Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 12/9/2015
-
Dow, DuPont in Late-Stage Talks to Merge
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By David Benoit, Dana Cimiluuca, Dana Mittioli, and Jacob Bunge
Two of America's oldest chemical companies are in advanced talks to merge. -
(ACC Mentioned) Murphy: Ban Harmful Microbeads
Dec 9, 2015 | The Post Oracle
By Barbara Dickinson
Research conducted in 2013 by the State University of NY found that the lakes were riddled with microbeads, with Lake Ontario containing an estimated 1.1m plastic particles per square kilometer. -
Industry Petitions EPA To Reduce TSCA Review Of Some Biochemicals
Dec 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
An advocacy group for biobased chemicals has petitioned EPA to ease Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) review of a group of 35 oils and fatty acids, seeking to have the chemicals re-labeled as "existing" chemicals not subject to "new" chemical review by the agency. -
Data Flagged as Key issue at Supply Chain Meeting
Dec 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Data management, the circular economy, TSCA reform and transparency have been highlighted as big, upcoming issues by several speakers at Chemical Watch's Global Supply Chain Summit in Washington, DC. -
Seac Takes Neutral Stance on Banning BPA in Thermal Paper
Dec 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (Seac) says the benefits of banning bisphenol A (BPA) in thermal paper products, such as till receipts, are “unlikely” to outweigh the costs. -
New Federal Program to Vet High-Risk Oil and Gas Sites
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mark Schleifstein
A new federal program announced Monday will mean five high-risk offshore oil and gas facilities will soon be getting additional inspections. -
Senate Panel Approves 'SAFE PIPES Act,' Ocean Bills
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed a bill this morning that would update pipeline safety oversight and require federal regulators to prioritize the completion of existing rules. -
Sticky Crude Blend Demands Tougher Spill Rules -- Federal Report
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. regulators may not be prepared for the "particular challenges" posed by spills of a common oil mixture, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. -
EPA Allies Blast 'Speculative' Arguments Against Climate Rule
Dec 9, 2015 | The Hill -E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of states, advocacy groups, companies and others is asking a federal appeals court to reject “speculative” arguments against the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants. -
Seeking Speedy Ruling, Critics Ask D.C. Circuit To Split Issues In ESPS Suit
Dec 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Jeremy Bernstein
States and industry groups that are seeking to overturn EPA's greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants are asking the appellate court hearing the case to bifurcate the litigation... -
House GOP's Cramer Floats Interest in a Carbon Tax
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Ben Cramer
A North Dakota Republican bemoaning the demise of his state's coal industry under the Clean Power Plan said yesterday that he would be open to replacing the greenhouse gas rules with a carbon tax. -
Litigation 'Super Bowl' Tops List of 2016 Cases to Watch
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The morass of litigation engulfing the Obama administration's signature climate change rule will be the top environmental law issue to watch next year, according to new rankings from Vermont Law School. -
Cruz Rejects Climate Science as He Rises in the Polls
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz sought to establish himself as a leading opponent of climate action among Republican presidential hopefuls yesterday as he continued to target conservative voters less than two months before the Iowa caucuses. -
Ted Cruz Plays the Victim Card as a Climate “Heretic”
Dec 9, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Backed by a panel of scientists and authors who question the mainstream consensus on climate change, presidential candidate Ted Cruz sought to use his perch atop a Senate subcommittee to tout his own climate-doubting credentials Tuesday. -
Obama's Climate Hypocrisy
Dec 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
As the Paris climate talks continue, President Obama has repeatedly made clear his belief that no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. -
The World Has a Methane problem – But We Can Solve It
Dec 9, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
As I write this, a massive methane leak from a ruptured natural gas storage facility in California is causing, every day, as much climate damage over the next 20 years as seven million cars on the road. -
Pa.'s Draft Climate Plan Holds High Hopes for Efficiency, Renewables
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Pennsylvania's blueprint for reducing its economywide greenhouse gas emissions will likely include substantial focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency, as evidenced by a draft of the state's upcoming Climate Change Action Plan. -
Alaska Seals Deals to Advance Pipeline Megaproject
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska reached a new milestone last week in its decadeslong effort to commercialize the massive reserves of natural gas available on the state's North Slope.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
Dow, DuPont in Late-Stage Talks to Merge
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By David Benoit, Dana Cimiluuca, Dana Mittioli, and Jacob Bunge
Two of America's oldest chemical companies are in advanced talks to merge.
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. could announce a merger in just days, people familiar with the transactions said.
The deal would combine two companies that together are worth about $120 billion and each have a market capitalization of around $60 billion.
The combined company would then break up into three separate companies, sources said.
If the plan goes forward, Dow's chief executive, Andrew Liveris, would be the executive chairman of the new company, and DuPont CEO Edward Breen would retain his title at the new company.
The deal -- described largely as a merger of equals that wouldn't come with a big payout for shareholders -- would need to secure antitrust approval.
The proposed spinoff companies would house agriculture, materials, and materials science and speciality-products businesses (Benoit/Cimilluca/Mattioli/Bunge, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 8).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Murphy: Ban Harmful Microbeads
Dec 9, 2015 | The Post Oracle
By Barbara Dickinson
Research conducted in 2013 by the State University of NY found that the lakes were riddled with microbeads, with Lake Ontario containing an estimated 1.1m plastic particles per square kilometer.
"These microbeads are tiny plastic, but make for big-time pollution", said Republican Fred Upton, a co-sponsor of the bill.
The downstream pollution resulting from microbeads has been the most successful driver of bead bans all along. "Once they're flushed down the drain, that's when the problem really begins".
Environmentalists say microbeads can hurt fish, birds and other wildlife that eat them once they are discharged into waterways via sewer systems which fail to catch them because they are so small. Microbeads absorb a variety of toxins that are in the water such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which adhere to the plastic's surface. "It is our responsibility to implement a nationwide ban on plastic microbeads, and spur a transition to non-synthetic alternatives". This year, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a law banning the sale of microbeads by 2017. Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin have enacted bans, while California, Minnesota and OH are considering them.
Murphy is a cosponsor of similar legislation in the Senate. The federal ban will supersede the state bans, and allow for a faster phase-out according to Pallone.
"Our bill is a bipartisan and commonsense solution", said Pallone in the release.
The American Chemistry Council also welcomed the passage of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, describing the legislation as "an important step to ensure we have one sensible, national standard for phasing out the use of solid plastic microbeads in personal care products across America".
-
Industry Petitions EPA To Reduce TSCA Review Of Some Biochemicals
Dec 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
An advocacy group for biobased chemicals has petitioned EPA to ease Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) review of a group of 35 oils and fatty acids, seeking to have the chemicals re-labeled as "existing" chemicals not subject to "new" chemical review by the agency.
In a TSCA Section 21 petition, the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) asked EPA to reconsider its treatment of the chemicals, arguing they are essentially identical to those already on the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals, or those in commerce before 1976, and therefore should not be required to undergo pre-manufacture review.
BRAG recently included the petition in its Nov. 13 comments to the interagency work group the White House has tasked with updating the 1992 Coordinated Framework on how EPA, the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department regulate biotechnologies.
"Many in the biobased chemical sector have focused their current efforts on finding new sources of fats and oils. Some new sources are isolated from non-traditional plants, like camelina and jatropha. Some are derived from algae and some are derived from microbes. These novel sources yield oils that are functionally equivalent to, and may be chemically indistinguishable from" the chemicals' sourced from traditional feedstocks, BRAG's Oct. 5 petition states.
In order for EPA to consider what BRAG says are the same chemicals but with different sources, BRAG says that the existing naming system for this group of chemicals must be changed, and BRAG is asking EPA to do so.
BRAG's petition says "the key hindrance to commercialization of these biobased chemical products is the limited list of natural sources of fats and oils in the [Soap and Detergent Association (SDA)] nomenclature system. This petition requests that [EPA] address the disproportionate regulatory burden imposed on those companies striving to address the critical needs for sustainability within the chemical sector. BRAG believes this can be accomplished without compromising EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment."
BRAG has yet to receive a response from the agency, Kathleen Roberts, the group's executive director says. TSCA Section 21, which provides the opportunity to request action from EPA, gives the agency 90 days to respond to such petitions.
TSCA Inventory
All chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory must have a scientific chemical name and description, but BRAG argues that the naming system EPA and SDA established in 1978 prevents the group of 34 oils and fatty acids from being recognized as chemical equivalents to substances already on the TSCA inventory because it includes the chemical's source in its name.
The "nomenclature system classifies 35 natural sources of fatty acids, and their synthetic equivalents, into a variety of alkyl group ranges that are based on the constituent fatty acid chain lengths present in those sources, without naming the source organisms," BRAG says.
The result of this classification is, effectively, a determination of chemical equivalency based on the name -- but only for those substances already on the market when TSCA was enacted, since "EPA has not attempted to amend the list of 35 sources or made equivalency determinations for other natural sources" in recent years, the group says.
BRAG is asking EPA to make such an equivalency determination to allow biobased producers of the 35 oils and fatty acids to avoid the new chemical review process.
"Without access to the [SDA] names, novel biobased chemical producers and their customers must submit a pre-manufacture notification for fats and oils derived from each new source and for all of the downstream intermediates and products. This delays commercialization of novel sources of fats and oils and, more importantly, creates a disincentive for customers to switch from traditional oils to these novel sources because the customers would be forced to submit new chemical notifications for substances that would be existing chemicals if only they were made from SDA-eligible sources."
The petition is the second that BRAG has filed with EPA under TSCA Section 21. Last year, BRAG petitioned EPA to alter the TSCA Section 8 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule by partially exempting six biodiesel chemicals from the chemical processing and use reporting rule. At the same time, BRAG filed a separate petition under a different authority, requesting they be partially exempted from CDR reporting, by listing the six chemicals as having "low current interest" to EPA.
EPA accepted BRAG's "low current interest" petition, and denied its Section 21 petition as moot, according to Roberts and the agency's website. The agency sought public comments on a proposed rule declaring the six chemicals as of low current interest, with the comment period closing in September, Roberts says. "Now we're just waiting for the [final] rule," Roberts said.
-
Data Flagged as Key issue at Supply Chain Meeting
Dec 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Data management, the circular economy, TSCA reform and transparency have been highlighted as big, upcoming issues by several speakers at Chemical Watch's Global Supply Chain Summit in Washington, DC.
Beth Jensen, director of corporate responsibility for the Outdoor Industry Association, said data collection and management are critical to improving chemicals management in the sector. The group has worked with a number of other textile organisations to develop tools to achieve this.
She said having good data to feed into the tools will drive change through the supply chain.
Ms Jensen said there is also a need to start to harmonise, across sectors, the ability to manage the current dynamic regulatory environment for chemicals. She said the textiles sector has started to talk to the automotive industry about sharing resources to monitor and engage on new chemicals regulations.
“How do we start to be more active players in developing that regulation so that it works for industry?" she asked.
Jennifer Reece, materials programme manager for HP's global social and environmental responsibility department, said that for her company and the electronics industry, data collection was also a big deal. There are several electronics initiatives to try to draw data in systematically, she said – one involving an electronics industry group, others linking with the furniture and textiles sectors.
She also said that there are big questions, regarding developments towards a circular economy, and particularly relating to the reuse of materials containing substances of concern.
Andy Igrejas, director of NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said he believes TSCA reform will happen and that progressive industries should focus on getting a regulatory process that is credible. If it is watered down, he said, consumer-facing companies will struggle to be able to make decisions people have faith in.
He said there is a tension between companies that are open, responsible and driving innovation towards safer products and others that are not.
Jerker Ligthart, senior chemicals advisor at the NGO ChemSec, said transparency and openness are key drivers of change for chemicals management through the supply chain. Consumers, he said, want to have information from retailers and brands.
-
Seac Takes Neutral Stance on Banning BPA in Thermal Paper
Dec 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (Seac) says the benefits of banning bisphenol A (BPA) in thermal paper products, such as till receipts, are “unlikely” to outweigh the costs.
But it adds that there are other factors in favour of the restriction that the European Commission should consider when it makes its decision.
The proposed restriction was submitted by the French authorities on the grounds that BPA in thermal paper products posed health risks for pregnant workers and consumers.
Echa Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) disagreed that consumers were at risk – but agreed that the risk for pregnant workers handling till receipts is not adequately controlled (CW 11 June 2015).
Seac has now decided that the socio-economic benefits of the proposed restriction are unlikely to be higher than their costs.
But it also says the Commission should examine other considerations. These include the fact that higher thermal paper prices – when presented as the amount per working EU citizen – would be “affordable”.
Seac and Rac’s opinions will now be sent to the Commission, which will have three months to prepare a proposal for amending REACH Annex XVII - the list of restrictions.
When doing so, the Commission can depart from these, but must explain its reasons for doing so.
The REACH Committee of member state officials assists the Commission in making its final decision.
-
New Federal Program to Vet High-Risk Oil and Gas Sites
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mark Schleifstein
A new federal program announced Monday will mean five high-risk offshore oil and gas facilities will soon be getting additional inspections.
Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said BSEE will be looking at "several risk areas and operations" and "taking a deeper look into how operators implement and support their safety readiness programs."
Picking the facilities will include looking at size, design and environmental risk factors; national inspection program data; and audits from the agency's Safety and Environmental Management Systems.
Salerno said the program is focusing on those with heightened risk, but "it does not mean that the facility has a bad safety record or is a poor safety performer, only that certain risk factors are present that must be managed."
"Upon completion of each facility inspection and review, the BSEE team will discuss with the operator the areas needing attention or improvement," a news release said. "BSEE will then ask the operator to develop an action plan addressing the areas identified."
BSEE also is drafting several offshore well control rules (Mark Schleifstein, New OrleansTimes-Picayune, Dec. 7).
-
Senate Panel Approves 'SAFE PIPES Act,' Ocean Bills
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed a bill this morning that would update pipeline safety oversight and require federal regulators to prioritize the completion of existing rules.
S. 2276 is a bipartisan measure that would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) through fiscal 2019. The "Securing America's Future Energy: Protecting Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act" -- or the "SAFE PIPES Act" -- also has the support of the American Gas Association (AGA) and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).
The bill passed by voice vote. In a statement after the markup, AGA President Dave McCurdy called it a "great first step."
"The safety of our nation's 2.5 million miles of natural gas pipelines is always a collaborative effort between industry, federal and local regulators," McCurdy said. "The SAFE PIPES Act acknowledges the incredible progress made through the programs set forth in the 2006 and 2011 pipeline safety legislation and gives regulators the authority they need to continue to enhance the safety of our nation's natural gas pipelines."
INGAA has also praised the bill's four-year reauthorization at "sustainable" funding levels and its requirement that PHMSA focus on legislative mandates from the last reauthorization in 2011.
The version that passed today included several amendments, including one from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) requiring PHMSA to consult with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) during the permitting process for natural gas infrastructure. Another amendment from Ayotte allows state inspectors to participate in inspections on interstate pipeline safety.
Another amendment, from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would direct PHMSA to report how much natural gas is lost from aging pipelines and to implement recommendations from the Government Accountability Office on how to address that. Markey also penned a new provision that would require PHMSA to provide the panel with unredacted copies of oil spill response plans.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), one of the bill's sponsors, said S. 2276 would "strengthen the safety and the oversight of our nation's pipeline network."Ocean and weather bills
The panel also easily passed bills to promote resilient waterfronts, reauthorize an ocean monitoring program and require the National Weather Service to install more radar.
S. 2058, or the "Metropolitan Weather Hazards Protection Act," requires Doppler radar sites within 55 miles of all cities with populations of 700,000 or more. Its sponsors are North Carolina's two senators, Republicans Richard Burr and Thom Tillis; the bill is written to ensure that Charlotte, N.C., gets better radar coverage (E&E Daily, Dec. 7).
The panel also quickly passed S. 1886 and S. 1935. The former would reauthorize the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System, which collects data on everything from algal blooms to dead zones, while the latter would help waterfront communities prepare for weather extremes and ecosystem changes.
Specifically, S. 1935 -- or the "Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act" -- would direct the Commerce Department to set up a voluntary designation for communities that adopt plans to handle ecosystem challenges and economic opportunities along their waterfront. A new grant program would fund specific projects.
-
Sticky Crude Blend Demands Tougher Spill Rules -- Federal Report
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. regulators may not be prepared for the "particular challenges" posed by spills of a common oil mixture, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
Diluted bitumen, a blend of taffy-like bitumen and lighter oils, often separates in water and "should elicit unique, immediate actions in response" compared with regular crude, the reportconcludes. "Dilbit" mixtures accounted for 8 percent of the oil moving through the U.S. crude pipeline system in 2013.
"When diluted bitumen is first spilled, it doesn't appear to be different from another crude oil, so it is floating," said Diane McKnight, professor of civil, environmental and architectural engineering at the University of Colorado who chaired the committee behind the report. "There is this window of opportunity where established [cleanup] methods such as booming can be used."
Beyond that window, the dilbit "morphs" into so-called weathered diluted bitumen, which can stick to other particles and sink or lie suspended underwater, McKnight said.
That makes mopping up spills more costly and complicated compared with lighter crude varieties. A 2010 dilbit leak into Michigan's Kalamazoo River -- one of the worst onshore oil spills in U.S. history -- cost more than $1 billion to clean and has brought closer scrutiny of pipeline operator Enbridge Inc.'s other projects.
"Obviously, [the Kalamazoo spill] had a significant impact on the committee," said O.B. Harris, a consultant and nearly 40-year veteran of pipeline operations and maintenance who also helped prepare the NAS report. "The major outcome was that the dilbit sank."
For their report, Harris, McKnight and other committee members relied on a range of sources, including environmental assessments, National Transportation Safety Board data, expert interviews and a site visit to the command post for a heavy crude spill in Santa Barbara, Calif., earlier this year (Greenwire, May 27).
Crude flows have increased across North America in recent years due to new unconventional production from Canada's oil sands fields and the shale patches of North Dakota. About half of the light oil from the Bakken Shale play moves in tank cars, while comparatively little heavy crude -- about 200,000 barrels per day -- is shipped by rail from Alberta's oil patches.
Bitumen mined from Canada's oil sands must be diluted before it can move in pipelines or rail cars, although the amount of diluent needed can vary from site to site. The NAS report encompasses all concentrations of dilbit, including "railbit," and claims to "provide useful insight into areas beyond pipeline transportation."
Some analysts have projected the amount of Canadian heavy crude moved by rail will increase due to the Obama administration's decision last month to deny the northern leg of TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline. The 830,000-barrels-per-day pipeline would have hauled mostly dilbit from Canada's oil sands.
Anticipating an influx of dilbit crossing the U.S. border, the Department of Transportation, under direction from Congress, requested NAS' help studying dilbit spills in 2014.
The report includes detailed recommendations for DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which oversees the onshore oil industry's spill-response plans. The committee said PHMSA should require that response plans "adequately describe the areas most sensitive to the effects of a diluted bitumen spill, including the water bodies potentially at risk."
Environmentalist groups have long drawn attention to the risks posed by transporting diluted bitumen, pointing to heavy crude spills in Kalamazoo and in Mayflower, Ark., where an Exxon Mobil Corp. pipeline ruptured and leaked more than 3,000 barrels of oil in 2013.
"This important study from the National Academy of Sciences confirms what the tragic spills in Michigan's Kalamazoo River and Mayflower, Ark., have already shown us: transporting heavy tar sands [crude] presents unique and unacceptable risks to wildlife and habitat," said Jim Murphy, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, in a statement yesterday. "Our first responders and communities are not prepared for these unnecessary risks which this study confirms are different from those of regular oil."Feds, industry respond
PHMSA said it is scheduling a public workshop on dilbit in spring 2016 to determine if new regulations are needed. A spokeswoman added in a statement that the agency is developing an advisory bulletin to "suggest voluntary improvements that onshore oil pipeline operators should make to their oil spill response plans" in light of the report.
The dilbit study also called for U.S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard and oil and pipeline industry groups to develop new ways to detect and recover sunken oil. EPA said it is working with other agencies on diluted bitumen emergency preparedness and response issues, adding that its Office of Emergency Management is reviewing the report.
A spokesman for the Association of Oil Pipelines, a nonprofit industry organization, said the group is still going over the 126-page report and would not have immediate comment.
Sabrina Fang, spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, pointed out that a 2013 NAS study on diluted bitumen concluded the product poses no unique risks to pipeline operations. "Canadian oil sands crudes have been transported safely in the U.S. for more than 40 years," she said.
"We have rigid maintenance and repair programs to keep oil in the pipelines because our goal is zero incidents," Fang added in a statement. "If a release does occur, pipeline operators are prepared to respond quickly and effectively, working with local emergency responders."Less volatile?
The "black sludge" that separates from dilbit can cause operational and environmental problems with its thick, sticky consistency.
After a spill, weathered bitumen coats surfaces like peanut butter and can taint the water column at multiple levels.
The substance may pose less of a health hazard to cleanup crews owing to its lower toxicity and flammability compared with regular crude, according to the NAS review.
The report also included an "important caveat" that higher concentrations of polar compounds in dilbit, including some containing nitrogen, could pose a unique health risk. The authors suggested further study in the area before reaching conclusions about dilbit and worker safety.
Researchers cautioned that dilbit in the early stages of a spill behaves much like regular crude with its attendant fire danger.
Only weathered dilbit is ranked as "less" of a concern than light and medium crudes when it comes to explosion risk.
"As those volatiles come off and you're left with the sticky residue, the explosive risk goes down, but you're left with other concerns that are more significant," said Douglas Friedman, a senior program officer with the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology at NAS. "It's really the changing nature of the diluted bitumen -- from dilbit to a weathered dilbit -- that is perhaps the most important factor in response."
-
EPA Allies Blast 'Speculative' Arguments Against Climate Rule
Dec 9, 2015 | The Hill -E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of states, advocacy groups, companies and others is asking a federal appeals court to reject “speculative” arguments against the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants.
The coalition filed four briefs late Tuesday with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where conservative states and energy companies are seeking an immediate stay to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing the rule.
“The caricatures in the stay motions bear no similarity to the actual rule,” a team of more than a dozen public health and environmental groups, led by the Environmental Defense Council, told the court.
“Movants’ declarations allege harms that are speculative, would occur (if at all) long past the litigation period, and rest on rank mischaracterizations of the rule’s structure and modeling analysis,” the coalition said.
A group of 18 states, six cities and a county accused the litigants asking for a stay, led by West Virginia and Murray Energy Corp., of misrepresenting what the regulation does.
“Far from intruding on state sovereignty or coercing state governments, the rule sets reasonable limits on carbon-dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel power plants — just as previous EPA rules have limited other forms of pollution from these same power plants,” they wrote. “These arguments fundamentally mischaracterize the rule.”
The briefs are the latest steps in litigation over the rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan. It was released in August and mandates a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions.
While the opponents of the rule want it completely overturned, they’re also asking for it to be blocked from implementation while it goes through court, arguing that it would cause irreparable harm to them during the litigation if not stopped.
But the groups backing the EPA said no such harm exists.
“Movants are incorrect when they describe the alleged harms they say will immediately befall electric generators and utilities because the rule requires nothing of affected sources until 2022 (at the earliest),” wrote a coalition of electric utilities backing the rule, headed by NextEra Energy Inc.
A coalition of renewable energy associations also weighed in, saying that the opponents “allege harms that are wholly speculative and not causally related to the rule, and fail to demonstrate irreparable harm during the short period of judicial review.”
The final briefs for consideration of the judicial stay are due in court later this month, at which point the judges could decide whether to step in and stop the rule or let it go forward.
-
Seeking Speedy Ruling, Critics Ask D.C. Circuit To Split Issues In ESPS Suit
Dec 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Jeremy Bernstein
States and industry groups that are seeking to overturn EPA's greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants are asking the appellate court hearing the case to bifurcate the litigation, suggesting an expedited briefing schedule on “fundamental core” legal issues to allow for a ruling likely before states must demonstrate their initial compliance next September.
“Though there are pending requests to stay the Rule, Petitioners are also filing this motion to ensure the Court has sufficient time to enter an expedited briefing schedule with oral argument this term -- i.e., by May 2016 -- on the fundamental legal issues raised by the Rule,” the petitioners said in a joint Dec. 8 motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“Movants propose one possible schedule, but stress that the focus of this request is on argument on the Rule’s fundamental legal issues occurring this coming spring, rather than being delayed until the fall,” they add.
The brief asks the court to quickly consider threshold legal questions over the existing source performance standards (ESPS), including a host of statutory and constitutional issues, such as whether EPA is authorized to regulate power plants' emissions under section 111 given they are already regulated under section 112, whether EPA has authority to “transform” states' electricity systems, whether EPA is able to regulate beyond a power plants' fenceline and whether EPA unconstitutionally intrudes on states' rights, as well as other issues.
The brief asks the court to sever and stay the remaining programmatic issues in the case, West Virginia et al. v. EPA et al, for consideration at a later time.
To ensure the court can hold oral arguments before next May, the petitioners suggest beginning briefing on Jan. 29, 38 days after the end of the 60-day statutory period for filing a petition for review. EPA’s brief would be due 40 days after the due date for opening briefs, on March 9. Petitioners' reply would then be due 21 days later, on March 30.
But whether the court grants the request is uncertain, and the motion acknowledges that the petitioners have been unable to reach agreement with EPA on how to proceed. “Petitioners have had good-faith discussions with counsel for EPA to try to reach agreement on a joint proposal. They have informed Petitioners that they do not agree with this proposal and plan to file one or more responses,” the motion says.
Lawyers for the petitioners have long said they plan to seek a phased approach to the litigation, arguing that it is designed with judicial economy in mind, because if the rule is halted due to overarching Clean Air Act structural prohibitions, then a court need never address the concerns that states or utilities have over specific programmatic requirements.
“Bifurcation and severance of the fundamental legal authority issues from the challenges to the programmatic elements, and speedy briefing and resolution of the former, will promote the fair and efficient management of these cases, and is in the interest of judicial economy,” they argue in their brief.
“It will allow the Court to resolve whether EPA has any authority under the CAA to adopt the Rule beforeaddressing the multitude of complex and fact-based individual issues relating to the Rule’s implementation,” the brief says. “Depending on how the Court resolves those foundational legal issues, briefing of the state-specific and record-based issues could be narrowed or avoided altogether,” it adds.
But environmentalists and other supporters of EPA's rule say the bifurcated approach would extend the litigation into a new administration and that the approach would give opponents two opportunities to challenge the rule.
Stay Opposition
The petitioners' request to the court comes as supporters of EPA's rule are backing the agency's calls for the D.C. Circuit to reject requests by the rule's opponents to stay the measure pending the outcome of litigation on the merits.
In a series of briefs filed Dec. 8, separate groups of states and cities, environmentalists, renewable energy interests and clean power generators urged the court to reject requests by petitioners and their supporters.
Opponents of EPA's rule filed a litany of motions to stay the rule within hours of its promulgation, emphasizing its immediate and “irreparable” harm. They also charged that they would likely prevail on the merits, that a stay is in the public interest and that it does not unnecessarily harm other parties to the litigation -- all elements of the four-part test petitioners need to prove to win a stay.
Among other things, they argued that a stay is necessary to prevent states and utilities from planning for and implementing compliance measures, only to have a court reject the rule after such changes have been adopted -- a scenario that occurred with EPA's mercury rule for power plants, where the Supreme Court faulted EPA for not considering costs in its decision to craft that rule.
But in its response, EPA pushed back, emphasizing changes made to the rule to ease implementation, such as delay to the start of the compliance period and an extension of the planning period. The agency also sought to underscore its prior legal arguments and attached declarations from several top officials. One official, U.S. lead climate negotiator Todd Stern, argued that a stay of the ESPS would undermine the emerging international climate agreement in Paris.
In their briefs, EPA's supporters backed the agency's approach. States and cities, for example, argued in theirDec. 8 brief that the rule would preserve local governments' sovereignty over energy development.
“Far from intruding on state sovereignty or coercing state governments, the Rule sets reasonable limits on carbon-dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel power plants -- just as previous EPA rules have limited other forms of pollution from these same power plants,” their brief says.
States represented include New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia, along with Washington, DC; Boulder, CO; Chicago; New York City; Philadelphia; South Miami, FL; and Broward County, FL.
Legal Precedents
Environmentalists similarly charged that the petitioners were unlikely to succeed on the merits, noting in theirDec. 8 brief that the rule is supported by a host of Clean Air Act precedents. “Many air pollution control programs under section 111 and other provisions of the Act, particularly programs addressing the power sector, have relied upon shifts in generation and have employed techniques such as emissions averaging and trading to reduce emissions efficiently,” they said.
They added: “Shifting generation among facilities is a routine part of the power industry’s daily operations, and a familiar component of companies’ longer-term emission reduction strategies.”
Groups supporting the brief include Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, American Lung Association, Conservation Law Foundation, Clean Air Task Force and others.
Renewable energy interests, including the American Wind Energy Association, Solar Energy Industries Association and Advanced Energy Economy, in their brief sidestepped merits issues but charged that the petitioners had not demonstrated irreparable harm while a stay of the rule would harm these industries. They reiterate EPA arguments that the additional compliance time the rule provides undercut charges the rule would cause harm. They added that the rule does not require immediate retirement of coal plants, as the petitioners claim, noting that there is adequate supply of renewable energy to replace their generation.
And, they added, a stay would harm their members. “A stay of the Rule would chill the continued growth of the $200 billion advanced energy market . . . below what would otherwise occur by introducing uncertainty among investors,” the brief says.
Finally, clean power generators, including Calpine, Pacific Gas & Electric, National Grid and others, also faulted the petitioners for alleging the rule will result in irreparable harms, saying they have already been able to reduce their GHG emissions.
“Through their investment in low- and zero-emissions generation capacity and their procurement of electricity generated by such sources, the Power Companies have reduced CO2 emissions within their respective generation fleets and portfolios, while continuing to provide reliable and affordable power to their customers. Their collective experience doing so demonstrates the achievability and reasonableness of the [rule],” their brief states.
-
House GOP's Cramer Floats Interest in a Carbon Tax
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Ben Cramer
A North Dakota Republican bemoaning the demise of his state's coal industry under the Clean Power Plan said yesterday that he would be open to replacing the greenhouse gas rules with a carbon tax.
Rep. Kevin Cramer said at a National Journal LIVE event that he could support an emissions tax with revenues directed to research about cleaner fossil fuel-fired power.
Cramer, a former state electric regulator and a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said such a carbon tax could "bring all players to the floor," if it is "dedicated to the solution, rather than the general fund, or [implemented] just as a punitive measure."
"I think a modest carbon tax dedicated to clean coal technology development would be a possible middle ground," Cramer said later in an interview. "I believe that we can have emission-free coal, but we can't get there if we shut down the coal industry."
A carbon tax for coal research would "get a lot warmer reception than a carbon tax designed solely to manipulate human behavior," he added.
Cramer admitted that carbon tax legislation definitely could not gain traction "as long as Barack Obama is in the White House."
"In the first two years of this administration, they imposed a couple of things without any Republican support, and then tried cap and trade and failed even with the Democratic Senate," Cramer said. "I think that set the stage for, sort of, 'We're digging our heels in here.'"
President Obama has suggested that an economywide carbon price would be a better option than his administration's Clean Power Plan. But it has not been politically feasible during his term, especially after climate legislation failed in the Senate in 2010 (ClimateWire, Dec. 2).
Any compromise would likely require more than Republicans offering a carbon tax and Democrats agreeing to direct funds to clean coal research.A constructive alternative?
Eli Lehrer, president of the free market-focused R Street Institute, said Cramer could be proposing a constructive alternative that could be the basis to repeal and replace U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
"I'm, to say the least, not wild about clean coal, but certainly it would be important to look at what that means and what it involves," Lehrer said. "The fact that somebody is stepping forward means that it behooves me and anyone else who's been skeptical of it to take a second look."
Lehrer maintains that a carbon tax should be revenue-neutral and pre-empt EPA rules. But, he said, "Republicans ultimately will need to govern, and some sort of CO2 [regulation] in the medium term is inevitable."
Another bargaining chip Democrats could offer is transitional help for those losing coal-related jobs, which would help individuals but not investors, he said.
Cramer said Republicans might be willing to compromise if Democrats acknowledge that "coal's got a future, and we need to help it have a future."
Rep. Kurt Schrader -- an Oregon Democrat who was one of nine who crossed party lines to vote for a major energy bill (H.R. 8) last week -- countered during the panel discussion with Cramer that "we have to acknowledge on my side of the aisle that coal is still going to be here for a while."
"If not here, it's going to be in China," Schrader said. "It stands to reason that if we're going to control what happens to our planet, we have to help those that are going to be dependent on these resources we used for many years and polluted fairly liberally [with] back in the day."
Schrader joked that he voted for H.R. 8 because he "actually read the bill," which he said had good portions to accelerate natural gas pipelines and facilities but could have focused more on the renewable energy sector.
"It's a very viable bill. I think it could move forward," Schrader said. "There was an emphasis, as time runs out this particular congressional year, to get something on the floor on energy. And it was not quite ready for prime time. I think the chair and ranking member of the committee would agree with that, and so would most members. But it's important to move the ball forward."Climate change is 'undeniable'
Cramer said during the event that he believes climate change is "undeniable," and that he finds it heartening that several Republicans, including Kentucky's Ed Whitfield, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, have said, "'We're not denying climate change is happening.'"
But afterward, he said he remains "somewhat skeptical" that climate change is attributable to human activity.
"Again, it really doesn't matter to me. I think there is consensus that it is, but if it's proven wrong someday, so be it," Cramer said. "For now, this is what we're dealing with.
"Frankly, the things we're talking about ... technologies that help lower emissions -- it's not like that's a bad thing in either case -- whether climate change is going to devastate the planet next year and humans are the sole cause of it ... or whether it's something more modest," he added. "We're going to be on this planet, in my view, for a long, long time, and there's nothing wrong with advancing the cause of cleaner energy."
He believes that must be done in conjunction with promoting greener fossil fuel power, though.
The Clean Power Plan requires North Dakota to reduce its rate of emissions 45 percent by 2030 -- about quadruple what the draft version of the rule required. North Dakota is suing based on procedural grounds, arguing that the new target is "arbitrary" and "capricious."
Cramer said while utilities have always managed to meet environmental goals before -- controlling sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, for example -- the Clean Power Plan is different because "it's based on technologies that don't exist."
"We can't comply with the 45 percent," Cramer said. "I don't know if we even could with carbon trading."
-
Litigation 'Super Bowl' Tops List of 2016 Cases to Watch
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The morass of litigation engulfing the Obama administration's signature climate change rule will be the top environmental law issue to watch next year, according to new rankings from Vermont Law School.
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan -- a contentious rule requiring power plants to curb their greenhouse gas emissions -- is at the center of a massive court battle that is widely expected to drag on for years and ultimately wind up at the Supreme Court. The legal "Super Bowl" surrounding the regulation ranked No. 1 on the law school's annual top 10 list.
The Supreme Court "has upheld the EPA's authority and obligation to regulate carbon pollution three times," the watchlist says. "But it has also signaled that there is a limit to how much deference it will give to the EPA's assertion of broad authority with such significant economic and social consequences. So the outcome is uncertain."
The No. 2 issue identified by the law school: a battle over EPA's landmark approach for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
Earlier this year, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld EPA's pollution diet -- or total maximum daily load (TMDL) -- for the entire 64,000-square-mile watershed. The American Farm Bureau Federation and other industry groups have asked the Supreme Court to review EPA's plan, arguing that the agency far overstepped its boundaries under the Clean Water Act (Greenwire, Nov. 6).
"Regardless of whether the Supreme Court hears the case, the Third Circuit ruling will provide a foundation for the EPA, states, and environmental organizations in the development of plans to address polluted stormwater runoff across the country, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico," the law school's list says.
Another issue that made the top 10 is the battle playing out over the administration's so-called Waters of the U.S. rule, dubbed "The WOTUS Wars" on the rankings.
"It will take years to achieve clarity" on that rule, wrote law student Charlotte Rand and professor Patrick Parenteau. "With the exception of the Clean Power Plan, no rule has ignited more controversy and litigation than the rule adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army seeking to clarify the meaning of the term 'waters of the United States' (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act."
Lawsuits opposing the regulation have been lodged in courts around the country amid a debate about the proper venue for challenging the rule. Yesterday, federal judges appeared to favor keeping those lawsuits in appeals court rather than district courts across the country as requested by the regulation's challengers (E&ENews PM, Dec. 8).
Other topics on the list include: the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision that knocked down EPA mercury standards for power plants, litigation surrounding rules "cracking down on fracking," a pending Supreme Court decision on electricity market rules and a decision not to list the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.
Click here to read Vermont Law School's top 10 list.
-
Cruz Rejects Climate Science as He Rises in the Polls
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz sought to establish himself as a leading opponent of climate action among Republican presidential hopefuls yesterday as he continued to target conservative voters less than two months before the Iowa caucuses.
Cruz, who last month said that Democrats were lying about climate change to advance their policies, lampooned climate scientists, environmentalists and the Obama administration yesterday in a hearing meant to raise doubts about people's responsibility for climbing temperatures (ClimateWire, Nov. 19).
He claimed that there has been "no significant warming" since 1998 and made fun of an expedition of scientists who were stranded in sea ice while investigating melting in the Antarctic.
"The global warming alarmists don't like these data. They are inconvenient to their narrative," Cruz said of a recent study showing that some areas of the Antarctic are gaining ice. "Public policy should follow science."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
The hearing in the Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness brought high-profile scientists who question whether greenhouse gases cause warming to Capitol Hill as negotiators from nearly 190 nations are meeting in Paris to work on a global climate agreement.
It allowed Cruz, the panel's chairman, to stand out among Republican candidates for president, most of whom have avoided explicit attacks on the science behind warming. Some strategists have said Cruz could benefit from taking a hard-line position on warming when conservatives caucus in Iowa on Feb. 1. It also stands to raise his profile as he continues to climb in opinion polls.
One of Cruz's strongest Republican opponents in the presidential race, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, did not attend the hearing. Rubio, a subcommittee member, has criticized President Obama's climate policies, but he tends to avoid talking about the science.
Cruz also scolded the media for assuming that mainstream scientists are correctly portraying the likelihood of climate risk while ignoring the message of skeptics. He said "facts" that counter the theory of climate change go unreported. He pointed to greater crop yields, an 18-year "pause" in warming, a slowdown in sea-level rise and other things.
"None of these ... facts tend to make it through the media gatekeepers that instead enforce, like the inquisition, a discipline on the heretics that would dare stand in the way of their political ideology of imposing trillions of dollars of cost on people who are struggling," Cruz said.'Senator Cruz is out of touch'
The hearing was titled "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate," and it featured key scientists who are skeptical of people's role. They included John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville; Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology; and William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton University.
Also in the lineup was Mark Steyn, the Canadian National Review writer who compared climatologist Michael Mann to Jerry Sandusky, the former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach convicted of child sexual abuse (E&E Daily, Dec. 7, 2015).
Democrats criticized Cruz before the hearing for filling the witness panel with skeptical speakers, while allowing them just one expert, David Titley, a retired rear admiral with the Navy and a meteorology professor at Penn State.
While the hearing could polish Cruz's conservative credentials among evangelical and tea party voters in early voting states, it also exposed him to attacks by Democrats who are eager to cast the entire Republican Party as climate skeptics.
"Senator Cruz is out of touch," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said before the hearing.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) added: "The science is settled. The politics is increasingly settled, and we've seen that during the Paris climate talks. The only remaining place where this isn't a settled question is on the Republican side of the United States Congress."
Many scientists have long said that the argument about a warming "pause" is exaggerated. Cruz picked his starting point in 1998, an abnormally warm year, and said temperatures have been stable since then. But scientists like Titley say it doesn't represent long-term warming because it's a relatively short period of time that begins with a very warm year.Cruz: Scientists are 'cooking the books'
A recent study by scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that surface temperatures during the "pause" were higher than initially reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It finds that the rate of warming from 2000 to 2015 was "at least as great" as the rise between 1950 and 1999.
"These results do not support the notion of a 'slowdown' in the increase of global surface temperature," says the paper, which was published this summer in the journal Science.
Cruz challenged the idea that the "pause" is driven by a warm starting point, 1998. Even if you began with 1999 or 2000, he said, temperatures would still be flat. But Titley corrected him. He said a "warming bias," or upward trend, would be seen in the temperature record if you begin with a cooler year.
Others accept that the temperature is rising. Curry acknowledged that point. The bigger question, she said, is whether humans are causing that increase. She said temperatures have been on the rise for more than 200 years.
"And that's not human," she said, suggesting that something other than industrial greenhouse gases is causing them to climb.
That viewpoint is not accepted by most climate scientists. They point to corresponding rises in greenhouse gases and temperatures as evidence that human activities are a key driver of warming.
Yet Cruz expressed a deep mistrust of those mainstream scientists. When asked to square his views with the fact that 2014 was the warmest year on record and 2015 is poised to overtake it, he said federal agencies have been "systematically cooking the books and adjusting the data."
And he said contrarian scientists can't get federal funding for research that would question the consensus.
"One of the most disturbing things we heard in that hearing was the culture of suppression of dissent, driven politically by Democrats, by those in control of the funding stream," Cruz said after the hearing. "We heard academics talking about that if you dare disagree with the global warming alarmists, you find your career destroyed, you find yourself the target of vilification."
-
Ted Cruz Plays the Victim Card as a Climate “Heretic”
Dec 9, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Backed by a panel of scientists and authors who question the mainstream consensus on climate change, presidential candidate Ted Cruz sought to use his perch atop a Senate subcommittee to tout his own climate-doubting credentials Tuesday.
At a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, the Texas Republican repeatedly railed against climate change “alarmists” who he said are embracing an unproven science. Comparing himself to a persecuted “heretic” like Galileo, Cruz charged that he was fighting against a “dogma” that had squelched scientific debate.
“I believe that public policy should follow the actual science and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and analysis,” Cruz said.
Democrats, however, said Cruz was simply standing in the way of action on climate change. Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson of Florida held up pictures of flooding in his home state and said that action was necessary now to stop future damage. Nelson added that it was “ironic” to talk about skeptics not getting a voice, when in his own home state, Republican Gov. Rick Scott had put the kibosh on state scientists even using the words “climate change.”
And subcommittee ranking member Gary Peters of Michigan said that “knowing that there’s more to learn shouldn’t stop us from acting on what we know now.”
The three scientists called by Cruz are well-known climate doubters, not unfamiliar to Capitol Hill hearings. Presenting data and questioning government reports, the panel also discussed what they said has been a freeze-out of any skepticism. Judith Curry, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, said there’s been a “chilling effect” on her own research and that she no longer applies for government grants because she thinks they won’t get funded.
The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made, although the Republican Party has made climate doubt a staple of its recent work.
Cruz denies that global warming is happening or that man has played a role, and he has made this denial a key point in his presidential campaign, accusing Democrats of lying about climate science to promote a regulatory agenda. According to an Associated Press review of the 2016 candidates, Cruz had the lowest understanding of climate-change science.
It’s not the first time Cruz has used his Senate post to pound the climate agenda. He hosted an October hearing in the Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee on the threat of overregulation to minority communities, which included discussion of climate-change policy.
Democrats were primed to attack Cruz. Several members of the subcommittee held a press conference hours before the hearing even began to condemn the chairman’s approach and call for action on climate change.
During the hearing, however, Democrats appeared to have little interest in the witnesses Cruz had called, instead using their time to talk about the importance of getting a climate-change agreement at the ongoing United Nations talks in Paris. “The only thing that needs a serious investigation is why we are holding this hearing in the first place,” said Sen. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat.
Most questions were sent to the sole Democratic witness, Rear Adm. David Titley, a Pennsylvania State University professor who has worked on the national security implications of climate change.
However, author Mark Steyn and Curry challenged Markey after his question time had expired for not giving them time to respond, launching a spirited back-and-forth about what data sets and studies were reliable for studying climate change.
Despite the hearing coming as Cruz is rising in the GOP polls, he kept explicit presidential campaigning out of the chamber and instead focused on promoting climate doubt. He even said that he took Democrats’ criticism as a “backhanded compliment.”
“What does it say when members of the United States Senate are protesting, ‘How dare the Science subcommittee in the U.S. Senate hear testimony from scientists about actual science? How dare we focus on such topics?’” he said. “I think that is indeed exactly what we were elected to do.”
Still, critics were quick to paint the hearing as political. Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in a statement that Cruz “may be the latest candidate to use his office to stoke doubts about climate change, but virtually all the Republicans running for president share his commitment to denial and defeatism about America’s capacity to lead the world in confronting this challenge.”
And a Greenpeace protester was even escorted out of the room shortly before the hearing started after he approached the witness table to confront Princeton University professor William Happer.
One of Cruz’s GOP primary opponents, Sen. Marco Rubio, is on the subcommittee but was absent from the hearing.
One of the most-talked about witnesses was one who wasn’t even in attendance. Cruz said that he had invited Sierra Club President Aaron Mair after Mair appeared in his Judiciary hearing and did not answer questions about global warming to Cruz’s satisfaction. Cruz mentioned Mair’s absence several times—even putting up a nameplate for him—and said the Sierra Club’s “refusal to engage in even the discussion of the science should speak volumes.”
In a statement, Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce said that Mair just returned home from the Paris talks—“critical negotiations at which Ted Cruz’s absurd conspiracy theories would be summarily dismissed, a problem he faces any place where serious discussions are happening to solve real issues.”
-
Dec 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
As the Paris climate talks continue, President Obama has repeatedly made clear his belief that no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. The president and his administration have attempted to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by limiting domestic oil and gas production on federal lands, continuing the 40-year-old crude oil export ban (presumably to decrease oil consumption worldwide) and imposing regulations on the U.S. oil and gas exploration industry, designed to restrict U.S. oil production. This, while the president’s Iran agreement allows Iran to increase their oil production by 2 million barrels per day by 2021 and gives them access to new global markets. If Obama wants to lower GHG emissions and simultaneously address that which most Americans think is the greatest threat – terrorism - he should allow Americans to explore for and export oil.
Unlike Iran, the U.S. has a long-standing commitment to conservation. America leads the world in both emissions reductions and production of oil and natural gas due to industry investment and advanced technology. While pushing the Iran deal, Obama failed to mention that Iran does not share our commitment to reducing emissions from oil production. The International Council on Clean Transportation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace determined that Iran emits almost three times the GHG per barrel during production of crude oil than that of U.S. producers in the Gulf of Mexico. Major oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico emit 0.031 and 0.034 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, a measurement of greenhouse gas emissions, per barrel while Iranian oil fields emit 0.070 to 0.099 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per barrel. If this seems small, understand that if Iran increases oil production by 2 million barrels per day due to a vacuum the U.S. leaves in the market, they will emit 100,000 metric tons more of CO2 equivalents per day. In a real sense, either the U.S. or Iran will supply oil to the international oil market. If it is the U.S., less GHG is emitted, if Iran, more GHG is emitted.
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite this, less than one month after the president gave Iran access to export oil, he issued a threat to veto legislation that would allow U.S. oil exports. Both Republicans and Democrats support lifting the current crude oil export ban. Put in place in 1975, it’s an outdated policy that denies American companies access to the global oil market. It also denies jobs and economic growth to Americans and the American economy.
According to the Aspen Institute, if the crude oil export ban was lifted, domestic crude oil production could increase by 3.25 million barrels per day by 2025. GDP would increase by $165 billion in peak exploration and development years (2019-2021), continuing at $141 billion per year in 2025. As 20 percent of GDP is typically paid in taxes to the federal government, this is $33 billion per year towards domestic needs, such as paying down debt and financing defense and security. Related to this, a total of 630,000 jobs would be added at the peak in 2019. Americans’ household income would increase by $2,000 to $3,000 in 2025. Conversely, the Iranian Central Bank predicted that increasing Iranian oil production and lifting the sanctions could mean their growth rate will increase to 5 percent. This is the same economy that finances terrorism throughout the Middle East and continuously undermines the stability of its regional neighbors, including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Whichever country fills the international need for oil will advance their country’s goals. It should be the U.S.
Despite the lower GHG emissions and the economic and security benefits of increased domestic energy production, the Obama administration has slowed energy production on federal lands and closed off areas of exploration and development of offshore oil. The Obama administration’s draft five-year plan for 2017-2022 lists 14 lease sales - the lowest number in the 42-year history of the planning process. Currently, the administration’s five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan, which took effect on August 27, 2012, removed 1.42 billion acres of the 1.65 billion acres of available OCS lands—87 percent—and blocked any new oil and gas exploration off the Atlantic coast.
Bottom line, if American oil is exported, the demand for Iranian oil will decrease. This will result in tons less GHG emissions, more income for American workers, an increase in the U.S. GDP and a focus on American priorities. If American oil is not exported, these benefits will be seen by Iran.
If Obama really believes that no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change, and if he is willing to acknowledge that most Americans feel that terrorism poses at least an equally serious threat, he should support exploring for and exporting American oil.
Cassidy is Louisiana’s junior senator, serving since 2015. He sits on the Appropriations; the Energy and Natural Resources; the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Veterans’ Affairs committees.
-
The World Has a Methane problem – But We Can Solve It
Dec 9, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
As I write this, a massive methane leak from a ruptured natural gas storage facility in California is causing, every day, as much climate damage over the next 20 years as seven million cars on the road.
And as the climate talks here in Paris continued over the weekend, The Washington Post noted an increased focus on short-lived climate pollutants such as methane. This focus is an absolute necessity: If we want to solve climate change, we have no choice but to tackle methane emissions.
According to data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane pollution is responsible for 25 percent of the warming our planet is experiencing today. It has this incredible impact because it’s 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the short term.
The largest industrial source of methane emissions is the oil and gas industry, and their environmental impact is staggering: A short-term climate impact equivalent to 40 percent of global coal combustion. That’s a lot of potential benefit to the climate, if we can make significant reductions.
That math is why the danger of unchecked methane pollution also offers us such an opportunity.Better data is on the way
The need for better methane data is something I heard a lot about several years ago when I was part of a panel looking at the environmental impacts of natural gas.
That’s why Environmental Defense Fund brought together close to 50 leading academic and scientific intuitions and 50 oil and gas companies to launch 16 discrete studies to better quantify oil and gas methane emissions in the United States. More than two dozen peer-reviewed papers have been published from this effort, the latest just this week in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Based on this model, EDF announced a collaborative effort this week with three international oil and gas producers to work toward a series of rigorous, scientific studies to understand global oil and gas methane emissions.What we’ve found so far
Studies in the U.S., Canada and Mexico indicate we can cut 40 percent of methane pollution for about 1 cent per thousand cubic feet.
And industry is confirming that meaningful reductions can be achieved for pennies on the dollar. This past year, Noble Energy, a large oil and gas producer in Colorado, spent just $3 million of its $1 billion in capital budget – three tenths of 1 percent – to comply with state regulations that deliver a 40 percent reduction.
As a whole, the U.S. has committed to a 40-50 percent oil and gas methane reduction by 2025 while Alberta, Canada, has committed to a 45-percent reduction in the same time frame, both goals backed by regulations.
These are encouraging and necessary measures, but more is needed. The International Energy Agency says it will be a “missed opportunity” unless more governments set well-regulated methane goals.
Just as better data in the U.S. and Canada is driving and improving policies there, we hope that better global data will accelerate global oil and gas methane reductions and help the global community tap the potential of these reductions.
With existing technology, we can cut this harmful pollution while increasing the amount of energy available. If we get methane right, it can help the world transition to a cleaner lower carbon future. If we get it wrong, it will make things a lot worse.
Ambition, data, the right regulations and commitment are required, but evidence suggests we’re on the right path. If we get it right, as we can and must, we’ll be closer than ever toturning the corner on climate.
-
Pa.'s Draft Climate Plan Holds High Hopes for Efficiency, Renewables
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Pennsylvania's blueprint for reducing its economywide greenhouse gas emissions will likely include substantial focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency, as evidenced by a draft of the state's upcoming Climate Change Action Plan.
The Pennsylvania Climate Change Act of 2008 requires the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to submit a climate change "action plan" to the governor every three years. The 2015 draft was shared with the state Climate Change Advisory Committee at ameeting held last month.
"Investments into less carbon intensive sources of energy should be prioritized to ensure that Pennsylvania has [a] stable economy, built on sustainable green energy, well into the future," the draft states. "There are immense opportunities for renewable energy in Pennsylvania, such as wind and solar."
Rob Altenburg, director of the environmental group PennFuture Energy Center, attended the Climate Change Advisory Committee meeting. Altenburg said the draft reflects "a change in tone" from the plan submitted to Pennsylvania's previous governor, Tom Corbett (R), including, he said, a "forthright understanding that climate is a major issue."
The plan submitted to Corbett in 2013 was controversial, in part because its release was delayed but also because environmental advocates viewed its recommendations as vague and unsupported by the Corbett administration (ClimateWire, Dec. 23, 2013).
The 2015 draft plan, crafted under Gov. Tom Wolf (D), is 247 pages compared to the 80-page document submitted to Corbett.
The draft notes the major presence of coal and natural gas in Pennsylvania's economy and energy profile -- it is the nation's No. 1 electricity exporter, No. 2 natural gas producer and No. 4 coal producer.
But while the 2013 plan painted the power sector's shift from coal to natural as a major emissions-reduction opportunity, the 2015 version devotes the bulk of its chapter on energy-related emissions to increasing the state's use of energy efficiency.
In a recent interview with ClimateWire, DEP Secretary John Quigley argued one of the state's current laws could support this goal, saying there's "a lot of juice left to be squeezed out of our Act 129 -- Pennsylvania's energy-efficiency law" (ClimateWire, Dec. 4).A focus on stopping natural gas leaks
The draft also outlines potential measures to better address methane leakage related to natural gas production and also calls for the creation or renewal of incentive programs for solar and wind.
"Pennsylvania has the opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy and the economics of clean energy development and prove that it cannot only be positive for the nation's energy grid, but positive for the nation's economy," the draft states.
The draft makes explicit mention of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which requires the state to lower its emissions rate from power plants by 33 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
"Pennsylvania's compliance with the Clean Power Plan will clearly be a major component of its approach to climate change," the draft states.
While the strategy for meeting the Clean Power Plan's targets is still under development, the draft states that "many of the carbon strategies for electricity within this document should ultimately support the development of the state's plan."
The Wolf administration has repeatedly professed its support for the state's fossil fuel sector, but the current governor is not as popular with the coal and natural gas industries as his predecessor (EnergyWire, Oct. 27).
However, the state's natural gas supporters are advocating for the fuel to play a key role in Pennsylvania's climate change strategy.
"Natural gas is a proven partner with renewable energy sources, acting as the critical back-up source that supports scalable wind and solar, which are highly intermittent," Erica Clayton Wright, a spokeswoman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said in a statement. "We look forward to reviewing additional updates from the committee as they are available."
A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance said in an email that while her organization hasn't yet completed a full analysis of the draft plan compared to the plan submitted under Corbett, she added that "certainly this administration is more enamored with the idea of climate change."
Altenburg cautioned that many of the exact figures in the draft -- including the economic analysis -- may change when the final version is released.
"Members of committee did have issue with some of the analysis in the plan," said Altenburg. "This is a draft plan; I don't expect necessarily that the precise numbers that you see in the plan now will be the numbers in the plan that goes out for public comment."
A DEP spokesman couldn't provide a date for the release of the final Climate Change Action Plan because the agency is awaiting a final analysis on the document. But he said in an email it will be released "soon" and will be subject to a comment period.
-
Alaska Seals Deals to Advance Pipeline Megaproject
Dec 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska reached a new milestone last week in its decadeslong effort to commercialize the massive reserves of natural gas available on the state's North Slope.
Alaska and its three corporate partners -- BP Alaska, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. -- voted to work together for another year on early engineering and design work for the multibillion-dollar Alaska LNG pipeline and export project.
At the same time, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) announced that BP and ConocoPhillips have signed an agreement under which each company promises to sell its North Slope natural gas reserves to the Alaska LNG project if it withdraws from the partnership.
Walker said the pact guarantees that the natural gas venture could continue even if either one of the oil giants drops out of the partnership.
Absent from the agreement was Exxon Mobil, the largest equity partner, which is taking the lead on the project. Exxon spokeswoman Kim Jordan said the company's vote to back another year of work "demonstrates continued progress in advancing the project."
"Exxon Mobil has been working diligently to find mutually acceptable terms to progress the Alaska LNG project and remains committed to doing so," Jordan explained.
Walker was disappointed that Exxon declined to sign the gas-sharing agreement. But he said the oil giant has "stepped up and is going forward on the work plan and budget for the next year, and that's a good thing."
In agreeing to proceed with the project for another year, the partners approved a $230 million budget for ongoing preliminary front end engineering and design, also known as pre-FEED studies. That research focuses on plans for a North Slope gas treatment plant, an 800-mile natural gas pipeline, a liquefaction plant and an LNG export terminal. To date, the project sponsors have spent $350 million on pre-FEED work.
The preliminary engineering work is due to be completed in mid-2016. Then, a year later, the partners are expected to decide whether to move forward with more-expensive second stage engineering and design work.
If built, the ambitious gas pipeline and export project is projected to cost between $45 billion and $65 billion.
At a press conference Friday, Walker described the Alaska LNG project as "an incredible investment in Alaska's future ... that will bring billions of dollars a year to Alaska's coffers."
"We're going to have an opportunity that we haven't seen in the state since the mid '70s," when the oil industry built the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline System to carry North Slope oil to export facilities along the state's southern shores, he said.
Walker also predicted that the partners' vote to move forward with the pipeline project will pave the way for better relations between his office and the Republican-controlled state Legislature.
Over the last year, the two governmental bodies have been at odds over the governor's handling of the Alaska LNG project.
Now Walker said his team is offering to hold regular briefings with state legislators on progress of the pipeline project. "I look forward to a closer working relationship with the Legislature," he noted.Turbulent times for gas project
The Alaska LNG partners signed the 2016 funding agreement at a time when the state's role in the gasline project has gone through a dramatic transformation.
In October, the Alaska Legislature backed Walker's plan to become a full partner on the Alaska LNG project by buying out the state's contract with TransCanada Corp. (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).
The Canadian pipeline company had been paying for Alaska's share of the construction costs for the gas treatment plant and pipeline. In return, the state had transferred its 25 percent equity interest in those facilities to TransCanada under terms negotiated by Walker's predecessor, Gov. Sean Parnell (R).
After defeating Parnell in last fall's gubernatorial election, however, Walker took steps to expand Alaska's role in the project.
Meanwhile, during the last year, Walker has replaced most of Parnell's appointees on the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., the independent state corporation that handles Alaska's role in the LNG project.
And in late November, AGDC President Dan Fauske resigned. Fauske, who previously served as executive director of the Alaska Housing Finance Corp., had powerful supporters in the state Legislature. But he had no experience in the energy pipeline business.
Without saying what role he played in Fauske's departure, Walker indicated that the time had come to reshape AGDC's leadership.
"We're now in the pipeline business," he said. "We need to make sure we have people involved in the project that have hands-on pipeline experience in projects of this magnitude."
Dave Cruz, the last Parnell appointee left on the AGDC board of directors, said the board plans to name an interim president for the group later this month and conduct a nationwide search to replace Fauske.
Describing the Alaska LNG venture as "a world-class scale project," Cruz said the board is looking for candidates with "pipeline and production facilities experience on a large scale; a track record of success from conception to completion."
Cruz noted that ongoing industry cutbacks caused by low oil prices could help Alaska find applicants with extensive pipeline experience. "This is a viable project, and with the downturn in the energy business right now, it's a great opportunity for someone," he asserted.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested