Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/11/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Bill More Aligned with EPA Principles, Says Denison
Dec 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
The US Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill (S-697) is more in line with the reform principles outlined by the Obama administration than the TSCA update bill in the House, says Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the NGO, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). -
US EPA to Issue TSCA Section 6 Rules for Three Chemicals
Dec 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA expects to issue proposed risk management rules next spring for three Work Plan chemicals that indicated risk during assessments, assistant administrator Jim Jones told delegates at Chemical Watch's Regulatory Summit in Washington. -
Cyber-Risk Framework for Utilities Could Get Makeover in 2016
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A popular set of cybersecurity standards for electric utilities could see major updates next year, depending on the outcome of a comment period that starts today. -
Corporations Change Their Tone on Climate Deal
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Joel Kirkland
By 9:30 a.m. local time Wednesday, two dozen junior staff working for a group called We Mean Business were squeezed around folding tables in a meeting room a stone's throw from U.N. climate negotiations. -
Climate Talks Move Toward Overtime to Deal with a Few Tough Issues
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Climate change talks have gone into the final stretch, and despite early optimism about completing a global accord early, it now seems the negotiations will need a pair of elastic pants. -
ClimateWire's Friedman Discusses Latest Negotiation Developments
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
With the United Nations' climate summit expected to come to a close this weekend, will negotiators successfully achieve a final deal? -
RGGI Navigates the Risks of Expanding Its Carbon Market
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Elizabeth Harball
Participants in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are worried that their carbon trading system could experience growing pains from linking with other states under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Split SEC Moves Ahead with Proposed Energy, Mining Disclosure Rule
Dec 11, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Alex Guillén and Patrick Temple-West
The SEC voted 3 to 1 today to advance its proposed rule requiring energy and mining companies to report payments to foreign governments. -
Calif. County Faces Challenges to Driller-Friendly Ordinance
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
California farmers and conservationists are taking Kern County officials to court over a new local law they say is designed to fast-track oil and gas permitting and bypass environmental review. -
EPA OKs Rules Dividing Wyo., Mont.
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
U.S. EPA has approved new regulations at the center of a protracted legal battle over natural gas drilling wastewater crossing from Wyoming into Montana. -
Groups Blast FERC Rejection of Comprehensive EIS Plan
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Environmental groups opposed to the construction of several natural gas pipelines in Virginia and West Virginia expressed dismay over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's rejection last month of requests to prepare a study of potential cumulative environmental impact statements (EIS) for the projects. -
Democrats Dig in on Oil Export Demands
Dec 11, 2015 | Politico Pro
By Elana Schor
Emboldened Democrats are demanding a host of GOP concessions under a year-end budget deal that would lift the ban on oil exports, with some of the party's most liberal members ready to give the oil industry the No. 1 item on its wish list in order to check several items off of their own.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Bill More Aligned with EPA Principles, Says Denison
Dec 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
The US Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill (S-697) is more in line with the reform principles outlined by the Obama administration than the TSCA update bill in the House, says Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the NGO, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
Mr Denison was one of several speakers at Chemical Watch's Regulatory Summit in Washington, DC who discussed the TSCA reform bills being shaped in the US Congress. The House has approved its bill, HR 2576, (CW 24 June 2015), and the Senate may vote on S-697 next week, panellists said.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell, said it is possible that the Senate will approve S-697 before Congress adjourns in mid-December. “Until it emerges from the Senate we can’t have any further action on the bill,” she added.
All of the panellists said they are optimistic that a TSCA reform bill will make it to the president’s desk for signature by the end of the current congressional session. “This year is first time that bills to reform TSCA have come to a vote on the floor of either house in Congress,” Mr Denison said.
The EDF compared the two bills with the principles (CW 30 September 2009) the administration said it would support in TSCA reform legislation approved by Congress. In the EDF’s comparison, a bill with provisions that meet one of the principles gets 1 point; if it partially meets a principle it gets 0.5 points; and if it does not meet any principle it gets no points.
There are six principles, but the EDF broke down principles two and five into four and two parts, respectively, to generate a total of ten individual scores.
Overall, the EDF’s comparison scores the Senate bill 8.5, and the House bill four. The scorecard shows that S-697 includes all six of the administration's principles with some variation, while the HR 2567 lacks three. These are:a requirement that manufacturers and the EPA assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner; a provision to support sustainable chemistry; and language that provides the EPA with a sustained source of funding for implementing the TSCA programme.
While Mr Denison said the EDF supports the administration’s six principles, he added they say nothing about the EPA’s authority to preempt state actions related to TSCA. Both the House and Senate bills have preemption language.
Judah Prero, assistant general counsel with the American Chemistry Council, told delegates that the industry’s objectives have been met in both the House and the Senate bills. “We’re happy where we are now,” with the legislation, even though “it is not exactly what industry would have drafted,” he said said.
“We might have used a softer touch,” he added.
Chemical companies will see a lot of activity in the first two years following the date the bill becomes law,Mr Prero said, especially as the EPA develops new policies, procedures and guidance to implement the reforms.
“There are a lot of balls that industry will have to juggle when it comes to final implementation of the TSCA” reforms", he concluded.
Mr Prero outlined the industry’s objectives that have been achieved in the reform bills:
prioritisation of the chemical screening process;
safety assessments and determinations based solely on risk of harm to human health and the environment, considering use and exposure;
risk management measures to address the risk posed;
deadlines for EPA action;
new information generation and order authority for the EPA;
policies, procedures and guidance for science-based decision-making;
fee structure to provide for increased EPA resources; and
a centralised, national regulatory programme to provide certainty.
-
US EPA to Issue TSCA Section 6 Rules for Three Chemicals
Dec 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA expects to issue proposed risk management rules next spring for three Work Plan chemicals that indicated risk during assessments, assistant administrator Jim Jones told delegates at Chemical Watch's Regulatory Summit in Washington.
The chemicals are: trichloroethylene (TCE) used in degreasers, spray fixatives and as a stain remover; methylene chloride (MC) used in paint removers; and NMP used in paint removers.
The actions are being proposed under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. They range from labelling requirements, restricting the amount of the substance that can be in a product to “getting rid of the chemical in the product altogether, said Mr Jones, who heads the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “All options are on the table,” he added.
The agency is doing the proposed rules for NMP and MC together “because they are substitutes for each other,” he said. Risk assessment for 1-bromopropane is under way and the agency expects to release a draft assessment in the winter of 2016.
On TSCA reform, Mr Jones said he was hopeful that “we will ultimately see a bill” that the President can sign. The administration has not taken a position on preemption, but how Congress deals with preemption will “be very important to how the [Obama] administration evaluates” any TSCA bill that is reported out of Congress, he added.
Mr Jones said the agency is satisfied with the quality of the data that it received under the Chemical Report Rule in 2012. It collected information on more than 7,600 chemicals (CW 11 February 2013). The next reporting cycle is from 1 June to 30 September next year.
-
Cyber-Risk Framework for Utilities Could Get Makeover in 2016
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A popular set of cybersecurity standards for electric utilities could see major updates next year, depending on the outcome of a comment period that starts today.
The Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, a voluntary collection of guidelines and cyber best practices, has been used by major energy firms including Pepco Holdings Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and Sempra Energy since its release early last year. The document also offers cyber lessons for other "critical" sectors, from banking to manufacturing.
Now the National Institute of Standards and Technology is taking suggestions to adjust theframework, which was developed in response to a Feb. 12, 2013, executive order from President Obama. The agency said yesterday it is seeking input on whether to shift management of the framework to another organization, among other potential changes.
Adam Sedgewick, senior information technology policy adviser at NIST, said his agency is "looking forward to receiving feedback on specific questions about [the framework's] use and how it might be improved." NIST is accepting comments through Feb. 9, 2016.
The announcement comes as the Government Accountability Office nears completion of an independent review of the framework's effectiveness (EnergyWire, Aug. 20). Several energy companies have said the document has influenced the way they manage risk by providing useful benchmarks for progress on cybersecurity. But many have also warned that companies shouldn't grow complacent with their cybersecurity policies after adopting the framework.
Bulk electric power companies already face separate, enforceable critical infrastructure protection standards set through the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
NIST said it will use the information gathered from the latest comment period during a two-day conference planned for April. The agency has long emphasized that the framework is a "living document," but there have not been any significant changes since it was first published in February 2014.
-
Corporations Change Their Tone on Climate Deal
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Joel Kirkland
By 9:30 a.m. local time Wednesday, two dozen junior staff working for a group called We Mean Business were squeezed around folding tables in a meeting room a stone's throw from U.N. climate negotiations.
Their laptops hummed, and a young crew who looked like they might be just as comfortable at a Facebook convention toggled between social media and the notes from their morning briefing.
The hours were speeding toward today's flexible deadline for 196 nations to reach a deal aimed at halting the growth of carbon dioxide emissions and rebuilding the world economy around low-carbon energy.
Later that morning, the squad from We Mean Business -- an umbrella group representing some of the world's largest multinational corporations -- would fan out across this sprawling tent city northeast of Paris. This was one of their last-ditch efforts to get international negotiators to include language in a final document that sets a long-term goal of decarbonizing the world economy.
"This is a three-dimensional puzzle we're trying to solve," said Edward Cameron, managing director of We Mean Business. "On the one hand, we need to maximize ambition. On the other hand, we have to find a way to secure diplomatic agreement and send a signal to the real economy."
The United States, Europe and some island nations that face the greatest risks from rising sea levels are also pushing for an end goal that would transform the existing global economy, hoping to set in motion a transition to zero-carbon technology by around 2050. Standing opposite to them are the rich oil-producing countries in the Middle East and an eerily quiet India and China.
In the waning days of this climate conference, this "high-ambition coalition" is a potential lightning rod for India, which wants assurances from the United States that India's rapidly growing economy -- and its 300 million people without electricity -- won't be left holding the bag of a long-term goal it can't meet.
Before signing an agreement, India wants guarantees that the trillions of dollars in public and private-sector spending that would go toward breaking from coal and oil in the United States, Europe and China also includes an estimated $800 billion and technology transfers for India.
For the first time ever, negotiators trying to solve this "three-dimensional puzzle" embedded in any deal to resolve the climate crisis are getting help from big business -- corporations with political and financial pull that had sat on the sidelines of these conferences for decades.
"The concern is that business had never really said anything about shaping the policy environment," Cameron said. "Or even worse, they had been hostile toward the policy-enabling environment."
Shifting the climate discussion from sacrifice to opportunity
One thread of the multilayered business involvement in the Paris talks started at a dinner in the summer of 2013.
Nike's Hannah Jones, vice president of sustainable business and innovation, and Steve Howard, sustainability director for Ikea, sat down with Cameron, a consultant for San Francisco-based BSR, and representatives from a handful of other organizations.
"They felt the climate change discussion has been too much about burden and sacrifice, and we actually need to initiate the conversation about the opportunity for business," Cameron said. "The best way to do that is to get a lot of pioneering businesses to act and then draw others into their orbit."
On Tuesday, as the talks started to ramp up, one of We Mean Business' biggest allies, Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson, took the stage for a hastily called press conference.
"As governments invest billions, business leaders are standing by," he said, "and they will invest trillions of dollars in private capital to scale existing technologies, to catalyze innovation and create millions of jobs."
He went on.
"I'm standing here as an airline owner -- actually, the owner of three airlines -- and I'm saying a carbon tax should be levied on airlines," Branson said. "It's the only way to ultimately get the world where we need."
Pledges from business interests here have been dizzying.
At the Paris kickoff, the White House announced that 154 U.S. companies with combined annual revenues of $4 trillion had pledged support for a Paris accord that's a "strong step forward." Then, the CEO of the British-Dutch consumer goods giant Unilever, Paul Polman, announced that a fresh crop of 79 chief executives would set emissions targets.
On Tuesday, 114 companies said they would set "ambitious science-based emissions reduction targets." And those targets would line up with the threshold of 2-degree-Celsius above preindustrial temperatures that has been the basis for Paris negotiations. Dell, General Mills, NRG Energy, Kellogg, Proctor & Gamble and Coco-Cola were among the large U.S.-based companies.
"As a global food company, we recognize the significant impacts climate change can have on our business if left unaddressed," said Ken Powell, the CEO of General Mills. "That's why we are taking action across our value chain."
For its part, NRG, just days after former CEO David Crane had been let go as head of the independent power producer, said it would reduce "absolute emissions" 50 percent by 2030. By 2050, the company said, it would cut 90 percent of its emissions.
This morning, as a new text for a U.N. agreement came out and negotiators appeared to be getting closer to an agreement, big business weighed in.
"The U.S. business community has been looking for a catalytic signal from Paris, and [to] judge from this latest text, we're close to getting it," said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a Boston-based network of institutional investors.
Corporations were officially brought into the process in 2014, when the United Nations initiated what it calls the Lima-Paris Action Agenda. The idea was to include corporations in a broad "subnational" category of actors in the world.
But as CEOs walked the corridors, a handful of nongovernmental organizations accused the U.N. process of letting corporations get too close to the dealmaking.
Tamar Lawrence-Samuel of Corporate Accountability International said, "It institutionalized corporate influence over U.N. institutions and multilateral negotiations.
"It undermines democratic global governance principles by equating corporate interests with policy mandates," she said.
She also said too many big carbon emitters were allowed to sign on without making concrete pledges, including oil companies Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA.
-
Climate Talks Move Toward Overtime to Deal with a Few Tough Issues
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Climate change talks have gone into the final stretch, and despite early optimism about completing a global accord early, it now seems the negotiations will need a pair of elastic pants.
For the second night in a row, diplomats jousted over phrases well past midnight, this time over a shortened but still-contentious 27-page draft text. By morning, all was quiet in the normally bustling halls as countries met in small groups so they could consult with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius later in the day to outline where agreements might be found. Another new text is expected out tomorrow, and hope remains that it will kick off final decisions.
"There was obviously a lot of pushback last night to Fabius' new text," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who stayed until about 2 a.m. local time. "Of the big players, no one was totally happy."
That draft, cut by about half from a previous version, was short but sharp. It held 48 brackets indicating disputed words and 13 options from which ministers could choose. That, however, didn't include what one negotiator referred to as "invisible brackets" around words and phrases still in dispute no matter what the text said.
With countries unable to agree on some key issues -- how much money to deliver after 2020 and from whom, a strong long-term goal and aim to keep global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius, and a way to review and ratchet up countries' emissions targets every five years -- the French did it for them.
In each case, observers said, they chose a "high ambition" option and in doing so raised objections from all quarters.
Secretary of State John Kerry took the seat for the United States in a closed session and, according to those in the room, gave a lengthy speech. He declared the draft text "a monument to differentiation," maintaining that while it avoids dividing responsibilities of developed and developing countries based on 1992 income levels, it still treats countries of different levels of wealth and capacity differently.
Other countries -- namely, China and India -- didn't see it that way. They and others argued for strict divisions to be maintained.
"They made a strategic decision to put a high-ambition text on the table. Now the question is, can they use their leverage and defend it? Or do people insist on what they've been claiming are their red lines?" said Steven Herz, an attorney with the Sierra Club.
Andrew Deutz of the Nature Conservancy agreed. "I think we are headed in a positive trajectory," he said. "You can see a pathway to success."
The last and, many hope, final version of the text will be out at 9 a.m. local time tomorrow morning, Fabius said, and many observers here expect an afternoon final gavel.
Here's where things stand on some key issues:
Ratcheting: This is the provision under which countries will agree to have their emissions targets reviewed and increased every five years. This has been something the United States and many environmental groups have insisted upon, while India and others have insisted that doing so must be voluntary for developing nations and come with the commitment of money. The current text includes some key elements the United States hopes to see, including potentially strong language ensuring that all countries move toward economywide emissions cuts. At the same time, it recognizes that "peaking will take longer for developing country parties."
Transparency: This is another issue dear to the heart of the U.S. negotiating team. State Department Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern has called it "vital" that developing countries be asked to report their progress toward their emissions targets with as much rigor and frequency as rich countries. Today's text leaves that still very much up in the air. Deutz said the biggest resistance there comes from India and China, which, like many other developing countries, are wary of intervention from abroad. "It's a historic issue for China and also some countries with a colonial past. They jealously guard their sovereignty and domestic politics," he said -- though he also noted, "developed countries don't really like other nations poking around in their business, either," but have become comfortable with the U.N. system for reviewing emissions cuts.
Temperature target: In a big win for island nations, the new text now calls for holding the global average temperature increase to "well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C." Scientists say it will be tremendously difficult to meet that goal, but the most vulnerable nations said the deal must at minimum recognize it as an aspiration. "With this, I would be able to go home and tell my people that our chance for survival is not lost," Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum said.
Legally binding: In a surprising move, the final text makes no mention of either internationally binding emissions pledges or a demand to implement policies to see those targets through. That's another win for the United States, which is trying to avoid the need for Senate approval. Rather than requiring that countries make good on their pledges, it states only that intended nationally determined contributions "shall be recorded in a public registry maintained by the secretariat." European and American activists described the language as a major concession on the part of the European Union, which had sought binding commitments as a means of guaranteeing that promised reductions would happen.
Meyer said he is staying optimistic, but said countries must decide today if they will all do things that are hard for them, or all decide to take the easy way out.
"You've basically got two directions this can go," he said. "The question is which."
-
ClimateWire's Friedman Discusses Latest Negotiation Developments
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
With the United Nations' climate summit expected to come to a close this weekend, will negotiators successfully achieve a final deal? On today's The Cutting Edge, ClimateWire deputy editor Lisa Friedman discusses the latest developments in the negotiations, direct from the talks in Le Bourget, France.
Transcript
The transcript for this video is currently not available. Please check back later.
-
RGGI Navigates the Risks of Expanding Its Carbon Market
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Elizabeth Harball
Participants in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are worried that their carbon trading system could experience growing pains from linking with other states under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The nine-state Northeast cap-and-trade program requested comments from stakeholders about how it might fit in with other potential trading markets under the Obama administration's emissions standards for the power sector.
In feedback received this week, a range of power companies and environmental advocates suggested that RGGI might need to wait to see how stable nascent carbon trading markets become under the rule. Or the system should at least place stipulations on new trading partners to ensure they wouldn't drag down RGGI's environmental objectives, many said.
The nuclear and renewable power-heavy utility Exelon Corp. noted in comments that "larger markets with more liquidity are generally more efficient." RGGI should allow more states to join and also design a compliance approach that is "trading ready" to work with non-RGGI states, too, the utility said.
But Exelon added that "RGGI must adopt protections to ensure the integrity of the allowance market," including only trading with states that adopt caps on emissions from new power plants, in addition to existing ones.
RGGI should also consider whether to prohibit trading with states that distribute free carbon allowances to power producers, rather than auctioning them for a price, Exelon said.
A large coalition of environmental advocacy groups -- including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- suggested the same requirements and said allowance revenues should go toward programs that would promote green energy and benefit consumers.
"As a result of RGGI's strong track record and leadership, dozens of states are now considering establishing RGGI-like programs in order to meet the requirements of the CPP," the groups said. "As RGGI states go beyond disseminating best practices to consider trading with other states and regions, standards should be established to ensure consistent program design, avoid market distortions, and preserve RGGI's high standards of environmental performance."
Will other states join?
Around the country, states that have never considered cap and trade are looking to carbon trading as a straightforward, market-based way to reach goals while keeping key coal plants online.
New Jersey, which exited the program under Republican Gov. Chris Christie, may be under new pressure to rejoin. The state, however, is challenging the rule in court and has kept quiet about potential compliance options.
"Clearly, participation in RGGI would have met the state's requirement under the Clean Power Plan, and we would have gotten credits that could have been used to promote renewables like wind and solar power in the state," said Rep. Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat and ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"It's got to be a lot easier to rejoin RGGI and participate in the program, as opposed to creating your own plan, which [Christie] is going to have to do if his suit fails, which undoubtedly it will," Pallone told ClimateWire.
In a conference call with reporters this week, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said his state is exploring linking with the carbon trading system, although not as part of the state's compliance plan under the Clean Power Plan.
A spokeswoman for the governor explained in an email that under the state's draft Clean Air Rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions, Washington and RGGI are in talks to allow regulated entities in the state to purchase allowances from the Northeast trading system.
"The department has made initial contact with RGGI members, and informed them of our interest in allowing Washington businesses to access their market," Jaime Smith, the governor's spokeswoman, said in an email. "Over the course of the public review of the draft rule, those discussions with RGGI will continue, as the department will be looking for some direct feedback from the RGGI states, before considering how to finalize the Washington rule."
"At this point we don't anticipate the need to secure credits from RGGI to meet [Washington's] obligation under the federal rule," the spokeswoman added.
During the call with reporters this week, however, Inslee did tout the economic benefits of participating in a broader carbon trading system.
"The reason to link with [RGGI] is it gives you efficiencies in the system; it reduces the cost associated with compliance, and the larger that the market -- the common system -- is, the more liquidity, the more efficiency, the less volatility of the market," Inslee said. "One of the problems when Europe started their system, they had significant volatility -- it went up and down. You find that the larger the market is, the less volatility [there] is, and that's a healthy thing."
But despite the potential economic benefits for the broader carbon market, it's less clear than ever which states, if any, RGGI might accept as trading partners.
A risky prospect?
In a stakeholder meeting Nov. 17, some environmental advocates suggested that RGGI take a "wait-and-see" approach to integrating with other carbon markets that may result from the Clean Power Plan, perhaps not trading with others until after the first interim goal period through 2024 (ClimateWire, Nov. 20).
Kelly Speakes-Backman, a former Maryland electricity regulator who was in RGGI leadership, said that might be smart.
"There will be some interesting early-year implementation issues for some of these new states," said Speakes-Backman, now with the Alliance to Save Energy. "I think it's probably conservative but wise to watch the other states as they develop their programs to make sure they're compatible."
"The RGGI program and their auctions are steadily building into a very solid market, and an influx of too many states might be a risk," she said.
Speakes-Backman also noted that the demands RGGI might make of trading partners could be politically difficult in some non-RGGI states. New Jersey, she said, left because the state didn't want to auction off allowances anymore.
-
Split SEC Moves Ahead with Proposed Energy, Mining Disclosure Rule
Dec 11, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Alex Guillén and Patrick Temple-West
The SEC voted 3 to 1 today to advance its proposed rule requiring energy and mining companies to report payments to foreign governments.
In its second attempt to write "resource extraction" disclosure rules for companies as required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC noted that its latest proposal aligns with what some foreign governments already require. Companies can get exemptions to the rule and can use certain reports for foreign regulatory purposes to comply with the SEC’s obligations, the agency said.
"This approach is carefully tailored to fulfill Congress’ mandate," Democratic Commissioner Kara Stein said.
Commissioner Michael Piwowar, the SEC's lone Republican, voted against the rule. He quoted Eminem lyrics from the 2002 film “8 Mile” to argue that "special interest groups" took advantage of their "one shot" to require these disclosures.
He referenced Oxfam America, a nonprofit advocacy group, which won in September a court order requiring the SEC to finish writing this rule.
"This is yet another situation where politically connected special interests are using shareholder resources to push their own agenda," he said. "There is no difference between a company executive who takes resources out of the corporate treasury for his or her own self-interest and a special interest group that does the same."
Under a judicial agreement the SEC has agreed to bring the final rule to a vote by the end of June.
-
Calif. County Faces Challenges to Driller-Friendly Ordinance
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
California farmers and conservationists are taking Kern County officials to court over a new local law they say is designed to fast-track oil and gas permitting and bypass environmental review.
King and Gardiner Farms LLC, based in Wasco, filed suit Wednesday in Kern County Superior Court, arguing that the county's new zoning ordinance will result in rubber-stamping of drilling applications and insufficient review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
"Every Kern County farmer knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to drill in and around farmland," business manager Keith Gardiner said in a statement yesterday. "It makes no sense to rubber stamp every drilling operation for the foreseeable future. We're not saying the oil companies should not be able to operate; we're simple asking for reasonable oversight."
A coalition of environmental groups and local advocates followed with their own suit yesterday, alleging that the county's new measure violates environmental laws and disproportionately affects Latino communities.
"With this ordinance, Kern County is actively helping oil companies pollute our air and water and put vulnerable communities at risk for decades," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Hollin Kretzmann said in a statement. "County officials have reached a new low in claiming they can eliminate environmental review for all future oil and gas activity."
The ordinance, approved by the Board of Supervisors on Nov. 9, streamlines authorization over the next 20 to 25 years for new oil and gas wells by establishing ministerial permits designed to receive routine approval so long as they contain all required information. New well sites will not be subject to public hearings. In exchange, drillers must agree to meet stricter surface-use requirements.
Kern County is the highest oil-producing county in California, responsible for about 75 percent of the state's drilling. Local officials have authority over surface use for drilling, while state regulators oversee underground operations.
The plaintiffs in both cases say the ordinance, which took effect Wednesday, was backed by the oil and gas industry and designed to prevent local residents from having a say in the permitting process. Farmers living on split estates -- where they own the surface but not the subsurface -- were particularly critical when the ordinance was proposed, arguing that the measure did not allow for site-specific mitigation measures that would ensure protection of farmland and groundwater. Plus, they said, the environmental impact review that accompanied the ordinance failed to acknowledge the full impacts of the new process.
"Kern County's environmental analysis of these zoning changes was perfunctory, falling far short of what CEQA requires," said Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP attorney Rachel Hooper, who is representing the farming business, in a statement. "The County failed to disclose the full extent of the zoning ordinance's devastating impacts on agricultural land and other resources, and ignored suggestions by the public and third party experts to reduce those impacts."
Giulia Good Stefani, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement yesterday that the county officials had failed in their duty to establish environmental protections.
"Instead of cutting corners for the oil industry and fast-tracking fracking, our local governments should be using their powers to safeguard our air and water with meaningful mitigation and clean alternatives," she said.
Included in the environmental lawsuit are the Sierra Club, NRDC, CBD, the Committee for a Better Arvin, the Committee for a Better Shafter and the Greenfield Walking Group. The groups are represented by Earthjustice and the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment.
In an email to EnergyWire, Kern County attorney Theresa Goldner defended the ordinance and related environmental impact review as "a comprehensive, thorough and legal environmental document."
"The oil and gas ordinance is the most comprehensive and stringent local legislation ever imposed on oil and gas operations," she said, referring to the added surface-use requirements for operators. "The oil and gas EIR and ordinance represent a new regulatory era that is good for the environment, good for both the oil and gas and agricultural industries, and good for all persons who live and work in Kern County. The County will vigorously oppose these lawsuits and intends to prevail."
-
EPA OKs Rules Dividing Wyo., Mont.
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
U.S. EPA has approved new regulations at the center of a protracted legal battle over natural gas drilling wastewater crossing from Wyoming into Montana.
In a pair of letters Tuesday, EPA Assistant Regional Administrator Martin Hestmark said new saltwater rules "protect Montana's agricultural water supply and are scientifically defensible."
In 2006, EPA approved previous regulations on saltwater, the remnant byproduct of the coalbed methane boom in Wyoming's Tongue and Powder river basins, just across the Montana border.
Wyoming, Marathon Oil Corp. and other major gas companies sued to block the rules proposed originally by Montana and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as farmers continue to complain crop yields have been cut in half by high salt concentrations in irrigation water.
In 2009, a federal judge kicked the rules back to the agency.
EPA spokeswoman Lisa McClain-Vanderpool said the new rules giving Montana some leverage to force Wyoming to reduce saltwater levels do not require court approval, but Wyoming and the gas industry could revive their lawsuit.
The Wyoming Attorney General's Office and industry representatives were not available for comment, but Montana Department of Environmental Quality spokesman Paul Driscoll said the new rules are a chance for cooperation between two states battling over a host of water issues (Greenwire, Oct. 29).
In a case before the Supreme Court, the two states are fighting over water allotments in the Yellowstone River basin.
-
Groups Blast FERC Rejection of Comprehensive EIS Plan
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Environmental groups opposed to the construction of several natural gas pipelines in Virginia and West Virginia expressed dismay over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's rejection last month of requests to prepare a study of potential cumulative environmental impact statements (EIS) for the projects.
"FERC's decision not to conduct a programmatic EIS ... is just the latest snub," said David Perry, executive director of the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy. "People feel helpless, and this is why."
The Mountain Valley Pipeline and three other proposed interstate natural gas pipelines in the Appalachian regions of the two states have faced stiff local opposition (EnergyWire, April 21). Local officials and 30 groups have pushed for a programmatic EIS that would chart the market need for such a project and its effects.
"With the recent exponential increase in applications to FERC for new interstate pipelines to transport Marcellus Shale natural gas, FERC's traditional project-by-project [National Environmental Policy Act] review has proven increasingly ineffective," the Water and Power Law Group advocated to FERC.
But FERC Chairman Norman Bay wrote in a Nov. 25 letter to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) that "it would not be appropriate to prepare a programmatic EIS" for the Mountain Valley Pipeline that would also consider other natural gas pipeline projects.
The draft EIS for the Mountain Valley Pipeline "will analyze both the project-specific impacts of the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the cumulative impacts of other actions affecting the environment in the region, including other proposed natural gas pipelines".
-
Democrats Dig in on Oil Export Demands
Dec 11, 2015 | Politico Pro
By Elana Schor
Emboldened Democrats are demanding a host of GOP concessions under a year-end budget deal that would lift the ban on oil exports, with some of the party's most liberal members ready to give the oil industry the No. 1 item on its wish list in order to check several items off of their own.
The Capitol's battle lines on oil exports have changed little since the week began: Democrats are setting a high price for a deal, starting with extended tax breaks for wind and solar businesses as well as those targeted toward low-income workers. Republicans and their oil industry allies strike a confident tone, but the longer that talks go on, the more Democrats dig in their heels and push for more in exchange for crossing their environmentalist base on exports.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she hoped an end to the export ban would be included in an omnibus budget deal because that would mean Democrats got most of what they wanted. Because dozens of Republicans are expected to vote against any budget deal, the minority party is expected to be asked to push any such legislation across the finish line.
“It’s an act of desperation on their part, they want it so desperately," Pelosi said, comparing Republicans' desire for oil exports to Democrats' request to tie the value of a child tax credit to inflation. "But do they want it more than depriving low-income children on the indexation? We’ll see.”
Also on the Democratic wish list is the restoration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, removal of other environmental policy restrictions from the package, energy-efficiency language and help for independent refineries on the East Coast that have benefited from cheaper U.S. oil thanks to the export limits.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the chamber's Democratic leader-in-waiting, roiled the oil-export cauldron further on Thursday by calling for "parity" between benefits for oil and for renewables. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) echoed Schumer in a Thursday floor speech, calling for "a simultaneous, equal extension" of wind and solar tax credits "if there's going to be a deal."
There is virtually no chance Republicans would agree to a permanent extension of renewable energy benefits.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who has sponsored measures this year to lift the export ban, said he thinks Democrats will agree to whittle down their list of demands.
“I have a Christmas list for Santa that’s 20 items long but I’m going to get one or two,” he told POLITICO. “We want the president to sign [the omnibus] so we want it to be bipartisan, but this is an item that needs to be in the package. … I strongly believe it will be.”
Barton, who is not part of the negotiations, said he thinks Republicans would accept some extension of wind and solar tax credits, “but I don’t think it’ll be permanent,” he said.
A refining executive whose company supports repealing the ban wondered if Democrats were simply trolling the GOP by ratcheting their price ever-higher.
"Why Republicans are allowing themselves to be bent over an oil barrel by the Democrats asking for the moon and stars in return for precious little beyond the ban repeal is a mystery — especially when the world is hardly clamoring for American oil, the ban has numerous workarounds already, and a new president will be with us in just 13 months," the executive said.
Every Republican presidential candidate backs oil exports, and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton earlier this year would not rule out ending the ban in exchange for policies to support renewable energy, even as she opposed outright repeal.
A second oil industry source said Schumer's terms would kill any deal.
"Everyone thinks [a deal] is going to happen, but no one can lay out the path," the source added. Under the Democrats' current terms, "I don’t understand how this gets done."
That would be fine with environmentalists, who are increasingly aghast at Democrats for entertaining a deal on oil exports. Greens warn that ending the ban may undermine the Obama administration's role in international climate negotiations because increased oil production would generate enough new greenhouse gas emissions to undo any benefits gained through increased renewable energy.
“The problem with Schumer’s bargaining equation is that it gives away much more than it gets, and everyone acknowledges in Paris that we need to move forward more quickly on keeping fossil fuels in the ground," said Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Green groups, including the Sierra Club and ForestEthics, are mobilizing their grassroots this week to target Senate Democrats seen as open to a deal on exports. But their task is made more complicated by the presence of Markey and Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), two of the party's biggest climate hawks, in the let's-make-a-deal camp.
And the White House's unwillingness to treat oil exports as a poison pill in year-end talks makes climate activists' job even harder. Although President Barack Obama threatened a veto of standalone legislation on the issue when the House passed it in October, his spokesman pointedly declined to use the V-word on Thursday when pressed by reporters.
Navigating the impact of exports on refineries has proved particularly tricky during this week's climate talks outside Paris, given that the brunt of the financial hit from allowing overseas crude sales would land on the companies that process it in the U.S.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) has floated a tax credit aimed at helping independent refiners, but the oil-industry source said an alternative approach of expanding the section 199 manufacturing tax credit for those companies is being "a lot more well-received than the Carper language."
The sheer number of moving pieces and parochial concerns behind the oil export battle leaves even some Democrats wondering whether their party can make a deal work.
“I think Democrats are convinced this is just a windfall for Big Oil and the Koch Brothers,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said. Asked if he sees a plausible scenario wherein his party would agree to a deal on lifting the ban, he added: “None at the moment. … I think it’s very unlikely.”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested