Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/14/16
-
US NGO Introduces Ingredient Safety Label for Consumer Products
Mar 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A new non-profit organisation, Made Safe, has launched a consumer products labelling programme which aims to highlight consumer products made without known toxic substances. -
Ark. Joins Roster of States Taking Timeout on EPA Rule
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Arkansas last week became the 19th state to halt planning activities related to potential compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, March 10). -
EPA Data Request For Existing Oil & Gas Sites May Target 'Super-Emitters'
Mar 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA's pending request to gather information about existing oil and gas operations' emissions of the greenhouse gas methane may in part aim to identify “super-emitters” that release large quantities of the potent GHG, potentially in an effort to tailor any first-time future existing source regulation to focus primarily on the largest emitters. -
Industry: Regs May Have 'Chilling' Effect on Voluntary Programs
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
U.S. EPA is set to launch a new voluntary methane control program for the oil and gas sector, but environmentalists and industry officials alike said that with new regulations on the horizon, they are skeptical of the optional effort's success. -
Pennsylvania Shows EPA the Way on Pending Methane Policy
Mar 14, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Fred Krupp and Davitt Woodwell
Speaking to a petroleum industry audience in Houston recently, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said, “we can and we must do more to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector.” McCarthy has it right. Uncontrolled leaking and venting of natural gas wastes a valuable resource and threatens our climate. Last week, as part of a joint announcement with Canada, the administration said it plans to move forward on a solution. -
In Fla., Fracking Starts a Fight Before It Even Happens
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz and Mike Lee
The oil industry and environmentalists in Florida, who fought to a draw in the state Legislature over a bill that would allow hydraulic fracturing in the state, are maneuvering for a rematch. -
The Paris Climate Agreement Calls for Big Investments in Renewable Energy. Here’s Why Governments Love It.
Mar 14, 2016 | Washington Post
By Patrick Bayer and Johannes Urpelainen
This past December, governments of the world met in Paris to negotiate a global climate agreement. It’s considered a breakthrough. Here’s why. -
Cheap Oil, New Pipelines End Rail Transport Boom, EIA Says
Mar 14, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Robert Grattan
Declining prices and extra pipeline capacity have shrunk U.S. crude by rail shipments, according to an analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. -
Amtrak Train Derails in Kan., Injuring 29 People
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
An Amtrak passenger train derailed just after midnight today in southwestern Kansas, injuring 29 people. -
N.D.'s Sole Rail Inspector Gets Certified, Starts Work
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
North Dakota's first track inspector under a new safety program helped find more than 400 defective conditions and over a dozen violations -- all before he was granted the ability to work alone. -
Industry Attorneys Fault Lack Of EPA 'Screening Tools' For Ozone NAAQS
Mar 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Attorneys representing major industries are criticizing EPA's failure to issue "screening tools" that could assist Clean Air Act permit applicants and state regulators in crafting permits to comply with the agency's tightened ozone air standard, saying the lack of such tools creates uncertainty over permits and stalls industrial projects. -
EPA Finds 11 States Failed to File Sulfur Dioxide Plans
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Eleven states have failed to submit plans for fully meeting the federal air quality standard for sulfur dioxide, according to a formal U.S. EPA determination that could lead to sanctions.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
US NGO Introduces Ingredient Safety Label for Consumer Products
Mar 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A new non-profit organisation, Made Safe, has launched a consumer products labelling programme which aims to highlight consumer products made without known toxic substances.
Made Safe’s founder and executive director, Amy Ziff, told Chemical Watch that the programme is the US’s “first human health-focused certification to cross consumer products categories”.
“Consumers are clamouring for a simple way to find products that are made without ingredients known to cause harm”, said Ms Ziff. The Made Safe seal will make it easier for companies to communicate efforts to avoid substances of concern, she said, and for customers to identify and purchase those products.
All non-food items can seek certification under the programme. But, the initial focus for 2016 will be on baby, household, personal care and cosmetic products.
To achieve certification, products are screened against a proprietary toxicant database. Substances not permitted in certified products include known:
carcinogens;
developmental, reproductive and behavioural toxins;
endocrine disruptors;
fire retardants;
GMOs;
heavy metals;
neurotoxins;
pesticides, insecticides and herbicides;
toxic solvents; and
harmful VOCs.
According to Ms Ziff, the toxicant database began with "red list" substances – as defined by authoritative organisations and governmental agencies around the world – and it continues to grow.
The organisation uses modelling, predictive analysis, and scientific investigation to close data gaps around substances and to identify PBTs. And, said Ms Ziff, “each time we screen a product, we learn about new ingredients and add those to our database as well”.Highlight 'innovative companies'
There are a few instances where Made Safe might allow a safe harbour level of an ingredient “if it has been lab-tested and certified to a specific measure.”
But for regulatory considerations – such as with products that may use flame retardants to meet stringent flammability standards – she said the point of the certification is to “reward companies who are innovating healthier solutions”.
“We want to amplify those innovative companies’ messaging and create a clear path to finding safer products”, said Ms Ziff.
She hopes that the programme can demonstrate customers’ willingness to buy safer products. In turn, the NGO “can apply pressure to brands, manufacturers, retailers and suppliers and send a very effective message that consumers don’t want these kind of ingredients in their products."
The programme joins a crowded ingredient safety certification space. Others include federal initiatives, like the US EPA’s Safer Choice programme, and third-party schemes, such as the Environmental Working Group’s EWG Verified, or the Cradle to Cradle Product Innovation Institute's (C2CPII) certified productsprogramme.
Several personal care product companies have already achieved certification under Made Safe. The process takes anywhere from eight weeks to a year, depending on the number of products a brand wishes to certify.
https://chemicalwatch.com/45621/us-ngo-introduces-ingredient-safety-label-for-consumer-products
-
Ark. Joins Roster of States Taking Timeout on EPA Rule
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Arkansas last week became the 19th state to halt planning activities related to potential compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, March 10).
That brings the tally to 19 states suspending, 19 states continuing and nine states assessing whether to move forward with the rule to curb emissions from power plants. See the full breakdown here.
Each Monday, Power Playspreviews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, Infocast canceled a summit on rule implementation that was scheduled to begin Wednesday in Houston.
State officials from Virginia, Georgia, Missouri and Minnesota were scheduled to talk at the summit about what compliance strategies they are considering, according to an agenda. Georgia has since halted planning work, and Missouri officials have kept quiet about whether they will proceed. Virginia and Minnesota are continuing.
On Wednesday in Little Rock, Ark., the Midcontinent Independent System Operator's Planning Advisory Committee will hear the first report on its "midterm" analysis of the Clean Power Plan.
Also on Wednesday, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will hold a stakeholder meeting via webinar on the Clean Power Plan.
It will feature a presentation on the Supreme Court stay by Ari Peskoe of the Harvard Environmental Law Institute. It will be followed by a discussion led by officials from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Electric Power Research Institute about preliminary analyses evaluating the cost-effectiveness for Minnesota and the Midwest of the different trading-ready Clean Power Plan options.
On Thursday in Washingtion, D.C., the American Council on Renewable Energy holds a policy forum, which will include a session on maintaining momentum on the Clean Power Plan in the face of legal uncertainty. EPA senior counsel Joe Goffman will speak.
Also on Thursday, Synapse Energy Economics will host a webinar on how consumers can benefit from the pursuit of energy efficiency savings with or without the Clean Power Plan.
In case you missed it:
The Supreme Court's stay of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan is not altering plans by the nation's largest power grid operator to move ahead with an analysis of compliance options (EnergyWire, March 11).
Grid operators MISO and SPP will continue assessing a lower-carbon future, regardless of the outcome of legal challenges to the rule (ClimateWire, March 10).
The Clean Power Plan looms large in Montana's governor's race (ClimateWire, March 10).
The former head of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection tells E&ETV that states stopping planning put themselves at a disadvantage (OnPoint, March 10).
Public power utilities are being urged to stay engaged on EPA rule (EnergyWire, March 9).
Obama's potential Supreme Court picks are seasoned regulatory referees (Greenwire, March 7).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060033900
-
EPA Data Request For Existing Oil & Gas Sites May Target 'Super-Emitters'
Mar 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA's pending request to gather information about existing oil and gas operations' emissions of the greenhouse gas methane may in part aim to identify “super-emitters” that release large quantities of the potent GHG, potentially in an effort to tailor any first-time future existing source regulation to focus primarily on the largest emitters.
The agency on March 10 announced it would issue a draft information collection request (ICR) in April requiring industry to provide data on emissions from existing sources, as well as potential technologies to reduce methane emissions from those sources. The ICR is the first step in the regulatory process that could ultimately result in the agency setting performance standards to curb methane from existing oil and gas sites.
The ICR process is likely to take several months, at the earliest, meaning it would be very difficult for EPA to issue a final rule governing methane emissions from existing sources during the Obama administration -- though advocates have long urged the agency to quickly develop such a regulation.
However, any data collected under the ICR could provide the subsequent administration with a robust record from which it could accelerate a rulemaking. EPA is already working to finalize new source performance standards (NSPS) that will cap methane from future oil and gas operations, but that would not address existing sources.
In a March 10 fact sheet on the agency's plans for existing oil and gas operations, the agency notes that there are hundreds of thousands of emissions sources in the sector, and that some emit only “small amounts” of methane, while others “emit very large quantities.”
EPA will seek information in the ICR “that will help the agency identify sources with high emissions and the factors that contribute to those emissions,” the fact sheet says.
Given those indications, the consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners in a March 10 note to clients says that “rather than a blanket rule affecting all existing sources, EPA could potentially prioritize the largest methane emissions sources -- so-called 'super-emitters' -- in addition to wells and infrastructure responsible for significant emissions.”
The agency's release of the ICR sometime in April comes just before EPA is slated to finalize the NSPS, crafted under its Clean Air Act section 111(b) power to regulate air pollution from new emissions sources.
The methane NSPS would build upon a current NSPS for the sector which limits ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at new wells, but which also cuts methane as a co-benefit.
Environmentalists argue that finalizing the NSPS would trigger a requirement under section 111(d) of the air law -- which addresses regulation of existing emissions sources -- to cover existing oil and gas sites.
Methane Sources
EPA in the fact sheet says that the ICR will focus on data about existing sources of methane emissions, technologies to reduce such emissions and the costs of those technologies in the production, gathering, processing, and transmission and storage segments of the sector.
“The ICR will likely apply to the same types of sources covered by the current and proposed [NSPS] for the oil and gas sector, as well as additional sources,” the agency says.
It is not clear which “additional sources” the information request will cover.
However, advocates have urged EPA to expand the proposed NSPS to include a broader list of sources, including liquids unloading, intermittent pneumatic controllers and compressors at well-sites, which are not currently covered by the 2012 NSPS for VOCs.
Such a move likely would allow EPA to craft a broader section 111(d) existing source rule, given that the provision of the air law is applicable in part to sources “to which a standard of performance would apply if such existing source were a new source.”
Further, ClearView notes that the proposed methane NSPS would cover compressors, pneumatic devices, leak detection and repair, and well completion. Meanwhile, a separate proposal from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seeking to limit “waste” methane from existing sources on federal land would also address storage tanks and liquids unloading.
The firm says it would be “surprised if the scope of an eventual rule deviated significantly from either” the proposed NSPS or the proposed BLM rule.
ICR Timeline
EPA remains vague on the timeline of the data collection effort. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a March 10 blog post says the agency will begin “preliminary outreach” in the coming weeks, with the goal of issuing a proposed ICR in April.
“This is a routine step to assist in the development process for regulations to reduce air pollution,” she wrote. “It helps EPA identify the most significant sources of emissions, the kinds of technologies that work best to reduce them, and how those technologies can be applied effectively.”
The draft ICR would be subject to public comment, after which it would be revised and sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). There, it would likely be subject to a second round of comment before it is approved.
The final ICR, potentially including surveys and required emissions monitoring, would give companies in the sector a deadline for submitting data to the agency and require them to attest that the data is accurate.
EPA says it hopes “to receive the first phase of information later this year.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-data-request-existing-oil-gas-sites-may-target-super-emitters
-
Industry: Regs May Have 'Chilling' Effect on Voluntary Programs
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
U.S. EPA is set to launch a new voluntary methane control program for the oil and gas sector, but environmentalists and industry officials alike said that with new regulations on the horizon, they are skeptical of the optional effort's success.
The Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program's start date is set for March 30. For some in the industry, the question of whether to join comes down to money.
"Are the things that I did in the voluntary program, does it provide exemptions under the [proposed] regulations? If it did, that would provide an incentive to participate," said Lee Fuller, executive vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).
Under the challenge program, EPA hopes oil and gas companies will voluntarily pledge to reduce methane emissions in exchange for being "publicly recognized as leaders." Yet the plan's finishing touches come just as the agency says it will also prepare new mandatory measures for slashing emissions 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. The White House unveiled that plan last week alongside visiting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Voluntary efforts in the oil and gas sector have never gained much traction. Since the early 1990s, industrywide participation in such emissions reduction programs have stayed around less than 1 percent. Now, observers say, opt-in measures are raising even more questions.
Fuller noted that if companies have to rip up their voluntary plans and start over to comply with regulations on existing sources, that would be a significant disincentive to join.
As for the impact of regulations on existing methane sources, Fuller said EPA would be putting a heavy financial burden on operators of smaller wells with low production rates.
"Our interest is in a cost-effective operation; certainly, when you try these regulations on really small facilities, it's much more questionable," he said. "Our view is that the EPA is responding to environmental extremists like the Sierra Club whose objective is to prevent production of oil and natural gas."
Participation already 'pretty dismal'
Oil and gas exploration and production company Apache Corp. suggested that the regulations could drive down participation in other voluntary programs, like the industry-led ONE Future coalition for companies in the natural gas industry.
That program aims to achieve a 1 percent methane leak or loss rate, down from an estimated gross production emissions rate of 1.3 percent, according to the program's website.
"We joined ONE Future to advocate for a cost-efficient, voluntary solution to methane emissions. Until we have further details, it's too early to know how this will effect Apache's proactive, voluntary efforts, but it's worth noting that the administration's decision to write prescriptive regulations for existing sources may have a chilling effect on voluntary efforts, such as those ONE Future advocates," an Apache Corp. official said in a statement.
Environmental groups said they would not have expected the Methane Challenge Program to draw much of a membership anyway, even if EPA hadn't announced that it would begin regulating existing sources.
"It would be great if more companies stepped up, but their participation is pretty dismal," said Matt Watson, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's Climate and Energy Program.
Watson said he considered industry concerns about voluntary measures not counting toward regulations to be mostly unfounded. He argued that companies voluntarily implementing pollution control measures will be "largely in compliance" with new methane rules.
"The kinds of measures you would implement under a voluntary program are the same measures that would be used under regulatory programs," he said.
Sign-up deadline approaches
As for the cost of implementing methane controls, "methane emissions reductions are among the most cost-effective pollution reduction available in any industry," he said.
Jessica Eckdish, a Washington representative at the Sierra Club, said she did not expect there to be a direct correlation between EPA's announcement of new regulations and industry participation in the voluntary program.
That, she said, is because past programs had a track record of "fairly low" membership.
EPA's announcement Thursday came one day before oil and gas companies were supposed to inform the agency about whether they were considering becoming founding members of the voluntary program.
Administration officials did not comment on whether they thought it would affect the sign-up numbers.
"EPA is pleased with the interest that potential partners have shown in the Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program. We are in discussions with a number of companies who have indicated their intention to participate in the Methane Challenge launch on March 30, and we expect participation to grow over time," the agency said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/03/14/stories/1060033932
-
Pennsylvania Shows EPA the Way on Pending Methane Policy
Mar 14, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Fred Krupp and Davitt Woodwell
Speaking to a petroleum industry audience in Houston recently, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said, “we can and we must do more to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector.” McCarthy has it right. Uncontrolled leaking and venting of natural gas wastes a valuable resource and threatens our climate. Last week, as part of a joint announcement with Canada, the administration said it plans to move forward on a solution.
For a blueprint on solving this problem, EPA should take a look at Pennsylvania, where Gov. Tom Wolf (D) recently proposed comprehensive new methane emissions standards for oil and gas companies in his state.
Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, packs 84 times the warming power of carbon dioxide for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere. It accounts for one quarter of the human-caused warming we are currently experiencing. And our biggest opportunity for methane reductions comes from the oil-and-gas sector.
In Pennsylvania alone, operators released at least 97,000 metric tons of methane in 2014, though officials say the real figure could easily be eight times higher. In fact, if just one percent of the natural gas produced in the state is escaping — and experts say that’s a lowball — then Pennsylvania companies could be emitting close to 780,000 metric tons of methane a year, and throwing away saleable product worth over $125 million.
To fix the problem, Pennsylvania is proposing better controls and more frequent monitoring and repair for wells, pipelines, compressors and other infrastructure. Most importantly, new rules will include the more than 5,000 wells and facilities that are already operating. Including existing sources is a critical benchmark, because they will continue to be responsible for the vast majority of emissions for many years to come.
Pennsylvania is no stranger to fossil fuels. Its coal powered the industrial revolution, its innovators drilled the world’s first oil well, and now it’s America's second largest gas producer, after Texas. Today, the state understands that oil and gas production carries a responsibility to deal with the impacts that follow.
Far from wanting to punish producers, Wolf, who campaigned on the need for new methane rules, says they are meant to help the industry maintain viability without compromising environmental performance.
By contrast, the federal government has, until now, been unwilling to apply the same common-sense policies at the national level to companies currently releasing at least 9.3 million metric tons of methane a year according to EPA’s latest draft inventory – even though cutting these emissions is one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to achieve the Obama administration’s climate protection goals.
As they move forward, Washington could stand to learn from Pennsylvania, as well as from Colorado, another major oil and gas producer, which enacted similar policies three years ago (with active support of both industry and environmental advocates).
The White House last week reiterated its goal to cut oil and gas methane emissions 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. Last year, EPA released draft rules covering new emitters, but didn’t touch tens of thousands of existing facilities. Now that’s about to change.
By contrast, rules just proposed by the Bureau of Land Management do apply to both new and existing sources on federal and tribal land. In 2013, those facilities released enough gas to heat 1.5 million homes for a year. But BLM covers only a fraction of U.S. production (14 percent of natural gas, 9 percent of oil). There’s absolutely no reason EPA shouldn’t follow states like Pennsylvania and Colorado, as well as its sister agency.
Some in industry says they can’t afford new regulations with today’s low oil and gas prices. But short-term market conditions don’t excuse cutting corners on emissions, especially when the solutions are such a bargain. Recent studies by ICF show that methane leaks can be reduced at least 40 percent at an average cost of just one penny per thousand cubic feet of gas produced—about one-half of 1 percent of today’s price for that much gas.
The payoff is huge: At global scale, stopping 45 percent of methane leakage would help the climate over the next 20 years as much as shutting down one-third of the world’s coal-fired power plants.
Methane is both a local and national problem that requiring robust detection and repair of leaks. Achieving this it isn’t hard or costly, but it does require commitment from both the state and federal levels. The Obama administration should use its final year to make sure we get it right.
Krupp is president of Environmental Defense Fund. Woodwell is president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/272731-pennsylvania-shows-epa-the-way-on-pending-methane
-
In Fla., Fracking Starts a Fight Before It Even Happens
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz and Mike Lee
The oil industry and environmentalists in Florida, who fought to a draw in the state Legislature over a bill that would allow hydraulic fracturing in the state, are maneuvering for a rematch.
The bill drew some of the most heated disputes in Tallahassee, even though Florida has a tiny amount of oil and gas production and it's not likely that there would be widespread drilling even if a law passes. The bill would allow hydraulic fracturing and would prohibit cities from regulating the practice.
"The word 'fracking' has become one of those issues that immediately sends people into their respective corners -- facts be damned, and it doesn't matter what side you're on," said Rebecca O'Hara, a lobbyist for the Florida League of Cities Inc.
State Sen. Garrett Richter, a Republican from Collier County who sponsored the bill, pulled it from consideration during a hearing March 1. The Legislature reconvenes in 2017, and the issue of fracking is likely to come back.
If a bill passes, Florida would join Illinois and North Carolina in regulating a drilling practice that hasn't actually happened on a wide scale (EnergyWire, Nov. 7, 2014; EnergyWire, May 6, 2015).
Fracking typically is used on shale and other dense rocks, which makes it hard for oil and gas to flow. It's controversial because it's allowed drilling to push into new areas, including suburban areas in Texas and Colorado and farm country in Pennsylvania. There have been long-standing complaints about water pollution and other problems associated with shale drilling.
In most cases where contamination has been substantiated, it didn't happen because of fracking itself but because of faulty well construction that allowed gas, oil or other fluids to leak outside the wellbore. Regardless, the idea of drilling and fracking in Florida, which depends on groundwater for drinking, has caused a huge uproar.
Fracking is currently allowed under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's regulations. It's classified as a "workover" -- one of a group of tasks that generally involve re-entering an old well to repair it or squeeze more oil out of it. But no one has fractured a well in the state since 2003, according to an analysis by the state Senate Appropriations Committee staff.
Florida produces small quantities of oil and gas -- there are approximately 160 producing wells in the state -- and the current crash in oil prices makes it unlikely that any new drilling would happen for months, if not years.
The company whose project spurred the legislation -- Dan A. Hughes Co. LP of Beeville, Texas -- wasn't actually trying to fracture a well. Instead, it applied for permission to use a different process known as matrix acidization -- forcing acid into a well at high pressure to dissolve some of the rock and allow oil to flow.
Hughes notified the DEP of its plans in 2013 and then went ahead with the operation before it received permission. The DEP sued the company to stop the acidizing.
Another company, Kanter Real Estate LLC, has applied for permission to drill a test well in the Everglades in Broward County. The company's application doesn't discuss fracturing or well stimulation, but the DEP has issued Kanter two requests for additional information, effectively delaying the project.
Pre-emption derailed Fla. bill
S.B. 318 would have provided $1 million for the DEP to conduct a peer-reviewed study of fracking, matrix acidization and other techniques to see if they could be safely used in Florida.
It would require companies to notify the state in advance of certain drilling operations, so that inspectors could be on site when they happen. Drillers would have to report the chemicals they use to FracFocus, a nationwide database.
The bill would pre-empt local cities from regulating any aspect of oil drilling, though, and would void any existing regulation. That would wipe out dozens of local ordinances that have been passed to ban fracking in cities and counties.
The pre-emption language caught the eye of two groups that have significant sway in Tallahassee: the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties. The issue eventually derailed Richter's bill in its final Senate committee, when one member floated an amendment to remove the pre-emption language.
Richter and state Rep. Ray Rodrigues (R), who has shepherded a fracking bill through the House more than once, vow to bring the legislation back again next year. Other lawmakers will file their own proposals, some of which will call for an all-out ban.
O'Hara with the League of Cities said there are some positive aspects of the bill. It would give Florida a chance to update its oil and gas regulations, for instance.
But the idea of pre-empting any local control of drilling is a nonstarter, O'Hara said. An earlier version of the bill was more narrowly tailored -- it would have given the state sole authority to issue drilling permits but would have allowed cities to control some aspects of drilling, such as the location of drill sites, she said.
Opposition marches on
Environmentalists in Florida are gathering their own ammunition for a continued fight. Many flooded the committee rooms in Tallahassee, where hearings would often be long and heated.
Those who opposed the bills called for everything from an all-out ban to begging the Legislature to do something in order to boost renewable energy.
Anti-fracking activists from Pennsylvania and other states flew in to testify and hold rallies on the Capitol steps, which added to the attention.
"We've heard from the opposition that you can't regulate fracking, but we can," said Jennifer Rubiello, the director of Environment Florida. "We know that fracking has contaminated water, polluted air, the only safe way to regulate fracking is to stop it before it starts."
Karen Dwyer, an anti-fracking activist, has helped organize an 80-mile, six-day protest march across the Everglades and Big Cypress, from Miami to Naples this Sunday. Dwyer was a constant in Tallahassee, testifying at committee hearings and attempting to meet with lawmakers.
"We've given the Legislature two years to give us meaningful legislation," she said. "They just twisted it out of context and gave us a bill that was worse."
David Mica, longtime executive director of the Florida Petroleum Council, said he's frustrated with the bill's opponents, calling some of them "extremists."
Florida is the third most populous state in the country, and its hot climate means that air conditioners run nearly year-round in some of its communities, but it's heavily reliant on imported natural gas for its power supply.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, which shut down gas production off the Louisiana coast, showed just how much the state relied on natural gas.
The supply problem was so acute that Florida Power & Light Co., the state's biggest utility, signed deals to produce gas from fields in Oklahoma.
If gas can be produced in Florida, it's one more tool in the region's energy supply toolbox, Mica said.
"We want to be able to use, in the industry, the best tools available to us," he said, saying this includes fracking, matrix acidizing, well stimulation or another new technology that comes along. "You're talking about a technology that has transformed America."
Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is trying to find a middle ground. Her group isn't pushing for an all-out ban; it's trying to find a sponsor for a bill that'll ensure any regulations on fracking are based on science.
"Hopefully people have some time to calm down and realize that they need to work with the public," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/14/stories/1060033924
-
Mar 14, 2016 | Washington Post
By Patrick Bayer and Johannes Urpelainen
This past December, governments of the world met in Paris to negotiate a global climate agreement. It’s considered a breakthrough. Here’s why.
Until now, climate agreements were “top-down,” giving countries targets and timetables for reducing climate-warming carbon emissions. The Paris agreement, by contrast, allows governments to come up with their own emissions reduction plans. Every five years, governments meet to review how well each country has done in meeting its pledges. This “bottom-up” strategy is a remarkable departure from the conventional top-down approach.
But for this bottom-up strategy to work, governments must be willing to invest heavily in climate mitigation. Most research on climate change treats it as a global collective-action problem (as Scott Barrett detailed in 2008). Individual nations must take on the expense and effort of reducing emissions — but the benefits spread throughout the globe. Governments are therefore tempted to take a “free ride” by reaping the benefits of others’ efforts without reducing their own emissions. As a result, everyone suffers from climate change.
So how can a bottom-up strategy based on decentralized action work?
Renewables: The $300 billion question
The most important reason for optimism is that nations around the world have been investing heavily in technologies that offer renewable energy — wind turbines, solar panels, biomass and so on. In 2014, those global investments reached $270 billion. China led the pack, investing $83 billion in wind turbines and solar panels. The United States was the distant second, investing $38 billion, especially in wind energy. Indonesia, Chile, Mexico and Kenya invested more than a billion dollars each.
The investment boom comes in large part because the cost of renewable electricity generation has decreased rapidly. However, companies will keep investing in these technologies only in nations with government policies that support the growth of renewables. Because polluting fossil fuels are still mostly cheaper than renewables, clean energy requires subsidies or similar policies.
Are governments ready for the challenge? Recent political science research shows that renewable energy investments allow governments to both realize their national environmental goals and reap political gains by distributing resources to politically powerful groups.
For governments, renewables are a political winner
Governments of all kinds like renewables because they help the environment and, at the same time, make influential constituencies happy.
In a recent article, we show that democratic governments in particular are likely to adopt ambitious, effective renewable energy policies when their electoral institutions give rural voters a lot of influence through what political scientists call malapportionment.
Malapportionment means that some votes are more valuable than others. In rural electoral districts, there are few voters per representative, so the political value of each vote is very high. Malapportionment doesn’t always help the environment; it simultaneously results in lower gasoline taxes and less support for climate agreements. But in this case, it helps.
When rural voters are powerful, governments can put in place a “feed-in tariff” (FIT) policy. Such a policy forces electric utilities to pay more for renewable electricity. Most sources of renewable energy, such as wind and solar farms, rely on large tracts of land. Because farmers have a lot of land, they are well-positioned to take advantage of the FIT. They use their land to install wind turbines and solar panels, and the FIT makes these investments profitable.
Among those who follow these policies, Germany is well-known for its generous feed-in tariffs. In December 2013, the Financial Times reported on German farmers who “reap benefits of harvesting renewable energy,” noting how the German FIT guarantees that landowners with tracts large enough to host renewables will get two decades of profits. In 2014, Germany generated 27 percent of its electricity from renewables. Clean technology enthusiasts consider that evidence of a “wildly successful” policy.
Other countries use different policies. In the United States, the federal government offers a tax break to renewable energy producers and the states make renewable energy mandatory for electric utilities. In China, the FIT is but one of many policies, such as investment subsidies and tax breaks.
Such policies — and profits — grow their own supporters, as one of us has shown. For example, when a wind turbine manufacturer profits from generating renewable electricity, that manufacturer becomes an advocate for still more government subsidies for renewable electricity generation. Over time, as these new advocates become more powerful, the government has strong backing for its clean-energy policy and less reason to back down.
Of course there’s a cost. According to detractors, such as the Economist, “Handing out enormous long-term subsidies to solar farms was unwise; abolishing nuclear power so quickly is crazy.” Researchers at RWI Essen, a German economic research institute, warn that the German FIT has pushed up residential electricity prices, hurting poor households. These critics point out that when the FIT forces electric utilities to buy expensive renewable electricity, they pass on the extra cost to consumers.
So it’s a trade-off
Subsidizing those who produce renewable energy has a good side: Governments can make reliable policies that will help reduce emissions year after year. However, these policies are often so expensive that they make economists cringe.
The challenge, then, is to keep down the costs of renewable energy policy while still pushing the booming clean technology industry to innovate. Escalating costs could result in political backlash. In the long run, the runaway political success of renewables may be the worst enemy of the clean energy revolution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/14/the-paris-climate-agreement-calls-for-massive-investments-in-renewable-energy-heres-why-governments-love-it/
-
Cheap Oil, New Pipelines End Rail Transport Boom, EIA Says
Mar 14, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Robert Grattan
Declining prices and extra pipeline capacity have shrunk U.S. crude by rail shipments, according to an analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The majority of the slowdown has come thanks to slowing shipments of oil from Midwest producers to the refineries of the Gulf Coast. Shipments of crude oil to the East Coast and the Pacific region are down slightly, though still above 2012 levels.
Oil producers initially embraced shipments of oil via rail when surging U.S. shale production outgrew infrastructure for getting oil to market. While shipping via tank car is more expensive than paying pipeline tariffs, rail shipments can come online faster and offer flexible destinations.
Rail shipments peaked at 928,000 barrels per day in October 2014, the EIA said. Most of the oil flowed from the Midwest to the refineries on the coasts, as crude oil buyers looked to cash in on the U.S. oil that was selling for less than oil from overseas. Since then, the incentive to move oil has slipped as the difference between global and U.S. oil prices has narrowed, the EIA said.
“Because domestic crudes such as West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Bakken, which are priced at Oklahoma and North Dakota, respectively, are no longer priced significantly less than waterborne crudes such as North Sea Brent, there is less of a cost advantage for costal refineries to run the domestic crudes,” analysts wrote.
More than half of the oil carried on rails starts in the Midwest and ends up in the East Coast, the EIA said. The figure peaked at 465,000 barrels per day in April 2015, and has declined as refineries have imported more oil. A smaller amount of rail cars head to the West Coast — shipments averaged 139,000 barrels per day of crude oil by rail from the Midwest in 2015, about the same as 2014.
Rail shipments from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast have plummeted from the largest share of the market in 2012 to the smallest in 2015. The shipments started to decline in late 2013 as new pipeline capacity offered producers a cheaper route to the regions refiners. Shipments dropped to 38,000 barrels per day in December 2015, down by 75,000 barrels per day from the previous year.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/03/14/cheap-oil-new-pipelines-end-rail-transport-boom-eia-says/
-
Amtrak Train Derails in Kan., Injuring 29 People
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
An Amtrak passenger train derailed just after midnight today in southwestern Kansas, injuring 29 people.
The 11-car train was traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago when seven cars came off the tracks near Cimarron, Kan. The cause of the derailment is still unknown, but the National Transportation Safety Board is sending a team to investigate, spokesman Keith Holloway said.
The train had about 128 passengers and 14 crew members on board, according to Amtrak. A passenger aboard the train told reporters that emergency responders arrived quickly but the scene was still chaotic.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/14/stories/1060033946
-
N.D.'s Sole Rail Inspector Gets Certified, Starts Work
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
North Dakota's first track inspector under a new safety program helped find more than 400 defective conditions and over a dozen violations -- all before he was granted the ability to work alone.
The state Public Service Commission heard Monday that new inspector Karl Carson had received official inspector certification, according to PSC Chairwoman Julie Fedorchak. The Federal Railroad Administration granted the certification, which enables Carson to work apart from FRA officials in looking for additional violations.
The PSC hired Carson in August as part of a state Legislature-approved rail safety program that adds two new state inspectors to the three already provided through FRA.
Fedorchak said it's unclear when the second position will be certified.
The safety program formed as the PSC looked for better ways to prevent incidents like the 2013 Casselton oil train derailment and the May 6, 2015, Heimdal derailment. No one was injured in either instance.
"We're finding many ways to improve the safety of the rail system in North Dakota," Fedorchak said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/14/stories/1060033884
-
Industry Attorneys Fault Lack Of EPA 'Screening Tools' For Ozone NAAQS
Mar 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Attorneys representing major industries are criticizing EPA's failure to issue "screening tools" that could assist Clean Air Act permit applicants and state regulators in crafting permits to comply with the agency's tightened ozone air standard, saying the lack of such tools creates uncertainty over permits and stalls industrial projects.
EPA has historically used screening tools such as significant impact levels (SILs) and significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs) to help regulators determine whether a project's emissions would contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), including the ozone standards. The tools also have been used to assess whether a more extensive investigation of a project's expected emissions is required.
But in a presentation to a recent Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) conference in Houston, attorney Jeff Holmstead of Bracewell said EPA has failed to issue the tools for its ozone standard of 70 ppb that the agency issued in October. That rule tightened the standard from the previous 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb.
The NAAQS is immediately applicable to new air permit applications, which must demonstrate that a project does not cause a violation of the ozone standard, so industry attorneys say the tools are vital to guide how to write compliant permits. Speaking at the same event, attorney Derek McDonald of law firm Baker Botts expressed similar concerns in his presentation.
Industry lawyers have raised the issue before with respect to the ozone NAAQS, as they say it prohibits industry from proceeding with projects. Under the Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR) permitting programs, permit applicants must demonstrate that their projects do not violate the NAAQS.
Holmstead noted that EPA in a June 30 memorandum last year mentioned two screening tools that it plans to develop for the ozone NAAQS, namely SILs and Model Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPS).
SILs allow permit applicants to avoid a full analysis of emissions impacts if an initial assessment determines that projected emissions from a proposed project fall below the applicable SIL. EPA in its Action Initiation List of rulemakings initiated last May said it intended to publish a proposal on new SILs for both ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS in more than 12 months.
However, in the agency's "Rulemaking Gateway" of pending regulations, EPA now lists the rulemaking in the pre-proposal phase, but does not list an expected publication date for a proposal. Previously, the agency has listed a date of September 2016 for proposal.
Modeling Guideline
EPA in its June 30 memorandum explains the concept of MERP. "To fully implement these proposed changes to the [air modeling] Guideline related to addressing ozone impacts, the EPA intends to pursue a separate rulemaking to establish a technical basis and new values for ozone [SILs] and to introduce a new demonstration tool for ozone precursors referred to as" MERP, EPA says.
"A MERP would neither replace the existing Significant Emissions Rates (SERs) for these pollutants nor serve as the basis for the applicability of PSD requirements to sources with emissions above the SER. However, a MERP would represent a level of emissions of precursors that is not expected to contribute significantly to concentrations of ozone," EPA says.
SERs are another screening tool used for the PSD permit program, which applies to major pollution sources in areas in nonattainment with the NAAQS. Emissions equal to or higher than the SER make the pollutant subject to PSD.
"Our present understanding of the atmospheric science of ozone formation indicates that MERP values for [volatile organic compounds, or VOCs] and [nitrogen oxides, or NOx] will likely be higher than their SERs as criteria pollutants and more appropriate for evaluating their impacts as precursor pollutants to ozone formation," EPA says.
"As part of the separate rulemaking, the EPA intends to demonstrate that a source with precursor emissions of VOC or NOx below the MERP level will have ambient impacts that will be less than the SIL and, thereby, provide a sufficient demonstration that the source will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ozone NAAQS," the memo says.
Industry sources have previously described such screening tools as "super important" to streamline the permitting process, and only gaining in importance as EPA introduces progressively tougher NAAQS. Without such tools, it would be difficult or impossible to demonstrate that no NAAQS violation would ensue, they argue.
Environmentalists' Concerns
However, environmentalists are often opposed to such tools that allow industry sources to assume they will not cause NAAQS violations if they emit pollution under a certain de minimis threshold.
Sierra Club has sued EPA previously over the issue, obtaining a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January 2013 in Sierra Club v. EPA. The court entirely vacated EPA's SMCs for PM2.5, the levels below which sources did not have to impose more extensive air quality monitoring requirements. Further, the court remanded EPA's SILs for PM2.5, requiring EPA to craft new values.
EPA in the Rulemaking Gateway says its forthcoming proposal will in part address the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Sierra Club.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-attorneys-fault-lack-epa-screening-tools-ozone-naaqs
-
EPA Finds 11 States Failed to File Sulfur Dioxide Plans
Mar 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Eleven states have failed to submit plans for fully meeting the federal air quality standard for sulfur dioxide, according to a formal U.S. EPA determination that could lead to sanctions.
The state implementation plans (SIPs) from Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and eight other states were due almost a year ago, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe said in a rule signed late last week that is awaiting publication in the Federal Register.
Once the new "findings of failure" take effect, the 11 will have 18 months to submit SIPs for bringing nonattainment areas within their borders into compliance with the 75-parts-per-billion sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard. If they fail to meet that deadline, increases in SO2 emissions from new or expanded sources will have to be offset by cuts from existing sources, a penalty that could affect efforts to attract jobs and industry. Further delays could prompt federal regulators to impose their own cleanup plans to ensure compliance with the 75 ppb standard by October 2018, McCabe said in the rule.
"This is a wake-up call for hundreds of thousands of Americans," Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said in a press release. With the 11 state governments in question "stonewalling" when it comes to protecting public health, Hitt said, "it's more important than ever that the EPA step up and do its job to promptly put in place federal plans that restore clean air expeditiously."
SO2 is a toxic gas produced by burning coal that can worsen asthma symptoms and narrow the bronchial tubes. SO2, along with other sulfur oxides, can also react with other atmospheric compounds to form fine particles linked to heart and lung disease.
After lowering the primary ambient air quality standard for SO2 to 75 ppb in 2010, EPA made its first round of nonattainment designations in 2013, naming 29 areas in 16 states as out of compliance. Sixteen of those areas -- including Detroit, three counties in central New Hampshire and St. Bernard Parish near New Orleans -- are in the 11 states that have failed to submit SIPs, according to EPA.
The new finding notes, however, that nonattainment areas in Billings, Mont., and part of the Cincinnati metropolitan region in Ohio and Kentucky could be reclassified as compliant. In that case, state implementation plans would no longer be needed for those areas.
EPA released a second round of proposed nonattainment designations last month (Greenwire, Feb. 17). Under a lawsuit settlement with the Sierra Club, the agency must make the remaining designations in 2017 and 2020.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/14/stories/1060033957
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested