Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/11/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) LyondellBasell, North Carolina Join National Effort to Recycle More Plastic Wraps, Bags, Film
Jan 11, 2016 | CCFGroup
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pleased to announce that LyondellBasell has joined its Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG), a collaboration working to double the recycling of post-use polyethylene film by 2020. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Equity Prices Off for 2015, ACC Report Says
Jan 11, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The S&P Chemicals Index, a measure of equity prices for chemical companies, fell 4.0% in December and ended 2015 down 6.3% compared to the beginning of the year, according to the first Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report of 2016, from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). -
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic “Reform” Law Will Gut State Rules on Dangerous Chemicals
Jan 11, 2016 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
A new set of bills that aims to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act may nullify the efforts of states such as Maine and California to regulate dangerous chemicals. The Senate’s bill, passed last month, just before the holidays, is particularly restrictive. -
House Leaders Start Work on Reconciling TSCA Bills
Jan 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Key House leaders will begin discussions this week on reconciling the Senate and House versions of bills to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
What You Need To Know About Microbeads, The Banned Bath Product Ingredients
Jan 9, 2016 | Forbes
By Carmen Drahl
New year, new face scrub? President Obama has signed into law the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which bans microbeads, a common ingredient in personal care products. Tiny microbeads have turned out to be a big problem. Here’s what you need to know. -
Report Cites Chemical Spill To Highlight Water Privatization Shortcomings
Jan 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
A think tank that often works with environmental groups is pointing to the failures of a West Virginia drinking water utility to both prevent and respond to the 2014 Elk River chemical spill as an example of the problems with utility privatization, and is calling on the state to return control of drinking water systems to municipalities. -
Back to School for Children Displaced by Los Angeles-Area Gas Leak
Jan 11, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
In the latest disruption from the biggest methane gas leak in California history, nearly 2,000 Los Angeles children returning to class this week after winter break have been reassigned to schools outside the affected area over health concerns. -
Most Oil Majors Still Mum on Paris Climate Pact
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
Many of the world's major oil and gas companies are still grappling with how to respond to the international climate change agreement that 195 nations struck in Paris last month, interviews with several industry officials revealed. -
Texas Isn't Actively Developing State Response -- Regulator
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Texas isn't taking options off the table as it challenges U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, but a key environmental regulator said Friday that the Lone Star State also isn't actively developing a state plan. -
EPA Info Sessions to Explore Trading, Efficiency, Renewables
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
As most states look to use some form of carbon trading to comply with Clean Power Plan goals, U.S. EPA will hold an "Emissions Trading 101" webinar today. -
Gas Leak Drives Call For Tougher Methane Rule But EPA Lacks Some Power
Jan 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
Environmentalists are intensifying their calls on EPA to strengthen the leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements in its proposed rule governing methane releases from the oil and gas sector in light of the ongoing massive methane leak at a southern California gas storage facility. -
Greens: Gas Developers Aren’t Disclosing Methane Leaks to Investors
Jan 11, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Natural gas developers are providing very restricted information about their methane emissions to investors, according to a report released Monday. -
Methane Leaks Pose Risk to Investors -- Report
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Methane leaks pose an economic and climate risk that many oil and gas companies don't fully disclose to investors, an analysis released today said. -
Greens Hope Calif. Methane Leak Spurs New EPA Rules
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The ongoing methane leak at a natural gas storage facility in Southern California is fueling calls by environmentalists for national methane regulations on the oil and gas sector. -
Oil Industry Pans Parts of PHMSA's Pipeline Rule
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The oil industry last week came out against parts of the Obama administration's latest pipeline safety plan, while environmental and safety groups asked for tougher standards in some areas. -
World Benefits From U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports
Jan 11, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
The U.S. will be exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) abroad due to an expanding resource base, increasing production, and higher prices in outside markets. Despite lower prices, “the shale revolution” will help output climb this year for the 11th straight time, rising 2% to a new record of over 81 Bcf/day. The U.S. will become a net exporter of gas this year or next.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
-
Jan 11, 2016 | CCFGroup
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pleased to announce that LyondellBasell has joined its Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG), a collaboration working to double the recycling of post-use polyethylene film by 2020.
The FFRG represents materials suppliers, brand owners, retailers and recyclers, and its Wrap Action Recycling Program (“WRAP”) works directly with states, municipalities and retailers committed to increasing plastic film recycling through store drop-off programs.
Additionally, North Carolina has announced it will be the second state to officially partner with WRAP. North Carolina’s decision comes on the heels of successful WRAP programs launched in the State of Wisconsin and in Vancouver, Washington.
“We are thrilled to welcome LyondellBasell and North Carolina in our efforts to significantly increase the recycling of flexible wraps and bags,” said Shari Jackson, director of FFRG. “These great partnerships expand our footprint and our ability to educate consumers about the wide range of polyethylene film packaging that can be recycled at major grocery and retail stores.”
“Polyethylene is a valuable material and resource even after its initial use,” said Jim Clark, LyondellBasell’s Polyethylene Director, Americas. “We look forward to working with FFRG and the WRAP Partners to see that more post-use polyethylene packaging gets recycled.”
"Much of the infrastructure to recycle polyethylene wraps and bags is already in place," said Scott Mouw, of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). “Working through WRAP will expedite our efforts to educate residents about opportunities to recycle and divert more valuable plastics and reduce waste.”
Through this program, WRAP and North Carolina will implement a series of campaign initiatives using effective communications tools and best practices to support community outreach efforts on plastic film recycling. The program will also work to encourage commitment by more retailers to collect a broader mix of polyethylene film materials from consumers. Additionally, the program will work to expand collection and recycling of commercial film (pallet wrap and transport packaging) from small- to mid-sized businesses.
Joining the NCDEQ and the FFRG in launching the new North Carolina WRAP initiative are the GreenBlue Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC), and the Association of Plastics Recyclers (APR).
Plastic film is one of the fastest growing areas of recycling with collection surging by 11% in 2013 to 1.14 billion pounds, according to the 2013 National Postconsumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report. This marks the highest annual collection of plastic film—74 % increase— since the survey began in 2005.
Currently, more than 90% of Americans have access to a program that collects polyethylene wraps and bags, primarily at major grocery and retail stores. These programs collect a variety of common packaging items such as bags from bread, produce and dry cleaning along with wraps from beverage cases, napkins, paper towels, plus shipping pillows, shopping bags and bubble wrap.
Recycled polyethylene film can become durable outdoor lumber for decks and fences, shopping carts, or new packaging.
We invite communities, NGOs and states to the effort by becoming WRAP Champions or Partners and brand owners, recyclers, and film processors should join ACC’s FFRG. Also, please follow FFRG and WRAP campaign news on Facebook and Twitter @WRAPrecycling.
Founding members of the Flexible Film Recycling Group include Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, Chevron Phillips, Berry Plastics, Wisconsin Film and Bag, Sealed Air Corporation, SC Johnson, Trex and Avangard. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Equity Prices Off for 2015, ACC Report Says
Jan 11, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The S&P Chemicals Index, a measure of equity prices for chemical companies, fell 4.0% in December and ended 2015 down 6.3% compared to the beginning of the year, according to the first Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report of 2016, from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com).
Meanwhile, the broader S&P 500 Index fell 1.8% in December and was 0.7% lower than at the beginning of 2015. “Both indices provided the worst performance since 2008,” the ACC report says.
The first ACC weekly report for 2016 also included the final tally for 2015 in the organization’s count of chemical industry products related to the harvesting of natural gas from shale deposits in the U.S. At the end of 2015, the list of chemical products totaled 262, with a cumulative capital investment of $158 billion in the U.S. Of the total, 64% came from foreign direct investment, the ACC says. -
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic “Reform” Law Will Gut State Rules on Dangerous Chemicals
Jan 11, 2016 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
A new set of bills that aims to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act may nullify the efforts of states such as Maine and California to regulate dangerous chemicals. The Senate’s bill, passed last month, just before the holidays, is particularly restrictive. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act — named, ironically, for the New Jersey senator who supported strong environmental protections — would make it much harder for states to regulate chemicals after the EPA has evaluated them, and would even prohibit states from acting while the federal agency is in the process of investigating certain chemicals.
The Senate’s version has some significant differences from the House bill — the TSCA Modernization Act, which passed in June — and the reconciliation process is now underway. If the worst provisions from both bills wind up in the final law, which could reach the president’s desk as soon as February, the new legislation will gut laws that have put Oregon, California, Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, and Washington state at the forefront of chemical regulation.
Toxic Sippy Cups and Baby Bottles
For Mike Belliveau the passage of Maine’s chemical law in 2008 felt like the crowning moment in his career. The environmental advocate had spent years working on the Kid Safe Product Act, which is one of the strongest protections against dangerous chemicals in the country. Since it was passed, Maine has used the law to come up with a list of more than 1,700 “chemicals of concern.” The state has also required manufactures to report the use of a handful of those chemicals, and has banned them altogether when there are no safer alternatives.
Among the chemicals Maine has strictly regulated are flame retardants called PBDEs, which are linked to learning disabilities and behavior problems, and BPA, an endocrine disruptor and likely human carcinogen. Maine phased out the use of PBDEs in furniture and electronics. Manufacturers must now report the use of BPA in certain products and can no longer use it in baby bottles, sippy cups, water bottles, infant formula cans, or baby-food packaging. The EPA was also looking at the health effects of PBDEs and BPA, but while it was considering them, Maine took action.
Maine’s law turned out to be more than just a local triumph. Its requirement that manufacturers disclose the use of chemicals called NPEs, which are toxic to aquatic life and likely harmful to human development and reproduction, in products sold there led to the revelation that the chemicals were present in hundreds of products sold nationwide, including paint. And the ban on BPA nudged the whole country away from using that chemical. Rather than just changing how it made products sold in Maine, the giant toymaker Hasbro wound up removing BPA from all its products.
“It’s been huge,” said Belliveau, who is the executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center in Bangor. “The little state of Maine helped close the door nationwide on the use of BPA.”
Although the Senate’s TSCA bill would leave existing state restrictions on specific chemicals intact, provisions in the bill would stop states from setting regulations going forward — and obliterate efforts that are already underway. Take Washington state’s pending legislation to ban a group of flame retardant chemicals used in furniture and children’s products. Advocates there have been working for years to ban these endocrine disruptors and likely human carcinogens. “We’re very close,” said Randi Abrams-Caras, senior campaign director of the Washington Toxics Coalition. But perhaps not close enough. Although Washington’s House passed the ban 95-3 and the state Senate is working on a similar bill, TSCA reform could invalidate the whole thing. If the EPA puts these flame retardants on its yet-to-be-drafted priority list, a reasonable expectation since the agency is already looking at some of them, the Senate bill would preempt new state efforts to restrict them. “Our state would have to stop any work we’ve been doing,” said Abrams-Caras.
California’s current efforts to protect people from methylene chloride, a probable human carcinogen used in paint strippers, could also be stopped in its tracks if the state preemption provision in the Senate bill becomes law. So could Maine’s next use of its chemicals law — to ban four types of phthalates, which are used in plastics.
The Senate bill prohibits states from acting on chemicals that the EPA deems “high priority” while the agency is evaluating them. But the agency’s investigations can go on for years and even decades before it takes action. Back in 2002, for instance, the EPA initiated a high-priority review of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon and hundreds of other products. Probable links between the chemical and six diseases have been found in the intervening years, and contamination is now known to be widespread, yet the agency has not regulated it.
The EPA has been investigating the safety of some of the flame retardants that would be banned by the Washington state bill for more than 25 years. And the agency has spent at least 30 years looking at the safety of methylene chloride, which is still widely available in hardware stores though its fumes have been killing people since at least the 1940s.
The Best Law $125 Million Can Buy
There is little question that the original Toxic Substance Control Act is broken, as even industry has recently begun to admit. TSCA, passed in 1976, was born from outrage about the health risks of asbestos and PCBs, and it gave the EPA the authority to regulate tens of thousands of toxic substances. But the process was heavily influenced by the chemical industry, which initially opposed regulation before helping to write the law. The final legislation grandfathered in the vast majority of some 82,000 chemicals now registered for commercial use. In the almost four decades since TSCA went into effect, the federal agency has required testing for only about 200 chemicals. Of those, just five were partially regulated at the federal level.
Reform of TSCA, which Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey worked on for more than a decade before his death in 2013, was supposed to close the loopholes. But, as with the original law, after first opposing the legislation, the industry not only got on board but ended up steering the process and flooding Congress with money. In fact, evidence emerged in March that the Senate version of the bill was written by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s biggest lobbying group.
Since 2014, while Congress was hashing out TSCA reform, the top 10 chemical companies and organizations spent more than $125 million on lobbying. Dow Chemical Company and Koch Industries each spent more than $21 million, while DuPont spent more than $14 million, according toMapLight, a nonprofit group that monitors money in politics. The American Chemistry Council contributed more than $18 million, including$150,000 to the Super PAC supporting the gubernatorial bid of David Vitter, the Republican senator from Louisiana who co-sponsored the bill. Chemical industry contributions were significantly higher for the bill’s sponsors and co-sponsors than for other members of Congress.
All of which helps explain why the chemical industry loves the legislation meant to regulate it. The American Chemistry Council, which supports both the House and Senate bills, represents more than 100 chemical companies, several of which stand to have their products spared from pending regulation, including the Occidental Chemical Corporation, manufacturer of methylene chloride, which California is in the process of restricting; Chemtura, which makes a flame retardant that would be banned by a bill pending in Washington state; and Eastman Chemical Company, which makes the plastics additive DEHP, which is under regulatory scrutiny in Maine. Cal Dooley, CEO of the group, was named one of The Hill’s top lobbyists for 2015. The organization, which reportedly has a budget upward of $100 million, has in the past worked to quash regulationin individual states. If the Senate bill survives as is, the ACC may see less of a need for such localized lobbying.
In response to inquiries from The Intercept, the American Chemistry Council provided a written statement, saying it has “been working tirelessly to help pass legislation that will bring TSCA up to speed with modern science and create strong, nationwide regulatory certainty that will build consumer confidence in the U.S. chemical regulatory system for citizens in all 50 states, protect human health and the environment from significant risks, and meet the commercial and competitive interests of the U.S. chemical industry and the national economy.” Chemtura provided the following comment: “Though it is premature to speculate on the impact of an updated TSCA program on specific state legislation or products, Chemtura supports an updated TSCA and looks forward to working with regulators when the time comes for implementation.” Eastman Chemical Company declined to comment for this story.
The Senate bill, which would also override state restrictions on air and water quality and waste disposal if they’re inconsistent with federal law, has a wide range of supporters, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Chambers of Commerce; the Auto Alliance; the National Association of Manufacturers. Perhaps the most damning endorsement came from ExxonMobil’s CEO, Rex Tillerson, who recently described the bill in an op-ed in Roll Call as “just the comprehensive overhaul we need.”
Meanwhile, the House version of the bill, which preempts states from regulating new chemicals, is supported by more than 100 industry groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, CropLife America (which represents pesticide manufacturers and distributors), the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, and the Chlorine Institute.
People closely involved in TSCA reform continue to pass through the revolving door from Congress to K Street. Over the past two years, top aides to Frank Lautenberg and Tom Udall of New Mexico, the two Democratic senators who played important roles in the negotiations over TSCA reform, have left the Senate to take lobbying jobs. Former Lautenberg negotiator Ben Dunham joined Dentons in March 2014, where he is focusing on the environment and chemical safety, while Udall’s former chief of staff, Michael Collins, went to Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas in September. Reached for comment, Dunham noted that he is not representing companies that manufacture chemicals; Collins confirmed that he is focusing on environmental legislation and regulation, among other issues.
In addition to limiting state regulations, the TSCA reform bills now being combined into one law contain provisions making it harder to intercept dangerous chemical imports at the U.S. border and requiring the EPA to designate some chemicals “low priority” without fully evaluating them. And neither version addresses the huge problem of companies being allowed to introduce new chemicals to the market without first proving their safety.
But it’s the state restrictions that would be felt most immediately. In California, which is in the process of banning flame retardant chemicals in toddlers’ nap mats, the impact could be devastating. “If we’re in a situation where the EPA says we’re going to start studying this chemical and that stops the states from acting, that’s a huge setback,” said Ansje Miller, eastern states director for the Center for Environmental Health, which is spearheading the nap mat campaign.
Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, which works on TSCA reform, remains hopeful that the worst industry loopholes will be left out of the final bill. “This is the critical moment,” said Igrejas, “because they can combine the bills and really change them in new ways.”
At its best, Igrejas said, the new law could be “a reform that’s modest but still meaningful.” At its worst, he continued, “the people who have been leading the way will be silenced without anything meaningful taking their place.”
-
House Leaders Start Work on Reconciling TSCA Bills
Jan 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Key House leaders will begin discussions this week on reconciling the Senate and House versions of bills to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Representative John Shimkus (R-Illinois) – author of the House bill (HR 2576) – are to meet on 11 January. They will have a “broad conversation” about work related to the committee. Negotiations to reconcile the TSCA bills will be a “top priority” in these talks, a spokesman for Mr Shimkus told Chemical Watch.
A spokeswoman for Senator Tom Udall, the co-author of the Senate bill, said he does not want to rush the reconciliation process but added “we are hopeful for significant progress relatively soon, and look forward to a strong final agreement in 2016.”
The House passed its version of the TSCA by an overwhelming 398-1 vote last June (CW 24 June 2015). And the Senate approved its bill by a unanimous voice vote in December (CW 18 December 2015).
There are indications that resolving the differences between the bills may be done via informal negotiations, dispensing with a formal conference committee.
“While the next step is to reconcile the [Senate] legislation with the House [bill], it remains to be seen whether there will be a formal conference committee process,” said Mr Udall's spokeswoman. “One may or may not be convened at a later time – that is an issue for the House and Senate leadership to decide in the future.”
Both Mr Udall and Mr Shimkus have said in the past that they expect an uncontentious reconciliation process (CW 8 July 2015).
-
What You Need To Know About Microbeads, The Banned Bath Product Ingredients
Jan 9, 2016 | Forbes
By Carmen Drahl
New year, new face scrub? President Obama has signed into law the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which bans microbeads, a common ingredient in personal care products. Tiny microbeads have turned out to be a big problem. Here’s what you need to know.
What are microbeads?
Microbeads are very small bits of plastic that manufacturers use to supply scrubbing power to body washes, exfoliators, toothpastes, and other cleansing products. They look like tiny spheres. They range in size from 1 millimeter, about the size of a pinhead, to 1 micrometer, too small to be seen by the naked eye. According to an estimate from the United Nations Environment Program, a typical exfoliating shower gel might contain as much plastic in microbead form as there is in its plastic container.
Why did President Obama sign a law banning microbeads?
The President signed this ban because scientists have shown that microbeads are harming the environment. After you’ve scrubbed your face or brushed your teeth, the teensy plastic orbs go down the drain. Wastewater treatment plants weren’t designed to filter out such small plastic bits, so the beads end up in rivers, lakes, and oceans, where folks like Dr. Sherri “Sam” Mason, a chemist at the State University of New York at Fredonia, have found them.
Research has demonstrated that the tiny beads look like food to fish and other marine life. Eating the plastic is harmful enough on its own for these animals, but scientists have also shown that plastic pellets can harbor polluting chemicals, potentially causing problems for the food chain and our food supply. If you still think microplastic is a fish-only problem, consider this: dentists have expressed concern that microbeads that are intentionally added to toothpaste are getting stuck in patients’ gums, trapping harmful bacteria. Scientists in China found microbeads someplace they shouldn’t be: in table salt.
Where might I find microbeads around my house?
The International Campaign Against Microbeads in Cosmetics has assembled lists of products that contain microbeads. The list is not comprehensive, so you should always check a cleanser’s ingredient list for polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polymethyl methacrylate, polylactic acid, or nylon— these are the most common plastics that make up microbeads. If you find any of these compounds, it’s time to toss the offending product.
How do I get rid of products that contain microbeads without harming the environment?
DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT wash these products down the drain. That’s how the plastic enters our water supply. Here’s what you can do instead:
Donate them to an educational cause.
The 5Gyres Institute, a research and education group that studies plastic garbage, will accept your unwanted microbead products for use in educational kits. Tape the bottles sealed and mail to:
5 Gyres Institute, 3131 Olympic Blvd, Santa Monica, CA CA +0.00% 90404
Donate them to science.
Mason, the chemist whose team documented the microbead pollution in the Great Lakes, and her team analyze bead concentrations and characteristics in consumer products. She is accepting microbead products at this address:
SUNY Fredonia, Attn: Sherri Mason, 280 Central Ave., 340 Sciences Complex, Fredonia, NY 14063
Ship them back to their manufacturer.
The International Campaign Against Microbeads In Cosmetics has provided a sample letter that you can send to a company when you return your product.
Filter out the microbeads yourself.
Don’t feel like paying for shipping? Here’s what Mason told Grist about home disposal:
“It’s not ideal, but better in the landfill than in the water supply,” says Mason. A coffee filter does the trick: Squeeze the product into a jar or similar container, top with a coffee filter, and strain. If the product is soupy already, such as a body wash or hand soap, you can now use the filtered version guilt-free. To filter something something pasty, like face scrub or toothpaste, you may need to add water, but you can safely pour the remainder down the drain.
Now what I am I going to use to keep my skin baby smooth?
Fret not. Alternatives to microbeads have been on the market for years. A lot of them are older than microbeads themselves! You can purchase a scrub that exfoliates with pumice, salt, sugar, or walnut husks, for example. If you’re the DIY type, a thriving community online offers all kinds of recipes for homemade scrubs. Cosmetic chemists have also developed a lab-made version of sand (yup, the same stuff that you’d find on the beach) for companies to use in next-generation scrubs. This human-made sand meets the strict uniformity and purity standards for cosmetics and bath products.
Who knows what else is lurking in my medicine cabinet! How can I ever trust mass-produced cleansers again?
Clearly, the decision to put tiny bits of plastic in products that wash down the drain didn’t get thought out from every possible angle. The President’s ban makes me take heart, however, because it shows two things: One— science is self-correcting. In other words, the process of asking questions and seeing where things take you eventually does right wrongs. And two— scientists can work with lawmakers to effect change. You might think companies would try to block this legislation, but there seems to have been very little opposition to this ban from cosmetic and bath product makers. What’s more, the law passed Congress with bipartisan support. Industry groups have applauded the lawand even before this law some companies were already voluntarily ditching plastic in response to consumer pressure. The 5Gyres Institute as well as some researchers have expressed concern because the bill specifies “rinse-off cosmetics”, leaving a potential loophole for cosmetic creams, deodorants, and other products, but overall they see the bill as a huge step forward.
Scientists are always going to be innovating, and it isn’t always possible to fathom the consequences of something new. Mason tells me that cleaning up the microplastic already in our ecosystem is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Eventually, the plastics will be buried and make their way out of our waters, she adds. I hope this saga brings renewed attention (read: and funding!) to the field of green chemistry— these are the chemists who are trained to think preventively about a potential new product in order to minimize microbead-esque mistakes in the future.
-
Report Cites Chemical Spill To Highlight Water Privatization Shortcomings
Jan 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
A think tank that often works with environmental groups is pointing to the failures of a West Virginia drinking water utility to both prevent and respond to the 2014 Elk River chemical spill as an example of the problems with utility privatization, and is calling on the state to return control of drinking water systems to municipalities.
A Jan. 7 report from the Civil Society Institute's Boston Action Research concludes that West Virginia American Water (WVAW), a subsidiary of the American Water Company, was unprepared for the Jan. 9, 2014, incident, where a tank owned by Freedom Industries holding 4-methylcyclohexane methanol ruptured and spilled more than 5,000 gallons of the hazardous substance into the Elk River.
Furthermore, the report says that two years after the spill, the utility remains unprepared for a future emergency -- and its lack of preparedness underscores and highlights shortcomings of all American Water Company holdings as well as privatized water utility models in general.
Environmental groups and some water utilities have long been critical of the privatization of public water systems, most recently in the context of public-private partnerships that have been a key part of the Obama administration and water industry's strategy for mitigating the effects of dwindling federal dollars for billions in water infrastructure needs.
EPA officials, including former de facto water chief Ken Kopocis have tried to assure groups that these new initiatives are not intended to replace federal funding mechanisms like state revolving funds.
The recent report concludes that an "infusion of federal taxpayer dollars seems almost inevitable to upgrade the country's water infrastructure."
"In the broader scheme of things, it appears that the competition for public dollars between public and private water companies will increase, as local political and private industry pressure for federal taxpayer dollars mounts," researchers write. "This once again begs the question of why the public should support private water utility profit margins when public ownership and management can accomplish this more efficiently and inexpensively."
Looking specifically at West Virginia, the think tank says "the Freedom Industries chemical spill of January 9, 2014 shows how unprepared the company is to deal with disasters," noting that the spill left about 300,000 customers without water for as many as nine days.
"Customer experience with West Virginia American Water is similar to the experience of other American Water Company customers around the country. Indeed, the inadequate and widely criticized operations of private water companies globally have fomented a movement to remunicipalize privatized water utilities," it adds.
The report finds that WVAW violated "numerous regulations" after the 2014 spill, and has spent too much of its resources on "dividend payments" to investors that could "otherwise be invested in the system."
"The situation with WVAW reflects why privatization of water systems has failed. The failure of privatization is attributed to excessive costs, poor service quality, lack of transparency, workforce cuts, and under-investment, among other things," the report says.
To remedy the system's failings, the group recommends that the state assume public ownership and operation of the Charleston, WV, Regional Water system, arguing that a publicly run system "would emphasize water service, security, and safety over profit margin" and that "transparency would be enhanced." WVAW could do this by potentially negotiating a "takeover" if it were willing to sell, or state municipalities could seek to use eminent domain, the report says.
-
Back to School for Children Displaced by Los Angeles-Area Gas Leak
Jan 11, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
In the latest disruption from the biggest methane gas leak in California history, nearly 2,000 Los Angeles children returning to class this week after winter break have been reassigned to schools outside the affected area over health concerns.
The Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second-largest public school system, announced the plan after students described headaches, bloody noses, nausea and breathing irritations.
Eleven-year-old Cameron Michaels said he suffered daily health problems from the gas leak. "You can't focus, you can't concentrate, you can't learn at all," he said.
Hundreds of residents have reported similar symptoms to the Los Angeles County Public Health Department, said Dr. Cyrus Rangan, director of the toxics epidemiology program for the agency. County health officials said in a report the symptoms are likely temporary.
"I hope they're absolutely right, but I can't take that chance," said School Board member Scott Schmerelson, who led the student relocation effort. "I’d rather err on the side of safety."
Schmerelson's district includes the Porter Ranch community on the outskirts of Los Angeles near where the leak was first discovered in October in a cracked pipe at an underground storage field.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is not considered toxic. Common sources of methane emissions include wetlands and livestock operations.
The leak has accounted for about a quarter of the state's total emissions of methane, which is seeping out of the ground at the site in amounts never before seen in California.
Methane is the second-most common human-generated greenhouse gas in the United States.
County health officials say the symptoms residents are describing are caused by the odorant added to natural gas.
Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency to address the leak. Southern California Gas Co, which owns the site, said drilling a relief well and repairing the broken pipe could take until late March.
On Monday, teachers invited parents to tour their children's new schools, about an 8-mile (13-km) drive from their former schools, ahead of the scheduled resumption of classes on Tuesday. Many of the relocated school children come from families already displaced by the leak and living in temporary housing at gas company expense.
"We are highly motivated to end the impact as quickly as possible," said Melissa Bailey, a gas company spokeswoman. The company, a division of Sempra Energy , has reported it faces 25 legal complaints over the leak.
-
Most Oil Majors Still Mum on Paris Climate Pact
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
Many of the world's major oil and gas companies are still grappling with how to respond to the international climate change agreement that 195 nations struck in Paris last month, interviews with several industry officials revealed.
Asked to discuss the U.N. deal to slash global greenhouse gas emissions -- which could threaten the very existence of the traditional energy industry -- top multinational oil corporations shared few details. Most were vague and some were nonresponsive to questions about how and whether the agreement will affect their long-term business plans.
"Paris is really a framework for additional policies to reduce emissions," Exxon Mobil Corp. spokesman Alan Jeffers said. Asked if the Paris deal changes the company's business, which has been using an internal carbon price in long-term calculations, Jeffers replied, "I don't think so."
The Paris agreement urges all nations to peak emissions "as soon as possible" and then rapidly reduce them to hold global temperatures "well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels." At the summit, major oil companies were far quieter than other industries affected by the deal. Now, experts said, they're left to digest its meaning amid low oil prices, a populist divestment campaign against their products and renewable energy technologies that have become significantly cheaper.
"The companies obviously have a lot to worry about right now, and this is just one part," said Richard Kauzlarich, who served as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Azerbaijan, during the Clinton administration.
"My guess -- and I'm guessing -- is that climate change is pretty low down on their list," said Kauzlarich, now the co-director of George Mason University's Center for Energy Science and Policy. The American oil majors, he hypothesized, "are heaving a sigh of relief" that the deal wasn't more stringent.
"People get locked into seeing the future a certain way," he said.
Sticking to the script
Spokespeople for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corp. and Phillips 66, in responses to questions from ClimateWire, did not explain how the Paris deal could change their corporate plans or their companies' strategies. Officials with Statoil could not be reached. Meanwhile, a Chevron Corp. spokeswoman, asked twice if the Paris agreement in any way changed the company's strategy, stuck to a verbatim statement.
Fossil fuel use, the official said, is "a contributor to rising greenhouse gases," climate solutions must be cost-effective, and governments should not subsidize some energy sources over others.
For Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Paris was a signal to continue on its current path. Curtis Smith, spokesman, said the deal "reinforces our approach."
He noted that the global agreement underscores the need for carbon capture and storage technology, an expensive emissions-trapping method Shell has long prioritized, as well as the importance of natural gas. Shell has money in a hydrogen-electric vehicle network in Germany and supports a "strong and stable government-led" carbon tax, he added.
"We also recognize renewable energy options are growing and becoming more competitive in supplying electricity, interplaying well with flexible, lower carbon natural gas power," Smith said in an email.
Total SA, a French multinational, was vocal in Paris, touting its majority stake in SunPower Corp., a California solar firm, and that about half of its operations are based on natural gas (EnergyWire, Dec. 4, 2015). But officials did not respond to requests to discuss the impact of the deal.
A Phillips 66 spokeswoman said the company is "evaluating the Paris accord and the potential impacts on our business."
Divide on climate across the oceans
BP spokesman Jason Ryan said the company is pleased that the Paris deal could lead to a carbon-pricing market.
"BP welcomes the direction provided by the Paris agreement," Ryan said in an email. Bob Dudley, the CEO of BP, said in November that the company's portfolio was approaching 60 percent gas and 40 percent oil.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips did not respond to queries about Paris but instead said carbon policies should create a level playing field of energy sources.
And Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute -- the nonprofit lobbying arm of the U.S. oil and gas industry that took in $225 million in revenue in 2013, the most recent year its tax filings are public -- said Wednesday that API member companies are taking a variety of approaches to prepare for regulations from Paris and U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
He called climate change a "serious challenge" but maintained that U.S. emissions are at a 20-year low.
Not all oil firms stayed quiet in Paris. In addition to Total, Statoil ASA, the Norwegian supplier that advocates for carbon pricing and has also pivoted toward gas, was one of six firms whose CEOs called upon governments to price greenhouse gas emissions. BG Group PLC, BP, Eni SpA and Shell were the other four.
Within the industry, non-U.S. companies are generally more vocal about addressing climate change. In October, 10 global oil and gas majors established the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), an industry coalition, none of which were American. Before Paris, the group pressed for the adoption of "clear stable policy frameworks consistent with a 2°C future," and its members promised to report on their climate change progress.
Anthony Hobley, CEO of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a think tank that examines energy and financial markets, said the difference between U.S. and non-U.S. oil and gas majors on climate is stark.
"Even companies such as Saudi Aramco and Sinopec seem more comfortable in this more progressive grouping," Hobley said by email, alluding to the Chinese state oil company. Aramco is a member of the OGCI group.
'No surprises' from Paris?
Combined with the falling costs of competing technologies, the Paris agreement signaled to financial markets and the fossil fuel industry that the age of carbon-based energy is ending, he said.
"The Paris agreement is the lubricant needed to speed this inevitable technological transition," Hobley said. "The next five years is when significant investment could be locked into new high-cost, high-carbon, high-risk assets and infrastructure."
Jeffers of Exxon said the company sees oil and gas playing "significant roles in the energy mix" in meeting growing demand until at least 2040.
"We don't see any stranded assets," he said. "We think all our assets will be required."
Alan Krupnick, senior fellow and co-director for the Center for Energy and Climate Economics at Resources for the Future, said major oil companies, "whether they're quiet or not," have incorporated climate regulations into their plans.
The oil and gas industry is aware of and has factored in the costs of the Obama administration's most salient regulations, he said, citing federal measures to curb methane leakage, the ratcheting up of corporate average fuel economy standards and the heavy-duty trucking measure unveiled this year (ClimateWire, June 17, 2015).
"So companies aren't burying their heads in the sand," Krupnick said of Paris policies and domestic regulations. "I would imagine the companies are thinking, 'There's no surprises here.'"
-
Texas Isn't Actively Developing State Response -- Regulator
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Texas isn't taking options off the table as it challenges U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, but a key environmental regulator said Friday that the Lone Star State also isn't actively developing a state plan.
"We're still looking at what we're going to do and when we're going to do it," Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), said in an interview here. "We're hopeful that we're going to get some action from the courts."
Texas is one of more than two dozen states challenging the Clean Power Plan, which aims to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state, and Texas leaders have expressed hope for a stay.
Yet the question of Texas' response to EPA's rule is gaining urgency as a Sept. 6 deadline looms for states to file a plan or ask for an extension to avoid facing a potential federal plan.
On Friday, Shaw appeared on a panel at a Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) event here that examined EPA's CO2 rule and its implications.
He suggested a long view will be needed and spoke with concern about the potential to "fundamentally shift authority" from states on energy policy. Shaw said EPA's rule essentially could require a reduction of coal-fired power generation to meet its goals.
The Texas regulator said a focus on dispatching the cheapest form of generation could be replaced with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions. And he criticized the idea that the federal government could choose Texas' energy mix.
"We don't need the Clean Power Plan," Shaw said. "We need to have the Texas plan that's already in place and continue to allow the market to drive us toward cleaner, more efficient fuels that will have the side benefit of reducing greenhouse gases."
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) reflected the defiant tone of some prominent Texas leaders during an appearance at Friday's TPPF event.
Role as 'big kahuna'
The governor called for nine constitutional amendments and a convention of states to help restore the "rule of law" (E&ENews PM, Jan. 8). He criticized the Clean Power Plan and proposed that certain administrative actions not have binding legal force unless passed by Congress.
Critics of the Clean Power Plan have warned that significant cost increases could result in Texas' being without substantial benefits. Supporters have touted the potential for efficiency gains and argued that the state's ties to renewable energy and natural gas put Texas in a good position.
Last year, TCEQ's Shaw said Texas was looking at all options regarding the Clean Power Plan, including possibly making a filing that looks only inside the fence lines of plants.
On Friday, Shaw said the state didn't want to foreclose any legal options and didn't rule out an extension request. Shaw said any response could involve the governor, TCEQ and the Public Utility Commission of Texas as well as the Railroad Commission of Texas, which handles oil and gas regulation.
"We're not actively moving toward developing a plan," he said, adding: "That could change at any day. But we're working as a state."
Friday's TPPF event also featured a positive view of the Clean Power Plan, courtesy of Cyrus Reed of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter.
Reed told the crowd that even amid litigation, Texas should "go ahead and begin preparing a plan and ask for an extension." He said that would mean having a backup plan if the rule survives, which Reed said he expects to occur in some form.
Reed said existing power plant emissions must be dealt with to cope with climate change, and he said the United States can help get other parties to the table through its actions. He talked of possible health benefits and said a state plan could help Texas control its destiny.
"With great power comes great responsibility," he said, channeling Spider-Man. "We're the big kahuna in CO2 emissions."
Trends already are going the way the Clean Power Plan is pointing, according to Reed, who noted the role and potential of wind, solar and natural gas.
Understanding the options
Reed said Texas also might get credit for improved building codes for new construction if it explores meeting CO2 goals.
"We can come up with solutions that are market-based that will help us get there," he said.
Shaw touted a market-based approach in Texas, as well, but he stressed the state's role as a "big kahuna" in petrochemicals.
A question remains, Shaw said, on the impact of "man's contribution" on climate change. He talked of more efficient use of energy and the potential to improve the environment and economics and boost quality of life.
State Rep. Drew Darby (R) cited frustration with an overreaching executive branch and touted Texas innovation during an appearance on a TPPF panel Friday.
In an interview, Darby said he wants Texas to be prepared however it responds to the Clean Power Plan. He said there will be a coordinated approach from the Legislature, executive branch and attorney general.
He said a stay could let the Legislature meet in 2017 and weigh in on an appropriate response, though EPA's plan also is expected to be discussed this year during meetings of Texas lawmakers.
In neighboring Arkansas, state officials have explored options such as an extension request while the attorney general pursues litigation. That state recently mentioned requirements for an extension, including identifying a potential approach or approaches and progress made, explaining why more time is needed and describing opportunities for public comment.
Arkansas said that if it receives an extension, a progress report would be due by Sept 6, 2017, with a final state plan due by Sept. 6, 2018.
As for whether Texas will or won't file a plan or seek an extension, Darby said he didn't know.
"That's way beyond my pay grade," Darby said Friday. "I'm simply trying to make sure, from my standpoint, that we understand what the problems are, we understand what the options are, and that we come up with a Texas solution that protects Texas taxpayers and consumers."
-
EPA Info Sessions to Explore Trading, Efficiency, Renewables
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
As most states look to use some form of carbon trading to comply with Clean Power Plan goals, U.S. EPA will hold an "Emissions Trading 101" webinar today.
EPA announced information sessions on three subjects of interest to states, utilities and other power-sector interests.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
The first, today, will "provide a basic overview of emissions trading, an explanation of common terms (including budgets, set-asides, etc.), a general description of how mass-based and rate-based trading works, and a discussion of tools and resources."
The next, on Thursday, will discuss how energy efficiency measures can be used to meet CPP goals and what the rule says about evaluation, measurement and verification of those energy savings.
The third, on Jan. 28, will explain how renewable power can reduce carbon emissions as part of a state plan.
A number of nongovernmental organizations are also holding events today exploring carbon trading.
At 10 a.m., the Bipartisan Policy Center hosts experts from Resources for the Future, the NorthBridge Group, Duke Energy Corp. and Dynegy Inc. The panel will discuss how allowances might be allocated to power generators under the rule.
"For states that use mass-based trading, the decision of how to allocate emission allowances is a key political choice," the Bipartisan Policy Center explains. "While the allocation approach that a state selects will not affect the environmental outcome of the policy, it can have a significant impact on who bears the cost of the program."
At 11:30 a.m., the Center for Global Development holds an event featuring speakers from the International Monetary Fund, the R Street Institute and the World Bank, as well as the chair of the California Air Resources Board. The event will cover "tangible policy options to spur the climate action envisioned in the Paris Agreement," including carbon markets and taxes.
At 2:30 p.m., The New York Times' Tom Friedman will lead a panel discussion on the impact of Paris negotiations on the U.S. electric utility industry and their customers. Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn and other industry leaders will speak.
The California Air Resources Board extended to today its deadline for submitting comments about how the state might comply with the Clean Power Plan.
Also today, the Florida House Energy & Utilities Subcommittee will take up a bill that would prevent state agencies from writing a compliance plan unless Congress passes its own legislation regarding power-sector emissions or the federal courts uphold the Clean Power Plan. EnergyWire reporter Kristi E. Swartz will be there.
Tomorrow, the Kansas Corporation Commission will hold a public education session on the CPP with staff from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the Attorney General's Office. The session will begin immediately following the commission's regularly scheduled meeting.
On Thursday:
A Montana Legislature subcommittee will continue its investigation into the Clean Power Plan.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources will hold its third Section 111(d) stakeholder meeting in Council Bluffs. The Iowa Economic Development Authority will present on the state energy plan, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator will present preliminary modeling results. The Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System will discuss environmental attribute tracking, according to the meeting agenda.
Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment will hold a meetingfrom 6 to 9 p.m. in Commerce City to focus on urban low-income communities and the Clean Energy Incentive Program.
The consulting firm Synapse will release modeling results that show Clean Power Plan compliance can help reduce bills for electricity consumers. Synapse will hold a webinar on the results at 2 p.m.
In case you missed it:
EPA chief Gina McCarthy has no "plan B" if courts block the agency's rule (Greenwire, Jan. 7).
Alabama will wait for federal courts to rule on challenges to the CPP before making any moves to write a backup plan (EnergyWire, Jan. 7).
Georgia is leaning toward complying with an emissions rate, rather than capping carbon, and the state is already on track to meet EPA's goals (EnergyWire, Jan. 8).
The outgoing Kentucky energy chief thinks the state is wrong to refuse to craft its own CPP strategy (EnergyWire, Jan. 17).
Arizona is narrowing down its compliance options (ClimateWire, Jan. 6).
Montana's governor announced a CPP advisory council that's dominated by energy interests (EnergyWire, Jan. 6).
Arkansas will likely request the two-year extension to write a full plan (EnergyWire, Jan. 6).
If you're looking for a refresher, check out our outlook for 2016 or Clean Power PlanLitigation 101.
-
Gas Leak Drives Call For Tougher Methane Rule But EPA Lacks Some Power
Jan 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
Environmentalists are intensifying their calls on EPA to strengthen the leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements in its proposed rule governing methane releases from the oil and gas sector in light of the ongoing massive methane leak at a southern California gas storage facility.
“States like Colorado have already implemented [rules] requiring regular and routine inspections of oil and gas facilities using specialized equipment to find leaks and a requirement to fix them when they're found -- this is something that EPA is currently considering as a national requirement, and we think that needs to happen,” Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) climate and energy program, said during a Jan. 8 briefing on the leak.
But EDF and other groups are not pressing the agency to subject the more than 400 existing natural gas storage facilities nationwide -- like the leaking Aliso Canyon facility outside Los Angeles -- to the proposed rule's LDAR requirements because the agency appears to lack jurisdiction over those facilities, which are regulated by states.
Instead, the groups in comments submitted to EPA last month are urging the agency to expand the scope of the proposed oil and gas new source performance standards' (NSPS) LDAR requirements to include “potentially high-emitting gathering facilities that have dehydrators but lack storage tanks and compressors,” as well as some pneumatic controllers.
In addition, the group's comments urge EPA to increase the frequency of its proposed semi-annual leak inspections at well sites and compressor stations and strengthen language for when modified sources are subject to LDAR requirements.
The pending regulation would update the NSPS issued for the sector four years ago in order to limit emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is roughly 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide (CO2) in terms of its global warming impact over a 20-year period and approximately 23 times as potent over a 100-year period.
While the rule applies only to new and modified sources, environmentalists are pressing the agency to eventually regulate methane releases from existing facilities, saying such controls are needed to meet long-term climate goals.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged during a Jan. 7 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) the agency lacks jurisdiction over facilities like the leaking Aliso Canyon storage site, though she stressed that the agency needs to ensure that facilities comply with relevant standards.
“We have minimal oversight of those types of facilities. In fact, we don't have any,” she said in response to a question on what actions the agency is taking to address the leak. But she agreed with a questioner that “we need to keep up with it and we need to make sure that there's compliance with standards."
She said the agency was not involved with the ongoing state investigation into the leak but was working with the state on “public health issues” to make sure that nearby residents are being relocated.
Hundreds Of Sources
EPA's lack of authority over natural gas storage facilities means hundreds of sources across the country are not subject to federal oversight. Tim O'Connor, a senior attorney with EDF and also its California oil and gas director, said during the briefing that there are 412 natural gas storage sites in the United States, with 14 in California.
Aliso Canyon is California's largest in the state with 115 wells and is the fifth biggest of such facilities in the country, he said.
Although EPA's proposed NSPS would not apply to storage operations like Southern California Gas Co'.s (SoCalGas) Aliso Canyon facility near Los Angeles, EDF sources say the group believes that a stronger NSPS could lead to better industry practices to prevent leaks at gas storage facilities by incorporating new technologies and innovations that are spurred by the regulation, the source says.
Aliso Canyon “does highlight how incredibly important routine inspections of facilities are . . . and routine maintenance,” Brownstein said. He noted that the facility is 60 years old “and questions are now being asked about how it was operated and maintained. We don't know the full answer on specifically what caused this event, but clearly we need to take a look at operation and maintenance practices.”
While EPA may lack oversight, California officials are taking steps to address the issue. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) Jan. 6 declared the leak “emergency,” requiring air quality regulators to quickly develop a program to “fully mitigate” it.
He also called on state oil and gas regulators to issue emergency rules for all natural gas storage facilities across California. Brown's emergency proclamation says the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources will soon promulgate emergency rules for gas storage facility operators that will require “at least” daily inspection of gas storage well heads; ongoing verification of the mechanical integrity of all gas storage wells; ongoing measurement of annular gas pressure or annular gas flow within wells; regular testing of all safety valves; and other measures.
The leak at the SoCalGas facility was discovered last October and could hamper California's efforts to curb GHGs.The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has estimated the facility is leaking an estimated 36,000-58,000 kilograms of methane -- which makes up about 80 percent of natural gas -- per hour, and that as of Dec. 12 it had emitted a total of about 1.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (MMTCO2-e), based on an assumption that the gas has a 25 times greater GWP over a 100-year period than CO2.
Though SoCalGas has recently managed to roughly halve the emission rate, the facility is still emitting more methane per day than all of California's other oil and gas production and storage facilities combined, EDF's O'Connor said.
This equals roughly the same amount of GHG-equivalent emissions that are emitted from six coal-fired power plants per day, according to O'Connor. At its peak, the Aliso Canyon leak was emitting 72 million standard cubic feet of methane per day, which is roughly equal to emissions from nine million cars per day, O'Connor said.
By the time the leak is plugged, estimated to be in roughly two months, the facility will have released approximately 10 MMTCO2-e, which amounts to about 2.2 percent of California's overall GHG emission inventory, O'Connor says.
Methane Emissions
Anthony Marchese, a researcher and professor with Colorado State University's Department of Mechanical Engineering, said on the briefing that since the Aliso Canyon leak began, the methane emissions released into the atmosphere represent about 2 percent of the entire EPA estimate for all U.S. natural gas operations, “so this gives us an idea of the magnitude of this particular leak."
But a White House official recently appeared to downplay the overall climate change impact from the California leak. The official, Richard Duke, said during a Jan. 7 event in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, that while the Aliso Canyon leak is an “important crisis” that California officials are proactively addressing, “from a GHG perspective . . . that really isn't the main element” of the crisis.
Duke said that the latest figures show the leak's total methane emissions are “on the order of . . . what one single coal-fired plant would emit in a year.” He said that fixing the leak is “critically important” from a public health perspective, while adding that the administration and others are seeking to address methane's climate impacts in a more “systematic” way.
-
Greens: Gas Developers Aren’t Disclosing Methane Leaks to Investors
Jan 11, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Natural gas developers are providing very restricted information about their methane emissions to investors, according to a report released Monday.
According to an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) analysis, only 18 of 65 major gas companies disclosed methane emissions to their investors, and none laid out emission reduction targets.
Among companies that do disclose emissions, the report said, there was “vague, qualitative information that is not actionable.” The report said there is no standardized methodology for methane reporting across various financial disclosure forms, from Securities and Exchange Commission filings to reports with the sustainability not-for-profit CDF.
The study suggests companies and regulators need to do more to increase methane leak reporting.
“Some leading companies are already instituting best practices to reduce emissions, but without rigorous, consistent data, investors can’t gauge progress, manage risks, or compare company performance,” said Sean Wright, a manager in EDF’s Corporate Partnerships Program and the report’s lead author.
The study comes as both the gas industry and federal regulators look to crack down on methane emissions.
Methane, the chief component of natural gas, has 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Gas companies say they have a financial incentive to reduce emissions because the more methane they capture, the more gas they can put on the market.
The industry reports reducing its emissions by 11 percent since 2005, and it has endorsed voluntary programs to reduce those emissions further.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed in August a plan to cut methane emissions across the oil and gas drilling sector. The industry has warned against new federal methane regulations, but environmentalists and regulators say they’re necessary for reducing especially powerful emissions.
-
Methane Leaks Pose Risk to Investors -- Report
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Methane leaks pose an economic and climate risk that many oil and gas companies don't fully disclose to investors, an analysis released today said.
The Environmental Defense Fund study said that 28 percent of companies report methane emissions in their publicly available disclosures. About 49 percent provide information on their leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs, 8 percent disclose their methane emissions policy position, and no companies report a "quantitative, time-bound methane emissions reduction target."
"Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry pose a burden on the climate and a risk to the industry's reputation, while also representing waste of a valuable product," Jack Ehnes, CEO of the California State Teachers' Retirement System, said in the report's foreword. "Therefore, enhanced methane management is both a risk-mitigation imperative and a financial opportunity. Improving methane emission disclosure is a key step toward securing investor confidence, managing risk and unlocking returns."
The California State Teachers' Retirement System is a large public pension fund that manages more than $185 billion in assets, the foreword said, and therefore has a stake in oil and gas company disclosures to investors.
EDF hired Greenpoint Innovations to do the study. It looked at a sample of 40 of the largest upstream producer companies and 25 large midstream companies, researching their publicly reported documents. It looked at whether that paperwork provided "a sufficient level of methane data for investors to incorporate related risks into their decision-making process."
The bulk of the analysis was done in July and August 2015.
EnergyWire received an advance copy of the EDF report under the agreement that it not be released until today. Because of that, it could not be discussed with petroleum companies.
Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released, according to EDF. The U.S. oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane pollution in the country, with more than 7 million metric tons of methane emissions each year, it said.
That equals the short-term climate impact of 160 coal-fired power plants, it said, and enough lost natural gas to meet the annual cooking and heating needs of more than 5 million U.S. homes.
Methane leaks are also a monetary loss for investors, the report said. About $30 billion worth of unburned natural gas was emitted globally from the oil and gas industry in 2012 as a result of leaks and vented emissions, an analysis by the Rhodium Group found, EDF said.
The report arrives as a methane leak in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Porter Ranch stretches into its third month. That incident, tied to Southern California Gas Co., has forced the evacuation of hundreds of residents and the relocation of schools.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) last week declared a state of emergency and ordered a series of steps. The state Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) must craft emergency rules for all natural gas storage facility operators in the state. Those regulations need to mandate at least daily inspections with leak detection technology, he said, and ongoing verification that storage wells are secure (ClimateWire, Jan. 7).
The EDF report advocated that companies adopt metrics they would use to report methane leaks to stakeholders. Those would include the methane emissions rate, a methane reduction target, LDAR protocols and the economic value of emissions.
Investors should ask company management for better data, EDF said.
-
Greens Hope Calif. Methane Leak Spurs New EPA Rules
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The ongoing methane leak at a natural gas storage facility in Southern California is fueling calls by environmentalists for national methane regulations on the oil and gas sector.
While acknowledging that the Los Angeles County leak is extraordinary, activists say it's indicative of a bigger problem in the gas industry: Leaky equipment and malfunctions release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
"It's a dramatic example of a phenomenon that, frankly, our scientific studies have been repeatedly pointing to -- that a significant fraction of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry is due to equipment malfunctions," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of the climate and energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
President Obama has pledged to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. To help meet that goal, U.S. EPA is expected to finalize regulations this year governing emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds from the oil and gas sector. But new rules would cover only new and modified sources of methane, not existing equipment.
Environmentalists say the California leak highlights that the Obama administration cannot accomplish its methane goals without adding existing oil and gas equipment and facilities to the new rules.
"I think it's clear to us and I think it's clear to others that there's no way to deliver on the commitments that's been made to reduce oil and gas methane emissions nationally without regulations that address existing sources," Brownstein said.
The American Petroleum Institute declined to comment on the push to impose tougher regulations.
"The utility company involved in this incident is working with the state and local regulators and the cause is undetermined," API spokesman Carlton Carroll said in an email.
In prior public statements, API has maintained that new rules are duplicative and unnecessary and the voluntary efforts have worked well.
"Additional regulations on methane by EPA and other agencies could discourage hydraulic fracturing and the shale energy revolution that has helped America lead the world in reducing emissions," Howard Feldman, API's senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said last month.
Southern California Gas Co. reported the methane leak last October at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage site, located at an oil well that is no longer producing. The leak forced evacuations from the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles, and last week, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) declared a state of emergency (ClimateWire, Jan. 7).
While the rate of leaking has peaked, the Environmental Defense Fund, which is tracking the leak, estimates that the leak has released more than 81,000 tons of methane, or the equivalent of more than 6.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, as of this weekend.
Methane is approximately 84 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
SoCalGas says it is drilling a relief well to intercept the leaking well and is working to permanently seal the leaking well in cement, but that the leak will not stop until late February to late March.
"Our focus remains on quickly and safely stopping the leak and minimizing the impact to our neighbors in Porter Ranch," the company said in a statement. "SoCalGas reaffirms our prior commitment to mitigate the environmental impact of the actual amount of natural gas released from the leak."
Leaks along the supply chain
While the Aliso Canyon leak is exceptionally large, it highlights that "there are leaks of methane throughout the entire oil and gas production chain," said Briana Mordick, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Mordick called underground storage facilities a part of the system that "hasn't really gotten a lot of attention."
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 120 entities currently operate about 400 underground natural gas storage facilities in the United States. Along with depleted oil and gas fields, storage sites include natural aquifers and salt caverns.
Amy Townsend-Small, a University of Cincinnati assistant professor who has done research on methane leaks in the gas supply chain in the Los Angeles, Denver and Dallas-Fort Worth areas, said infrequent large leaks pose the greatest problem when it comes to the natural gas sector's methane emissions.
"There are fugitive emissions throughout the supply chain, and all of the different aspects of the supply chain contribute," Townsend-Small said. "These infrequent, very large leaks are the biggest contributor."
Environmentalists concede that it's impossible to know yet whether anything could have stopped the Aliso Canyon leak. But they say it should spur EPA to establish a national leak detection and repair program through the Clean Air Act to measure methane emissions throughout the entire existing gas supply chain.
"EPA has to have a set of regulations that require owner and operators of all types of oil and gas equipment to regularly survey their sites to see if there are any problems and fix them if there are," Brownstein said.
The oil and gas sector is the largest contributor to U.S. industrial methane emissions, and in August, EPA proposed a suite of new regulations aimed at targeting releases of the potent greenhouse gas from the sector.
The regulations would require the oil and gas industry to find and repair leaks in new equipment, capture natural gas from the completion of hydraulically fractured oil wells, limit emissions from new and modified pneumatic pumps on well pads, and limit emissions from several types of equipment used at natural gas transmission compressor stations.
EPA also put forth a proposed rule requiring gas wellheads to use green completion technology on oil-producing wellheads, as well as a proposal that would tighten restrictions for wellheads in ozone nonattainment areas. A fourth proposal would limit emissions from operations on American Indian lands.
According to the White House's latest regulatory agenda, EPA is poised to issue final regulations in June.
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement this weekend that the proposed rules don't go far enough.
"The EPA ... must institute robust rules that will protect us from not only new and modified, but existing sources as well," Brune said in response to the leak.
'We do the best we can' -- McCarthy
At an event last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called the Aliso Canyon leak "not a good situation" and acknowledged that her agency has some "outdated regulations."
"There is a challenge for us to get and look at technologies and [make] sure that they're being kept up and that our regulations keep up with different ways in which industry is changing and the energy world is changing," McCarthy said. "I think we do the best we can."
But the administrator didn't suggest her agency would look at limiting methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector.
McCarthy last year said EPA was starting with a rule for new and modified petroleum-sector methane sources because new sources were contributing to a growth in emissions. She said that the industry has been enthusiastic about voluntary efforts to curb emissions from existing sources.
Industry doesn't believe that any new regulations over methane emissions are necessary because of those voluntary efforts.
"It's important to keep in mind that methane is the primary component of natural gas, so producers want to capture and sell more of it rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere," API's Feldman said. "Emissions will continue to fall as operators innovate and find new ways to capture and deliver more methane to consumers to heat homes and generate clean-burning electricity. These voluntary efforts are the best way to reduce methane emissions from existing sources, and they are already working."
API further says the natural gas industry has driven reductions in carbon dioxide emissions nationally. New regulations, it argues, could discourage more hydraulic fracturing technologies that have helped drive achievements in emissions reductions.
"Onerous and unnecessary new regulations could have a chilling effect on the American energy renaissance, our economy, and our incredible progress reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Feldman said.
Environmentalists say that argument ignores the greenhouse gas impacts of methane leaks.
"There's no question that natural gas has a lower carbon content than coal. But that's not the end of the accounting that needs to be done," Brownstein said.
"In assessing the role that natural gas is playing to help us transition us way from coal," he said, "there's no escaping the need to also look not only at carbon dioxide emissions but also look at the methane emissions that are associated with producing and distributing the gas."
-
Oil Industry Pans Parts of PHMSA's Pipeline Rule
Jan 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The oil industry last week came out against parts of the Obama administration's latest pipeline safety plan, while environmental and safety groups asked for tougher standards in some areas.
The proposal by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would impose new testing and reporting requirements on parts of the 191,000-mile network that carries oil, gasoline, diesel and other liquids (EnergyWire, Oct. 2, 2015).
Many of the proposals are aimed at gaps in the pipeline safety system that led to high-profile accidents. For instance, a 2010 spill in Marshall, Mich., wasn't discovered for more than 12 hours; the new rules would require companies to use leak-detection equipment on their lines (Greenwire, Sept. 15, 2010).
Likewise, a flood on Montana's Yellowstone River in 2011 broke an exposed pipeline and caused a 1,000-barrel oil spill. The rules would require companies to inspect their lines within three days of floods and other disasters.
The American Petroleum Institute and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines filed comments opposing the post-disaster inspection rule and other parts of the proposal, saying it doesn't leave operators enough flexibility.
"The timelines don't allow on-the-ground decisionmaking," API's midstream group director, Robin Rorick, said Friday on a conference call with reporters.
Requiring pipeline tests within three days of a flood or other disaster may even put pipeline crews at risk, Rorick said, citing the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.
The National Transportation Safety Board singled out the post-disaster inspection rule for praise in its comments.
"We believe a 72-hour time frame is sufficient for the pipeline owner/operator to identify any abnormalities that compromise, or could compromise, the pipeline integrity and respond accordingly to minimize the impact on assets, employees, and the community," the NTSB staff wrote.
The NTSB and other safety groups urged PHMSA to toughen other sections.
The Pipeline Safety Trust supported the post-disaster inspections in its comments but said they wouldn't prevent accidents like the one on the Yellowstone River.
"Those failures stem from operators' failures to construct pipelines to sufficient depth, or their failures to adequately integrate the threat of river scour, including ice scour, into their construction, operation, and inspection plans," the group wrote in its comments.
The PST also questioned whether the leak detection requirement would be effective, since it doesn't clearly define what type of system would be required.
Currently, pipeline systems in populated or environmentally sensitive areas have to test their lines with in-line instruments known as pigs. The proposal would expand that requirement to systems outside of sensitive areas, but it would allow the tests to be done every 10 years instead of every five years and exempt pipes that aren't designed to handle pigs.
The rules would allow those exempt pipelines to be tested by "direct assessment" -- excavating a line and inspecting it from the outside. The NTSB has criticized the direct assessment method in a study of gas pipelines, saying it provides data on only short sections of a pipeline. The board staff suggested that PHMSA require other methods.
-
World Benefits From U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports
Jan 11, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
The U.S. will be exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) abroad due to an expanding resource base, increasing production, and higher prices in outside markets. Despite lower prices, “the shale revolution” will help output climb this year for the 11th straight time, rising 2% to a new record of over 81 Bcf/day. The U.S. will become a net exporter of gas this year or next.
This month, Cheniere Energy Sabine Pass facility on the Gulf Coast will be the first to export LNG from U.S. shale fields. When fully operational before 2019, Sabine Pass will be able to export 3.5 Bcf/day. Cheniere wants to add a new production train every six months until mid-2019, with seven total trains in total. Hedging gas prices that just hit 15-year lows, most of Cheniere’s LNG has already been sold through long-term contracts.
After Qatar and Australia, the U.S. could easily become the world’s third-largest LNG supplier by 2020. We have a great advantage over other LNG exporters because we can reconfigure our vast LNG import structure to export. These Brownfield projects to convert existing re-gasification facilities to liquefaction facilities can provide a 35-50% cost savings relative to new, greenfield LNG projects. Brownfields make permitting easier to secure and reduce capital expenditure because they already have the storage tanks and complex facilities in place.
The U.S. Department of Energy has approved projects that may send as much as 10 Bcf/day of U.S. gas abroad and is considering applications for another 35 Bcf/day, which is just slightly smaller than today’s global market. Overall, the investment in LNG export infrastructure along the Gulf Coast and Chesapeake Bay is over $50 billion.
Despite the concern among U.S. manufacturers that are benefitting from huge amounts of low-cost, domestic natural gas as feedstock, the country can absorb large-scale LNG exports. U.S. industry has such a big lead over competitors in Europe and North-East Asia where gas prices have been be 2-5 times higher.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has confirmed that 12-20 Bcf/day of LNG exports would increase domestic gas prices by just 4-11%, per million Btu. And a recent study by Oxford Economics and Rice University concluded that U.S. LNG exports of 20 Bcf/day would increase U.S. domestic gas prices by just 17 cents.
The scale of U.S. LNG exports would be naturally limited by the competition from other existing suppliers around the world as a global gas market continues to take shape. And LNG export is a very expensive business (e.g., the first phase of Sabine Pass will cost over $12 billion), making exports slow and controlled.
Yet, slightly higher prices would actually help us because they would help the profitability of producers of natural gas, our emerging energy source that is lowering GHG emissions and needed to backup intermittent wind and solar. U.S. LNG export gives our companies another baseload market to turn to when domestic issues arise. Limiting U.S. LNG exports would not push significant volumes of natural gas into the domestic market, but likely just keep them in the ground instead.
As recently stated by The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing U.S. LNG Exports: “Greater volumes of LNG exports support continued long‐term expansion of U.S. production.” LNG export supporter Energy Secretary Moniz “We are certainly not resource limited.” In fact, LNG exports have received bipartisan support (seehere), which is becoming increasingly less common (have you ever seen the nation this divided?). Overall, the U.S. could need 100 LNG ships over the next 30 years.
Asia, Europe Demand
Ultimately, Asia is the natural fit for U.S. LNG, especially given the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal set to open this Spring, cutting costs and the trip from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Asia by 11 days. And “this will allow ports along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts the chance to compete with their West Coast rivals for vessel traffic.”
Although projections for China’s 2020 natural gas demand have been lowered by about 15%, the country is on track to reach gas constituting 10% of energy supply by 2020, compared to 5% by 2013. China’s focus on cleaner gas stems from “heavy city smog that has forced government to raise pollution advisories to their most severe level, prompting school closures, traffic restrictions and factory operation limits.” China recently lowered city-gate gas prices nationwide by nearly 30% to spur demand particularly among industry.
And China will need to increasingly turn to global suppliers for gas: from 2009-2015, gas production increased 46% to 12 Bcf/day, but demand also increased 110% to 18 Bcf/day. Despite copious amounts of shale gas (technically recoverable resources are estimated at 1,115 Tcf), the best chance to increase domestic output, development has been slower than anticipated.
But, Asia overall seems even more distant today for U.S. LNG because gas prices worldwide have plummeted. This is especially true in Asia because prices are more heavily linked to crude oil than in Europe, and oil prices collapsed to 11-year lows to end 2015. “JKM prices, a maker for delivery in Asia, have fallen by two-thirds since the 2014 peak. February 2016 delivery cargoes are going for $7 per million Btu.”
Although just 1/5 the size of the Asian gas market, enter more proximate and contract flexible Europe, seeking to reduce its long dependence on more politically risky Russian gas that accounts for about 35% of the EU’s gas imports (a good assessment here of EU vulnerability to Russian gas supply disruptions). With import diversity required, the EU’s gas electricity demand is expected to rise nearly 30% by 2025 alone.
Turkey, consistently a top performer in the G-20 that will require lots more fuel to grow and an increasingly vital transit hub for energy, imports 60% of its gas from Russia and seeks “alternatives to Russian energy after plane crisis.” “Turkey May Be Biggest Buyer of U.S. LNG Exports,” with overall gas demand up 40% since 2010 to 5.2 Bcf/day. Importantly, natural gas now supplies over 50% of Turkey’s power, compared to less than 20% in the EU.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested