Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/5/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC, NMP Group Call for Review of TSCA Work Plan Process
May 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has called on the US EPA’s Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) to evaluate the process by which the agency identified TSCA work plan chemicals in 2012 and 2014, particularly as it relates to exposure. -
US FDA Consults on 3M Food Additive Petition
May 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is consulting on a food additive petition filed by 3M Corporation. This asks the agency to revoke authorisation for the use of two substances as food contact materials. Both contain perfluoroalkyls (PFAS)... -
What’s An “Organic” Mattress, Anyway?
May 3, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Shoppers searching for a mattress want the safest option they can afford. Attracted by labels claiming that products are “eco-friendly,” “natural,” “certified” or “organic,” many are willing to pay more for them. But what do the labels really mean? -
Jury Awards $55m In Latest J&J Cancer Lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | Sky News
By Sky News US Team
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55m (£37.7m) in the latest legal fight over claims that its talc-based powder causes cancer. -
Sabine Pass Seeks Full Operational Status as Soon as Today
May 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Cheniere Energy Inc. expects to start full operations of its first liquefied natural gas exporting facility today, marking the opening of a new era of U.S. gas exports. -
4 Signs We're Getting Serious About a Potent, Long-Overlooked Climate Pollutant
May 3, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
Environmental Defense Fund has long argued that methane, that “other important greenhouse gas,” should be part of any serious discussion about national and global climate action. This year, we’re finally having that discussion. -
End Fossil Fuel Leasing to Save Massive Emissions -- Paper
May 3, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Halting federal leasing of coal and oil on public lands could save 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030 and put the United States on a path consistent with keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, a new analysis finds. -
House Dems Want Arctic Drilling Yanked from Leasing Plan
May 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
More than 60 Democrats -- and one Republican -- are asking the Obama administration to remove the Arctic Ocean from its five-year oil and gas leasing plan. -
Fracking Fight in Colorado Heads to the Ballot
May 3, 2016 | AP (In Fuel Fix)
Colorado’s battle over who should regulate fracking — and how much — now shifts to the November election after the state Supreme Court overturned attempts by local governments to impose their own rules. -
Rocky Mountain Sense
May 2, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Mark down Monday’s decision on hydraulic fracturing by the Colorado Supreme Court as a win for rationality in public policy, which at times can seem an increasingly rare event. -
Subsidies in the Wrong Places Skew Renewable Energy’s Power
May 3, 2016 | New York Times
By Joseph Aldy
Renewable power has experienced tremendous growth: Wind and solar’s share of total U.S. power generation increased to 5 percent in 2015 from less than 0.5 percent in 2005. This growth reflects both innovation driving down costs and an array of subsidies... -
Nearly Every State Suing Over Obama’s Climate Plans is Burning Less Coal Anyway
May 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
More than two dozen states have sued over the Obama administration’s signature climate rule, the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to cut back the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in coming years by shift away from carbon intense power sources... -
NFG Continues to Curtail Marcellus Volumes on Low Prices
May 3, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
An unseasonably warm winter across its service territory and low commodity prices during the fiscal year (FY) second quarter, drove down earnings and prompted more natural gas curtailments in Pennsylvania for National Fuel Gas Co (NFG). -
Officials Mull Revamp of Electric System as Blackouts Loom
May 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
The last time California dealt with extended rolling power blackouts, the turmoil transformed the state's electricity system. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lack of Use Sparks Questions About Expedited Approval Program
May 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Only one chemical facility has used a highly touted expedited approval program authorized under a 2014 law, calling into question the usefulness of the provision. -
Iran's Cyber Army - The Latest in a Series of Maleficence
May 3, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Alireza Jafarzadeh
In July, when the P5+1 struck a nuclear deal with Iran dubbed as “historic,” administration officials spun it as a first step on a path toward improving Tehran’s behavior. -
Refiners Take Tank Car Battle to STB
May 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A monthslong dispute over a BNSF Railway Co. rate hike for older, flimsier oil tank cars could be settled by the federal Surface Transportation Board, based on filings last week. -
How an Environmentalist Responds When a Koch Executive Acknowledges Climate Change
May 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
Koch Industries, generally viewed as Lucifer by environmentalists, surprised people at a recent Wall Street Journal forum when the company’s director of environment, health and safety, Sheryl Corrigan, said that climate is real and people have something to do with it.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC, NMP Group Call for Review of TSCA Work Plan Process
May 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has called on the US EPA’s Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) to evaluate the process by which the agency identified TSCA work plan chemicals in 2012 and 2014, particularly as it relates to exposure.
According to comments submitted for the CSAC’s consideration, ACC senior director Steve Risotto said: “Although EPA has suggested that exposure can be addressed as part of the problem formulation step for a chemical, exposure potential is a critical component in the initial screening of chemicals and should not be deferred to a subsequent activity.”
The trade group’s call for review came in response to an EPA request for public comment, regarding its upcoming CSAC orientation meeting. The new advisory group, formed in 2015, will be convening on 11 May to “consider and review background information on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the act's work plan chemical programme and aspects of its risk assessment approaches.”
Included as “evidence of the need for the CSAC to review the process that EPA used to identify work plan chemicals” is the trade group’s petition to the EPA, which challenged the selection of phthalic anhydride.
Copies of the EPA’s response, and the ACC’s subsequent request for reconsideration, have been submitted too.
Separate comments, by the N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) Producers Group, provided the CSAC with an “overview of highly problematic issues” encountered during the TSCA work plan assessment of NMP.
The consortium raised several concerns, including that:
· the EPA assessment relied on exposure scenarios that ran counter to safety data sheet (SDS) safety instructions;
· stakeholder involvement in the initial review stage was “difficult to achieve”;
· the peer review process was “rushed”, and not posted in a public docket; and
· stakeholder feedback was “ignored”.
The letter was submitted in the hope that the CSAC can “resolve these issues for NMP, and ensure the same problems do not occur for other TSCA work plan chemicals”.
The CSAC is charged with providing scientific advice and recommendations to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Following the orientation meeting, it will convene on 24-26 May to review the EPA draft risk assessment for 1-bromopropane (1-BP).
https://chemicalwatch.com/47094/acc-nmp-group-call-for-review-of-tsca-work-plan-process
-
US FDA Consults on 3M Food Additive Petition
May 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is consulting on a food additive petition filed by 3M Corporation. This asks the agency to revoke authorisation for the use of two substances as food contact materials. Both contain perfluoroalkyls (PFAS) and act as water and oil repellents in paper and paperboard.
The petition says that the two substances are no longer manufactured for food contact use in the US, and the company has permanently and completely abandoned their use.
It adds that 3M has no intention to manufacture, import, nor maintain an inventory for their sale or distribution in the future. Therefore the FDA’s food additive authorisation –which they had requested in the past – is no longer necessary.
The company was the exclusive manufacturer of these substances domestically and internationally for the abandoned uses.
The company also submitted information on its 2002 voluntarily phase-out agreement with the US EPA for perfluorooctane sulfonate. This is used to produce the two petitioned substances.
The FDA is requesting comments that address whether the food additive uses of the substances have been completely abandoned in the US. It says only comments regarding abandonment, and not safety of the uses of the two substances, will be considered.
The public has 60 days to submit comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47072/us-fda-consults-on-3m-food-additive-petition
-
What’s An “Organic” Mattress, Anyway?
May 3, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Shoppers searching for a mattress want the safest option they can afford. Attracted by labels claiming that products are “eco-friendly,” “natural,” “certified” or “organic,” many are willing to pay more for them. But what do the labels really mean?
“Eco-friendly” or “natural” mattresses may use organic materials, avoid harmful additives such as fire retardants or release fewer chemical fumes – a process known as “off-gassing.” But no law or governing body currently regulates these terms, so you can’t be sure which benefits you’re getting.
“Certified” mattresses are reviewed by third party organizations, whose mark assures shoppers that the product meets their quality criteria. That criteria, however, can vary widely. Among the more stringent certifications are the Global Organic Textile Standard and Oeko-Tex Standard 100.
What about “organic”? The U.S. Department of Agriculture allows companies to claim that a mattress is organic if the natural fibers it contains were cultivated according to guidelines of USDA’s National Organic Program. You may see USDA’s well-known certified organic seal or certification of the National Organic Program on the label. But neither guarantees that the entire mattress is free of ingredients that may cause concern.
For a more rigorous certification than USDA’s, look for the Global Organic Textile Standard, or GOTS. USDA allows mattresses to use “organic” on the label if they are made according to GOTS, but they won’t necessarily carry the USDA organic seal.
GOTS requires that at least 70 percent of cotton or wool fibers are organically grown. In the remaining 30 percent, it bans the use of polyurethane foam and hazardous chemicals, including fire retardants and formaldehyde based-glues. The GOTS certification also requires manufacturers to provide fair working conditions and wages. (The Global Organic Latex Standard monitors organic latex in mattresses.)
Compared to conventional mattresses, certified-organic options contain fewer pesticide residues, fewer harmful chemicals and fewer fumes to inhale – benefits many shoppers feel justify a higher price tag. That’s why GOTS recently won a civil lawsuit and filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to ban companies from inaccurately labeling mattresses with the GOTS logo. The actions follow what GOTS calls “widespread inaccurate and misleading use of the term ‘organic’ by U.S. companies and marketers in connection with textile products.”
Regulations apply to crib and infant mattresses as well. Read more tips on finding a crib mattress with fewer chemicals on the Healthy Child Healthy World blog.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/what-s-organic-mattress-anyway
-
Jury Awards $55m In Latest J&J Cancer Lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | Sky News
By Sky News US Team
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55m (£37.7m) in the latest legal fight over claims that its talc-based powder causes cancer.
A St Louis jury handed down the verdict after deliberating for eight hours on Monday.
It comes after a jury awarded $72m in February to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to decades of using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.
In the latest lawsuit, Gloria Ristesund blamed her ovarian cancer on years of talcum powder use.
Her attorney, Jim Onder, said Johnson & Johnson knew about the "dangers associated with talcum powder for over 30 years".
"Instead of giving a warning, what they did was target the groups most at risk for developing ovarian cancer," he said.
Johnson & Johnson said it will appeal the latest ruling.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for the firm said the verdict "goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc".
"For over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has provided consumers with a safe choice for cosmetic powder products and we will continue to work hard to exceed consumer expectations and evolving product preferences," Carol Goodrich said.
The company is facing some 1,200 similar lawsuits.
The suits allege that the health products firm actively covered up studies that suggested a link between ovarian cancer and their baby powder in order to boost sales.
In 2011, Johnson & Johnson vowed to remove "chemicals of concern" from its baby products, the AP news agency reported. It said its adult products would be reformulated by 2016.
http://news.sky.com/story/1689468/jury-awards-55m-in-latest-j-and-j-cancer-lawsuit
-
Sabine Pass Seeks Full Operational Status as Soon as Today
May 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Cheniere Energy Inc. expects to start full operations of its first liquefied natural gas exporting facility today, marking the opening of a new era of U.S. gas exports.
In a filing Friday with federal regulators, Cheniere officials said all project requirements had been met and requested permission to place the first train at Sabine Pass LNG into service by today. The facility has sent out seven cargoes over the past eight weeks in a "commissioning" process that put the new equipment through its paces, with shipments going to buyers in Brazil, Argentina, India, Portugal and the Middle East.
The first commissioning shipment was delayed several weeks due to a technical problem, but subsequent tanker loadings have proceeded rapidly.
Acknowledging the tough environment for LNG at a time when low crude prices have dragged down natural gas indexes worldwide, officials expressed confidence that markets would recover and demand would grow.
"We believe our business model and favorable contract features will enable us to successfully navigate a cyclical commodity environment and support long-term value creation for our shareholders," the company said in its 2015 annual report, released Friday.
"While current market perception appears to be that there is an oversupply of LNG, we believe this to be temporary and that additional projects need to start reaching [final investment decision] within the next year or two in order to meet the expected demand growth in the coming years," the company said.
About 190 million metric tons per year of incremental LNG supply will be needed by 2030, requiring 45 new LNG trains with production capacity similar to those Cheniere is using, according to company estimates.
Cheniere executives projected confidence about the two export terminals it currently has under construction, consisting of five production "trains" in Louisiana at Sabine Pass LNG, as well as two more at Corpus Christi LNG in Texas.
In its annual report, Cheniere said 87 percent of the total expected production capacity at the seven trains has been contracted to reputable buyers under long-term contracts. The second production train at Sabine Pass is due to reach full operational status by the end of this year, with the remaining five trains coming online after that.
Cheniere said its main long-term contract structure -- in which the company secures natural gas supplies and liquefies the fuel, selling it at the plant's "tailgate" with flexibility for buyers about whether and where to send cargoes -- has proved attractive.
It also looks good for Cheniere. Sale and purchase agreements include a charge of 115 percent of the Henry Hub natural gas price in the month for which the cargo is scheduled, plus a fixed fee. Total fixed fees for the seven LNG processing trains under development come to about $4.3 billion per year, the company says.
The start of commercial revenues is a welcome milestone for Cheniere, after more than a decade in which the company has operated in the red as it has pursued first an LNG import terminal and then, following the dramatic turnaround in U.S. natural gas fortunes, an export facility.
Charif Souki, who guided Cheniere through most of that period as the company's president, CEO and chairman, was forced out in December over differences about Cheniere's future direction. Souki was interested in pursuing additional lines of business, including in small-scale natural gas production for domestic use and exporting natural gas condensates, while others in the company felt it should stick more narrowly to bulk LNG (EnergyWire, Dec. 15, 2015).
In December, activist investor and board member Carl Icahn said in a statement that "the board wished to move the company in a direction that differed greatly from the path Mr. Souki wanted," and Souki resigned his board post in February (EnergyWire, Feb. 22).
In the annual report, Neal Shear, the company's interim CEO, stressed discipline and project execution. "Our priorities remain focused on executing construction of the trains, which continues to progress on budget and ahead of contractual schedules, and on the transition of Cheniere into an operating company," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/03/stories/1060036610
-
4 Signs We're Getting Serious About a Potent, Long-Overlooked Climate Pollutant
May 3, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
Environmental Defense Fund has long argued that methane, that “other important greenhouse gas,” should be part of any serious discussion about national and global climate action. This year, we’re finally having that discussion.
Thanks to a confluence of recent events in the United States and beyond, methane – which today accounts for one-quarter of the warming Earth is experiencing – has become a topic of global conversation. All we need now is the will to act.
We know affordable and effective solutions exist to prevent,detect and repair leaks in the oil and gas sector. Here are four reasons I believe 2016 may finally be the year we begin to take truly comprehensive measures to address methane pollution, one of our most serious climate challenges today.
1) Aliso Canyon energizes efforts
The Aliso Canyon disaster is the poster child for what happens when dilapidated oil and gas infrastructure meets poor maintenance, weak regulations and lax oversight.
The methane that leaked from Aliso Canyon between October 2015 and February 2016 has the same 20-year climate impact as burning nearly a billion gallons of gasoline. Our infraredvideos of the plume made the crisis visible to millions. And helicopter flyovers of more than 8,000 well pads show that leaks can and do happen anywhere.
During the leak, and even now as the clean-up of the Aliso Canyon disaster continues, no one can deny that this single event helped focus the nation’s attention on the methane problem and lack of industry oversight. As a result, natural gas storage facilities are now getting a closer look
A new, federal multi-agency task force will be formed to lead the first-ever review of the nation’s 400-plus, aging underground storage tanks. Such efforts are in tandem with new rules now underway to make operators monitor and maintain their equipment.
As Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz noted recently, “Regrettably, there’s a broader theme than Aliso Canyon.”
2) States show the way
Colorado was the first state to regulate oil and gas pollution, and its efforts are yielding a significant decrease in methane emissions at low cost.
California, the nation’s second-largest user of natural gas is not far behind. By the end of the year, the state should have a comprehensive new program in place to stop leaks from the well to the household, making it the first state anywhere to do so.
In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf recently announced nationally leading controls and more frequent monitoring and repair for wells, pipelines, compressors and other infrastructure to capture methane leaks. Importantly, these proposed protections would cover more than 5,000 wells and facilities already operating.
Gov. Tom Wolf is proposing better controls and more frequent monitoring and repair for wells, pipelines, compressors and other infrastructure to capture methane leaks. Importantly, these new rules will include the more than 5,000 wells and facilities operating today.
And in Ohio, a new state permitting policy requires natural gas companies to check facilities for leaks on a quarterly basis, using infrared cameras or handheld analyzers – and to quickly fix the leaks they find.
Many of the cost-effective technologies already at work – which can cut methane pollution in half over the next few years – were, in fact, developed in Ohio.
3) Setting federal priorities straight
New federal regulations are being finalized to step up monitoring of new oil and gas infrastructure nationwide.
But addressing future facilities doesn’t help us with the emissions that already exist. Recently revised estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency show that the oil and gas industry pumps more than 9.8 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere every year. That’s 34 percent higher than the agency’s previous estimates.
So in March, President Obama also committed to rapidly curbing methane emissions from existing operations. The EPA is in the early stages of researching and crafting this new rule.
Meanwhile, a separate rule addressing methane pollution and waste from already-existing facilities on public and tribal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management is moving forward.
Collectively, these actions will have a real impact on emissions and help us slow the pace of global warming.
4) U.S. and Canada methane pact sets global example
Fittingly, Obama’s commitment to address methane pollutionfrom existing sources was announced when the leaders of the United States and Canada agreed to cooperate to cut emissions from their respective oil and gas industries.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to make Canada cut emissions by up to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025, matching an earlier U.S pledge.
The central place of methane in this new pact with Canada – and as a top priority for both governments – underscores the growing international momentum on the issue.
There is also an opportunity for Mexico to join its northern neighbors and show a North American commitment to action. Addressing the oil and gas sector was among commitments Mexico made under the Paris climate accord.
Oil and gas production carries a responsibility to deal with the impacts that follow – to protect our environment, but also so we can ensure that natural gas accelerates, rather than impedes, our transition to a lower-carbon, clean energy future.
Let’s make 2016 the year we, as a global community, realize and act upon this responsibility.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/05/03/4-signs-were-getting-serious-about-potent-long-overlooked-climate-pollutant
-
End Fossil Fuel Leasing to Save Massive Emissions -- Paper
May 3, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Halting federal leasing of coal and oil on public lands could save 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030 and put the United States on a path consistent with keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, a new analysis finds.
The paper and a policy brief released today by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), an independent think tank, aim to quantify the impact that federal leasing has on CO2 emissions and the planet's trajectory toward catastrophic climate change.
"This is a policy measure to take seriously as climate policy," said Peter Erickson, a senior scientist with SEI and a co-author of the paper. "It's worth looking at the emissions numbers and economics, and taking that into account as part of a bigger climate package."
In addition to reducing carbon emissions, a transition away from federal leasing could send a larger policy signal to other countries that are drafting fossil fuel extraction policies, the paper argues.
Climate has not traditionally been a central consideration by the government when it comes to energy resources, but there are indications it might be growing.
For example, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is currently in the midst of developing its 2017-22 plan for offshore oil and gas leasing. Among the subjects it's grappling with is whether to account for the greenhouse gas emissions produced when those resources are burned -- what is known as "downstream" carbon emissions (ClimateWire, April 27).
In January, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell indicated that the Bureau of Land Management would factor the impact that federal coal leasing has on climate change into its program-wide environmental review (Greenwire, Jan. 15).
Paris policy implications
Fossil fuel production in the United States has increased 20 percent since 2010, with about a quarter of that coming from federal lands. Unabated leasing could cause the United States to bump up production an additional 11 percent by 2040, the analysis found.
That level of production is inconsistent with both the parameters of the Paris climate agreement, which calls for near-zero use of fossil fuels by 2050, and the United States' own climate agenda.
In order to prevent a 2 C increase, coal production in the United States will need to decrease to almost zero by 2040, the paper finds. Halting new leases and renewals for nonproducing mines, especially in the Powder River Basin, would push coal production toward that goal, it says.
The paper notes that 30 percent of emissions reductions garnered through a change in federal leasing policies would occur outside of the United States and would not count toward the country's Paris commitments. However, "it would help to advance global climate goals," the paper states.
"It's important to look at the signaling impact," Erickson added.
One key question the authors wanted to answer was how producers might react if federal coal and oil leases were restricted. They wanted to determine if producers would substitute one fossil fuel for another source of energy.
Using standard economic tools, Erickson said they found that preventing 1 ton of coal from being burned does not lead to an equivalent savings in carbon emissions. But there was a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
"In both coal and oil, there are these net effects on consumption that should be analyzed and shouldn't be discounted," he said. "Furthermore, this action could send a signal to investors that this transition to a 2 C world is happening."
Time is also a factor in the analysis. Most of the federal coal in already-leased reserves will be extracted by 2040. Because it takes longer to set up the infrastructure for oil drilling, most climate benefits from altering leasing of that program would come after 2030.
Because of that, the authors note, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions saved could increase even more after 2030, because current estimates assume a jump in federal leasing to meet U.S. fuel needs.
Greenpeace spokesman Joe Smyth said the analysis by SEI suggests that phasing out coal and oil production from federal lands could be among the most powerful climate policies pursued by the Obama administration.
The paper notes that currently, only U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan would yield more emissions benefits than a change to leasing practices. Leasing changes could garner more emissions reductions than methane rules proposed by EPA and BLM, it says. It could also cut more carbon than EPA's fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, it says.
Smyth said the Interior Department would need to take "decisive action" and make a clear commitment to phase out coal and other fossil fuels.
"That kind of clear signal to the market would help accelerate the transition to renewable energy," he said.
A request for comment from the American Petroleum Institute was not answered.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/03/stories/1060036619
-
House Dems Want Arctic Drilling Yanked from Leasing Plan
May 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
More than 60 Democrats -- and one Republican -- are asking the Obama administration to remove the Arctic Ocean from its five-year oil and gas leasing plan.
The lawmakers sent a letter yesterday to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, asserting that drilling in the Arctic "would take our nation backwards in its commitment to address climate change and facilitate the transition to clean energy."
The administration already has taken Atlantic Ocean drilling off the table, announcing in March that it would reverse course and not open up the East Coast to offshore exploration (Greenwire, March 15).
But the updated draft of its 2017-22 leasing program still includes 13 potential oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic.
In their letter, the lawmakers argue that drilling in the Arctic is incompatible with the nation's commitment to keep the global temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius under the Paris accord.
"[O]il from Arctic Ocean drilling -- if viable at all -- would not be available for decades and, once online, would risk locking the American people into a contract guaranteeing carbon pollution for decades," the lawmakers write. "In contrast, ending oil and gas development in the Arctic would send a powerful international signal that the United States is committed to investing its resources in a climate safe, clean-energy future."
Illinois Rep. Robert Dold is the lone Republican who signed the letter, according to a press release from Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). In addition to Huffman, Democrats from California, Florida, Oregon, Maryland, New York and a handful of other states signed the letter, as did Washington, D.C., Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
The Interior Department plans to finalize the leasing program before President Obama leaves office. Energized by their success in preventing drilling in the Atlantic, environmentalists have focused on a "keep it in the ground" campaign, with a particular focus on the Arctic (Greenwire, April 27).
As currently drafted, the leasing plan includes potential sites in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, as well as in Alaska's Cook Inlet. Jewell has asked for public input on whether the Arctic waters "are appropriate for future leasing and how we can protect environmental, cultural and subsistence resources" (EnergyWire, April 6).
The other Democrats who signed yesterday's letter: Reps. Alma Adams of North Carolina; Grace Napolitano, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Zoe Lofgren, Scott Peters, Lois Capps, Maxine Waters, Ted Lieu, Jackie Speier, Tony Cárdenas, Pete Aguilar, Michael Honda, Mark DeSaulnier, Alan Lowenthal, John Garamendi, Mark Takano and Lucille Roybal-Allard of California; Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon; Donald Norcross, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Frank Pallone and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey; Chris Van Hollen, John Delaney and Donna Edwards of Maryland; Donald Beyer, Gerald Connolly and Bobby Scott of Virginia; Ann McLane Kuster of New Hampshire; Matthew Cartwright and Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania; Derek Kilmer of Washington; James Langevin of Rhode Island; Patrick Murphy, Alan Grayson, Corrine Brown, Kathy Castor, Frederica Wilson and Ted Deutch of Florida; Mike Quigley, Janice Schakowsky and Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois; Carolyn Maloney, Yvette Diane Clarke, Steve Israel, Paul Tonko, José Serrano and Nydia Velázquez of New York; Beto O'Rourke of Texas; Niki Tsongas and Bill Keating of Massachusetts; Jared Polis of Colorado; Peter Welch of Vermont; Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison of Minnesota; Chellie Pingree of Maine; John Yarmuth of Kentucky; Raúl Grijalva and Ruben Gallego of Arizona; Mark Pocan of Wisconsin; and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/03/stories/1060036656
-
Fracking Fight in Colorado Heads to the Ballot
May 3, 2016 | AP (In Fuel Fix)
Colorado’s battle over who should regulate fracking — and how much — now shifts to the November election after the state Supreme Court overturned attempts by local governments to impose their own rules.
The court ruled Monday that a ban on fracking in Longmont and a five-year moratorium in Fort Collins are invalid because they conflict with state law. State officials and the industry argued the state has the primary authority to regulate energy, not local governments.
It wasn’t the end of the debate, however. Coloradans face a loud and fierce campaign over fracking this fall if activists succeed in getting any constitutional amendments on the ballot to restrict oil and gas drilling or give local governments the authority to do so.
“We’re taking them as a serious threat to responsible oil and gas development in the state of Colorado,” said Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman for an industry-backed group called Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence.
“We consider all of these measures to be a ban on fracking,” Crummy said. “We’re going to fight.”
Backers of the proposed constitutional amendments also vow a fight, saying Monday’s ruling injects a sense of urgency into their cause.
“It can only help us because it shows that communities don’t have many rights right now when industry wants to drill,” said Tricia Olson of Yes for Health and Safety over Fracking, which hopes to get two measures on the ballot.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has long been a contentious issue in Colorado, the nation’s No. 7 energy-producing state. Fracking injects a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals underground to crack open formations and make it easier to recover oil and gas.
Combined with other drilling techniques, it opened up previously inaccessible oil and gas reserves and boosted the economy, although low oil prices have led to widespread layoffs and a steep decline in drilling.
Critics worry about danger to the environment and public health from fracking spills and leaks. Others say around-the-clock noise, lights and fumes from drilling rigs make their homes unlivable as oilfields overlap with growing communities.
The industry says fracking is safe and that drilling companies take steps to minimize the disturbances.
Restrictions on fracking were proposed for Colorado’s 2014 ballot, but they were withdrawn because of fears they would lead to a huge Republican turnout and hand several close statewide races to the GOP.
Gov. John Hickenlooper promised to convene a task force to address the conflicts caused by drilling, but fracking critics were disappointed by its recommendations, and the industry said regulators went too far in implementing them.
This year, the presidential election will have a bigger impact on turnout than the fracking proposals, said Floyd Ciruli, a nonpartisan Denver pollster. But fracking could influence races in the Legislature, where Democrats have a narrow majority in the House and Republicans have a narrow edge in the Senate, he said.
“I do think that at the legislative level where relatively small shifts in turnout could be a big thing, it could be very important,” Ciruli said.
Some of the proposed constitutional amendments would clamp specific restrictions on the oil and gas industry, such as minimum distances between wells and homes. Others would grant local governments more regulatory power. Because they’re constitutional amendments, they would supersede Monday’s Supreme Court ruling.
Olson’s group and others are still gathering petitions to get their amendments on the ballot. If they succeed, they will face a well-financed campaign to defeat them.
By the end of last year, the pro-industry group, Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence, had $746,000 on hand, according to state records.
Two groups supporting the constitutional amendments to restrict fracking reported they had less than $15,000 combined on hand this spring. Their reports covered a different period than the industry group’s.
“What we know is that industry has already been advertising nonstop,” Olson said. “What we know is they will put everything against it. But what we also know is that we have very few options left to protect Colorado’s health, safety and welfare.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/05/03/fracking-fight-in-colorado-heads-to-the-ballot/
-
May 2, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Mark down Monday’s decision on hydraulic fracturing by the Colorado Supreme Court as a win for rationality in public policy, which at times can seem an increasingly rare event.
Colorado’s highest court ruled that the measures to ban fracking, which were passed by the cities of Longmont and Fort Collins, are invalid because state law pre-empts them.
Set aside for a moment the pitched battles over fracking’s safety. The issue here is analogous to the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, whose purpose is to settle conflicts between laws passed by Congress and laws legislated by the states. Similarly, the Colorado high court is arguing that state law supersedes local law when the state legislature acts.
In the particular matter of fracking, the common sense of this proposition should be self-evident. The geology of fracking typically covers large areas. In Colorado that is the mountain range known as the Front Range, which includes the state’s most populous cities, including Denver and Boulder.
It would be physically impractical for fracking operations to be permitted or banned from one city to the next. State law in Colorado and Texas allows fracking. It is banned in New York state, causing a number of pro-fracking communities there to consider the quixotic step of seceding to Pennsylvania.
Given the fracturing underway in our politics and culture, it’s not hard to imagine cities or towns wanting to simply “drop out” from state laws they find abhorrent. That is the road to political balkanization, a concept generally recognized as unattractive for the life of a nation or state. The Colorado Supreme Court has done us the favor of reaffirming that reality.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rocky-mountain-sense-1462231127
-
Subsidies in the Wrong Places Skew Renewable Energy’s Power
May 3, 2016 | New York Times
By Joseph Aldy
Renewable power has experienced tremendous growth: Wind and solar’s share of total U.S. power generation increased to 5 percent in 2015 from less than 0.5 percent in 2005. This growth reflects both innovation driving down costs and an array of subsidies, including tax credits and grants (about 30 percent of investment costs), accelerated depreciation (15 percent of investment costs), loan guarantees (7 percent of investment costs), and state renewable power mandates, which create valuable credits – worth as much as 50 cents per kilowatt hour for solar in Massachusetts and New Jersey – that complement the revenue stream from power sales. Continued investment in renewable power, however, must confront investment challenges in the power sector.
Innovation has driven lower costs for wind, solar and their competitors. The fracking revolution has drastically lowered the cost of U.S. natural gas, with the price of natural gas delivered to the power sector in 2015 equal to one-third the price in 2008.
As the costs of producing power have fallen, so has the demand for electricity. Since 2010, the U.S. economy has grown 11 percent, but electricity consumption has fallen by 1 percent in part because of subsidies and standards targeting energy efficiency. The absence of a growing power market reduces the need for utilities to invest in new power generation. In some parts of the country, the costs of new wind and solar may appear competitive with new coal or natural gas facilities, but new renewable investment effectively competes with existing, lower-cost power plants.
The incumbent coal-fired power plants also enjoy a large, implicit subsidy. In today’s dollars, the average U.S. coal-fired power plant imposes costs through premature mortality and respiratory illnesses of about 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Accounting for the climate change damages associated with burning coal would likely double this cost. Eliminating these subsidies would significantly improve the economics of lower-polluting sources of power.
Even with full pricing of pollution for coal-fired power plants, renewable power typically cannot be ramped up and down in response to short-term swings in power demand: Sometimes the wind blows or the sun shines when people don’t need the power. As a result, utilities may value natural gas capacity more than renewable capacity, since they can dispatch natural gas to meet changes in demand. The value of renewable power is also lower because the investment does not always target the highest-quality resource. Solar goes where the subsidies are, not where the sun shines. Thus, Massachusetts and New Jersey may have relatively low-quality solar, but rank among the top six states in installed solar capacity. And Germany, which has rarely been described as sun-drenched, hosts the most solar capacity in the world.
Given the existing low-cost competition in a no-growth market, renewable developers face tough investment challenges absent new policies. A carbon tax could substantially increase market demand for renewable power and encourage the retirement of pollution-intensive coal-fired power plants.
Joseph Aldy is an associate professor of public policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. From 2009 to 2010, he was the special assistant to the president for energy and environment at the White House.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/05/03/whats-holding-back-renewable-energy/subsidies-in-the-wrong-places-skew-reneweable-energys-power
-
Nearly Every State Suing Over Obama’s Climate Plans is Burning Less Coal Anyway
May 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
More than two dozen states have sued over the Obama administration’s signature climate rule, the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to cut back the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in coming years by shift away from carbon intense power sources, like coal, in favor of cleaner forms of electricity generation.
But the arguments currently unfolding in the federal courts are, in some ways, disconnected from the realities playing out on the ground.
For instance, many of the states that oppose the Clean Power Plan — particularly mid-western ones like Texas and Kansas — are leaders in the wind energy industry, which would be favored under the plan (as would natural gas and solar).
New data, released recently by the U.S. Energy Information Administration also highlighted another potential contradiction: Virtually every state suing to block the Clean Power Plan has itself shifted towards burning less coal to generate the electricity its residents need since the year 2007 — in some cases by very large amounts.
In other words, one key transition that the plan will help bring about — less coal burning — is already happening in these states anyway, even though the plan itself is in legal limbo and has not yet come into effect.
Here is a map showing states suing over the Clean Power Plan and the amount by which they have decreased coal burning for electricity from 2007 to 2015, according to the EIA. One state suing over the Clean Power Plan, Nebraska, actually saw coal use increase over the period, by 18 percent, so it is not highlighted in the map below. Neither are states that either support the plan, or are neutral in the litigation:
So what can we make of these data, showing a clear decline in coal use among states that are opposing a plan to hasten a shift to cleaner U.S. electricity — especially in key regions, such as the Southeast?
“It’s a magnification of a trend that’s been going on for several years. Quite simply, coal is dying,” Nathan Richardson, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law who focuses on environmental and energy law, said of the data detailing the drop in coal usage by state. “It might take 30 years or 40 years, but it’s coal as big diver of electricity in this country is over.”
But he said that evolution is unlikely to affect the legal opposition to the Clean Power Plan on the part of some states, for several reasons. Among them is the principle behind opposing the regulation.
“Utilities and the states might not mind so much if market forces cause them to change, but they don’t want the EPA to tell them to do it,” Richardson said. “Some states don’t want to be pushed – or pushed as fast.”
In addition, he said, some states also want the retain the ability to increase coal-powered electricity generation if the historically low price of natural gas increases.
“[It’s] about the freedom to go back to coal if the economics change,” Richardson said. “They are fighting to keep the option to grow their coal use in the future.”
Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell LLP, a firm that represents some energy industry clients who also are challenging the Clean Power Plan, added that anticipation of regulation itself is a factor driving down coal usage.
“This data is not particularly surprising,” Segal said, reacting to the EIA figures. “The decline in coal use reflects both the anticipation of regulatory standards and the sustained low commodity prices of natural gas. However, the Clean Power Plan is still a significant game changer.”
“The present energy market is just that: a market,” he continued. “It reacts flexibly and pragmatically to market forces. By contrast, the Clean Power Plan is designed to make market forces with respect to energy choice permanent and immutable.”
Thus, he said it isn’t fair to suggest that states opposing the Clean Power Plan have less reason to oppose merely because they now burn less coal. There’s also a matter of principle involved. These states, in aggregate, are also being asked to do much more to change their energy mixes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than are states who support the plan, noted Jeff Holmstead, also an attorney at Bracewell LLP and a former assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation during the George W. Bush administration.
Still, if opposed states burn less coal, then the Clean Power Plan should certainly be easier for them to comply with, assuming it survives the current legal challenge.
Either way, the data reinforce a common theme since the final Clean Power Plan was unveiled back in August of 2015, and then after it was stayed by the Supreme Court. Namely, this: Even without the plan in place, the U.S. is transitioning its energy system in precisely the direction that the plan would itself require.
It’s not yet the law — but it’s already a sign of the times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/03/nearly-every-state-suing-over-obamas-climate-plans-is-burning-less-coal-anyway/
-
NFG Continues to Curtail Marcellus Volumes on Low Prices
May 3, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
An unseasonably warm winter across its service territory and low commodity prices during the fiscal year (FY) second quarter, drove down earnings and prompted more natural gas curtailments in Pennsylvania for National Fuel Gas Co (NFG).
The exploration and production subsidiary Seneca Resources Corp. plodded forward during the quarter after significantly reducing its operational activity at the beginning of FY2016, which began in October. Commodity prices were 18% lower during the period than they were a year ago, forcing the company to voluntarily curtail 9.1 Bcf of production in Pennsylvania.
In 1Q2016, the company curtailed 14.6 Bcf of volumes in addition to the 45 Bcfe it had curtailed since 1Q2015 (see Shale Daily, Feb. 5).
The company started the year with three drilling rigs, but has since dropped to one, COO John McGinnis said. He said the company would keep the rig active for the remainder of the year to build an inventory of drilled but uncompleted wells to fill its Northern Access 2017 pipeline, which is scheduled to begin service in late 2017. The project was initially expected to be operational this year, but the startup date was delayed on its reduced activity. Northern Access would expand the NFG Supply Corp. and Empire Pipeline systems to transport more than 490,000 Dth/d from Seneca-operated wells in Northwest Pennsylvania to multiple markets in the Northeast.
Even with a reduction in activity and curtailments, Seneca produced 39.2 Bcfe, up 9.7% from the year-ago period and up 3% from 1Q2016. Most of the production came from Pennsylvania, where the company produced 34.9 Bcf. The gas production increase was primarily the result of new transportation capacity that came online with the company's Northern Access 2015 pipeline project, which moves 140,000 Dth/d from the company's Western Development Area (WDA) in Northwest Pennsylvania to Canada. Legacy oil assets in California produced 723,000 bbl, roughly flat compared with a year ago.
McGinnis said the company drilled its first Utica Shale well in the WDA, which encompasses Pennsylvania’s Elk, McKean and Cameron counties. The well, which cost more than $7 million, was drilled with a 4,500 foot lateral. Once Seneca completes the other 10 Marcellus wells on the pad, the company plans to test the Utica well this summer.
Weather across NFG's service territory in Pennsylvania and New York was 12% warmer than normal and more than 26% warmer than the year-ago period, which drove down earnings at the utility segment to $32 million from $38.2 million in the year-ago period. The company's utility segment typically pushes up its consolidated earnings, which were also dented by low commodity prices.
Including hedges, NFG earned $2.99/Mcf in 2Q2016 for its gas, down from $3.65/Mcf at the same time last year. Average realized oil prices, including hedges, were $53.01/bbl during the quarter, versus $67.14/bbl in 2Q2015.
NFG and its subsidiaries reported a net loss of $147.7 million (minus $1.74/share), compared with net income of $16.7 million (20 cents) in 2Q2015. Revenue declined to $449.1 million from $596.1 in the year-ago period. The net quarterly loss was partly the result of a $230.5 million impairment of oil and gas properties. The company expects to record similar impairments for the remainder of the year and possibly in the beginning of FY2017.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106273-nfg-continues-to-curtail-marcellus-volumes-on-low-prices
-
Officials Mull Revamp of Electric System as Blackouts Loom
May 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
The last time California dealt with extended rolling power blackouts, the turmoil transformed the state's electricity system.
Outages in 2000 and 2001 came as the state struggled with a newly deregulated electricity system and power shortages driven by market manipulation. The state in response passed an Energy Action Plan, aimed at eliminating blackouts and price spikes. It called for "prudent" power reserves, promoting locally based electricity generation and advancing renewable energy. Financial incentives spurred green power growth.
Now there's a new threat of blackouts, brought on by a side effect of the record-setting methane leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage site. The facility near Los Angeles' Porter Ranch community, run by Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas), remains closed and cannot supply gas backups. State officials warn there's the possibility of at least 14 days of blackouts this summer and nine more this winter (Greenwire, April 6).
It's prompted new calls for reshaping the Golden State's electricity system.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), climate action stalwart state Sen. Fran Pavley (D), environmental groups and energy storage businesses are among those saying the potential crisis should motivate action. While policies to deal with climate change already are a priority, they said, the emergency situation adds a new incentive to move faster.
"The SoCalGas leak in Aliso Canyon was a rude awakening for families living in Porter Ranch, but it also has to be a wake-up call for the state," Pavley said in an email. "It shows that we need to address tough questions about how we diversify our energy resources, reduce our dependence on dangerous fossil fuel facilities like this one, and move toward the clean energy future our state has envisioned in its policy."
State and local officials said they see more renewable power, storage and energy efficiency as the solution, given the scope of the methane leak. It forced thousands of people from their homes and emitted the greenhouse gas equivalent of the annual greenhouse gas pollution spewed by 572,000 cars.
It could boost energy storage businesses and renewable providers. But in some cases, advocates will have to get past opposition from utilities and deal with policies that typically take many months or years to change.
If blackouts occur, "it's going to motivate change for sure," said Alex Morris, director of policy and regulatory affairs at the California Energy Storage Alliance, a trade group. He added that "looking ahead to this winter, storage companies could be winners. The state may see benefit in helping to marshal these resources, whereas otherwise they wouldn't have been marshaled so soon."
At the same time, he said, storage companies like Stem Inc., SolarCity Corp., AES Corp., General Electric Co., Recurrent Energy LLC and NRG Energy Inc. need to know that the business demand is in place.
"Companies, they don't want to order a ton of batteries unless they know they have a contract," Morris said. "They need the right contracting and business models to move forward."
Looking at a fossil fuel-free future
Los Angeles is one of the places most threatened by blackouts this summer. At the local level, Garcetti has asked the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to analyze how it could eventually move to 100 percent renewable energy. That review will be part of what's called an integrated resource plan, or IRP, expected later this year.
"We can't shut down Aliso Canyon overnight. We can't get off natural gas overnight. But how do we create the carbon-free future we want?" said Matt Petersen, chief sustainability officer for Garcetti. "This was a reminder, if not a wake-up call, of the need to press forward for a clean energy future."
A strategy to cut dependence on natural gas "would have to include storage," Petersen said.
Garcetti also joined with 11 other U.S. mayors in asking President Obama to direct the federal Department of Energy to study alternatives that could replace natural gas storage.
"Namely ... a redoubled emphasis on energy storage technologies, including battery storage, pumped hydro storage, and compressed air storage among other methods, which can make intermittent renewable energy production technologies more viable throughout the day," the letter says.
Garcetti also sent letters to California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein asking to have DOE labs model strategies "to expedite the transition toward carbon-free sources of energy." The labs should also look at whether existing gas fields like Aliso Canyon could be used for compressed air energy storage, Garcetti's letter said.
LADWP has started the planning to be "greenhouse gas-free in its future," but there are roadblocks, utility spokeswoman Amanda Parsons said.
"It will take significant time to fully implement this goal with technologies that are not yet proven and, in some cases, not yet conceived," Parsons said in an email. "The gas supply is needed in the foreseeable future to reliably meet high electric demand in the summer months and high gas demand in the winter months. These factors need to be addressed during any evaluation that looks at removing [natural gas] storage options from the SoCalGas system."
SoCalGas said it's focused on a comprehensive safety review at Aliso Canyon, in compliance with new regulations from the state Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.
"SoCalGas is working with regulators, elected officials, and our customers to address concerns about reliability this summer and during next winter's heating season," the company said in a statement, adding that it hoped to start injections at the Aliso Canyon storage facility "as soon as late summer."
The California Legislature yesterday passed a bill requiring thorough safety checks before SoCalGas can begin storing gas at the site again (see related story).
Michael Picker, president of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), said earlier this month that he didn't assume Aliso Canyon would be back online "this winter, this year" or even next winter (Greenwire, April 11).
Overreliance on gas?
Some of the expected problems with natural gas shortages this summer exist in part, experts said, because of the state's push for a clean energy future.
As the Golden State has ordered mandates for increasing amounts of power from renewable energy sources, it's relied on natural gas as a backup. S.B. 350, passed last year, upped the requirement for the portion of electricity from green sources to 50 percent by 2030.
Gas-fired plants can ramp up power quickly when solar or wind-generated energy declines. In the Los Angeles area, the Aliso Canyon facility has played a large role in providing fuel supplies. Gas cannot move quickly through pipelines, experts said, so the storage facility delivers gas when needed to run those so-called peaker plants.
The dominance of the facility and of natural gas "certainly elevated the awareness of some of the downside risks associated with this fuel source," said Tim O'Connor, director of the California Oil and Gas Program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
"This certainly opens up the door in moving forward with policies that are going to reduce the overall reliance on gas," he said.
That includes changing market design rules in terms of how the California Independent System Operator -- the state's grid manager -- and the CPUC value gas. The fossil fuel has tended to win when compared to alternatives, O'Connor said, but the state needs to weigh cost factors that include the greenhouse gases emitted from methane leaks.
There also needs to be a look how much is paid to residents and businesses that cut their power demand when needed, also known as demand response, O'Connor said. There needs to be more purchasing of demand response as an emergency energy option, he said.
But right now, "the mechanisms aren't in place to quickly ramp it up," O'Connor said. "People need to look at new mechanisms for getting there."
CPUC Commissioner Michel Florio in March directed Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) "to take immediate steps to enhance their demand response efforts" because of Aliso Canyon.
The utility was told to propose changes to program rules that could help ensure reliability, he said. Those could include offering its customers incentives for buying or installing programmable thermostats, combined with enrollment in a program to control demand. That proceeding is underway.
Similarly, some large companies have energy storage systems they use on site, to supply power and avoid paying peak demand charges, said Morris with the California Energy Storage Alliance. Those businesses could be paid instead to help deliver energy to the grid. They'd also need to be compensated to offset the losses they'd suffer from not using the storage to avoid the peak tariffs, he said.
Focus on storage
State Sen. Pavley has been urging state agencies like the California Energy Commission (CEC) to look more at energy conservation and other clean options, as opposed to focusing on ways to resume natural gas storage at Aliso Canyon. In a letter to CEC Chairman Robert Weisenmiller, she said the state should create a task force looking at cutting natural gas use, both short term and with goals stretching out to 2024.
Meanwhile, there should be emergency funding to install solar thermal water heaters and energy storage systems, she said. And the state should help low-income communities with upgrades to water heater and heating and air conditioning systems, and "accelerating access to geothermal energy to reduce natural gas demand."
In the state Legislature, Pavley has offered a bill aimed at increasing energy storage.
Her measure, S.B. 886, would require utilities and local cooperatives that buy energy to consider "the full benefits" of energy storage when they develop and update their resource plans. If they want to add fossil fuel-fired generation, they'd have to show first why storage wasn't better suited and cost-competitive.
"The natural gas storage facility disaster in Aliso Canyon has shed light on a tenuous statewide grid reliability policy," Pavley noted in a message to a bill analysis for the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. "We rely on fossil fuel storage facilities to deliver critical energy resources for homes and businesses."
SoCalGas and other fossil fuel companies also operate numerous related facilities including compressor stations, pipeline infrastructure and gas well services infrastructure, Pavley said.
The CPUC under the bill would require utilities by 2017 to propose new rates or programs to encourage customers to install energy storage systems. The CPUC would have to consider updating an existing target for energy storage it gave utilities in 2013. At that time, it told the three big utilities -- SCE, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) -- to obtain 1.325 gigawatts of storage by 2020. Utilities have said they're on track to contract for amounts far beyond the mandate.
Diversifying supplies is imperative, Pavley said in the bill analysis, as the state moves to increase its mandate for renewable power.
"If the state is going to meet its [renewable] requirement, and its commitments under the [EPA's] Clean Power Plan, it will need to move away from fossil storage and thermal peakers," Pavley said, referring to the natural-gas-fired plants that ramp up quickly.
"Cleaner storage, through batteries and renewable fuels, holds the promise of a smoother load curve and less reliance on facilities like Aliso Canyon to support electricity needs in Los Angeles and elsewhere in California."
Utilities fight storage bill
Getting some of the changes Pavley and others want, however, won't happen without overcoming opposition. PG&E, SCE and SDG&E all have filed objections to her storage legislation.
The bill would require "tariffs, targets and prioritization for energy storage systems that are largely duplicative of current incentives, redundant to policies adopted last year, and the subject of on-going regulatory proceedings." The measure would prejudice those proceedings in favor of one technology, SCE's director of state public affairs, Darren Bouton, said in a filing with the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications.
Bouton referred to the earlier mandate to add storage and said that "SCE dramatically exceeded its 50 [megawatt] target for 2014," procuring nearly five times as much energy storage.
"Establishing an additional target for 2030 is premature and will potentially increase costs," he said.
S.B. 350 is supposed to let utilities meet the renewables mandate with a "technology-neutral platform. ... There is no need to create another incentive program for energy storage when incentives already exist and there are mechanisms to ensure storage is considered by utilities."
Valerie Turella Vlahos, PG&E's manager of state government relations, in a letter to the committee said that "the forced prioritization" of energy storage over other alternatives in utility resource plans would "bypass the intent" of those plans, which is to optimize "deployment of all cost effective alternatives available that reduce GHG emissions while maintaining reliability."
Looking ahead to 2017
There are a few actions state agencies could take now that might help improve reliability for this summer, the California Energy Storage Alliance's Morris said.
One of those would be for state agencies to create a solution to deal with a holdup caused by an appeal before the CPUC, he said. After the closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant, utility SCE went through a proceeding to decide on replacement power sources. In the end, it opted for choices that included a natural gas plant and energy storage. Groups unhappy with the outcome asked for a rehearing of the case.
While that's pending, SCE would be hesitant to contract with energy storage companies, Morris said. Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the contracts might be nullified, and SCE would worry about recovering its costs, he said.
But the state could guarantee the utility's cost recovery in order to get contracts in place for this summer, Morris said. The state also should expedite permitting and interconnection, preferably by setting up a task force to coordinate.
Trade group CESA is working to connect storage companies with LADWP, Morris said. The agency already has storage projects it may accelerate. LADWP would likely need to encourage cities and counties to expedite permitting for storage, he added.
LADWP spokeswoman Parsons said in an email that the utility would "do its best to expedite energy storage projects within our service territory, and at our remote facilities."
But California also needs to be thinking beyond this summer and winter, Morris said, and the possibility that Aliso Canyon might not reopen for quite some time, if ever.
"Our recommendation is we should start thinking about 2017 pretty darn quickly," Morris said. "It would be suboptimal if we got stuck with similar circumstances for 2017 that could have been avoided."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/03/stories/1060036655
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lack of Use Sparks Questions About Expedited Approval Program
May 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Only one chemical facility has used a highly touted expedited approval program authorized under a 2014 law, calling into question the usefulness of the provision.
In a letter sent to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson yesterday, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, asked for information on why the provision has seen such limited adoption and about its operating costs.
Thompson said only one so-called Tier 4 facility has participated in the expedited approval program, which "represents less than 1 percent of the population of eligible facilities."
Under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, operators of chemical facilities handling specified quantities of hazardous chemicals must complete a top-screen review, which is submitted to DHS. The review determines which of four tiers the plant is in, based on DHS risk formulas. Then plants must develop and submit site security plans and file these with the agency.
Under the expedited approval program, only Tier 3 and Tier 4 -- the lowest tiers -- could participate.
The expedited approval program stemmed from legislative language added to a bill, the "Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities From Terrorist Attacks Act," by lawmakers on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2014.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), then the committee chairman, worked with then-ranking member Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to add the provision. Coburn left the Senate at the end of 2014.
Among changes made in the bill were two provisions -- to let smaller chemical facilities "self-certify" their compliance under penalty of perjury through the expedited approval program and a different process to let firms use outside alternative security plans, including those developed by industry trade organizations.
At the time, the expedited approval program was touted as increasing safety because it would lead to the lowest-risk facilities more quickly implementing security measures. After facilities certified their compliance, DHS would have to approve their submissions within 100 days unless it found problems with the filings.
The agency issued regulatory guidance for the expedited approval program last year (Greenwire, May 13, 2015).
Greenpeace Legislative Director Rick Hind said the lack of use of the expedited process showed industry didn't want what he called a special favor from lawmakers. "It's kind of like Richie Rich gets all these Christmas presents, and they end up in the garbage," Hind said.
Scott Jensen, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said the group had sought the use of alternative security plans, but Coburn was the driving force for the expedited approval program.
"It was not something that we had initiated or had asked for," Jensen said. "It was something that came from his office. We had supported it primarily because we wanted to see the long-term authorization of CFATS be able to move forward."
For years, Coburn was a critic of waste within the CFATS program.
The program was "a great example on how not to do something," Coburn said at a Senate hearing in 2014. He added that DHS had "spent billions" with little to show for it.
Lack of promotion questioned
Thompson's letter requested the disclosure of operating costs and anticipated future expenses for the expedited program, including whether the agency can "envision any scenario where the [expedited approval program] participation rate would exceed one facility."
It's not clear whether DHS has reached out to facilities -- either to tell them the expedited approval program is an option or to ask why they have chosen not to use it, the letter said.
DHS did not respond to a request for comment.
The agency has published a newsletter for regulated chemical facilities, CFATS Quarterly, since 2015. Described as a quarterly newsletter, it has been published twice -- in April and November 2015.
The newsletter said 2,256 site security plans had been approved by late last year and all plans should be signed off on by August. The heightened pace of approvals is the result of operational efficiencies such as coordinating with plants before the inspection "to improve the quality of time spent on-site" and coordinating inspections with firms that operate multiple, similar plants, it said.
"This accomplishment represents tens of thousands of security measures -- ranging from background checks to physical barriers to training programs -- that high-risk chemical facilities are implementing across the country," the newsletter said.
It didn't mention the expedited approval program.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/03/stories/1060036654
-
Iran's Cyber Army - The Latest in a Series of Maleficence
May 3, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Alireza Jafarzadeh
In July, when the P5+1 struck a nuclear deal with Iran dubbed as “historic,” administration officials spun it as a first step on a path toward improving Tehran’s behavior. That path hit yet another bump in recent weeks, when Iran launched nuclear-capable missiles in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution that endorsed the nuclear deal.
In a letter to the U.N., the U.S., France, Great Britain and Germany decried the missile tests. Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking on a visit to Bahrain on April 7, 2016, condemned "the destabilising actions of Iran."
Iran’s Minister of Defense Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan shot back: "If John Kerry actually thought about these subjects, he would no longer utter nonsense and foolish words." The U.S., he said, should "leave the region and stop supporting terrorists."
The Iranian regime, in contrast, clearly has no plans to curtail its regional meddling. According to reports from inside the Iranian regime, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has dispatched hordes of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), mercenary militias, as well as groups of regular army forces to Syria in anticipation of new attacks against the opposition and Free Syrian Army (FSA).
In a move unparalleled since the Iran-Iraq war, Khamenei has deployed his military on a large scale abroad.
The missile launches, coupled with the Iranian regime’s expanding role in wreaking havoc in Syria, naturally grabbed the headlines, overshadowing a no less disturbing report by the U.S. Justice Department that Iran was behind a series of cyber attacks against the U.S., targeting at least 46 companies and a dam by 2013. Now, new and stunning intelligence about the scope and depth of the Iranian regime's investment in a cyber war against the U.S. are widening the anti-terror focus.
According to the U.S. indictment, between 2011 and 2013, hackers linked to the IRGC attacked U.S. financial institutions as well as a flood-control dam 25 miles north of New York City. Other targets included the New York Stock Exchange, Bank of America, and AT&T.
The hackers broke into the command and control system of the dam in 2013, according to Washington, and may have been able to release water from behind the dam if not for the fact that the sluice gate had been manually disconnected at the time of intrusion.
This is an unequivocal warning that the Iranian regime is preparing to mount a larger cyber attack against American infrastructure.
According to new reports from inside the Iranian regime, IRGC commander Mohammad-Ali Jafari has thrown his weight behind designating a "Cyber Force" to act as the IRGC's "sixth force" - alongside its ground forces, navy, aerospace, extraterritorial Qods (Jerusalem) Force, and domestic Bassij militia.
The IRGC has been deeply involved in cyber warfare aimed at domestic suppression and supporting terrorists abroad since 2007. IRGC Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani (killed in late 2015 leading the charge in Syria) announced in 2010, “The Bassij cyber council has trained over 1,500 active ‘cyber jihadis,’" promising that their activities would increase in the near future.
When the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization was formed following the 2009 nationwide uprisings against the theocracy, the Cyber Army was placed under it. In November 2010, the Cyber Army claimed that it had hacked 500 sites simultaneously, while disrupting the intelligence networks and private websites of other counties.
Tehran has no intention of getting “right with the world,” as President Obama once suggested. The Iranian regime is committed to pursuing a strategic war against the U.S. and its allies. Any hopes of change in behavior are illusory at best.
Washington needs to develop a more comprehensive strategy to confront this threat before it's too late. Since the regime's cyber force, now targeting U.S. sites was formed to counter social protests and political activism inside Iran, America's natural allies in this war are the Iranian people and the organized opposition.
Alireza Jafarzadeh is the deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/278396-irans-cyber-army-the-latest-in-a-series-of-maleficence
-
Refiners Take Tank Car Battle to STB
May 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A monthslong dispute over a BNSF Railway Co. rate hike for older, flimsier oil tank cars could be settled by the federal Surface Transportation Board, based on filings last week.
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a refining industry trade group, told regulators that BNSF's surcharge on tank cars lacking certain safety features amounts to an "assertion of unilateral regulatory authority over crude oil tank car standards."
In its April 25 complaint, the refining organization added that the $1,000-per-car fee constitutes "an across-the-board penalty on the use of general purpose DOT 111 rail cars in crude service, a breach of BNSF's common carrier duty, and an unreasonable practice."
BNSF increased its tank car rates in December 2014 as a way to nudge shippers into switching to newer models with thicker metal shells, jackets and other safety features. Trains hauling crude oil in older DOT-111 cars have derailed and caught fire in several high-profile accidents, including a July 2013 explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people.
Regulators at the U.S. Department of Transportation have moved to bar outdated tank cars from hauling highly flammable types of crude oil. But a 2015 tank car safety rule gave shippers until January 2018 to phase most cars out of crude service, meaning railroads won't be allowed to turn them away until then.
AFPM has seized on those obligations in a bid to use the older-model cars as long as legally possible. The group sued BNSF after the rate hike took effect, arguing that the surcharge was an attempt to renege on BNSF's responsibilities as a common carrier.
"The $1,000 penalty is merely the means employed to achieve this unlawful end," AFPM said in legal filings.
If the cars are good enough for federal regulators, the legal argument goes, they must be good enough for BNSF, too.
Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas threw out that lawsuit this March on the grounds that the dispute was a better fit for the STB.
STB's three commissioners oversee freight rail disputes and have the authority to toss out BNSF's tank car fee if they find it discriminatory.
A BNSF spokeswoman did not immediately respond to request for comment, but the railroad has previously cast its rate hike as an incentive for shippers, not a punishment.
"We believe that our rate structure appropriately supports customers who are working to move to a safer car, which is in the interest of rail shippers, BNSF employees and the communities we serve," the railroad said last year in response to AFPM's initial lawsuit.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/03/stories/1060036616
-
How an Environmentalist Responds When a Koch Executive Acknowledges Climate Change
May 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
Koch Industries, generally viewed as Lucifer by environmentalists, surprised people at a recent Wall Street Journal forum when the company’s director of environment, health and safety, Sheryl Corrigan, said that climate is real and people have something to do with it.
“I think Charles has said the climate is changing,” Corrigan said, referring to Charles Koch. “So the climate is changing. I think he’s also said, and we believe, that humans have a part in that.”
But then she added, “what the real question is…what are we going to do about it? What is the right answer?”
This week, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, who has no shortage of ideas about what to do about it, decided to write an open letter to Charles Koch making a few suggestions for starters.
“I wanted to write to welcome you into the not-very-exclusive club that includes the strong majority of Americans, 99+ percent of scientists, nearly all Democratic candidates and a growing number of conservative Republicans,” he wrote. “We’re happy to have you!”
Brune said his first suggestion was to speak up. “Your voice is an important one and I hope you’ll speak up if your opinion has truly changed.”
Next, he said “now that your position on climate change may be shifting, we hope that you’ll join the push toward the clean energy economy and invest in the clean energy sources that increasingly are powering America and the world.” Brune noted that these energy sources are “becoming more affordable and more accessible each day.”
Third, Brune said it was time for the Kochs to stop funding “organizations and political candidates who either deny climate science or oppose nearly every policy that would advance climate solutions.” He singled out the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has been campaigning to roll back renewable incentives in states.
Whether Brune gets a reply remains to be seen. Some environmental activists believe Corrigan’s comments are part of an effort by the Kochs to reach out to journalists and others, to be as a New Yorker article by Jane Mayer branded it, the New Koch, new packaging for the same old beliefs and interests. Koch Industries owns oil refineries, large lease holdings in the oil sands region of Alberta, and other energy investments.
But if Charles Koch, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has had a change of heart, it would be worth exploring, Brune said in an interview.
“We’re looking at this positively,” he said. “Once you have an institution that is one of the largest players in politics aggressively promoting climate denialism suddenly change its stance and say that climate change is real and humans have a role in solving it, that is a huge opportunity. It potentially represents a sea change in climate politics.”
Brune, noting that the brothers Charles and David Koch are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns this year, said that “there are few things that get our members more worked up than Koch brothers messing with our elections, and messing with our climate.”
But he said that “eventually the Republican Party si going to have to come around on climate change.” And, he added, “in a cynical way, that can’t happen until two rich executives from Wichita, Kans. signal that it’s okay.”
Even if the Koch brothers were to recognize climate change, coming to any sort of an agreement between the likes of the Sierra Club and the libertarian, anti-regulation, anti-tax Kochs seems remote.
“When we have subsidies and mandates it can pervert that situation and make it that much harder to bring ideas forward,” Corrigan said at the Wall Street Journal event. She said “let those technologies compete and the market will sort it out.”
Brune said he would “love it” if there were “a competition in the marketplace of ideas” about the best way to phase in clean energy, increase prosperity and decrease emissions. He said maybe one of the sessions at the Kochs’ reported secret strategy sessions could be devoted to the topic. “I’d be happy to lead a workshop,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/03/how-an-environmentalist-responds-when-a-koch-executive-acknowledges-climate-change/
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested