reasons to conclude that EPA may well find that, considering costs, regulation of hazardous air pollutants from power plants is 'appropriate'” when it crafts the new finding it has vowed to pursue, the filing says.
The filing has support from a slew of public health and environmental groups such as the Clean Air Council, American Lung Association and Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as several states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New York, Oregon and others.
-
Behind the Final Rule's March to the Federal Register
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are awaiting the final rule's publication in the Federal Register so that challenges in both the courts and on Capitol Hill can move ahead.
The rule is steadily moving through the normal, painstaking process at the Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration, according to Amy Bunk, director of legal affairs and policy for the office.
"I'm not familiar at all" with the EPA rule "or the controversy" to curb carbon emissions from power plants, Bunk said in an interview. "I don't comment on specific rulemakings," she said.
Recently, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) chided EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy about the rule's whereabouts.
"Are you aware that delaying publication until the end of October interferes with the ability of Congress and the public to challenge the rules before the big show in Paris?" Inhofe asked during a hearing earlier this month. He was referring to the U.N. climate talks in Paris in December (Greenwire, Sept. 16).
McCarthy replied that EPA had sent the rule to the Federal Register on Sept. 4 with publication expected in October.
For comparison, EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were issuedon Dec. 16, 2011, and were published in the FederalRegister 62 days later on Feb. 16, 2012.
It was not the first time Inhofe has suggested that EPA might have slow-walked an important rule for political reasons.
Inhofe intends to use the Congressional Review Act to challenge the rule, and 16 states have legal challenges on tap.
That's important because what EPA released in early August was not the official version.
A note at the bottom of the rule's more than 1,500 pages said so: "This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 8/3/2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version."
It is up to Buck's office to make the changes to the Clean Air Act official.
"We do have a general timeline for publication of documents, but the bigger the document is, the more time it might take us to review and process," Bunk explained.
"Generally, the bigger the document is, the more piecemeal amendments there are," she said.
When an agency "adds an entire part or amends sections, it's a little easier for us to fold in."Back and forth
But with piecemeal amendments -- when a word or phrase is changed in a chapter -- the review process takes longer to get to final publication, Bunk said.
"So the more amendatory instructions they have, we check each and every one of those little changes," she said.
"Our entire staff is less than 60 people. I think people are surprised" when they learn that, she said.
"We go back and forth with the agency," asking, "is this really what you mean to say?"
That process is repeated "until ourselves and the agency agree that the document is good to be published, and then we file it for public inspection," Bunk said.
Under the Federal Register Act, the document has to go on public inspection at least the day before it publishes in the Federal Register.
Journalists, paralegals and others have made checking that "public inspection" tab on the Federal Register website a daily routine, trying to be one step ahead of government actions.
It's so much easier now to do so. "Public inspection used to mean it was on a table in the front of our office," Bunk said.
-
N.D. Governor Says He Has 'Direct Questions' for EPA
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Gov. Jack Dalrymple plans to meet with top U.S. EPA officials next week to protest how his state was treated in the final version of the Clean Power Plan.
North Dakota's emissions reduction target quadrupled from 11 percent below 2012 levels in the draft of the plan to 45 percent in the final version. The state has been responding on two tracks -- preparing both a legal challenge and an implementation plan.
"How in the heck do you change your recommendation from 11 percent to 45 percent without any discussion?" Dalrymple (R) said in an interview here. "There's going to be some very direct questions."
Dalrymple's staff said he's tentatively scheduled to meet with Janet McCabe, the acting head of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.
The Clean Power Plan is a key piece of the Obama administration's plan to combat global climate change. It's intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from electric generation plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Each state has its own emissions goal based on its generation fleet and is responsible for carrying out its own implementation plan.
North Dakota gets 79 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants, about 16 percent from wind and about 5 percent from hydroelectric plants, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
North Dakota exports much of its wind power, though, and state officials have complained because the Clean Power Plan gives credit for wind power to the states that use it, rather than the states that produce it. They've also questioned whether North Dakota's power plants can come up with the efficiency increases EPA expects.
-
D.C. Circuit Weighs Texas' Push For Parallel Challenges To EPA SSM Rule
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is weighing a push by Texas to create two parallel suits over EPA's rule forcing 36 states to remove Clean Air Act waivers during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) periods, with Texas arguing its challenge raises legal issues distinct from other states' lawsuits.
Texas regulators, backed by industry groups in the state, say that the 5th Circuit issued a ruling in 2013 that said the state is allowed to include SSM-related provisions in its state implementation plan (SIP) for compliance with federal air law requirements. As a result, they say EPA cannot force Texas to comply with the “SIP Call” rulemaking forcing removal of SSM language from SIPs, and that this should be heard as its own suit.
They say that the D.C. Circuit should keep such a suit distinct from a pending case that consolidates a host of challenges to the EPA rulemaking on the merits, filed by other states and industry groups.
EPA's June 12 rule forces 36 states to remove language in their SIPs that allows emissions limit violations during SSM periods, which industry says are periods when there are unavoidable and uncontrollable pollution spikes. EPA issued the rule following a D.C. Circuit ruling that said the SSM exemption was unlawful under the Clean Air Act, and a subsequent ruling also scrapping a similar “affirmative defense” EPA offered as an alternative.
Critics of the rule say it oversteps the agency's authority by forcing states to revise their SIPs to remove any SSM or affirmative defense provisions -- even though their plans had in the past won final EPA approval and are being implemented. If states fail to meet deadlines for revising their plans, the agency will then step in and impose a federal implementation plan directly removing SSM waivers in such states.
Several states and various industry groups filed suit over the rule in the D.C. Circuit, which traditionally hears challenges to Clean Air Act rules having national applicability. Texas and industry groups in that state filed their suit over the rule in the 5th Circuit, claiming that the appellate court had the jurisdiction to hear its state-specific challenge.
However, the 5th Circuit in a recent order granted EPA's request to transfer the pending SSM cases to the D.C. Circuit, and as a result Texas and its supporters are now seeking their own suit separate from the consolidated existing D.C. Circuit cases known as Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), et al. v. EPA, et al.
In a Sept. 17 joint motion filed with the D.C. Circuit, Texas regulators and industry groups say EPA's rule creates a catch-22 situation because it “places the State of Texas in particular in an untenable position -- having to decide whether to submit a SIP revision to EPA based on a finding that contradicts the duly-issued mandate of the Fifth Circuit, or be subject to a potential Federal Implementation Plan by EPA for failing to respond.”
Legal Challenges
The Texas cases differ from the others because the 5th Circuit has explicitly ruled on the legality of the affirmative defense included in Texas' SIP, finding the provision permissible. Therefore, EPA cannot re-litigate the question and should reject EPA's motion to consolidate all the SIP Call suits as one, the motion says.
The motion argues that when the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling scrapping the use of affirmative defenses in EPA regulations, it acknowledged that the question of the validity of affirmative defenses in SIPs is different than EPA's right to issue rules containing such measures. The D.C. Circuit in its ruling “specifically noted that affirmative defense provisions in SIPs present a different issue than those in EPA regulations, and recognized the Fifth Circuit’s prior holding with respect to the Texas SIP,” the Texas motion says.
The Texas petitioners cite the D.C. Circuit's ruling, which said, “The Fifth Circuit recently upheld EPA’s partial approval of an affirmative defense provision in a State Implementation Plan. . . . We do not here confront the question whether an affirmative defense may be appropriate in a State Implementation Plan.”
The 5th Circuit “directly addressed and decided whether the affirmative defenses in the Texas SIP were appropriate and authorized” by the air law in its 2013 ruling in Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, the motion says. Texas says this case was decided prior to the D.C. Circuit's ruling on affirmative defense, and that in 2013 as part of the Luminant suit EPA vigorously defended Texas' right to use an affirmative defense against environmentalists intervening in that case, who argued unsuccessfully to the 5th Circuit that the defense was unlawful.
“Despite having litigated this issue to final judgment in the Fifth Circuit, EPA now seeks to advance a rationale directly contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s holding as the sole basis for its new finding that the same Texas affirmative defense provisions are 'substantially inadequate' 'to comply' with the statute,” the Texas petitioners say.
'Preclusion' Issues
Their cases therefore raise “preclusion” issues that the general challenges to the SIP Call rulemaking do not, the Texas petitioners claim, and as a result the state's case should proceed separately from SLF.
These issues include: whether EPA's basis for its SIP Call “is precluded under principles of res judicata, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion;” whether the rule “is in direct contravention of the lawfully-issued mandate” of the 5th Circuit; whether EPA failed to make its case that Texas' SIP is “substantially inadequate,” given the 5th Circuit ruling; whether EPA's “nonaquiescence” with the 5th Circuit contradicts EPA's regional consistency policy; and whether EPA can declare that a rule has “nationwide scope of effect” -- the normal criterion for the D.C. Circuit hearing a case -- “to circumvent binding precedent” that would otherwise preclude such a suit.
“The law is clear that EPA may not, even in a subsequent proceeding in a new forum, relitigate the issue of whether the Texas affirmative defenses 'alter or eliminate the jurisdiction of federal courts to assess penalties for violations of SIP emission limits,'” the Texas petitioners conclude. They urge the court to sever their cases into a separate consolidated case and decide that case in their favor expeditiously.
The regional consistency policy that Texas mentioned generally requires EPA to apply its Clean Air Act policies the same nationwide. But the agency has issued a proposal to revise that policy to exclude adverse appellate court rulings on its Clean Air Act policies from applying nationwide.
Critics of that rulemaking warn that it might lead to uneven enforcement of the air law, as the plan appears to give agency regions broad discretion to respond to such rulings absent any guidance from headquarters on a uniform response.
-
Foes of Stricter Ozone Standard Get Ready for EPA Decision
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Congressional activity on the national ozone standard is heating up as U.S. EPA nears a deadline next week to choose a final new limit.
In the Senate, a bipartisan duo introduced legislation that would allow regulators to delay compliance with a new standard if they enter into agreements with EPA containing "measurable milestones." The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee next week plans to hold a hearing on the Obama administration's air agenda that will spotlight ozone.
In the lower chamber, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) yesterday demanded documents from the Obama administration related to review of the standard.
Last November, EPA proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standard for ozone of 75 parts per billion -- set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb. EPA faces an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to finalize a new standard; EPA's final limit is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
EPA says that a new standard would prevent asthma attacks and premature deaths, but industry and business groups have waged an aggressive public relations campaign against a tighter standard because of potential compliance costs.
The bipartisan legislation introduced by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) addresses concerns raised by stakeholders that it would be difficult for local areas to meet EPA's proposed new range.
Under the bill, local areas that can't comply with the tighter standard would avoid penalties associated with noncompliance by entering into "Early Action Compact Plans" with EPA. Those agreements would spell out "measurable milestones" and allow areas to demonstrate that they will achieve the standard no later than 10 years after approval of the plans.
The lawmakers billed the legislation as providing a reasonable compliance option for localities.
"Keeping Missourians healthy by cutting down ozone pollution is a goal all stakeholders can get behind -- and it's a goal we can achieve without inflicting economic damage on communities that are struggling to meet these standards," McCaskill said in a statement. "Our bipartisan bill provides a pragmatic and reasonable path forward to help guard Missourians' health, and Missourians' livelihoods, while not accepting the false choice of jobs or the environment."
Hatch said he was concerned that Western states -- which are affected by ozone coming from overseas and from the upper atmosphere -- would not be able to meet a tighter standard.
"This bipartisan legislation directs the EPA to implement a program that allows local communities to enter into a voluntary cooperative agreement with the EPA to utilize locally crafted solutions to improve air quality so that they can comply with federal standards," he said.
The bipartisan bill comes as the National Association of Manufacturers -- one of the most vocal critics of EPA's proposal -- launched a new television ad highlighting Democratic and Republican opposition to a tighter standard. The ad is scheduled to air in Washington, D.C., through Oct. 1.
"Agreement on anything in Washington is hard to find. But one issue has brought together Democrats and Republicans, labor and business, local officials, and editorial boards across the country," the ad says. "All oppose new costly and onerous ozone regulations."
Public health and environmental groups have said that the concerns about achieving a tighter standard are overblown. Last week, Earthjustice released a report finding fault with widely cited industry cost estimates (Greenwire, Sept. 15).
They've called on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb based on studies linking negative health effects with ozone concentrations above that level.
In a pair of letters to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Smith, the House Science chairman, said he was concerned that the Obama administration would choose a more stringent final standard to appease environmental organizations.
"Any new lower ozone standard is unnecessary at this time and could cause devastating harm to the economy," Smith wrote.
Smith has long raised concerns about lowering the ozone standard, and his committee has held several hearings questioning the science behind EPA's proposal.
He asked both McCarthy and McDonough to produce all documents and communications between or among EPA and the White House related to the final ozone standard. Of McDonough, Smith also demanded all communications between the White House and outside groups, specifically naming the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters.
The House Science chairman also requested that the administration make available several individuals, including EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe and Council on Environmental Quality Managing Director Christy Goldfuss, for interviews.
-
GOP Lawmaker Queries EPA, OMB On Ozone Dispute
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, is seeking answers from the Obama administration over claims that EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) are at odds over the limit that the agency should select for its imminent revised ozone ambient air standard.
Inside EPA first reported that EPA's final ozone rule currently undergoing White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review leans toward tightening the 2008 ozone limit from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, though CEQ is said to favor a stricter 68 ppb limit. Smith in Sept. 24 letters to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough raises concerns about this dispute.
“Any new lower ozone standard is unnecessary at this time and could cause devastating harm to the economy. However, it is even more troubling that whatever scientific analyses used by EPA to determine its final recommended limit are being disregarded by White House officials for purely political reasons,” Smith writes.
In his letter to McDonough, Smith asks for records of all documents and communications between or among OMB, the Executive Office of the President, and EPA on the final ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and all documents and communications between these White House offices, EPA and environmental groups.
Smith also asks that Howard Shelanski, administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and Christy Goldfuss, CEQ managing director, be made available for transcribed interviews.
Smith in his letter to McCarthy makes a similar request for EPA to turn over communications with the White House. He also asks that two EPA officials -- acting air chief Janet McCabe and Joel Beauvais, associate administrator of the Office of Policy, be made available for transcribed interviews.
Smith asks for responses to both letters by Oct. 8.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator is charged with setting NAAQS at levels sufficient to protect public health “with an adequate margin of safety” and must select the limits based solely on scientific data on a criteria pollutant's impacts on health and the environment. By law EPA cannot weigh costs in such a decision, though it can assess costs in rules to implement a NAAQS.
Obama has described the ozone NAAQS rule as “complicated,” and has pointed out the legal and scientific constraints that the administration is working under when developing the new rule.
EPA's Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee said only a limit within the range of 60-70 ppb would satisfy air law requirements, and environmentalists back a 60 ppb standard. The agency proposed a limit in the range of 65 ppb-70 ppb, while industry groups and some states oppose any tightening of the 75 ppb standard.
The 68 ppb standard that CEQ is said to favor would be stricter than the 70 ppb EPA is believed to support, and would place more areas of the United States out of attainment with the NAAQS. Nonattainment areas have to impose costly controls on sources of ozone pollution, and critics say this harms local economies.
-
Final CWA E-Reporting Rule Extends Deadlines Following States' Concerns
Sep 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA's final rule requiring electronic reporting of most water discharge data appears to give states more of the implementation flexibility they sought in comments on the proposal, extending compliance deadlines for many water permitting programs to five years while softening provisions that would have sent data to federal regulators first in some conditions.
The agency signed the final Clean Water Act (CWA) e-reporting rule Sept. 24, ahead of its publication in theFederal Register. Although it does not include a formal response to comments, the rule seeks to address states' criticism of the 2013 proposed version, which would have given states only two years to switch from paper to electronic record-keeping for all permitted discharges while designating EPA as the primary recipient of monitoring data in many cases.
The final rule keeps a deadline of one year from its effective date for states to switch to e-reporting of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and data from federal general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, but extends from two years to five the “Phase 2” deadline for data from state general permits and a host of other programs.
“EPA is keeping the proposed one-year schedule for the DMR data flow since DMR electronic reporting tools are already deployed in 42 states, with an additional six states actively developing similar systems . . . additional implementation time for Phase 2 data collection, management, and sharing will help authorized NPDES programs build or adopt electronic reporting systems for Phase 2 data as well as register and train NPDES regulated entities,” the rule's preamble says.
States argued in comments that a two-year deadline for the programs outlined in Phase 2 was overly optimistic, noting that much of the data collected could be difficult to standardize or require the development of new computer systems.
'Readiness Criteria'
The final rule also appears to remove conditions when EPA would designate itself as the primary recipient of NPDES e-reporting data, rather than state authorities. In the proposed rule, if states could not meet “readiness criteria,” such as a 90 percent electronic submission rate per data category and compliance with EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation, EPA would collect the discharge information itself and share it with states.
States warned that such requirements could curb their delegated authority over water programs, and several argued the 90 percent submission rate is too optimistic and that EPA should initially require a lower rate and gradually increase it.
In response, the final rule instead notes that EPA can compel facilities in states with low compliance rates to begin e-reporting, through information collection requests that it says in the rule's economic analysis would “compel NPDES-regulated entities to utilize their NPDES program’s electronic reporting system” rather than EPA's.
Despite that change, EPA appears to still be targeting 90 percent compliance as a measure of successful implementation, noting that it “ may send individual notices to compel electronic reporting when the authorized state, tribe, or territory has less than 90-percent participation rate for one or more data groups” after the implementation deadline has passed.
The e-reporting rule is EPA's first regulation crafted under its “E-Enterprise” initiative, which is intended to allow states and EPA to access and share data more easily through electronic reporting and joint federal-state databases of environmental information.
-
Railroad Sector Suit Claims EPA CWA Rule 'Ditches' Exclusion Too Narrow
Sep 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Railroad industry groups have filed suit over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule claiming that its exclusion for certain “ditches” is too narrow and could hinder the sector's ability to maintain safe operations, pursuing litigation separate from a slew of existing cases over the rule in order to highlight the industry's concerns.
“The Rule is overbroad to the extent that it encompasses any rail ditches, which are critical to the railroads’ abilities to maintain safe operations and manage stormwater flow,” says the complaint filed Sept. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, by the Association of American Railroads (AARR) and Port Terminal Railroad Association.
The groups argue the suit is necessary despite the many existing challenges to the rule that are pending in federal district and appellate courts. Filing a standalone suit is vital to “focus the Court’s attention on how the Rule would illegally harm railroads in the United States,” the complaint says.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is poised to assess consolidated litigation filed in various appellate courts, while a multi-district litigation (MDL) panel will hold oral arguments Oct. 1 in New York City to determine whether to consolidate a slew of pending federal district court suits.
In one of the lower court suits, a U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota judge granted 13 states' request to impose an injunction blocking EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing their joint CWA jurisdiction rule in those states. For those states, the agencies will use a George W. Bush-era guidance from 2008 in making jurisdictional determinations, but implement the rule in all other states.
Regulators in the 13 states affected have said that the policy impacts of the order are uncertain while other states must now comply with the rule that went into effect Aug. 28.
The rule aims to resolve confusion over the scope of the water law following competing Supreme Court tests for how to determine whether smaller waters are subject to the CWA. Critics say the rule extends the water law's reach far beyond what Congress intended, and that it violates a host of other federal laws.
It has drawn at least a dozen district court suits and multiple appellate challenges over the ditch provisions, the rule's definition of “tributary,” and a host of other criticisms. Many of the suits claim the rule violates the CWA by being too broad, and veering away from the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Rapanos v. United States, the Administrative Procedure Act, and runs counter to the constitutional due process, state sovereignty and commerce clauses.
Railroads' Concerns
Echoing other lawsuits over the rule, the railroad groups in their new complaint are challenging the definition of “tributaries” which subjects all waters that contribute flow and are characterized by the presence of a bed, banks and ordinary high water mark to the CWA.
The suit, AAAR, et al. v. EPA, et al., claims the definition violates Rapanos, is arbitrary and capricious, and fails to provide railroads and terminals with fair notice of their regulatory obligations as required by the constitution.
The groups detail what they say are concerns specific to the industry over rail ditches, which they say are ubiquitous across the country and play a crucial role in railway safety by preventing flooding and damage to track and beds.
“Under the CWA, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, such ditches are not and cannot be 'waters of the United States,'” the complaint says. “Yet the Rule, which by its terms excludes many rail ditches from CWA jurisdiction, leaves open the possibility that, contrary to binding legal authority, other rail ditches could be considered 'waters of the United States.'”
The suit claims the language creates unlawful and unnecessary uncertainty for the industry. For example, some of the groups' members have initiated or will soon initiate the process of seeking jurisdictional determinations or CWA section 404 permits under the CWA in connection with construction, operation and maintenance operations to avoid running afoul of the rule, the complaint says. “This process is costly, burdensome, and time-intensive, and entails, among other things, retention of engineers and consultants and preparation of a permit application, resulting in project delays and potentially costly mitigation,” the groups argue.
Pending Litigation
To date, the district courts have split over whether the jurisdiction rule should be challenged in the district or appeals courts -- a dispute that might be brought up at the upcoming MDL arguments.
The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota's Southeastern Division, found it had authority to issue its Aug. 27 injunction blocking the rule's implementation, which affects Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico and North Dakota.
However, federal courts in West Virginia and Georgia have found that they did not have jurisdiction over whether to grant plaintiffs' requests for injunctions. Those courts and district courts in Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma and California have opted to stay the litigation pending a ruling from the MDL panel.
State plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division, have appealed the court's denial of their injunction request to the 11th Circuit.
Meanwhile, the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District Court, San Francisco Division, Sept. 8 granted a consent motion from the Department of Justice -- filed on behalf of EPA and the Corps -- staying a suit over the CWA rule, known as Waterkeeper Alliance, et al., v. EPA, et al.
And the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, Sept. 11 stayed another suit over the case, Arizona Mining Association, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
-
Inhofe Will 'Take a Look' at Super-Pollutant Bill
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Jean Chemnick
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) was unmoved by Pope Francis' plea for Congress to tackle climate change but signaled yesterday he's willing to consider a bipartisan measure targeting so-called climate super-pollutants.
The Senate's most vocal disputer of man-made climate science said thebill by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) reintroduced this week might even help him make his point that carbon dioxide is not harmful.
That's because the Murphy-Collins legislation deals not with CO2 but with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), methane, black carbon from diesel engines and cookstoves, and other emissions that remain in the atmosphere a short time but that trap far more heat than CO2.
"Oh, sure, I'll take a look at it because there are pollutants that are real," Inhofe told E&E Daily. "The big argument on the global warming thing is CO2, but in this case, they're right to do it, we have been doing it. She [Collins] wants more emphasis on it."
Inhofe has called climate change a "hoax" and led offensives against U.S. EPA's carbon dioxide rules. But in 2009, he backed a bipartisan bill directing the agency to study ways to curb soot or black carbon, citing his concern for human respiratory health.
CO2, by contrast, is not a harmful substance, he said.
"In fact, I look forward to that because this will allow people to distinguish in their minds the differences between something that is really a hazard and a pollutant and one that is not," he said. "I welcome the debate."
Black carbon is also a powerful driver of climate change, particularly in the vulnerable Arctic.
Murphy, who offered the bill with Collins last year, said the pair are pressing for action on the measure, which he noted steers clear of some of the more contentious aspects of climate policy.
"We think that if there's any climate change bill that can get through this year, it would be this one," he told E&E Daily yesterday. "This is really about non-carbon sources. There's less politics surrounding fast-acting climate pollutants than surrounds carbon, so we're hopeful."
Murphy said he and Collins are open to changes to the bill and are trying to build more support for it.
"We've got a couple of other Republicans that are interested potentially in signing on as co-sponsors," he said.
The Murphy-Collins bill aims to coordinate efforts that are already underway within the Obama administration to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.
It would direct the administration to create a new interagency task force of federal agency heads to oversee those efforts and look for ways to make them more efficient. The task force would be required to report to Congress, and agencies that have not already formulated plans to curb their own output of HFCs, methane and black carbon would be required to do so.
The measure calls for a plan to curb black carbon domestically and authorizes aid to help poor countries do so. It directs the U.S. government to provide technical guidance to other countries to help them curb methane emissions from landfills and other sources and calls for additional research into reducing leakage from the petroleum supply chain.
The measure also includes a sense of the Senate supporting the adoption of an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, long sought by the administration, that would phase down the use of heat-trapping HFCs in refrigeration and air conditioning.
In years past, China and India have stood in the way of that goal because they argued that HFCs should be addressed within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. But China in particular has reversed that position and is now calling for an amendment. The United States and China are expected to make a new announcement on joint steps to contain the chemicals used in refrigeration and air conditioning today. HFCs can be thousands of times as heat-trapping as CO2 in the short term.
The measure received a hearing in the environment committee last year when Democrats controlled the Senate (E&E Daily, Dec. 3, 2014). It was less contentious than most of the panel's climate hearings, but the panel's senior Republicans used the occasion to raise concerns about EPA's broader climate agenda.
-
Regional Leaders from Around World Sign Pledge to Reduce Carbon Pollution
Sep 24, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney
Mayors and regional leaders from around the world welcomed Pope Francis’s arrival in New York on Thursday by signing a pledge to drastically cut carbon pollution, joining a growing movement of local jurisdictions that are pushing for aggressive action on climate change regardless of what national governments choose to do.
The officials, representing cities and provinces from San Francisco to Kathmandu, Nepal, stood in line to sign what organizers called the “Under 2 MOU,” a voluntary pact that seeks to reduce emission of greenhouse gases by at least 80 percent compared with 1990s levels.
Participants said they hoped to spur world leaders into agreeing to a strong global treaty in Paris later this year, but they weren’t waiting to see whether others would follow their lead.
“We, at our order of government, can do things without the complexity of treaties,” said Glen Murray, Ontario’s environment minister, who joined counterparts from five continents in a ceremony that coincided with the pope’s arrival in New York. “By making cooperative commitments and supporting one another, we are already doing what many national governments are failing to do.”
The additions Thursday brought to nearly 40 the number of major cities and provinces to sign the extraordinarily ambitious — though nonbinding — pact. Signers commit to either cutting pollution to 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels, or attaining a per capita emissions goal of two metric tons of carbon emissions by 2050. The current per capita average of U.S. citizens is about 18 tons.
“We’re just getting warmed up,” said California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who helped launch the movement. “And I promise you, no opposition . . . will stop California from reaching the sustainable goals we commit to tonight.”
Brown’s office said the signers — who include representatives from New York and Mexico City — collectively represent 313 million people and more than $8.7 trillion in gross domestic product. If they were a single country, it “would be the third largest economy in the world, behind only China and the United States,” the governor’s office said in a statement.
The Under 2 MOU movement is one of several recent initiatives by “sub-national” governments and business organizations that are seeking to take the lead in battling climate change. Jeffrey Sachs, the director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and an adviser to the United Nations on climate change, referred to what the localities were doing as “deep de-carbonization.”
“California is the most important economy in the world doing it at scale,” he said. Under the Brown administration, California generates one-quarter of its electricity from renewable energy, and Brown has set a goal of 50 percent renewables by 2030.
Brown said agreements such as the MOU, while voluntary, were needed in order to “make sure the world takes the turn.”
“It’s easy to say ‘de-carbonize,’ but to actually carry it out takes political will,” he said.
The announcements by the mayors and governors came as a number of prominent corporations pledged expanded efforts to reduce their own carbon emissions. More than 60 companies, including several of the world’s largest, have committed to pollution cuts of up to 50 percent over the next decade in an effort coordinated by the U.N. Global Compact, a United Nations-led business initiative.
“Climate plays a significant role in the long-term viability of our business,” said Catherine Gunsbury, director of sustainability and transparency at General Mills, which pledged a 28 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions of the company’s worldwide network by 2025. “We recognize that we must do our part to protect and conserve natural resources. Our business depends on it, and so does the planet.”
Among dozens of other companies making similar pledges were Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Target, Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble.
Earlier in the day, Brown joined a panel of environmental officials and scientists in calling for action against a class of pollutants blamed for accelerating the rate of global warming. Among the short-lived climate pollutants are several industrial coolants that act as powerful greenhouse gases when released into the atmosphere.
International negotiations are underway on a treaty to scale back production of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, a chemical widely used in refrigerators and air conditioners. The United States and the European Union have already taken steps to phase out the chemicals in favor of more environmentally friendly compounds.
-
Pope Francis's Congressional Climate Call Short, but Pointed
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Anthony Adragna
In a speech before a Republican-led Congress that has rebuffed calls for climate action, Pope Francis Sept. 24 made a short but direct plea for them to “avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.”
“I call for a courageous and responsible effort to redirect our steps and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity,” Francis told a packed House chamber in the U.S. Capitol.
“I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States—and this Congress—have an important role to play,” Francis said. “Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies” to bring about what Francis called “a culture of care” and said he is confident the “outstanding academic and research institutions” of the U.S. “can make a vital contribution” to human health and the environment.
It was the first time any pope has spoken directly to Congress, and his address once again highlighted the climate issue in the run-up to end-of-year Paris talks where nearly 200 nations hope to sign a global climate change agreement.
But the pope's climate comments were muted—he never mentioned directly the term climate change—in contrast to his remarks at the White House a day earlier, and he repeatedly framed the issue in terms of the global need to confront environmental damage in part through more sustainable development (185 DEN A-1, 9/24/15).
Two presidential candidates—Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders—both said they heard the pope's calls for better stewardship of the Earth.
But their deeper reactions were representative in some ways of the split in Congress—largely along party lines with Democrats mostly pushing for Congress to address climate change and Republicans resisting legislation or questioning whether the science of climate change is settled.
‘Remarks Shouldn't Surprise Anyone.’
Sanders said most in Congress expected the pope would take on the climate issue given he had made it a top priority for global action in the 183-page encyclical he issued on it—as well as other environmental challenges— in June.
“Based on his encyclical that shouldn't surprise anyone,” Sanders told reporters after the pope's address.
“As a religious person—and it's not just the pope, you have many evangelicals, you have religious people from throughout the world who understand that if you are religious, you cannot tolerate destruction of God's Earth,” Sanders said.
“And that is what is happening,” Sanders said, “and he has made it very clear that we have a moral responsibility” to address climate change.
Cruz told Bloomberg BNA that type of reaction was a predictable one from Democrats and other climate advocates.
“Well, I think the press is trying very hard to turn the pope into a political leftist,” Cruz said.
“But he has been a powerful voice for life, he has been a powerful voice for marriage, and he has been a powerful voice for religious liberty”—issues, Cruz said, that Democrats have not highlighted as they have done with climate change.
Good Stewards
With his June encyclical, Francis put the Catholic Church firmly on the side of those pushing for ambitious international action to halt increasing greenhouse gas emissions causing rising global temperatures. But the church is not monolithic on the issue, and many conservative Catholics in the U.S. in particular are not backing the pope's approach (118 DEN A-6, 6/19/15).
“There is no doubt that all of us are called to be good stewards of the environment,” Cruz said. “The dispute is what the science and evidence demonstrate. And that ultimately is a debate that should be had in the halls of Congress—based on facts and based on evidence.”
Climate Issue ‘Played Down.’
The chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, said the pope had clearly “played down and didn't really address climate change” in his address to Congress.
Inhofe, who is skeptical about whether human activity such as fossil fuel burning contributes to warming temperatures, said the pope appeared to recognize the need for a conciliatory speech given how split Congress is over the issue.
“The pope, and I don't say this at all critically, he's a man of peace who doesn't want to stir things up,” Inhofe said. “He placated everybody, so I think that was a speech that probably accomplished its purpose—it got him out of town.”
Maryland Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski told Bloomberg BNA she wasn't expecting Francis to directly take on opponents to U.S. climate action, which she said was clearly not his intention.
“I think that the pope was not here to lobby, he was here to inspire, to encourage and I think he certainly did an excellent job,” she said, including his calls “to protect the planet and to end polarization” in the political arena.
Technology Role Noted
Two energy state Republicans—Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.)—highlighted the pontiff's emphasis on putting technology “at the service” of human progress and environmental stewardship.
“What I heard very clearly was the emphasis on technology and how the United States can lead on technology,” Murkowski told reporters “I have said all along, this is how we're going to make a difference in reducing our emissions, in reducing our footprint” and the pope “put his finger right on it, which I think is good.”
“I thought his message overall was very good and his environment message, while we might disagree with certain parts of it—I didn't find it objectionable at all,” Capito told Bloomberg BNA.
“He basically framed it as ‘we need to be good stewards of the Earth [and] we're all in this together,' ” the coal state Republican said.
“I think that's a good global thought and a good reminder from a spiritual leader,” she said. “Technology and research and innovation is going to be good for the country [and] it's going to be good for my state.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Could a Safety Regulation Crisis Derail Chemical Distributions?
Sep 24, 2015 | Chem.info
By Andy Szal
A top chemical industry group is calling on Congress to extend a deadline for railroads to comply with federal safety regulations.
A 2008 law, in part, required rail carriers to implement a system called positive train control by the beginning of 2016. The system uses GPS, wireless radios and computers to monitor trains' positions and can automatically slow or stop trains to prevent collisions, derailments and travel through work zones.
Last month, however, federal regulators said that most railroads are expected to miss the January 1 deadline, and a transportation official said earlier this month that companies could due to safety concerns.
The chemical industry, as well as the oil and natural gas needed to produce feedstock chemicals, rely heavily on rail transportation.
American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley said that Congress should work toward implementing a "workable deadline" and warned that the current policy could "send a shock wave through our economy."
“A transportation shutdown of this magnitude would have cascading impacts that would threaten the nation’s food, energy and water supplies, as well as manufacturing, construction and nearly every other sector of the U.S. economy," Dooley said. -
Senate Subcommittee to Hold Pipeline Safety Hearing
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee will hold a hearing on pipeline safety oversight Sept. 29, the day before authorization for those programs is set to lapse, the committee announced Sept. 24. The hearing, the second to be held by the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security Subcommittee on this issue, comes as members of Congress have pushed to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112-90) by its Sept. 30 deadline. Both chambers have begun work on the issue, but no bill has been introduced to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline programs. “While our pipelines have been lauded as the safest way to transport energy, Congress must continue robust oversight over this important network,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), the subcommittee chairman, said in a statement. “I am pleased to continue this discussion, and I look forward to hearing from industry stakeholders about best practices and the challenges we face” (182 DEN A-19, 9/21/15).
-
PennEast Seeks Approval for $1 Billion Shale Gas Pipeline
Sep 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan N. Crawford
The group behind the proposed PennEast Pipeline is seeking regulatory approval for the 118-mile natural gas link serving the northeast U.S.
PennEast Pipeline will deliver about 1 billion cubic feet a day of gas from the Marcellus and Utica basins in Pennsylvania to the eastern part of the state and New Jersey.
The pipeline, which is subject to environmental review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is expected to start shipments in 2017, according to a statement Sept. 24.
Surging production in the eastern shale reserves has spurred an expansion of pipelines to transport the power plant and heating fuel to consumers in the eastern U.S., a major center of demand. PennEast will have an estimated cost of $1 billion, the group's website shows.
PennEast is made up of AGL Resources Inc., Spectra Energy Corp., New Jersey Resources Corp., Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., South Jersey Industries Inc. and UGI Corp.
PennEast's application to construct the pipeline was met with opposition from environmental groups. The New Jersey Sierra Club said it doubted whether the pipeline will save consumers money on utility bills or create jobs.
“We are going to be redoubling our efforts with a grassroots campaign to get FERC to reject the PennEast Pipeline,” Jeff Tittel, a spokesman, said in a statement.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested