Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 3/21/2016
-
(ACC Blog) Hidden in Plain Sight: Nanotechnology Helps Create Color-Shifting Mechanical Chameleon
Mar 21, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
They say you have to see it to believe it. But what if it’s really there – and you just can’t see it? -
(ACC Mentioned) Senators: Put Politics Aside in Reforming America’s Regulatory System
Mar 21, 2016 | GW Today
By Sydney E. Allen
While most of GW was quiet Thursday in the last days of spring break, two U.S. senators were addressing a crowd of more than 300 at the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 8th Annual Conference at the Marvin Center. -
Want to Buy Non-Toxic Products? Look for One of These Five Labels
Mar 21, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Diane MacEachern
When you go shopping, how do you know what products won’t make you sick or trash the planet? It’s pretty confusing, since so many companies use words like “natural” or “safe” or “green, even though... -
What’s In My Peanut Butter?
Mar 21, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Jose Aguayo
Creamy or crunchy? In a sandwich with grape jelly or strawberry jam? On crackers or celery sticks? No matter how you spread it, peanut butter is a staple of the American diet. But what's in it? -
Air Agencies' Chief Has Bold Prediction Should EPA Climate Rule Fall
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The longtime Washington chief of the association of state and local air pollution agencies has a bold prediction as to what will happen should U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan ultimately be vacated. -
After Years Playing Catch Up, BP May Have an Edge in Shale
Mar 21, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
One year into BP's quest to become as nimble in U.S. shale oil plays as its much-smaller rivals, the British oil giant is turning to a drilling technique that's normally used in deep-water fields. -
Trump Hates Hair Spray Regs. But Does He Have an Energy Policy?
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Donald Trump is loaded. He has 673 delegates, billions of dollars and a gun permit. But he doesn't seem to have a coherent policy on energy and climate. -
This Huge Change in How We Get Energy is Coming Much Faster Than Expected
Mar 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
A recent forecast by from the U.S. Energy Information Administration contains a stunning punchline: This year, natural gas is expected to supplant coal as the No. 1 source of electricity in the United States. -
Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions
Mar 21, 2016 | New York Times
By Henry Fountain
The H.B. Robinson nuclear power plant, about 70 miles from Columbia, S.C., has been producing electricity with few interruptions since the Nixon administration. But as of now, its fate is clear... -
Finally, The Tides Are Turning
Mar 21, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jacqueline Savitz
Last week, I was very happy to get the news that, for the near future at least, the Atlantic Coast will be safe from offshore oil drilling. At last, the tide seems to be turning. -
Texas Project Buoys Hope for Cleaner Gas Plants
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
NET Power LLC's plan for an emissions-free natural gas power plant was in the works well before last year's Paris climate accord. -
Groups Plan to Sue if USDA Funds Waste-To-Energy Plant
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
Several Puerto Rican community groups have made public their intent to sue the Agriculture Department if the agency provides federal funding for a waste-to-energy plant on the U.S. territory's northern coast. -
Grid Atttack in Ukraine Was Sophisticated but Beatable -- Report
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
The cyberattack on the Ukrainian power grid last December was the product of a highly sophisticated, monthslong campaign involving a series of linked operations that penetrated, analyzed and exploited weaknesses... -
NASA, Taking Deep Space Safety Expertise to Probe Offshore Risks
Mar 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is partnering with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capitalize on best risk management approaches... -
Top Climate Diplomat to Leave Obama Administration Next Month
Mar 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Todd Stern, a leading architect of the Obama administration's international climate change strategy, will leave the State Department in the coming weeks, he told POLITICO. -
EPA's De Minimis GHG Permit Threshold Expected to Track Current Limit
Mar 21, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA will base the level of greenhouse gas emissions required to trigger major source permitting requirements on past permits that included GHG limits... -
The Next Step for Fixing Flint
Mar 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee met last week to witness one of the most common of Washington exercises: buck-passing.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Hidden in Plain Sight: Nanotechnology Helps Create Color-Shifting Mechanical Chameleon
Mar 21, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
They say you have to see it to believe it. But what if it’s really there – and you just can’t see it?
Imagine buildings hiding in plain sight, clothing able to adapt to the surrounding environment or even planes seamlessly blending into the sky. It’s called active camouflage, and while it might appear to be something out of science fiction, look again: the latest breakthrough in nanotechnology has brought the world one step closer to achieving this reality.
According to a report published in ACS Nano, researchers from Wuhan University in China have created color-shifting plates using a combination of nanomaterials, electrical currents and silver ions that can alter the wavelength of the light the plates reflect.
The chameleon-like technology requires sensors that detect the color variations of its environment. With this information, electrical currents are passed through each plate containing silver ions. Depending on the electrical current, the silver ions’ thickness and orientation change, allowing the plate to reflect different wavelengths of light within seconds.
To demonstrate the technology’s capabilities, researchers created a 3-D printed chameleon covered in the color-shifting plates. In their YouTube video, you can see the chameleon pass in front of three different colored backgrounds. Watch as the plates change from orange to green then to blue as the chameleon passes through each color.
It may seem simple on the surface, but the science behind it is really quite remarkable. Of course, more research is needed to reach the capabilities required for active camouflage, but you could bet it’s enough for the late, great novelist Jules Verne to smile from ear to ear.
The American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel promotes the responsible development of nanotechnology by advancing good product stewardship practices among nanomaterial producers and users. Panel members have the opportunity to help shape the industry’s positions on nanotechnology regulation, research, and stewardship practices and build relationships with other leaders in the field.
Reach out to the Panel manager at Jay_West@americanchemistry.com to learn more about the Panel and how its activities can benefit you and your company.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/03/hidden-in-plain-sight-nanotechnology-helps-create-color-shifting-mechanical-chameleon/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senators: Put Politics Aside in Reforming America’s Regulatory System
Mar 21, 2016 | GW Today
By Sydney E. Allen
While most of GW was quiet Thursday in the last days of spring break, two U.S. senators were addressing a crowd of more than 300 at the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 8th Annual Conference at the Marvin Center.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) serve as chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management (RAFM). As leaders of the subcommittee, they have co-sponsored a number of bipartisan bills aimed at updating the current federal regulatory system and making the rulemaking process more evidence based.
The discussion was moderated by Susan Dudley, director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center and distinguished professor of practice in the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration. Ms. Dudley serves as president of SBCA.
"Our guests have risen above rancorous partisanship and through their leadership together have moved legislation aimed at improving measurement and analysis of regulatory impacts," said Ms. Dudley in her introduction.
In the senators’ remarks, made in a conversation-style format with questions posed by Ms. Dudley, they discussed their efforts to improve regulatory policy and what drives them in their leadership roles in the RAFM subcommittee.
"I came to this committee with the idea that the system that we currently have needs to be looked at," said Sen. Heitkamp. "People in communities throughout the country are looking at some of these regulations saying, ‘What were they thinking? Why are we doing this and how can we fix these problems? How can we change these outcomes?’"
The senators paid tribute to the academics and public policy experts in the audience, who, they said, had their finger more on the pulse of the very complex and technical issues in the regulatory system than the senators did themselves.
"The work that you do is absolutely invaluable. I’m amazed at the amount of people that will come up to me or to other senators and say, ‘Didn’t you know this, this and this?’ As strange as it may sound, members of Congress are not omniscient, and that’s shocking," Sen. Lankford joked as the audience laughed.
"The hardest thing to get in this town is the real number—the hardest thing—because everyone has a different baseline, everyone has a different direction. At the end of the day, we’re accountable with the real number. And so, I just want to tell you that we appreciate what you do very much because you’re trying to drive towards getting to the real number."
And how do Sens. Lankford and Heitkamp balance politics and governing in an ever-divisive political atmosphere?
"If you start from the assumption that your political party will always have the White House, and whatever your political party’s agencies do is right, we will fail because politics change," said Sen. Heitkamp. "The view that we’re taking on all of these issues is not a partisan view, it’s a process view."
"We have to get the pressure valve back on Congress to actually say, "Nothing is going to get done unless you guys actually get together and work this out,’" said Sen. Lankford. "Common ground is tough to find—in this town, it really is."
Sens. Lankford and Heitkamp’s address served as the keynote for the SBCA’s 8th Annual Conference. This year’s event was the third hosted by GW and drew scholars and practitioners from government, academia, nonprofit organizations and private industry around the world.
Both the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration and the GW Regulatory Studies Center are longtime patrons of SBCA, which was founded at the University of Washington Evans School of Public Policy and Governance with support from the MacArthur Foundation. The American Chemistry Council sponsored the lunch event on Thursday. The three-day event included a day of pre-conference professional development workshops covering various topics in benefit-cost analysis and two days of the conference. Nearly 20 GW faculty, staff and students participated in the conference as panel chairs, presenters and volunteers.
https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/senators-put-politics-aside-reforming-america%E2%80%99s-regulatory-system
-
Want to Buy Non-Toxic Products? Look for One of These Five Labels
Mar 21, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Diane MacEachern
When you go shopping, how do you know what products won’t make you sick or trash the planet? It’s pretty confusing, since so many companies use words like “natural” or “safe” or “green,” even though these descriptions don’t actually mean anything.
Fortunately, independent organizations are setting standards that motivate companies to eliminate use of toxic chemicals in their manufacturing process. Companies that meet the standards earn the right to put a label on their packaging signifying the product is safe to use.
Here are five labels you can look for that will help you stay safe when you shop:
1. MADESAFE
MADESAFE screens products for endocrine disruptors, BPA, phthalates, developmental toxins, heavy metals, fire retardants, pesticides, herbicides, toxic solvents, harmful volatile organic compounds and GMOs. It screens cosmetics, home goods, personal care items, condoms and mattresses for starters. Virtually any consumer product can be evaluated to determine that goods are made entirely from ingredients that are not known or suspected to harm human health. Once a product achieves MADESAFE designation, it can go through a lab testing process to ensure that it is truly non-toxic. MADESAFE examines products already on store shelves, but also provides guidelines to companies as they are formulating new products.
2. GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals
GreenScreen offers a tool to identify known chemicals “of high concern to human health and the environment.” The GreenScreen List Translator ranks chemicals based on more than 40 hazard lists developed by national and international scientific organizations as well as non-profit research institutes. It’s particularly useful to help companies identify which chemicals they need to phase out of their products. Right now, GreenScreen is being used by software manufacturers, electronics manufacturers and textile and apparel companies like Nike.
3. GreenSeal
This independent non-profit organization has developed a certification process to ensure that a product meets meaningful performance, health and environmental criteria. Manufacturers use it to help eliminate toxic chemicals in their products. Consumers can look for the seal on household cleaners, carpet cleaners, construction materials, paints and coatings, printing and writing paper, hand soaps and cleaners, even paper towels, napkins and tissue paper. Hotels and restaurants may be Green Seal-certified as well. Some GreenSeal certified cleaning products you might recognize include Green4Kleen, Natures Solution, Sustainable Earth by Staples Glass Cleaner and Rhino Pet Stain and Odor Remover.
4. EWG Verified
Environmental Working Group (EWG) has been a pioneer in raising awareness about toxic ingredients in personal care products. Their new label verifies that products do not contain ingredients on the group’s “unacceptable” list, which they describe as meaning ingredients that post health, ecotoxicity and/or contamination concerns. Products must fully disclose all ingredients on their label, including ingredients used in fragrance. EWG Verified products must also follow the European Union’s labeling guidelines for nanomaterials used in cosmetics. Among the companies that are EWG Verified are Beauty Counter cosmetics, MyChelle Dermaceuticals, Rejuva Minerals and Jouve serum.
5. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics doesn’t have a label per se. However, it’s compiled a comprehensive database you can refer to whenever you’re buying make-up or nail polish. Start by reviewing the group’s list of Chemicals of Concern. Then download their tips on ingredients to avoid in conditioner, lipstick, hair dye, fragrance, sunscreen, skin lighteners, moisturizer and nail polish.
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/21/buy-non-toxic-products/
-
Mar 21, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Jose Aguayo
Creamy or crunchy? In a sandwich with grape jelly or strawberry jam? On crackers or celery sticks? No matter how you spread it, peanut butter is a staple of the American diet. But what's in it?
Old-school peanut butter was made from one simple ingredient: ground roasted peanuts. But nowadays, if you pick up a jar from a supermarket shelf, odds are that it contains much more. Today many commercial brands have added sugars, salt, hydrogenated oils and other preservatives.
Many peanut butter manufacturers have long added a pinch of salt for flavor, and peanuts naturally contain small amounts of sugars. But today’s processed brands often contain copious amounts of both added sugars and added salt.
Reduced-fat peanut butters are some of the worst offenders. Manufacturers often take out healthy monosaturated fats, then add much more sugar and salt to boost the flavor. The average American already gets too much salt and sugar, so eating more in peanut butter is something you should definitely try to avoid.
Hydrogenated oils, as well as preservatives like potassium sorbate, are added to extend peanut butter’s shelf life. Of special concern are hydrogenated oils, present inover 80 percent of peanut butter brands. These oils are chemically altered by adding extra hydrogen atoms to make the oil molecules more solid and stable. Peanut butters with stable hydrogenated oils last longer. But hydrogenated oils also introduce artery-clogging saturated and trans fats to peanut butter's otherwise-healthy fat profile.
Trans fats are some of the worst ingredients commonly found in food. These man-made fats increase your bad cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein, or LDL) while decreasing your good cholesterol (high-density lipoprotein, or HDL). Ultimately, trans fat intake increases your risk of heart disease, obesity and diabetes.
Though not as bad for your health as partially hydrogenated oils, fully hydrogenated oils are still a source of saturated fats and a minor source of trans fats. Most research shows that in general, the higher your saturated fat intake, the greater your risk of developing coronary heart disease. For a healthy heart, the American Heart Association recommends avoiding foods with hydrogenated oils, including peanut butter.
If you are looking for a healthy peanut butter made with just peanuts and maybe a pinch of salt, sifting through the many brands with unnecessary added ingredients can be frustrating. That’s where EWG can help. Check out this list with our top 10 peanut butters.
Also, use EWG’s Food Scores and download our app on Google Play and the App Store to find the best peanut butters out there.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/03/what-s-my-peanut-butter
-
Air Agencies' Chief Has Bold Prediction Should EPA Climate Rule Fall
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The longtime Washington chief of the association of state and local air pollution agencies has a bold prediction as to what will happen should U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan ultimately be vacated.
States such as California and the members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, along with numerous large cities and counties, will move ahead with their own programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions, said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.
And that "patchwork quilt of greenhouse gas reduction programs at the state and local level will trigger a rush -- ironically, by the same opponents [of the Clean Power Plan] -- to EPA and to Congress to sort this out," Becker said last week at a forum sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy.
Regulated electric utilities, the largest of which operate in multiple states, will "come forward and make the case for a federal program," he said.
While the Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan could be in place well into 2017, if not early 2018, two-thirds of the states "are either moving full speed ahead or are moving directionally ahead but maybe slowing down their pace a bit" toward possible compliance with the rule, Becker said.
And even in states that are suing to stop the EPA rule, some governors are directing their staffs "to continue some of the discussions, to continue doing analysis and to try to be prepared to comply," he said.
By Becker's count, there are nine or 10 states that "from the get-go are already meeting their 2030 mass-based targets" under the rule.
"About 30 states are more than halfway toward meeting their 2022 interim targets, and 20 states are already more than halfway toward meeting their 2030 final targets," he said.
While the CPP's requirements are "tough for many states, they are not nearly as onerous as opponents are suggesting," Becker said.
Tonight in Washington, the University of Chicago Energy Policy Institute will host a panel discussion on what impact the Supreme Court's recent stay could have on the Clean Power Plan and its potential effects on energy producers, prices, markets and the environment.
On Tuesday, two House of Representatives subcommittees will hold hearings on EPA's budget request, and the back-and-forth undoubtedly will touch on the agency's controversial rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Administrator Gina McCarthy will be testifying.Greenwire's Amanda Reilly will be reporting.
Also on Tuesday, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Bureau will host an all-day stakeholder meeting in Des Moines that will feature modeling presentations by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, MidAmerican Energy, Alliant Energy, the American Wind Energy Association and the Electric Power Research Institute. EnergyWire's Jeffrey Tomich will be reporting.
In case you missed it:
EPA will respect the Supreme Court's stay of its climate rule, said acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe. But the agency will continue working out the details on some of the Clean Power Plan's more technical underpinnings to aid states that want to move forward with carbon emission reductions (ClimateWire, March 18).
The Clean Power Plan could force more coal plant retirements than initially expected in the nation's midsection, according to the most recent modeling by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (EnergyWire, March 17).
If Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland were confirmed by the Senate, his record indicates a positive view of EPA's climate rule (EnergyWire, March 17).
Missouri lawmakers are pushing legislation to prohibit the state from planning for the Obama administration's climate change regulation until the Supreme Court stay is lifted (ClimateWire, March 16).
Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, says EPA used "unreasonable" assumptions in the climate rule (OnPoint, March 15).
Emails expose tension in Michigan between Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and his attorney general over federal climate change regulations (ClimateWire, March 14).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060034325
-
After Years Playing Catch Up, BP May Have an Edge in Shale
Mar 21, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
One year into BP's quest to become as nimble in U.S. shale oil plays as its much-smaller rivals, the British oil giant is turning to a drilling technique that's normally used in deep-water fields.
In Colorado and New Mexico's San Juan Basin, BP has drilled three so-called multilateral wells, which have one vertical well-bore and four or five horizontal branches, saving on costs of drilling individual wells, and eliminating the need for roads and other infrastructure connecting separate drilling sites. They're nearly two-thirds cheaper to develop than BP's older wells there, and they put out more crude.
The initiative is one of the latest examples of the oil industry's efforts to innovate during the brutal oil downturn that has cost oil companies in Houston and across the nation thousands of jobs and billions in earnings.
BP, which runs its U.S. business out of Houston with about 6,000 local employees, plans to expand the practice and its broader U.S. portfolio as it grasps for oil trapped in separated layers of subterranean rock.
"There's a constant push to increase your capital efficiency," said David Lawler, chief executive of BP's U.S. Lower 48 Onshore business, in a recent interview. "We still have a ways to go, but at this point we're competitive with industry. In the past, we just couldn't move fast enough. Somebody else was already ahead."
Smaller, independent drillers have wielded control of most U.S. shale rock for years, snapping up land in the most prolific oil plays before major oil companies had decided shale could be a commercial success. The smaller companies can move faster than their larger rivals because they don't have the thick layers of bureaucracy typical of Big Oil companies that scrutinize every detail of their multibillion-dollar investment decisions.
BP was no different, Lawler said. In 2014, the company decided to split its U.S. onshore segment into a new business, flattening its corporate structure. Later that year, the company hired Lawler, the former chief operating officer of independent oil producer SandRidge Energy.
Throughout the downturn, BP's shale business has cut U.S. jobs and, like its rivals, has squeezed oil field service companies for better terms. Drilling multilateral wells has been "dramatically helpful" in its cost-cutting effort and has become a meaningful part of the business.
"We're trying to evaluate the whole model and take out as much cost as we can," Lawler said. "We've streamlined the decision-making process so now we can acquire land quicker and we can deploy rigs quicker. The guidelines we've been given in the Lower 48 is no harm to people, don't harm the environment, but we have the autonomy to drill where we need to."
Today, BP has 5.5 million acres in U.S. shale plays and seems to have an edge over its smaller rivals, who would likely run into more challenges with the complex multilateral drilling.
Drilling more than one horizontal lateral pathway through an oil reservoir is commonplace in deep-water oil fields - where BP does most of its drilling - because offshore rigs are static. It's rarely used on land because oil producers can simply move their rig when they want to tap into another part of an oil formation.
"Economically and environmentally, (multilateral drilling) would be a net positive," said Michael Myers, a petrochemical engineering associate professor at the University of Houston. "In shale gas, it's a lot of mom-and-pop, low-tech people doing the work, and BP certainly would have a lot more drilling experience. For the less technologically competent companies, it might be beyond their reach."
That's not to say the U.S. shale oil industry isn't adapting. Its drilling costs have come down by a quarter since the oil bust began because of lower service costs and innovations including drilling longer, 10,000-foot horizontal legs that can reach more oil, and blasting more powerful cocktails of water, chemicals and sand underground to blast open shale rocks.
Some of the industry's first wells drilled in North Dakota's Bakken Shale had more than one lateral because the state limited the reach of the underground legs.
But the wells had problems. Several lateral formations closed up within a year. Oil companies eventually redrilled those locations with one long lateral that was more firm.
For many of the Bakken companies, the problem was that to drill a second or third leg, they would have to drill holes in the cement casing securing the opening in the rock that feeds oil and gas to the well-bore, said Luke Clausen, chief operating officer and co-owner of DTC Energy Group, a drilling consultancy in North Dakota.
"You have exposure to an open hole somewhere," Clausen said. "It's not new technology. But BP's edge to it may be very new."
BP may be the one of the few companies that adopts the multilateral drilling strategy in U.S. shale plays, said David Pritchard, a drilling consultant in San Antonio.
That's because in U.S. waters, the government sells large blocks of drillable acreage, but on land, with lease and private property ownership, an unending tangle of private interests and royalty schemes determine who gets what from the oil below.
So drilling multiple legs in a single well means the legs will more than likely cross into land owned by different interests, requiring companies to "make sure those flow streams stay separate and are accounted for separately," Pritchard said.
"Otherwise you can't distribute the revenue interest among the owners as proportional as it should be," he said. "That might be the single biggest factor why … there would be limitations on how widespread (multilateral drilling) actually becomes."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/After-years-playing-catch-up-BP-may-have-an-edge-6925275.php
-
Trump Hates Hair Spray Regs. But Does He Have an Energy Policy?
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Donald Trump is loaded. He has 673 delegates, billions of dollars and a gun permit. But he doesn't seem to have a coherent policy on energy and climate.
Trump to this point has offered campaign pitches rather than policy positions on issues related to greenhouse gases, fossil fuel development and renewable electricity. It appears that the Republican front-runner hasn't hired a top energy adviser, according to multiple GOP analysts who work on the issue.
"I haven't seen any evidence that he's got somebody working with him directly on energy policy," said George "David" Banks, a former climate aide in the George W. Bush administration. "At some point, look, he's going to have to do that."
Trump has won 19 states and more than half of the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Several advisers interviewed for this story expressed skepticism about working for Trump based on his controversial remarks and his inattention to federal policy.
One person who has advised Republican presidential candidates described Trump's understanding of environmental regulations as "pathetic" after hearing him say that aerosols from hair spray can't escape his luxurious apartment in New York City. Ozone-depleting compounds in hair spray were outlawed in 2010.
Others aren't opposed to working with the man under the red trucker hat.
To some, Trump's omissions represent an untapped policy well. Who knows, maybe he's less obstructed by ideology and political history than other candidates, said Phil Kerpen, a conservative policy analyst who's offered to provide his insights to the Trump campaign.
"With a campaign like Trump's, where a lot of people seem to be committed to sort of raging against him to the bitter end even if he ends up the nominee, I think it would be much more productive to say, 'Here are some things you can move in a conservative direction on,'" Kerpen said, noting the limited number of positions taken by Trump.
"So it's almost a green field to have sort of these policy debates and sort of convince him the free market view is the best one," he added.
Kerpen resembles some of Trump's current campaign advisers. He once worked for Americans for Prosperity, as did Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager. Alan Cobb, a Trump consultant, works for the Kansas chapter of AFP.
Kerpen recently said that he offered his expertise to the Trump team but hasn't been given an answer.
Trump: 'Are people in favor of that?'
Others are having similar thoughts. One GOP energy adviser said he's grappling with the idea of pitching his services to the front-runner. Trump isn't his first choice, and he has "fairly serious reservations" about Trump's aggressive personality and the appearance that he's so unmoored from public policy.
"I've been looking at Corey Lewandowski's phone number for, now, five days," said the adviser, who spoke anonymously to avoid angering a different candidate, whom he's currently advising. "I just get the horrible feeling that 20 years from now we're gonna look back on it and think, 'Anybody involved with that was an idiot.'"
It's not clear whether Trump is entertaining offers, or if the persona he crafted on his hit television show by bellowing "You're fired" would be directed toward establishment policy advisers. His campaign did not respond to requests for comment about his views on areas like fracking rules, offshore oil drilling and carbon regulations. His spokespeople also didn't answer a question about who, if anyone, is helping him on energy issues.
Trump has provided previous opinions on certain issues, if not polished policy plans.
He said as president he would slash funding for U.S. EPA. It appears that he hasn't commented directly on the agency's Clean Power Plan, though he does criticize EPA regulations generally as costly exercises in government overreach.
On fossil fuels, Trump has largely spoken on the margins in this race. He has attacked President Obama and previous administrations for not taking Iraq's oil before it could be used by the Islamic State group. He has also criticized Obama for not destroying Middle Eastern oil wells under the influence of Islamic fundamentalists because, he says, the president is concerned about contributing to the global carbon footprint.
He has expressed support for fracking and made suggestions that domestic oil and natural gas production could be increased. But Trump hasn't introduced specific plans. At the same time, he accused chief rival Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas of being overly influenced by oil industry campaign donations.
Sometimes Trump's lack of policy expertise shows through. In February, he declined to take a position on allowing oil drilling 50 miles from the coast of Florida during an interview with theTampa Bay Times.
"Are people in favor of that?" Trump asked a local reporter during the interview, adding later that an expansion of offshore drilling would be "a little bit of a shame because there's so much fracking, and there's so much oil that we have now that we never thought possible."
"That's an issue I'd absolutely study and do the right thing," he added.
'It's a hoax, a lot of it'
Last week, several news outlets reported that Trump's campaign copied verbatim portions of Ben Carson's health care plan. Carson, who dropped out of the race, endorsed Trump before the alleged incident.
One Republican lobbyist thinks Trump doesn't get enough credit for his policies. The lobbyist pointed to Trump's earlier criticism of the production tax credit for wind developers as a sign that he studies certain energy issues. Trump's campaign has also released six written policy plans on taxes, veterans, guns, immigration, trade and health care.
But those prescriptions are easily outshined by Trump's bombastic comments.
Trump provided perhaps his most expansive views on environmental regulation in a South Carolina rally at the end of December. He entertained his audience by balking at EPA regulations restricting ozone-depleting substances, some of which were once used in pressurized cans of hair spray.
"But it's sealed, it's beautiful," Trump said of his apartment. "I don't think anything gets out. And I'm not supposed to be using hair spray."
He then transitioned into a series of comments on climate change.
"But think of it. So Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and the -- a lot of it's a hoax, it's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, OK? It's a hoax, a lot of it. And look, I want clean air, and I want clean water. That's my global -- I want clean, clean crystal water, and I want clean air. And we can do that, but we don't have to destroy our businesses. ... And by the way, China isn't abiding by anything," Trump continued. "They're buying all of our coal; we can't use coal anymore essentially. They're buying our coal, and they're using it. Now when you talk about the planet, it's so big out there -- we're here, they're there, it's like they're our next-door neighbor, right, in terms of the universe. Miss Universe, by the way, I made a great deal when I sold -- oh, did I get rich."
Hamm and Trump are friends
The Republican energy adviser who's helped presidential candidates in the last two elections suggested that those kind of comments might make it difficult for Trump to recruit an experienced policy professional to help steer his campaign. But he might not have to.
"That's pathetic. It's beyond laughable," the adviser said of Trump's comments. "I'm sure he doesn't know the difference between CO2 and carbon monoxide. But that's what this man is, and he's figured out the pulse on what's selling right now. He doesn't have to worry about the nuts and bolts of any particular policy, whether it's energy or anything else."
Congress is one place where candidates often go to fill their policy needs. In 2012, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and her staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee worked closely with Mitt Romney. The former Republican presidential nominee recruited at least two staffers from the committee, including his full-time energy adviser, Rebecca Rosen.
"We made a concerted effort to help Romney," said Robert Dillon, Murkowski's former communications director who now works at Strategies 360. "But I am not aware of anybody who is helping Trump. I think he has his own people and his own thing. We're kind of mainstream Republicans."
Earlier this month, there was speculation that Harold Hamm, the billionaire oilman who helped guide Romney's campaign, might be joining forces with Trump. He told The Wall Street Journalthat Trump is "unstoppable" and called on conservatives to line up behind him.
Hamm's spokeswoman, Kristin Thomas, said the oil executive hasn't committed to a candidate, and she declined to confirm or deny whether Trump has sought to recruit him. She noted that Hamm and Trump have known each other for a long time.
"But at the end of the day, we're not doing anything until there's a candidate," Thomas said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/03/21/stories/1060034312
-
This Huge Change in How We Get Energy is Coming Much Faster Than Expected
Mar 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
A recent forecast by from the U.S. Energy Information Administration contains a stunning punchline: This year, natural gas is expected to supplant coal as the No. 1 source of electricity in the United States. Gas will supply 33.4 percent of power, and coal will contribute 32 percent, the EIA projected in the March installment of its Short-Term Energy Outlook.
“This would be the first time that natural gas has generated more power than coal on an annual basis,” the agency says. Natural gas beat out coal during several months last year, but beating it out for the year is another matter and far more momentous.
The projection came out earlier this month, but it was highlighted by the EIAlast week, along with the following chart showing just how dramatically the way we get electricity has changed over the past 60 or so years, with the current transition representing just one of many:
Still, it is fair to say this latest change has taken everyone by surprise. The Environmental Protection Agency, in the Clean Power Plan released last year, projected that natural gas would hit 33 percent of generation and that coal would sink to 27 percent, in 2030 under the policy. Instead, that natural-gas target has more or less already happened today, even though the Clean Power Plan itself hasn’t even been implemented and remains tied up in court.
The reason, clearly, is the shale gas boom which has dramatically driven down natural-gas prices. Here’s a figure from the EIA, showing what occurred:
The price of natural gas — in dollars per million British thermal units, or BTUs — has been below $2 for much of this year.
“The energy system tends to move really slow, with a lot of inertia, except when it doesn’t,” Richard Newell, a Duke University energy expert and a former administrator of the EIA, told me last week. And when it comes to the natural-gas boom unleashed by fracking, “that was a case when it really didn’t,” Newell said.
The EIA also says that coal generation will decline by 3 percent this year, because of continuing coal plant retirements, even as renewables will continue to grow. (2016 is expected to be a new record year for installations of U.S. solar.)
The overall effect of these changes will be a slight decrease in the United States’ greenhouse-gas emissions from the use of energy (their biggest source), the agency projects. They declined 2.4 percent in 2015 and should drop another 0.3 percent this year.
Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions. But considerable controversy remains over just how much fugitive gas emissions to the atmosphere, due to drilling operations and other leaks, undermine this benefit. (Natural gas, comprised chiefly of methane, releases carbon dioxide when burned. But if methane wafts into the air without that happening first, it has a much greater warming effect than carbon dioxide over short time frames.)
Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have split markedly on the subject of natural gas. Clinton has defended natural gas as a lower-carbon “bridge fuel” into an era dominated by renewables. But Sanders has called for a ban on fracking, the technology behind the unconventional gas boom, because of its environmental consequences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/21/this-huge-change-in-how-we-get-energy-is-coming-much-faster-than-expected/
-
Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions
Mar 21, 2016 | New York Times
By Henry Fountain
The H.B. Robinson nuclear power plant, about 70 miles from Columbia, S.C., has been producing electricity with few interruptions since the Nixon administration. But as of now, its fate is clear: The plant will have to shut down by 2030, when it will be six decades old.
The Robinson reactor is one of the oldest still operating in the United States, but many others are getting on in years. From 2029 to 2035, three dozen of the nation’s 99 reactors, representing more than a third of the industry’s generating capacity, will face closure as their operating licenses expire.
Any shutdowns would be another blow to nuclear energy, which provides 19 percent of the nation’s electricity but has struggled in recent years to compete against subsidized solar and wind power and plants that burn low-priced natural gas. Industry advocates say that by removing sources of clean electricity — a nuclear reaction produces no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases — the closings could affect the government’s ability to fulfill its pledge, made at the Paris climate talks last year, to reduce emissions.
And to continue to meet the nation’s electrical load, new generating capacity will have to be built to replace any that is lost.
“Some of those plants are going to be retiring,” said Stephen E. Kuczynski, the chief executive of Southern Company’s nuclear subsidiary. “Which means we’re going to need to meet this load with something.”
Given the sometimes glacial pace of design, licensing and construction in the nuclear industry, the 2030s are not far-off. Plant operators may be able to buy time by seeking license extensions for another 20 years from theNuclear Regulatory Commission, or by building more large reactors like four that are under construction.
The industry and the Department of Energy are also pinning their hopes on the development of less conventional reactor designs that are meant to be safer and cheaper to build and operate. Yet it is unclear whether any new designs could reach the market in time to make a dent in the generating capacity lost as plants are closed.Continue reading the main story
Some in the industry are bullish, including Southern, which announced inJanuary that it would receive up to $40 million from the Department of Energy to develop an advanced reactor that uses molten salt as a coolant instead of water, which all current designs use.
“Our target is — can we really move the process forward and have a commercial option by 2030?” Mr. Kuczynski said. To do that, he and others say, the pace of the design process, and of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review process, needs to be sped up.
But some say the shortened timetables are unrealistic, given safety and other concerns and the need to test new designs before seeking approval from the commission.
“It’s a 25-year process, no matter what,” said Michael McGough, the chief commercial officer of NuScale Power, which is the furthest along among companies working on less conventional reactors. NuScale’s design, called a small modular reactor, uses water as a coolant, but the units are far smaller than current reactors and have advanced safety features. They could be built largely in a factory, saving money, and up to 12 of them could be installed at one site.
Mr. McGough knows all about long timetables; NuScale’s design has been under development since 2000. It has lined up a potential first customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, or Uamps, which operates in the Intermountain West, and hopes to have 12 of the small reactors operating at a site in Idaho by the mid-2020s.
“It’s improbable to me that you will see any new design developed or licensed in a much shorter time frame than the kind we’re on,” Mr. McGough said.
NuScale has been testing its design for 13 years, using a nonnuclear prototype. Later this year, it plans to submit an 11,000-page application to the N.R.C. to have its design certified. The commission then has up to 40 months to review the application.
The certification process, and a later application by Uamps for a construction and operating license, could be delayed if the N.R.C. asks for more information.
But even if all goes smoothly, the plant will produce only about half the electricity of many existing reactors. About 50 of these 12-reactor plants would be needed to replace the generating capacity that could be lost by 2035.
Many in the industry hope that extending the licenses of existing reactors will forestall at least some closings. Nuclear plants were originally licensed for 40 years, but almost all have sought and received 20-year extensions.
The regulatory commission has begun researching what would be required to extend a plant’s life to 80 years. “We’re asking very basic questions, like how long can a reactor vessel remain acceptable since it’s being bombarded by neutrons,” said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the commission. “The information we have at this point is that those are issues that are not showstoppers.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/nuclear-energy-power-plants-advanced-reactors.html
-
Finally, The Tides Are Turning
Mar 21, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jacqueline Savitz
Last week, I was very happy to get the news that, for the near future at least, the Atlantic Coast will be safe from offshore oil drilling. At last, the tide seems to be turning.
We are turning away from energy policies that rely on fossil fuels that choke our atmosphere, dirty our waters and warm our planet. We are turning away from an energy source that someday will run out. We are finally showing that America can lead the rest of the world into a new century in which we will let science, good stewardship and common sense guide our decisions about how we power our homes, our cars and our factories.
We applaud the Obama administration, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for listening to the coastal residents, business owners and political leaders all along the Atlantic coast, whose livelihoods and way of life were threatened by the specter of coastal industrialization and oil washing up on their beaches. With a unified voice, more than 100 coastal communities said “no” to offshore oil drilling and seismic blasting in the Atlantic. Their hard work, their passion and their determination has paid off.
This is also a win for democracy. In a political climate marked by cynicism about corporate influence in politics, this shows that speaking out against powerful interests is not a vain pursuit. With this decision, coastal communities have won a ‘David vs. Goliath’ fight against the richest companies on the planet, and that is a cause for tremendous optimism for the well-being of future generations.
We have heard words from Obama about the need to address climate change. Last week, we saw him turn those words into action.
The Paris Agreement was a promising step, and it is gratifying to see our leaders showing the world that we can do more than make empty promises. We are taking concrete steps to begin the shift towards a renewable energy future. We can meet our energy needs through technologies like solar and offshore wind; we need to make an active effort to make that happen. And that means turning away from business-as-usual when it comes to fossil fuel production, exactly as the president did last week.
Research has demonstrated that there is incredible potential for job growth and innovation in the renewable energy sector, far more than there is with continued reliance on the fossil fuel industry. The fact that oil companies take ever greater risks to chase ever smaller amounts of oil is proof that this is an industry on its way out. Renewable energy is the way of the future, and the U.S. can either lead or follow. With this announcement, Obama showed us how we are going to lead.
This is a wonderful win for the oceans. Those of us who have been fighting to keep the Atlantic free of oil rigs return often to the devastating example of the BP Deepwater Horizon. I was in the Gulf after the explosion and the disastrous spill. I saw dolphins swimming in oil. I saw once-clear marshes turning black. I saw the fishing boats heading out to sea, outfitted for cleaning up oil, instead of catching fish. Where we drill, we spill, and once we spill, there is no going back. Oil, and the chemicals used in its clean up, can forever alter ecosystems in ways we are just beginning to understand.
When you see the face of a person who realizes that their world is forever different, that they will never get their way of life back, it stays with you. I saw that look on the faces of Gulf residents after the BP spill. Now, when I take my nieces and nephews to the beach, one of my favorite things to do, I can delight in that look of joy on their faces when they leap into the waves. Now, I can appreciate their smiles, knowing that tar balls and oil-soaked seabirds will not extinguish their happiness. Today, their ocean—our ocean – is safe.
Congratulations to the Obama administration for making the right choice. Congratulations to the volunteers and advocates who worked tirelessly to get the voices from the coastal communities into the halls of Washington. Last week, those voices were heard.
Savitz is the Vice President for U.S. Oceans at Oceana, the largest international advocacy group working solely to protect the world’s oceans.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/273603-finally-the-tides-are-turning
-
Texas Project Buoys Hope for Cleaner Gas Plants
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
NET Power LLC's plan for an emissions-free natural gas power plant was in the works well before last year's Paris climate accord.
But the global agreement to limit the rise in temperatures bolstered NET Power's view that a new approach to generating electricity is needed with carbon cuts on the horizon. The company aims to produce power by skipping a traditional steam system in favor of one that uses high-pressure carbon dioxide.
Durham, N.C.-based NET Power broke ground in Texas this month on a 50-megawatt demonstration project, which is expected to be operational in 2017 (Greenwire, March 11). Bill Brown, the company's CEO, recently outlined a goal of making "cleaner power cheaper than dirty power" -- while using natural gas. Energy experts in Texas are eagerly watching the project.
"The only way that you're going to meet those climate targets is if you aggressively deal with the carbon that is being put into the atmosphere by fossil fuels," Brown said in an interview.
ET Power is backed by prominent names, including 8 Rivers Capital LLC, Exelon Corp. and Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. (CB&I). Brown, who co-founded 8 Rivers, hopes the expertise of the parties will help NET Power spread its technology across the country. Exelon and CB&I are contributing funding for the project.
The $140 million price tag includes the demonstration plant and related research, development and testing, and Brown estimated he could make 20 sales if he had a commercial turbine ready. NET Power plans to pursue 295 MW versions if the pilot pans out, and it sees the potential to gain a best-available control technology label to further its momentum.
For now, the focus is on getting the La Porte, Texas, demonstration project up and running. It uses what's known as the Allam Cycle, which is named for Rodney Allam. He formerly worked at Air Products and Chemicals and is a partner with 8 Rivers.
NET Power's pilot will use a supercritical CO2 turbine and combustor from Toshiba Corp. CB&I is handling construction of the plant, while Exelon is slated to deal with operations and maintenance. 8 Rivers is working to advance the technology associated with the project.
The system attacks what NET Power calls two major problems: a reliance on steam as an inefficient working fluid and tackling air emissions as an afterthought.
NET Power's setup, according to a company release, burns natural gas with oxygen and uses high-pressure CO2 to drive a turbine. That allows the plant to generate electricity, water and "pipeline-ready" carbon dioxide that could be used for other purposes.
More than 'fantasy'
Brown said the target cost for this sort of facility is that of a normal combined-cycle plant, or about $1,000 per kilowatt. "We have to make it no cost to be clean," he said. The company is aiming for about 59 percent efficiency, which Brown called in the range of a normal combined-cycle turbine.
The NET Power project features solid engineering fundamentals on paper and a good team, according to Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin. In other words, it looks real to someone who sees a lot of ideas.
"For me to say this one is not a fantasy, I think, is a glowing compliment," said Webber, whose research team has an unrelated project underway with CB&I.
Webber said a couple of points will require exploration, including how needing pure oxygen instead of air on the front end affects energy use. The other is what happens to CO2 at the end in terms of possibly using it for enhanced oil recovery or sequestration.
NET Power would have to pay for both fuel and oxygen at its plant, Webber noted, but it wouldn't have the same exposure to CO2 costs that other facilities may face. He said he's excited by the possibilities of innovation in response to a potential price on CO2.
"This is what happens when you start to take carbon seriously," he said.
For Exelon, NET Power is part of an examination of how to expand and diversify its role in the energy sector, according to Bill Harris, a company spokesman. The company already is known for its large fleet of nuclear reactors.
In a statement, Harris called Exelon's NET Power involvement "one of the efforts we're undertaking to drive innovative approaches to meet the increasing demand for clean, cost effective electricity in the domestic and global economies."
NET Power said separating out CO2 will be simpler than in other plants because the process starts with pure oxygen. The company focused on gas as its fuel after looking at coal earlier, and that decision seems in keeping with market trends.
Water benefits aren't as clear. Avoiding steam on the front end should bring some water savings. NET Power said customers could use air or water for cooling later in the process. That decision would affect water usage and performance for the plant, as air cooling isn't as efficient.
Complementing renewables
John Hall, state director of the Texas clean energy program with the Environmental Defense Fund, said he plans to meet with NET Power's Brown this week to learn about the project.
Hall described natural gas as among the key options in a cleaner energy mix, particularly given the intermittency of popular wind and solar facilities.
"The worst thing that could happen to renewables is for the lights to go off," he said. "And so we see gas as being very important."
Concerns remain about methane emissions related to gas development activities, but Hall said efforts to find solutions are ongoing. Meanwhile, he said, lowering or eliminating emissions from gas power plants could ensure long-term viability of the fuel. Gas is a popular choice for developers in Texas' main power market, which is operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
"The market within ERCOT is already rapidly transforming Texas' electricity sector so that we will get our sources of electric energy from wind, solar and natural gas," Hall said, adding that energy efficiency could play an increasingly important role.
With excitement around NET Power's concept, how might failed or expensive attempts by other companies to create cleaner fossil plants affect the emissions-free push?
Brown said his project's pricing actually can help draw people to NET Power. The company said a development such as Kemper -- a Southern Co. project in Mississippi that aims to gasify coal and capture a good chunk of carbon emissions -- has a number of other infrastructure costs.
Or what about the uncertainty around the Clean Power Plan? U.S. EPA's rule aimed at lowering power-sector CO2 emissions is on hold because of a stay by the Supreme Court. Brown said NET Power can be a hedge for utilities to let them invest in a cleaner option while still using gas.
What about commodity prices? Brown said the company doesn't need a certain oil price, although it would like to profit from its CO2, which could be used in enhanced oil recovery. Brown said that, while NET Power could benefit from very low gas prices, he thinks prices that are too low hurt the planet by making renewables less attractive.
Ultimately, NET Power is looking for power companies to include emissions-free gas plants in their integrated resource plans. Finding out whether the Texas pilot project is a success could be a big moment.
"As a country, too often we have given up on new startups because they're so expensive," Brown said. "But NET Power should be a real demonstration that there is a way forward of doing something breakout like this."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/21/stories/1060034310
-
Groups Plan to Sue if USDA Funds Waste-To-Energy Plant
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
Several Puerto Rican community groups have made public their intent to sue the Agriculture Department if the agency provides federal funding for a waste-to-energy plant on the U.S. territory's northern coast.
Earthjustice, the national nonprofit environmental law firm, and the Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic have said they will represent the community groups should a legal battle ensue.
The groups include Amigos Del Río Guaynabo Inc., Ciudadanos En Defensa Del Ambiente, Comité Basura Cero Arecibo, Madres De Negro de Arecibo and Sierra Club de Puerto Rico.
In a statement late last week, officials with Earthjustice said the incinerator project near the town of Arecibo would elevate health risks for the community.
The incinerator could also be bad news for the island's endangered species, including the Puerto Rican crested toad, Puerto Rican boa, manatees and the Puerto Rican parrot, Earthjustice said.
"Any way you look at it, the Arecibo Incinerator is a disastrous idea for the people, environment, and financial health of Puerto Rico," said Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Smith in a statement.
"USDA has not adequately looked at many of these issues, including impacts to threatened and endangered species from a project that will emit tons of hazardous pollutants into the air and pump millions of gallons of water a day from Puerto Rico's largest wetland reserve," he said. "USDA must conduct an endangered species consultation because the scarce analysis it has done to date does not meet the requirements of the law."
The proposal has been on the table since 2010, when USDA first considered using federal funds to help the group Energy Answers build the facility. Locals are concerned the incinerator would result in dirty energy for years to come and send toxic pollutants into the area.
The people of Arecibo are no strangers to pollution. The municipality has suffered from pollution for decades, advocates said. And the air in Arecibo already exceeds safe concentrations for lead.
There are a number of polluting industries present, including a battery recycling operation that led U.S. EPA to declare the area a nonattainment zone for surpassing lead pollution limits.
Area residents fear the toxic ash produced by the incinerator could contain unsafe levels of mercury, lead, cadmium and dioxins.
In a statement for Earthjustice last year, Puerto Rico's former chief of staff Ingrid Vila said the incinerator posed an environmental and health threat.
"An objective analysis of correct and updated data makes it obvious that the Arecibo incinerator is undesirable and not economically viable and would result in negative impacts to human health, the environment and the economy," wrote Vila, who as chief of staff was the third-highest-ranking member of the Puerto Rican government.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/21/stories/1060034336
-
Grid Atttack in Ukraine Was Sophisticated but Beatable -- Report
Mar 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
The cyberattack on the Ukrainian power grid last December was the product of a highly sophisticated, monthslong campaign involving a series of linked operations that penetrated, analyzed and exploited weaknesses in the regional electric utility control systems, according to a new analysis by U.S. grid experts.
The extended time required to prepare and carry out the campaign could have allowed Ukraine's Kyivoblenergo regional utility to discover the attack had it had the right detection tools and used them effectively, said the report by Robert M. Lee, Michael Assante and Tim Conway of SANS Industrial Control Systems, a leading cybersecurity research and training center. Two other "oblenergoes," or power distributors, were also targeted by hackers.
"In a prolonged attack campaign there are likely numerous opportunities to detect and defend the targeted system," the new SANS report said. "[I]n an ICS (industrial control system) environment there is more time for defenders to identify the types of attacks that are most concerning."
However, in this case, the evolving attack went undetected, it added. "[T]here did not appear to be ... any resident capability to continually monitor the ICS network and hunt throughout it for abnormalities and threats," the authors said. "These provided the adversary the opportunity ... to learn the environment and execute the attack."
The report drew no conclusions about the identity of the attackers, although the Ukrainian government and many analysts have attributed the incident to Russian hackers due to the nation's conflict with Ukraine, the identification of Russian Internet addresses and phone numbers used in the attack, and the use of the historically Russian BlackEnergy 3 malware variant. "This information alone is not sufficient for attribution" on the source of the attacks, the SANS report said.
The cybersecurity firm iSIGHT Partners Inc., recently acquired by FireEye, has reported that BlackEnergy 3 was likely created by a group called the Sandworm Team, calling it a "Russian nexus group" with funding and ties to the state (EnergyWire, Jan. 25).
It all started with a pop-up
The campaign began with delivery of malware-corrupted Microsoft Office documents that were emailed to administrators and IT personnel in the utilities. When opened, the documents produced a pop-up that enabled additional document features.
Clicking on the pop-up activated BlackEnergy 3 malware, opening a secret communications path between the attackers and the utility computer networks. This access enabled the attackers to steal legitimate credentials and locate connections between administration networks and operating systems that gave the attackers remote control over equipment.
The attack shut down 30 substations in all, the SANS authors said.
The attackers were able to insert commands that were probably designed and tested before the attack for quick and predictable deployments, the report said -- the first such successful attack on a utility system.
The SANS report's advice included installing programs to monitor computer behavior and usage by key employees to identify abnormal activity; mapping pathways that attackers could use to hijack control systems; maintaining protected copies of key files and firmware; creating choke points that force traffic from remote terminals through security screens; and designing and rehearsing emergency procedures to limit damage when an attack is discovered.
The authors said the emphasis on the particular variety of attack malware used against the Ukraine utilities is misplaced. "[T]he sophistication of the attack was not in the choice of malware that originally enabled the access to the ICS, but with the months of activity [by the attackers] in the ICS network," where they stealthily planned and coordinated the multistage assault that crippled three distribution utilities within minutes, the SANS report said.
"Too much focus on malware used in this attack moves defenders into a model where they are waiting for guidance on what the known bad attack components are so they can eliminate them," the report said. It is far more important to understand control systems' vulnerabilities regardless of the malware used to initiate an attack, the authors said.
Striking size and scope
Some observers have speculated thats the strike was retaliation for the attack on power pylons last November that knocked out electric power for 2 million Crimean residents. The SANS report noted that the initial phase of the attack on Kyivoblenergo began months before. "Therefore, the Crimea attack could have served as a catalyst but not the original motivation," it said.
Other reports have also pinned the Sandworm/BlackEnergy team for intrusions in Ukrainian media, mining and railway companies. The U.S. Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) said in a recent alert that in addition to the regional utilities, "three other organizations, some from other critical infrastructure sectors, were also intruded upon but did not experience operational impacts."
Ed Cabrera, vice president for cybersecurity strategy at Trend Micro Inc., said the range of targets made the campaign "much more concerning" to him. The attack on the power distributors was even coordinated with a separate "telephone denial of service" -- thousands of calls designed to flood customer service networks.
"It shows a level of sophistication, not only in understanding the critical infrastructure that they're targeting, but also the necessary and dependent supply chain partners to that organization," Cabrera told EnergyWire in a recent interview. "I think the goal is probably to have a sustained impact on critical infrastructure as a whole."
The sheer number of attackers that would have had to be involved in such a synchronized effort points to a well-funded threat, analysts say.
And while the operational impacts have been confined to Ukraine, the quiet but wide-ranging response from several U.S. government agencies and utility industry groups suggests at least some perceived risk to American infrastructure. The FBI said in a statement that the agency "continue[s] to assess the situation for potential impact on U.S. investigative or cyber defense capabilities," labeling the Ukraine case "an ongoing matter."
Meanwhile, ICS-CERT, which along with the FBI dispatched analysts to Ukraine following news of the cyberattack, has stressed the need to keep a closer eye on industrial control networks. In a newsletter, Homeland Security's control system specialists didn't mention Ukraine, but they did warn grid operators and other key organizations to prepare for an incident.
"Even with the best cyber defense mechanisms in place, cyber incidents will likely occur," ICS-CERT concluded.
U.S. Navy Adm. Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, put it more bluntly at the RSA Security LLC cybersecurity conference earlier this month. "It is only a matter of the when, not the if, you are going to see a nation state, a group or actor, engage in destructive behavior against critical infrastructure in the United States," he said, going on to describe the "well-crafted attack" that led to the Dec. 23, 2015, blackout in Ukraine. "Seven weeks ago, it was the Ukraine. That isn't the last we're going to see of this, and that worries me."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/21/stories/1060034326
-
NASA, Taking Deep Space Safety Expertise to Probe Offshore Risks
Mar 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is partnering with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capitalize on best risk management approaches from the aeronautics industry to offshore worker and environmental safety.
The five-year agreement announced Thursday is designed to strengthen protections on the Outer Continental Shelf.
“Both BSEE and NASA work in harsh and uncompromising environments, relying on cutting edge technology to go deeper and further than previously thought possible,” said BSEE Director Brian Salerno. “This partnership brings together technical experts from BSEE and NASA to focus on the specific risks associated with offshore operations so that we can continue to find ways to improve safety for offshore workers and protect the environment.”
NASA agreed to assist BSEE in achieving three objectives:
Further develop risk management capability through NASA's probabilistic risk assessment technique;
Evaluate, design and test technologies and hardware, including emerging technologies and best available/safest technologies; and
Assess failures and near-miss occurrences using the resources of NASA's accredited failure analysis laboratory at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston.
NASA’s probabilistic risk assessment, a technique to quantitatively model risk, was used to model the Space Shuttle Program and is being used today for the International Space Station and Orion deep space capsule programs.
“Whether the task takes one to deep space or into the deep ocean, the analysis of the environment, training of personnel and risk mitigation factors are similar,” said JSC’s Jack James, technology transfer strategist.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105766-nasa-taking-deep-space-safety-expertise-to-probe-offshore-risks
-
Top Climate Diplomat to Leave Obama Administration Next Month
Mar 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Todd Stern, a leading architect of the Obama administration's international climate change strategy, will leave the State Department in the coming weeks, he told POLITICO.
Stern led the U.S. negotiating team that helped cinch a landmark global warming deal last year in Paris, an achievement that capped his nearly two-decade-long career in climate diplomacy. In the run-up to the negotiations, Stern worked to keep fast-developing nations at the negotiating table — at one point taking a lead Chinese diplomat to a baseball game — in order to secure an agreement that for the first time committed every nation on earth to limiting its carbon footprint.
Much of the work implementing the Paris agreement will fall to President Barack Obama's successor, who will likely be either former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has promised to build on Obama's climate policies, or business mogul Donald Trump, who has dismissed concern about the issue.
Despite the wide gulf between the two party's front-runners, Stern said he was confident the deal he helped negotiate would survive the next administration.
"I don’t think any president is going to pull us out of Paris," he said in an interview, warning that the deal has won such wide-ranging buy-in that reneging on the agreement would have dire diplomatic consequences. "We would shoot ourselves in the foot if anybody were to try to pull ourselves out of Paris."
Although his role at the State Department prevents him from weighing in on the election, Stern had some kind words for his former boss.
"Secretary Clinton took me on her very first trip as secretary of State," which included stops in China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea, he said. "She wanted to signal to those countries that climate change was a big deal for us."
The December climate deal the first time commits nearly 200 developed and developing countries to begin taking steps to curb their emissions.
"This feels like the right time for me to go," Stern said, adding that he wanted to stay at the department long enough to help secure the agreement. He called the Paris deal a "career highlight."
Stern plans to step down as the State Department's special envoy for climate change on April 1. An administration official said the White House will appoint Jonathan Pershing, a top Energy Department official and former State Department climate negotiator, as State's new climate envoy.
While Stern is still sorting out his post-government plans, he said his goal is to begin teaching at a university in the fall.
Soft-spoken and professorial, Stern has been a steady presence at the State Department for most of the Obama administration and through the tenures of both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. He cut his teeth during the Bill Clinton administration, where he was a senior negotiator during the 1997 Kyoto climate summit.
Stern worked behind the scenes with other top administration officials to lay the ground work for the Paris agreement by cultivating stronger relationships with major emitters, even at one point taking China's lead climate negotiator to a Chicago Cubs game. When the December talks finally arrived, he played a central role in reassuring jittery international negotiators and ensuring that the talks didn't implode.
"For more than seven years, the president has relied on Todd Stern’s expertise and advocacy to help build a durable global coalition to combat climate change," said Brian Deese, a senior White House adviser. "From a sustained effort to craft an historic climate agreement with China to overseeing one of the most complex international negotiations in history leading up to the Paris agreement, Todd’s contributions to protect our planet, our health and our national security from the risks posed by climate change will benefit people across the world for decades to come."
Kerry praised Stern's contribution to the negotiating team.
"I have felt fortunate from day one to have Todd on my team, and we have all benefited from his mastery of the climate challenge and all of its nuances, his diligence, and his negotiating skills," he said in a statement. "He played an enormous role in achieving so many of our climate milestones, and the tireless work by Todd and his team over many years will benefit future generations in every corner of the globe."
Despite last year's momentum, Stern said he never felt like the deal was a sure-thing. "We certainly didn’t go to Paris feeling that the thing was in the bag. We didn’t think the thing was in the bag even when we were in the middle of Paris," he said, explaining that when it finally became clear that the deal was close, "I suddenly started thinking, 'Oh my God, this is actually happening,' and I kind of got chills at that moment."
Stern stressed that success in Paris was a team effort, pointing to Obama and Kerry's high-level diplomacy and the commitment of White House and State Department staff. "This is not any kind of a one man show to put it mildly," he said.
Even during the many near-collapses of the negotiations over the years, Stern said he never despaired. "You have to have a particular kind of constitution to do a job like this," he said. "It was not in my nature to walk around with your head down in a deep despair."
Stern will depart before an April 22 United Nations ceremony in New York City where dozens of countries, including the United States, will sign the Paris climate deal, bringing the agreement closer to entering into force. But Stern said he is confident that the U.S. is on track to implementing the deal and he stressed that Pershing's transition will be seamless.
Pershing, Stern's former deputy, will help oversee implementation of the deal, and he'll play a key role in day-to-day climate diplomacy ahead of bilateral visits and in multilateral forums such as the G-20. The post does not require Senate confirmation.
"Jonathan will have no learning curve at all. He knows this stuff backwards and forwards," Stern said. "He’s known all over the world. He knows the issues.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/03/pro-stern-resigning-restuccia-102513
-
EPA's De Minimis GHG Permit Threshold Expected to Track Current Limit
Mar 21, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA will base the level of greenhouse gas emissions required to trigger major source permitting requirements on past permits that included GHG limits, suggesting that the de minimis threshold level to trigger best available control technology (BACT) reviews will be similar to the current 75,000 ton per year (tpy) level the agency has been using, sources say.
EPA told its Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently that it is reviewing its past prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting activity to determine how to set a proposed significant emissions rate (SER) for GHGs.
“The EPA is mainly basing our proposed GHG SER on a review of past permitting activity to determine the types and sizes of GHG emission units that are likely to be part of PSD permits that could be issued for 'anyway sources' in the future,” the paper says.
The proposed SER, expected to be issued in October, would establish a threshold below which BACT is not required for a PSD source's GHG emissions.
EPA is setting the threshold after the Supreme Court in a 2014 decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA rejected portions of EPA's tailoring rule.
The rule had generally sought to set GHG thresholds above which new and modified stationary sources would be subject to PSD permits, which regulate major sources in areas that meet federal air quality standards.
It did this by tailoring statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy for conventional pollutants to GHGs to prevent regulation of office buildings and small shops, with the rule's Step 1 setting a 75,000 tpy permit limit.
But the high court's decision narrowed the rule's reach after finding that the agency lacked authority to require major source permits for facilities' GHGs alone. The justices said EPA should set a de minimis threshold for when GHGs trigger BACT reviews, which are emissions control reviews required in PSD permits, but gave no direction on how to craft the threshold.
The high court remanded litigation over the permitting program back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which then heard additional briefing on how to proceed. The court ultimately sided with EPA by scaling back the permitting rule to comply with UARG and remanding it to the agency to craft the new threshold.
Critics, led by the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group, unsuccessfully petitioned the high court to bar EPA from including GHGs in any permit until it completed the SER rule, including any judicial review, but the court denied that request, leaving the agency free to move forward with permits as it crafts the rule.
In the interim, EPA is using its current 75,000 tpy of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) -- the threshold it set in Step 1 of its tailoring rule.
Permit Clearinghouse
An EPA spokeswoman said in a statement the agency is “reviewing relevant information including, but not limited to, past permitting actions.” She added that the proposal, slated for publication this year, “will contain information regarding the proposed significant emission rate threshold, as well as an explanation of the rationale for that proposal.”
The agency added in the document to the SAB that in addition to looking at past permitting activity it will base its SER on information in what is known as its RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, as well as data submitted to the agency that was used to establish the original tailoring rule, which provided “actual, historical information on the type of emissions units undergoing GHG BACT review at the 75,000 tpy” level.
The clearinghouse is a voluntary national reporting database on PSD permits, including permits for which no GHG BACT review was conducted after GHGs became regulated in 2011, EPA notes. The agency reviewed this data to “further characterize PSD permits in regards to potential GHG emitting sources and to specifically identify the likelihood of new 'anyway' PSD sources emitting (or a modified 'anyway source' increasing GHG emissions in an amount less than 75,000 tpy CO2e.) Such a source would not have been subject to GHG BACT review under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule.”
Industry sources say they do not have a specific number in mind for what would be an acceptable GHG trigger threshold for anyway sources.
One source with the manufacturers' working group says it has not been focused on the administrative rulemaking, while an industry attorney who follows permitting issues says the paper sounds like EPA will settle on a trigger similar to 75,000 tpy, which may be “reasonable” given that facilities permitted using that thresholds are not complaining.
“It seems like they have found a way to deal with this” even when they exceed that number, “so industry has worked through some of these issues already,” the source says, adding that unless EPA intends to push for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, options to reduce GHGs from fossil-fueled sources are “pretty limited.” However, the source cautions that is not an endorsement of any upcoming proposal.
One environmentalist says that when EPA was drafting its initial tailoring rule -- which started off with the 75,000 tpy to trigger GHG permits and then began phasing the threshold down in additional steps that were effectively vacated by the high court ruling -- some groups pressed for low limits that would regulate small facilities but others sought to correlate large facilities' GHG emissions with what they would be emitting in criteria pollutants to trigger PSD.
This may be the approach EPA is taking here, based on the description to the SAB, the source says, adding that approach would be “validating.”
The groups that sought the correlation were pressing for EPA to come up with a sector-specific GHG threshold that would capture the largest sources, and seek to reduce GHGs only at facilities that emitted at over that threshold and presumably could be more efficient.
The groups looked at GHG emissions of 25,000 tpy, 75,000 tpy, 100,000 tpy and 200,000 tpy as possible thresholds to see how big facilities with that kind of GHG output would be, and how that size matched up with the statutory thresholds for conventional pollutants.
However, the source also notes that BACT is “a ceiling, not a floor” and is intended to push facilities that must go through the review to do better.
Coal-Fired Power Plants
In the case of a coal-fired power plant that would be subject to both GHG BACT under PSD and EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) rule that is based on the installation of partial CCS, BACT could “push things forward.”
For example, if the NSPS rate-based limit is based on installation of CCS with a 30 percent capture rate, then the BACT review could seek to get even more reductions, expressed as a more stringent tpy limit.
A second environmentalist says it is difficult to imagine a source that is large enough to trigger PSD for its conventional emissions would not trigger it for GHGs. Also, the source says in order to determine a de minimisemissions level below which is not worth regulating, “you have to appropriately weight the cost of carbon,” and the administration's current cost of around $50 per ton is too low, given the potential damage from climate change.
Also, the source says that in general, permitting authorities have not been ambitious with GHG BACT reviews, despite opportunities to get more emission reductions. “Permitting agencies should be looking for more aggressive ways to reduce GHGs. BACT is a powerful tool and it seems it could be used much more aggressively.”
Finally, this source does not expect EPA to include any biomass-specific language in the de minimis proposal even though the agency is facing a court challenge over its determination in a GHG BACT analysis for a biomass power plant that biomass generation is a GHG control. That proposed facility, a 31-megawatt plant in California, underwent a GHG BACT review for biomass right after the D.C. Circuit rejected the agency's bid to temporarily exempt the fuel from the tailoring rule. The plant would be a PSD “anyway” source because of its other emissions.
The case, Helping Hand Tools, et al. v. EPA, et al., in the 9th Circuit, has been fully briefed since December but oral arguments have not yet been set.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-de-minimis-ghg-permit-threshold-expected-track-current-limit
-
The Next Step for Fixing Flint
Mar 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee met last week to witness one of the most common of Washington exercises: buck-passing. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) testified that “career bureaucrats” were responsible for the disastrous lead poisoning in Flint’s tap water, and he placed another heap of blame on the federal Environmental Protection Agency for failing to act sooner. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy shot back that the state created the problem and dragged its feet when the EPA started to ask questions.
In fact, government at every level bears some responsibility.
The state is most to blame. As Ms. McCarthy pointed out, a state-appointed emergency manager sanctioned switching the city’s water source to the corrosive Flint River, and state environmental regulators, who are the responsible, frontline officials under federal law, failed to ensure people did not get poisoned. A state investigation pointed squarely at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. Snyder himself deserves blame for apparently remaining oblivious to lead contamination months after Flint residents began complaining about disgusting water.
Even Ms. McCarthy admitted, however, that the EPA could have acted more forcefully, particularly as the potential for an extremely serious public-health problem became clearer. “I wish we had yelled it from the treetops,” she said. Susan Hedman, a top EPA official who resigned over the Flint situation, saidin a hearing earlier last week, “I don’t think anyone at the EPA did anything wrong, but I do believe we could have done more.” In this horrifying case, that is a distinction without much of a difference.
The EPA’s Republican antagonists bear some blame, too — not for poisoning Flint’s water, but for galling hypocrisy afterward. They frequently complainthat the EPA runs roughshod over state prerogatives, and they routinely attempt to undermine the agency. Yet now they focus their fire on the EPA for failing to act aggressively. In fact, what their questioning showed is that hamstringing federal environmental regulators, who tend to have more expertise, in favor of state officials can have disastrous consequences. It would be an outrageous irony if they used the Flint episode as pretext to undercut the EPA further.
The most useful part of last week’s Flint hearings did not concern the proper distribution of blame. Lawmakers also brought attention to the task ahead, which will require decades of effort. First there is the question of making the city’s water safe again. Flint River water has corroded the city’s plumbing, so even switching back to water from Lake Huron has not fixed the problem. Many pipes will have to be replaced.
Yet fixing the infrastructure is easy compared with the public-health challenge. Some of the worst consequences — including permanent developmental disabilities — will be felt by the youngest. Mr. Snyder repeatedly assured lawmakers that the state has hundreds of millions of dollars set aside to deal with the consequences. But will state leaders feel as generous five, 10 or 30 years from now? The state must ensure that resources will be available for as long as Flint’s residents, who were betrayed by their government, need them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-next-step-for-fixing-flint/2016/03/20/74cf347a-ed4c-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested