Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/1/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Petchem Utilization Eased in April: ACC
Jun 1, 2016 | Argus
Global petrochemical production slowed in April, as worldwide capacity utilization slipped 0.5 percentage points to 79.4pc, down from 81pc a year ago, according to a report from the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Victory in the Fight Against Asbestos – From Poster Child for Reform to Litmus Test for Success
Jun 1, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Linda Reinstein
It’s easy to get disenchanted and even disheartened in DC. So many people arrive here with ambitious and genuine goals of changing the world only to be held back by political realities that so often plague Capitol Hill. -
At Long Last, New Chemical Safety Regulations
Jun 1, 2016 | Forbes
By Sam Lemonick
Congress is poised to overhaul the nation’s broken chemical regulations for the first time in four decades. And in an era of bitter partisan strife and historic legislative futility, it could happen with broad agreement from Democrats and Republicans, environmental groups and industry lobbyists. -
Toxic Control
May 31, 2016 | Nature
The 1976 US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) must be one of the worst pieces of environmental legislation ever devised. Rather than empowering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that new chemicals are safe, the law declared all chemicals harmless, unless proven otherwise. -
Udall To Rally For Chemical Safety Reform Today
May 31, 2016 | LA Daily Post
By Carol A. Clark
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall will celebrate historic progress on the the push to reform the broken chemical safety law with a rally at an Albuquerque business devoted to selling home and building products free of hazardous chemicals. -
Udall Touts Chemical Regulation Bill
May 31, 2016 | Albuquerque Journal
By Charlie Moore
States like California have their own policies in place for regulating the chemicals found in myriad consumer products, but New Mexico does not — and we are not alone. -
Guthrie Votes for Comprehensive Energy, Environment Bills
May 31, 2016 | Grayson County News Gazette
Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02) voted last week for multiple bills that support an all-of-the-above energy policy, promote a healthy environment, and reduce duplicative and onerous regulations. -
Shimkus on Trump: 'I'm on the Team'
May 31, 2016 | Effingham Daily News
By Bill Grimes
U.S. Rep. John Shimkus said he supports presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in the presidential race. -
HFC Phaseout Consistent with Congress's Intent, EPA Says
Jun 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency has always viewed hydrofluorocarbons as a temporary substitute for ozone-depleting chemicals, and a rule phasing out the use of HFCs in favor of less harmful substances is consistent with that stance, the agency told a federal appellate court. -
Maryland Vetoes Increased Renewable Energy Mandate
Jun 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) has vetoed legislation (S.B. 921/H.B. 1106) that would have increased the amount of electricity Maryland suppliers must get from renewable sources from 20 percent by 2022 to 25 percent by 2020. -
Industry, States Defend Fracking Rule Injunction
Jun 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Alan Kovski
A preliminary injunction that suspended federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing was based on a variety of good reasons and is likely to be a moot issue before an appeals court can decide on the legitimacy of the injunction, two industry groups told the appeals court. -
Water Is Another 'Add-On' in Bakken Future, North Dakota Official Says
May 31, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
In addition to better exploiting the value of natural gas and natural gas liquids, the next chapter of Bakken Shale development in North Dakota will be written about water, according to Lynn Helms, the state's chief oil/gas regulator. -
Last Piece of Marcellus-Focused Ohio-Louisiana Access Approved For Service
Jun 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Ohio-Louisiana Access Project of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners' Texas Gas Transmission LLC was approved to enter full service last week as FERC allowed operations to begin at the greenfield Bosco Compressor Station in Ouachita Parish, LA. -
Cheniere Completes Train 1 Commissioning at Louisiana LNG Terminal
May 31, 2016 | Platts
By Jim Magill
Cheniere Energy Partners has completed the commissioning of its first liquefaction train at the Sabine Pass liquefaction project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, the company said in a statement Tuesday. -
An Explosive Issue
May 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Cylvia Hayes
Ticking time bombs are rumbling through the Pacific Northwest. Nearly overnight the railways of the west have become primary transport routes for trains filled with highly flammable crude oil. Studies report a 5000-percent increase in oil by rail in North America since 2008. -
How The World Can Get To 100% Renewable Energy By 2050
May 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By MoneyTips
Is 100% renewable energy feasible for the world, or is it just a pipedream? It can be reality, according to a new report issued by Greenpeace. Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook 2015 contends that it is possible for Earth’s electricity needs to be 100% provided by renewable energy by 2050, replacing both fossil-fuels and nuclear energy as electricity sources. -
EPA Staff Divided On Allowing CWA Permits For Groundwater Discharges
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA staff are divided on whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) allows regulators to require discharge permits for pollutants that travel through groundwater to protected surface waters, an agency permit official says, as some scientists back advocates' push for such permits while agency attorneys are urging caution on the novel approach. -
Supreme Court Ruling Means More Clean Water Act Lawsuits are Likely
May 31, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider
The Supreme Court opened the door to more lawsuits over the Clean Water Act in a Tuesday ruling that allowed businesses to challenge the federal government's decisions on which wetlands and streams it can regulate. -
Scientists Underestimated Sulfur Dioxide Emissions -- Study
May 31, 2016 | E&E News PM
New research suggests scientists may have underestimated worldwide sulfur dioxide emissions.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Petchem Utilization Eased in April: ACC
Jun 1, 2016 | Argus
Global petrochemical production slowed in April, as worldwide capacity utilization slipped 0.5 percentage points to 79.4pc, down from 81pc a year ago, according to a report from the American Chemistry Council.
Activity was steady in North America and production increased in central and eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Production fell in Latin America, western Europe, and Asia. Despite lower utilization rates worldwide, production increased in most segments, with plastic resins showing the strongest performance, up 4.3pc from year-ago levels.
http://www.argusmedia.com/news/article/?id=1249526
-
Jun 1, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Linda Reinstein
It’s easy to get disenchanted and even disheartened in DC. So many people arrive here with ambitious and genuine goals of changing the world only to be held back by political realities that so often plague Capitol Hill. I know this story all too well. Since 2004, I have been committed to banning asbestos. Before my husband, Alan, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused cancer, I didn’t know this campaign was necessary. I was like so many others—blissfully unaware that the chemicals in the foods we ate, clothes we wore, water we drank and air we breathed were largely unregulated by our government. After Alan’s diagnosis, I learned the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the law governing chemicals in our country, was so weak, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wasn’t even able to ban known toxic chemicals as notoriously poisonous as asbestos. I thought surely this could be addressed quickly so no other family had to go through what we were facing. That was not the case.
But 12 years later, after taking on the most powerful corporations and industries in the world, we are finally on the path to victory. With the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, an end to the asbestos crisis in the United States is in sight.
To say that this has not been an easy road is a huge understatement. If a story ever demonstrated a David vs. Goliath fight, it is ours. The chemical industry fought meaningful reform every step of the way. From 2012 – 2015, theEnvironmental Working Group (EWG) reported the American Chemistry Council, along with chemical giants Dow, DuPont, BASF, 3M, Honeywell and Koch Industries, spent over $245 million lobbying lawmakers.
There is a lot at stake for the chemical industry, but there is even more for the asbestos victims community. We know the true cost of government inaction as we have watched our families and communities pay the ultimate price for corporate greed. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) organized nine Congressional staff briefings, brought victims to testify at six Congressional hearings, and served as stakeholders during four White House meetings. Our victory demonstrates the power of a story, the power of the American people, and the power of commitment to a cause.
Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) called asbestos “the poster child for TSCA reform.” Asbestos will also be the litmus test for the efficacy of this bill.
While this is a landmark step forward, the legislation that is going to the President’s desk is not perfect. Under this legislation, the EPA may take as long as seven years to assess, regulate, and ban asbestos. In order for this bill to succeed, we have to learn from the past.
Under the 1976 TSCA, the EPA conducted a ten-year study of asbestos, and in 1989 the EPA issued a regulation banning most asbestos-containing products. However, before the ban could go into effect, the asbestos manufacturers sued, arguing that EPA's regulatory procedure was flawed, that there was no substantial evidence of risk from asbestos exposure, and that the EPA did not use the least burdensome regulation to achieve its goals of minimum reasonable risk. The asbestos industry won, and in 1991, the ban was overturned.
Key hurdles causing the EPA’s previous asbestos ban to fail have been eliminated in the new legislation. Each year, the EPA Administrator will evaluate 10 chemical substances, prioritizing those listed as "persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic" on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. Because of the devastating effect of asbestos on human health, and thanks to the tireless work put in by asbestos victims and Congressional allies, asbestos will receive expedited action. Additionally, the regulation of asbestos will not be stipulated by market or financial concerns. Instead, substances that "present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," will be regulated "without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors."
The asbestos crisis our nation faces is due in large part to the fact that the asbestos industry thought they could pass the buck onto someone else. With asbestos diseases taking years – sometimes decades – to manifest, they knew that it would be someone else’s problem. We must ensure the buck is not passed again. While the ball is now squarely in the EPA’s court, it is on Congress to see this through. I look forward to continuing our work to ensure this law does what it is intended to do – protect the American people.
Reinstein is President/CEO, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO).
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/281752-victory-in-the-fight-against-asbestos-from-poster-child-for
-
At Long Last, New Chemical Safety Regulations
Jun 1, 2016 | Forbes
By Sam Lemonick
Congress is poised to overhaul the nation’s broken chemical regulations for the first time in four decades. And in an era of bitter partisan strife and historic legislative futility, it could happen with broad agreement from Democrats and Republicans, environmental groups and industry lobbyists.
America in the late 1960s was just waking up to the downsides of some of the industrial chemicals that had seemed so miraculous in the 1940s and 50s. Worries about the effects of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chemicals on people and the world around us prompted Congress to pass the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976. The new law gave the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate industrial chemicals.
Congress built TSCA to do three things: generate data about chemicals’ effects on human health and the environment, and give the government power to protect people from harm, but not hamper industry innovation or profits. Those conflicting goals may have doomed TSCA from the start.
TSCA assumes chemicals are safe until proven otherwise. It gives the EPA authority to ask the companies manufacturing or importing chemicals to test their safety before they can be used. But it doesn’t actually give the EPA much power to compel those tests, and as the years have passed the agency has essentially stopped asking for them.
It was TSCA that famously derailed the EPA’s efforts to ban asbestos, which might be the poster child for the dangers of toxic substances. Asbestos is the name for a group of fibrous minerals used as insulators and fire retardants. Asbestos is also a known carcinogen. But TSCA requires EPA to consider economic damages when regulating chemicals. A federal court ruled in 1991 that the agency had not fulfilled that requirement, and so could not ban asbestos.
The EPA’s impotence when it comes to chemical safety has drawn criticism from health and environmental advocates. Ironically, it’s made life harder for manufacturers, too.
In a regulatory vacuum, states like New York and California have passed their own laws about chemical safety. That has created a patchwork of laws that companies say can make it harder to sell the same product in different markets.
Pressure from the chemical industry is just one of the reasons we may soon have a brand new chemical safety law.
Recently, concerns about the effects of certain chemicals have begun to make headlines again. Bisphenol-A (BPA), an ingredient in clear plastics, has been linked to health problems, as have flame retardant chemicals used in clothes and furniture.
Congress has been tossing around ideas for TSCA reform since at least 2005. Over the course of the last eighteen months, Republicans and Democrats—not to mention the House and Senate—have been working out compromises that have led to a final bill.
That new legislation goes a long way in trying to right TSCA’s wrongs. For one, it removes one of the EPA’s major impediments to regulating effectively, namely the requirement that it consider economic costs in deciding whether to restrict or ban a chemical’s use.
It also reverses the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. The EPA is now required to certify a chemical is safe before it can be sold. The reform bill goes even further, giving the EPA more power to make companies test and report on new chemicals’ properties. And it imposes fees on those companies, which will generate up to $25 million each year that the EPA can use to carry out the regulations.
Finally, it gives the EPA a mandate to begin with testing the safety of chemicals thought to be particularly dangerous to infants, pregnant women, the elderly and workers in the chemical industry, as well as chemicals that build up in our bodies over time.
It does still have some limits. For instance, the new legislation limits states from taking regulatory action against new chemicals, although existing state laws will be allowed to stand. The bill also only covers a portion of the chemicals used in products around us. The Food and Drug Administration still has sole jurisdiction over foods and medicines.
The new law has support from just about everybody: the right, the left, environmentalists, industry lobbyists, health advocates. The House voted 403 to 12 to pass it, which is about as close to unanimous as it gets. The Senate was poised to vote on it too until Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky put the brakes on, saying he needed more time to read the bill.
The Senate is on vacation this week for Memorial Day. When they come back on June 6 they could change course on 40 years of chemical safety regulations.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samlemonick/2016/05/31/at-long-last-new-chemical-safety-regulations/#3b2181af233b
-
May 31, 2016 | Nature
The 1976 US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) must be one of the worst pieces of environmental legislation ever devised. Rather than empowering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that new chemicals are safe, the law declared all chemicals harmless, unless proven otherwise. The situation is so preposterous, in fact, that even the normally dysfunctional US Congress managed to unite last week to advance reform.
The bipartisan TSCA reform bill passed the House of Representatives, by a vote of 403–12, on 24 May. Although senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) has temporarily blocked a vote in the Senate, the legislation is expected to pass in the coming weeks, clearing the way for a signature by President Barack Obama. Once that happens, EPA scientists will at last have the authority to do their jobs.
Rather than watching passively as some 700 new chemicals enter all corners of the US marketplace each year, the EPA would be able to require companies to provide more data and conduct extra research to demonstrate the safety of the products. The legislation would also bolster review of existing substances. The TSCA inventory currently lists some 85,000 chemicals, but no one knows how many are still in use today. The EPA would create a new inventory and then sift through it to see which ones merit further investigation.
What is most remarkable about this reform legislation — aside from the fact that it took so long — is the list of supporters: Democrats and Republicans, both houses of Congress and the legislative branch, as well as many environmentalists and the chemical industry. The reason is simple: the companies that manufacture and use chemicals, once adamantly opposed to such reform bills, have realized that a viable federal regulatory system is in their financial interest. The complete lack of public confidence in the EPA’s authority under the TSCA has pushed environmental officials at the state level to launch their own investigations and regulations. The upshot is that without a stronger federal system, the industry faces an increasingly complex — and uncertain — patchwork of regulations.
This is all good news for the public, which is bombarded daily by news reports, environmental campaigns and scientific studies that analyse the danger of one chemical or another in products that they purchase every day. It is also good for science. The new law will drive research into chemicals of concern, and companies will find it harder to claim that the information that they submit is a trade secret. As a result, more data will enter the public and academic spheres, and that is always a good thing.
Environmentalists pushed to ensure that the EPA’s new decisions about health risks will be based on health data alone, without regard to economic implications. Under the new legislation, the EPA would be able to consider economic impacts in any subsequent cost–benefit analysis only if it moves forward with regulations. And industry pushed for mandatory deadlines to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner. All in all, it’s a reasonable compromise that moves the regulatory needle in the right direction.
It is also a blueprint for what ultimately needs to happen to break the legislative stalemate on what is perhaps the greatest environmental challenge: the effect of greenhouse gases on climate. Despite overwhelming evidence showing the need for action, the energy industry has obstructed and stalled for too long, and the only real result is prolonged regulatory uncertainty. If major businesses, including energy producers and consumers, were to get together en masse and push for regulation, Republican lawmakers would be forced to pull their heads out of the sand and think about reasonable solutions that are in line with their own political values.
Low-carbon energy such as nuclear power and that obtained from renewables would benefit the most, but natural gas would also get a short-term boost as utilities back further away from coal, which is already on the decline. Even coal would see its chances of survival increase in the long run, because properly agreed federal regulations would bolster the economics and interest in technologies that can be used to capture and sequester, or even use, carbon dioxide. At a minimum, with a legitimate set of rules in place, companies could move forward and plan their long-term investments accordingly.
Everyone could see that the original TSCA bill created a problem. It has taken decades, but reform was inevitable. The need for legal controls on the generation and control of greenhouse gases is just as clear — indeed, that is why the energy industry has fought so hard to undermine the evidence. This time, we do not have decades to waste.
http://www.nature.com/news/toxic-control-1.20001?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
-
Udall To Rally For Chemical Safety Reform Today
May 31, 2016 | LA Daily Post
By Carol A. Clark
From the Office of Sen. Tom Udall:
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall will celebrate historic progress on the the push to reform the broken chemical safety law with a rally at an Albuquerque business devoted to selling home and building products free of hazardous chemicals.
Joining Udall will be business owners, building trade workers, the March of Dimes, moms and experts on health and safety, including Dr. Cheryl Willman of the UNM Cancer Center, Bernalillo County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins and Caroline Scruggs of UNM’s School of Architecture and Planning.
Udall has led the bipartisan effort in Congress to fix this broken system to keep our children and communities safe in New Mexico and across the nation. A final agreement on his bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives 403-12 this week. It is expected to pass the Senate very soon and be signed into law by the president.
Background: Most Americans believe that if they can buy a product at the grocery or hardware store it has been tested for safety — but that’s not true because the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has been broken from the beginning. For 40 years, hundreds of chemicals each year have been manufactured and allowed to be put on the market without being evaluated for safety. Even chemicals that are known carcinogens or highly toxic, like asbestos, formaldehyde, flame retardants, BPA and lead, are not regulated for consumer safety. Infants, pregnant women, the elderly and workers exposed to chemicals on the job are particularly at risk. Udall's bipartisan legislation is the first overhaul of the broken law since it was passed in 1976.
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/udall-rally-chemical-safety-reform-today
-
Udall Touts Chemical Regulation Bill
May 31, 2016 | Albuquerque Journal
By Charlie Moore
States like California have their own policies in place for regulating the chemicals found in myriad consumer products, but New Mexico does not — and we are not alone.
Most states have not taken such action, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said Tuesday in Albuquerque while touting the need for new, uniform federal regulations on chemicals already used in the likes of furniture, carpet and water bottles — some that have been linked to diseases like cancer and Parkinson’s.
“It may surprise you, but the vast majority of states across the country do not have a regulatory mechanism. They haven’t spent the dollars and the time; they’ve relied on the federal scheme which hasn’t been working,” Udall said during a news conference at a local business, Southwest Green Home Center, which sells toxin-free home goods. “Even states like Ohio and Virginia are in the same place as New Mexico. The vast majority of states aren’t protected.”
Udall has sponsored a bill that would give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to test the safety of the estimated 85,000 chemicals in use and the power to review the approximately 750-1,500 new chemicals that emerge annually before they go on the market. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would update the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act. It already passed the House by a landslide margin, and Udall said he expected a Senate to pass the bill in the first half of June. It would then go to President Barack Obama, who already has indicated his support.
Udall and a series of speakers said Tuesday that the reform is badly needed, noting that Americans often incorrectly assume the government has OK’d the chemicals used to make the items they find at stores, whether it’s a sofa or a children’s toy.
Caroline Scruggs, an assistant professor at University of New Mexico who studied the safe use of chemicals while earning her doctorate from Stanford University, said her research has shown “a clear and urgent need” to update the 1976 law but that becoming a mother drove the point home. She said she has tried to study the chemicals in products her sons use and worries about exposing them to toxins.
“Americans shouldn’t need to research product ingredients or have training in toxicology or chemical engineering to understand if they’re buying safe products,” she said. “Tens of thousands of chemicals are on the market and only a handful have received safety testing and under current (federal law), and it’s almost impossible for EPA to restrict risky chemicals.”
The chemical industry will contribute $25 million annually to the EPA under the proposed law, bolstering the agency’s toxics-related department budget to about $80 million, Udall said.
http://www.abqjournal.com/783494/udall-touts-chemical-regulation-bill.html
-
Guthrie Votes for Comprehensive Energy, Environment Bills
May 31, 2016 | Grayson County News Gazette
Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02) voted last week for multiple bills that support an all-of-the-above energy policy, promote a healthy environment, and reduce duplicative and onerous regulations.
“These bills modernize outdated energy laws and address pressing issues that our nation is currently facing,” said Guthrie. “Our economy has seen substantial changes since the last major rewrite of our energy laws and there are new environmental needs as well, all coming after nearly a decade of heavy-handed regulation from an activist Administration. We must continue to update our laws to reflect current needs and also stop regulations that stifle innovation and productivity.”
The House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act, passed with bipartisan and bicameral support. This bill reforms the Toxic Substances and Control Act to update chemical safety laws and provide direction for the use of scientific evaluations in assessing the health and environmental effects of chemicals.
The House Amendment to S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act, is the culmination of months of work by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to address a variety of energy policy issues and now sets up a conference with the Senate to finalize a comprehensive energy policy reform bill. The House bill includes reforms to speed liquefied natural gas exports, streamline permitting processes for important energy infrastructure projects, and provides for enhanced grid security through emergency preparedness measures that prioritize advanced technologies to address a number of potential threats to the grid.
“I support an all-of-the-above energy policy, and the work accomplished by the House this week provides a number of important reforms to ensure our energy policy does not pick winners and losers in the market, and ultimately fights back against an Administration that has used energy policy to advance a radical agenda,” said Guthrie.
http://gcnewsgazette.com/news/4185/guthrie-votes-for-comprehensive-energy-environment-bills
-
Shimkus on Trump: 'I'm on the Team'
May 31, 2016 | Effingham Daily News
By Bill Grimes
U.S. Rep. John Shimkus said he supports presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in the presidential race.
"I'm a Republican, he's our nominee," the Collinsville Republican said. "I'm on the team."
Shimkus, who visited the Effingham Daily News at midday Tuesday after meeting with constituents for much of the morning at his Effingham office, said Trump has brought new people into the GOP fold.
"I am concerned about some of the things he says, but he has brought disaffected populists into our party — middle class people who feel shafted by this (Obama) administration," he said. "I'm not going to discount Donald Trump."
Shimkus said he doesn't think it matters much who a candidate chooses as a running mate, but noted that the GOP's No. 2 probably ought to be someone with a relatively sober mindset.
"I don't know if we can have two bomb-throwers on the ticket," the congressman said.
Shimkus said the presidential election cycle always compresses the time that members of Congress have to do their work.
"It takes us out of DC for two weeks," he said, referring to each party's respective conventions. "The schedule gets so compressed that we really don't have many working days left."
Shimkus said most of the remaining time before the presidential election will be spent on budgetary matters, now that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which Shimkus sponsored, has passed the House of Representatives.
"This was a bad law that was so hard to fix," the congressman said. Originally passed in 1976, TSCA originally allowed asbestos to remain usable despite its carcinogenic properties, for example.
The proposed new law, which passed the House 403-12 last week:
• Streamlines the process for testing chemical substances:
• Restructures the way existing chemicals are evaluated and regulated.
• Clarifies the treatment of trade secrets.
• Updates the way fees are collected to support the implementation of TSCA by the EPA.
• Organizes the regulatory relationship between states and the federal government that promotes interstate and global commerce.
The full name of the bill is the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named for the late Senator from New Jersey who crusaded for criminal safety during much of his Senate career.
http://www.effinghamdailynews.com/news/local_news/shimkus-on-trump-i-m-on-the-team/article_c0577392-14c9-581f-b2b0-3b831081f1e3.html
-
HFC Phaseout Consistent with Congress's Intent, EPA Says
Jun 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency has always viewed hydrofluorocarbons as a temporary substitute for ozone-depleting chemicals, and a rule phasing out the use of HFCs in favor of less harmful substances is consistent with that stance, the agency told a federal appellate court (Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1328, briefs filed5/27/16).
The EPA's decision to update its list of acceptable alternatives for ozone-depleting substances under the Clean Air Act in order to phase out some uses of HFCs with significant global warming potentials in favor of less-damaging substances is consistent with Congress's direction to ensure that approved alternatives pose no additional harm to public health or the environment, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a brief filed May 27.
The EPA's HFC phaseout rule (RIN:2060-AS18), which is being challenged by two chemical manufacturers, is consistent with a 1994 rule (59 Fed. Reg. 13,044) outlining how it would make the acceptability determinations.
“It was entirely reasonable under EPA's longstanding comparative risk framework, and consistent with the statute, for EPA to reconsider the acceptability status of certain hydrofluorocarbons and determine that other available alternatives pose a lower overall risk to human health and the environment,” the EPA said.
Mexichem Fluor Inc. and Arkema Inc. had argued that the EPA's decision to phase out use of some HFCs as acceptable alternatives for ozone-depleting substances in aerosols, foam blowing, motor vehicle air conditioning, retail food refrigeration and vending machines is a reversal of its application of Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, because the agency compared HFCs to later generations of chemicals (61 DEN A-2, 3/30/16).
Congress Expected Determinations to Evolve
The chemical companies' interpretation of the EPA's ability to determine acceptable alternatives would preclude the agency from ever revising its determinations based on new information, the EPA argued.
“According to petitioners, once EPA identifies a non-ozone-depleting substance as acceptable, the statute precludes EPA from changing its status, regardless of the import of new information that may later come to light or the proliferation of safer alternatives. That position lacks any statutory or regulatory support,” the EPA said.
Congress required the EPA to maintain a list of substances it “determines” are acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. That use of the present tense “determines” in the statute rather than the past tense “determined” indicates Congress intended for the EPA to update the list of acceptable alternatives as needed, the EPA argued.
“EPA should not be forced to keep an alternative on the approved list where the Agency has unambiguously determined that a less-risky substitute is available, and nothing in Section 7671k indicates that Congress intended to hamstring EPA in that way,” the agency said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90775335&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90775335&jd=90775335
-
Maryland Vetoes Increased Renewable Energy Mandate
Jun 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) has vetoed legislation (S.B. 921/H.B. 1106) that would have increased the amount of electricity Maryland suppliers must get from renewable sources from 20 percent by 2022 to 25 percent by 2020.
The legislation had cleared both chambers of the General Assembly by veto-proof margins, setting the stage for an override debate, as required under the state constitution, when lawmakers convene their 2017 session in January.
Hogan called the measure “a tax increase that will be levied upon every single ratepayer in Maryland and, for that reason alone, I cannot allow it to become law.”
In a May 27letter informing lawmakers of the veto, Hogan said, “Maryland ratepayers already were assessed over $104 million in renewable energy credits in 2014,” the last year for which data are available.
Current law specifies the percentage of electricity that suppliers must obtain from renewable sources each year, climbing gradually to 20 percent by 2022, including at least 2 percent derived from solar energy.
Suppliers comply with the requirements by purchasing credits from facilities that generate energy from renewable sources, a cost that gets reflected in consumer energy prices.
Supplier Documentation Required
Suppliers must document each year that they retired enough credits to equal the percentage set by statute or pay a penalty, dubbed an alternative compliance payment, although the Maryland Public Service Commission said in a January report that compliance is achieved “almost entirely” by credits bought from renewable energy facilities, not penalties.
The vetoed legislation would have accelerated the gradual climb in the amount of electricity to be derived from renewables to 25 percent by 2020, including 2.5 percent from solar.
Hogan's letter said the goal of increasing the renewable energy portfolio standard was “laudable, but increasing taxes to achieve this goal is the wrong approach.”
The Maryland Sierra Club expressed dismay that Hogan vetoed this legislation after having signed S.B. 323, which increased Maryland's target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (65 DEN A-6, 4/5/16).
Portfolio Standard Needed
“A strengthened renewable energy portfolio standard is one of the needed pillars in Maryland's clean energy and climate plans to meet any greenhouse gas reduction targets,” the group said in a May 27 news release.
Calling Hogan's veto “flawed,” club director Josh Tulkin said the legislation “was a win-win for Maryland because it had the support of businesses and environmentalists, grew the clean energy workforce in our state, and deployed over a gigawatt of renewable energy.”
A three-fifths veto override would require 29 votes in the Senate and 85 in the House.
The prior Senate votes on the two companion bills were 31–14 in favor of S.B. 921 and 32-–14 in favor of H.B. 1106. The House voted 91–48 and 92–43, respectively, on the bills.
Tax Credit Extended
The governor signed another energy-related measure (S.B. 936) from the 2016 legislative session May 19, thus extending for three years an existing clean energy incentive tax credit for facilities that produce electricity from qualified energy resources.
The bill, however, eliminates the tax credit for any facilities that use coal to co-fire a qualified energy resource, although a spokesman for the Maryland Energy Administration told Bloomberg BNA that the removal of that language was mostly symbolic, because he was unaware of any credits ever claimed for co-firing a qualified resource with coal.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90775345&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90775345&jd=90775345
-
Industry, States Defend Fracking Rule Injunction
Jun 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Alan Kovski
A preliminary injunction that suspended federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing was based on a variety of good reasons and is likely to be a moot issue before an appeals court can decide on the legitimacy of the injunction, two industry groups told the appeals court (Wyoming v. Interior, 10th Cir., No. 15-8126, 5/25/16).
The injunction is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit while the case against the underlying rule from the Bureau of Land Management is being considered in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
“BLM continues to persist in this appeal, and to burden the resources of the parties and this Court, to challenge a preliminary injunction virtually certain to be moot before this Court can decide this appeal,” said the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance in a brief to the appeals court May 25.
“BLM persists despite the merits being fully briefed and submitted to the district court for decision,” the two groups said.
The bureau also focused far too much of its appeal on the question of whether the agency had the statutory authority to issue its rule on hydraulic fracturing while failing to adequately address the many other reasons the district court cited for the preliminary injunction, the groups said.
Laws, Potential Harm Argued
The Obama administration told the appeals court in March that not only did the BLM have adequate authority under Federal Land Policy and Management Act and various mineral leasing statutes but also that the plaintiffs—including industry, four states and an Indian tribe—failed to demonstrate they faced irreparable substantial harm in the absence of an injunction (56 DEN A-19, 3/23/16).
“BLM ignores that the final rule also fails on numerous counts as a matter of administrative law. The district court correctly determined that multiple independent bases undermine the validity of the final rule,” the industry associations told the appeals court.
“The district court determined that BLM lacked statutory authority to issue the rule. But the district court also ruled that, among other independent flaws, BLM failed to: (i) address evidence in opposition to the conclusions BLM reached; (ii) explain meaningful changes in existing law and practice; (iii) investigate the costs the rule imposes; and (iv) justify the application of disparate treatment to functionally similar products,” the associations said.
As for the amount of potential harm needed to justify an injunction, the associations argued that not only was the government underestimating the potential for direct financial harm but it also was overlooking the potential harm from disclosure of trade secrets, a reference to fracking fluid formulas.
States Defend Injunction
Four states told the district court the BLM was exceeding its authority in trying to regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal land, where fracking already is regulated by states, and that was a prominent argument cited when the district court issued its injunction (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-43, 9/30/15; 190 DEN A-8, 10/1/15).
Three of the states, led by Wyoming, recapitulated their argument to the appeals court in defense of the injunction in a brief filed May 25.
The BLM based its rulemaking authority on statutes that allow for the regulation of leasing on federal land but do not include the regulation of hydraulic fracturing or the protection of groundwater as their purpose, the states said.
The argument before the appeals court consolidates two appeals—one from environmental activist intervenors (No. 15-8126) and one from the federal government (No. 15-8134).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90775356&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90775356&jd=90775356
-
Water Is Another 'Add-On' in Bakken Future, North Dakota Official Says
May 31, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
In addition to better exploiting the value of natural gas and natural gas liquids, the next chapter of Bakken Shale development in North Dakota will be written about water, according to Lynn Helms, the state's chief oil/gas regulator.
In an interview with NGI's Shale Daily in his Bismarck office, Helms said what is done about water in the oil/gas industry looms as a major policy question for the state and operating question for the producers, who many think will begin ramping up with expected higher commodity prices in the months ahead.
"How can we reduce the water handling costs and risks; is there a way to move it and recycle it for hydraulic fracturing [fracking]?" That's the poignant question currently, Helms said.
Or could it be used more for cooling water in onsite energy generation, he said, adding that the biggest single cost for producers is water handling.
"We have discovered that during this recent [price decline] period as companies have shifted their focus from growth to cost reduction that number one cost is water handling," Helms said. "Getting water for fracking and then dealing with the flow-back water from the fracking are involved. There is a lot of opportunity there."
Helms said there is going to be more money invested in research to figure out ways to deal with this issue. It is part of the Bakken Optimization Study ongoing at the North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), he noted.
"We don't know if our [oil industry] produced water can ever be used for something like crop irrigation, but we think it could be suitable for fracking and cooling water, and then it becomes a replacement for fresh water," Helms said. "In other states there are produced water streams that can actually be cleaned up and used to irrigate cotton fields and things like that."
He said it is doubtful that Bakken water can ever achieve that, but "we can certainly find ways to be more efficient with it, and it should be cheaper than what industry is doing with it now."
Helms said he attended meetings in Denver in mid-May to represent North Dakota in a government-industry effort involving rural water users and state agricultural officials to partner on a two-year project to research and create a legal framework to figure out how to make better use of produced water.
Separately, in a speech two days later at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference last week, Helms said that during the price downturn it is clear operators have "learned how to frack better," referring to the so-called "super-fracks" that involve using greater amounts of sand and water. "They have increased the industry's production and the overall recovery per well by 20%," he said.
"Overall, operators have become much wiser and more efficient about fracking." In the past two years, overall costs are down about 60-30% for fracking and rig efficiency and another 30% in operating costs," Helms said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106596-water-is-another-add-on-in-bakken-future-north-dakota-official-says
-
Last Piece of Marcellus-Focused Ohio-Louisiana Access Approved For Service
Jun 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Ohio-Louisiana Access Project of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners' Texas Gas Transmission LLC was approved to enter full service last week as FERC allowed operations to begin at the greenfield Bosco Compressor Station in Ouachita Parish, LA.
"The project is on schedule to be placed into service tomorrow, June 1, and we will have the ability to flow the project's full contracted capacity of approximately 626,000 MMBtu/d. The amount that flows will depend on customer nominations," a Boardwalk spokeswoman said.
Ohio-Louisiana Access provides capacity for Marcellus/Utica shale gas to travel from Lebanon, OH, to Midwestern and southern markets through the addition of north-to-south capability on Texas Gas (see Daily GPI, Sept. 1, 2015).
Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC is the project's foundation shipper with 300,000 MMBtu/d of capacity (see Daily GPI, Oct. 10, 2014). Besides Sabine, there are six other shippers on Ohio-Louisiana Access: R.E. Gas Development LLC, Jay-Bee Production Co., Louisville Gas and Electric Co., Gulfport Energy Corp., DTE Energy Trading Inc., and Public Energy Authority of Kentucky.
Besides the construction of the 10,915 hp Bosco Compressor Station, the project also modified the existing Gulf South-Bosco receipt meter station to allow bidirectional gas flow; and made certain yard and station piping modifications at the Dillsboro, Columbia, Pineville and Eunice compressor stations to add north-to-south capability, while retaining the ability to flow south to north [CP14-553]. In April the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted permission for these project facilities to enter service.
Dominion Transmission Inc.'s (DTI) Lebanon West II Project will carry gas from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania to Lebanon for subsequent southbound travel on Ohio-Louisiana Access (see Shale Daily, Oct. 10, 2014). Lebanon West II was approved by FERC last November (see Daily GPI, Nov. 23, 2015). It is expected to be in service on Nov. 1.
With Lebanon West II, DTI will have the ability to provide an additional 130,000 Dth/d of firm transportation service from its MarkWest Liberty Bluestone Interconnection in Butler County, PA, to the Lebanon-Texas Gas Interconnection in Warren County, OH.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106593-last-piece-of-marcellus-focused-ohio-louisiana-access-approved-for-service
-
Cheniere Completes Train 1 Commissioning at Louisiana LNG Terminal
May 31, 2016 | Platts
By Jim Magill
Cheniere Energy Partners has completed the commissioning of its first liquefaction train at the Sabine Pass liquefaction project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, the company said in a statement Tuesday.
Bechtel, the contractor on the project, completed construction work on Friday and turned over care, custody and control of Train 1 to Cheniere Partners.
Cheniere is taking control of Train 1 "months ahead of the guaranteed completion date and on budget," CEO Jack Fusco said, noting staff had "worked tirelessly since 2012 to complete this significant milestone."
Sabine Pass LNG shipped its first LNG export cargo in February, with the sailing of the tanker Asia Vision to Brazil loaded with the LNG equivalent of 3.44 Bcf of gas.A total of 10 LNG cargoes have been exported from the terminal to date.
BG owns rights to most of the supply to be produced from Train 1 and Cheniere said it expects the first major commercial delivery of LNG from Train 1 to BG to occur in November under a 20-year sale and purchase agreement with BG Gulf Coast LNG.
Now that Train 1 has achieved substantial completion, going forward Cheniere expects to include financial results from its LNG sales in its statement of operations.
In addition to Train 1, Cheniere Partners, through its subsidiary, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, plans to construct up to five more liquefaction trains, which are in various stages of development and construction. The trains will be built next to Sabine Pass LNG's existing regasification facilities.
Train 2 is undergoing commissioning and is expected to begin producing LNG in due course; Trains 3 through 5 are under construction and Train 6 is fully permitted. Each liquefaction train is expected to have a nominal production capacity of about 4.5 million mt/year of LNG, the company said.
To date, SPL has entered into six third-party LNG sale and purchase agreements that add up to about 19.75 million mt/year of LNG.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/houston/cheniere-completes-train-1-commissioning-at-louisiana-21582184
-
May 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Cylvia Hayes
Ticking time bombs are rumbling through the Pacific Northwest. Nearly overnight the railways of the west have become primary transport routes for trains filled with highly flammable crude oil. Studies report a 5000-percent increase in oil by rail in North America since 2008. With this rapid increase in traffic has come an enormous uptick in derailments, spills and explosions. It is likely a matter of when, not if, one of these trains spews crude into the Deschutes or Columbia Rivers or explodes in someone’s neighborhood.
I first became concerned about oil trains in 2011. As a long-time energy and climate expert and at that time the first lady of Oregon I began researching the logistics and dynamics of oil by rail as well as the options available to states to regulate oil trains. My findings were troubling.
How We Got Here
The reason for the massive expansion in oil train traffic is due to breakthroughs in drilling technology that make it possible to extract crude and natural gas from shale deposits that were previously inaccessible. Through horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as fracking) highly pressurized fluids are forced deep underground to crack rock and allow trapped gas and oil to be pumped to the surface.The rapid increase in production outpaced the infrastructure for transporting the crude. Lacking sufficient pipeline capacity to handle the enormous uptick in supply, the oil industry’s default option has been to ship the crude by rail in miles’ long chains of black tanker cars.
Prior to 2008 very few crude oil tank cars passed through the Pacific Northwest. Today, it’s estimated that 25 trains a week travel to refineries in Washington State. Each train consists of approximately 100 cars carrying 700 gallons of oil a piece for a total of 30,000 gallons per train. That’s three quarters of a million gallons each week, yet only a fraction of what’s being planned.
Until recently the oil coming through the Northwest has been destined for domestic markets. However, in December 2015, the U.S. Congress removed a forty-year ban on exporting oil. This means, the Pacific Northwest, given its proximity to Asia via shipping channels, stands squarely between the most voracious energy markets in the world and huge North American fossil fuel deposits including Powder River Basin coal, Bakken shale oil and the Alberta tar sands.
Oil Train Derailments and Explosions
The massive expansion of oil by rail has led to numerous crashes and spills. According to records from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2014 saw a six-fold increase in “unintentional releases” from railroad tankers compared to the average number of spills between 1975 and 2012. In 2013 the 1.4 million gallons of oil spilled in train incidents was more than the total for all oil by rail spills since record keeping began in 1975. These incidents are especially dangerous because most of the crude coming from fracking is far more volatile and flammable than conventional crude sources.The most sensational and tragic incident occurred in July 2013 when 47 people were killed in an oil train inferno in Lac Megantic, Quebec. Other spills sparked a fireball in Virginia, contaminated groundwater in Colorado and poured across acres of ground in Montana. Based on railroad industry data, more than 25 million Americans live within a one-mile blast and evacuation zone of a potential oil train fire.
Moving Forward from Here
Despite the clear risks associated with oil by rail there are currently plans for massive expansion throughout the Northwest.According to Eric de Place, Policy Director, for Sightline Institute, “There is currently enough built capacity to handle 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil per day. What we know is the industry wants to build the capacity to handle over one million barrels of oil per day, which is way more than we can consume in this region.”
There are approximately a dozen proposed fossil fuel export projects in the Northwest. The Tesoro Savage’s Vancouver project with a capacity of 360,000 barrels per day, is the largest proposal of its kind in North America. According to some calculations this facility alone could increase oil train traffic through the region five-fold.
Last year the federal government did take some steps to increase the safety of oil trains. This incudes a scheduled phase out of older tank cars with newer models that have stronger shells, valves and protective shields to withstand a collision or derailment. The new regulations also require that tank cars on long trains be equipped with an advanced braking system to cut the time and distance needed to stop.
The Inconvenient Bigger Picture
Preventing a massive oil spill in the iconic Columbia or Deschutes rivers or ensuring that neighborhoods don’t blow up in raging firestorms are worthy goals in and of themselves. However, even if rail transport of oil becomes safe there is still a terrible threat.Research using detailed data and well-established economic models, shows that in order to avoid overshooting the 2 degree Celsius rise in Earth’s temperature that would bring cataclysmic consequences we have to keep a lot of the remaining fossil fuel in the ground, unburned.
Research published in the journal Nature builds on these findings by not only explaining how much fossil fuel would need to be left unburned but also showing regional variations. The study reports that meeting the 2C target would require keeping 82% of today’s coal reserves in the ground. In major coal producing nations like the US, Australia and Russia, more than 90% of remaining coal reserves would need to remain underground. For natural gas 50% of global reserves must remain unburned. And, a third of all remaining oil must be left belowground. The study suggests that keeping the necessary reserves of fossil fuels in the ground through the most economically viable scenarios would require leaving Canada’s tar sands oil virtually untouched.
This means the oil and coal trains plowing through the Pacific Northwest are carrying fossil fuels from the very places that most need to remain un-mined to prevent catastrophic levels of global climate change. Infrastructure isn’t a sexy topic but it is one that is crucial to our futures. Just like the baseball stadium in Field of Dreams, if we build it they will come. In this case, they will be more trains carrying more of the fossil fuel that needs to remain in the ground.
Our Crossroads
The Pacific Northwest, for many good reasons, claims to be a leader in clean energy and climate change action. However that claim is incompatible with allowing our region to become the Gulf Coast of oil train exports. A growing movement is stepping up to this dichotomy.In British Columbia, Washington and Oregon Native American Tribes, environmental groups, firefighters unions, sports fishers, doctors and public health advocates have all joined the effort to stop the advancement of oil train infrastructure. Sightline Institute has begun calling the region the Thin Green Line. Approximately 20 organizations have formed a coalition called Stand Up to Oil.
There is evidence that this opposition is causing change. Both the Portland and Seattle City Councils recently passed resolutions opposing and restricting oil train transport through the cities. These actions are largely symbolic because, due to interstate commerce laws, cities and even states have little regulatory control over railways. However, the combination of citizen and governmental actions combined with artificially low oil prices is having an effect. Port Westward, the major oil export facility in Oregon has switched back to exporting cleaner ethanol and a facility in Gray’s Harbor Washington has decided to stay with ethanol rather than expanding to crude oil exports.
In the volatile world of fossil fuel extraction, export and addiction the next several years will be a defining era for the Thin Green Line of the Pacific Northwest. This is a time for vigilance and action.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cylvia-hayes/an-explosive-issue_b_10174214.html
-
How The World Can Get To 100% Renewable Energy By 2050
May 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By MoneyTips
Is 100% renewable energy feasible for the world, or is it just a pipedream? It can be reality, according to a new report issued by Greenpeace. Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook 2015 contends that it is possible for Earth’s electricity needs to be 100% provided by renewable energy by 2050, replacing both fossil-fuels and nuclear energy as electricity sources.
That is an exciting premise, but it does depend on a lot of assumptions — technical, financial, and political — that are quite optimistic. Still, the claim is just feasibility, and that does seem reasonable under the given sets of assumptions.
The timing of the release is likely not a coincidence. It came out just ahead of the UN Climate Summit in Paris, so world leaders could use this report as a reference when they discuss ways to deal with climate change.
Greenpeace is quite clear about what it considers the biggest challenge — the political argument within key nations, including the U.S. Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace’s executive director, urges that leaders “must not let the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying stand in the way” and asks skeptics to read the report and “recognize that it (100% conversion to renewable energy) can be done and must be done for the benefit of people around the world.”
The upfront price tag seems to be a more likely stumbling block, although that cannot be extricated from the political argument. According to the report, nearly $1.6 trillion per year in annual investment is necessary to reach the “Advanced Scenario” 100% renewable mark by 2050, or approximately $64.6 trillion over the next 35 years.
A fanciful forecast? Not necessarily. Greenpeace points out that its report is part of a collaborative effort with the German Aerospace Center (DLR), among other scientific contributors. Greenpeace also accurately points out that so far they have done a better job in predicting growth in the clean energy sector than the U.S. Department of Energy, the International Energy Agency, or analysts with Goldman Sachs. However, getting a forecast right in the infancy stages of new technology is a completely different animal than predicting conversion and replacement of existing technology. Assumptions do not necessarily transfer.
Greenpeace counters that it is not a question of forecast. Their point is that we must achieve this goal, or risk going beyond the 2°C target on limiting global mean temperature change, “above which the impacts become devastating.”
Let’s take that as a given, regardless of your views. What are the underlying assumptions to make this scenario happen, aside from the investments and government incentive programs tilted toward supporting renewables and away from fossil fuels?
Some of the assumptions are quite reasonable, such as the development of improved battery storage options and smart grids to handle peak loads and distribute electricity more evenly to match demand. A great deal of progress has already been made in this area, and the decentralized energy concept is such a large technological enabler that it already has significant positive momentum.
Other assumptions come with a large dose of salt, such as the $64.6 trillion price tag being covered by future savings in fuel costs. This not only requires 100% adoption of renewable energy but many assumptions on efficient use of that energy that decrease demand. Not only will new systems require the corresponding technological advances, older facilities will have to be refurbished — and most importantly, all citizens of the world will have to adapt to new lifestyles that focus onenergy savings and adoption of the new technologies and concepts. Good luck with that one, Greenpeace.
For more information, you can download the entire Greenpeace report and make your own decisions on feasibility and urgency.
Regardless of your belief, or lack thereof, in climate change and the urgency of conversion to renewable energy, surely we can all agree that economically feasible renewable energy is a desirable goal. If leaders can look at the Greenpeace report through that prism instead of a political one, perhaps we can address the issues and make economical renewable energy a reality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moneytips/how-the-world-can-get-to-_b_10202786.html
-
EPA Staff Divided On Allowing CWA Permits For Groundwater Discharges
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA staff are divided on whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) allows regulators to require discharge permits for pollutants that travel through groundwater to protected surface waters, an agency permit official says, as some scientists back advocates' push for such permits while agency attorneys are urging caution on the novel approach.
Speaking May 20 at an American Legal Institute-Continuing Legal Education seminar on CWA law and policy in Washington, D.C., EPA's Tom Laverty, who works in the Office of Wastewater Management's (OWM) permit division, said the agency is "of two minds" on whether to back the advocates' position.
Environmentalists are pursuing at least three lawsuits trying to win court rulings establishing that CWA permit writers can impose discharge limits on pollutants traveling through groundwater.
Laverty -- a special assistant for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program at OWM -- said that within EPA, "I think the hydrologists and the biologists see it as something -- they focus on the connectivity and the transmission [of pollutants], and because there is in some of these cases an identifiable source of pollution, they reason their way to 'well, you should permit the source.'"
But he noted that the agency's legal team does not appear to share that approach, saying, "However, I believe our good friends at [the EPA Office of General Counsel] take a more cautionary view."
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the issue, and sources outside the agency say they have seen no signals that regulators are planning to act to take a definitive position on the debate in the near future.
But if EPA does formally back the position that discharges to groundwater can require NPDES permits, it could significantly expand the universe of facilities requiring permits even if that backing does not extend to a binding rule, because courts will defer to agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes in litigation.
The CWA requires permits for any discharge from a point source to protected waters, and defines "point source" as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance . . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged."
Groundwater Releases
Since groundwater is not considered to be a "water of the United States" subject to CWA protections, NPDES permits have historically not been required for releases to groundwater.
However, environmentalists are now claiming in three pending citizen suits that if pollution travels from a facility through a groundwater channel to protected surface waters, then the groundwater channel itself can be the "discernible, confined and discrete conveyance" through which pollutants are delivered.
"I think in terms of the current cutting edge [of the CWA], where are we going now, discharges through groundwater seems like the obvious one," Waterkeeper Alliance's Dan Estrin said during the May 20 seminar.
However, industry attorneys at the seminar warned that expanding the NPDES program to cover some groundwater releases would risk overburdening regulators who are already stretched thin.
Hunton & Williams' Kristy A. Niehaus Bulleit noted that the agency already has a large backlog of CWA permits to process, and that groundwater discharge permits would exacerbate that situation.
Best Best & Krieger's Shawn Hagerty, who has worked on groundwater litigation, said during the seminar that expanding permits to groundwater releases risks "overburdening the program, and trying to jam a solution to all our problems into a single program."
Hagerty drew a connection between the groundwater litigation and EPA's contentious rule defining which waters are "waters of the United States" subject to the CWA, which critics have attacked as vague and expansive. The agency's broad definition of what is a "tributary" to a navigable water covered by CWA protections encourages third parties to try expanding other regulations of water that flows into jurisdictional waterbodies, he said.
"While that tributary thinking has an important place in the 'Waters of the United States' context, when applied in this point source context it really has the threat of eliminating the distinction between point and non-point sources," he said.
Pending Lawsuit
The most prominent pending case advocates are pursuing on the groundwater issue is County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al., which is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In that case, the county is hoping to overturn a May 2014 ruling by U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii that said injection wells permitted under the safe Drinking Water Act were acting as CWA point sources when they released effluent into subsurface springs that flow to the ocean.
The county is arguing in its briefs that the 2014 ruling "upends" the CWA's permit program, both by requiring a permit for disposal into groundwater even though it is not normally subject to the CWA and by requiring a permit for non-point source discharges on the sole basis that groundwater containing effluent collected from that source eventually reaches the ocean.
Meanwhile, environmentalists in North Carolina and Virginia are pursuing two CWA citizen suits against coal ash disposal sites where they say contaminants are leaking into groundwater which then flows to protected waters. Both cases are pending in district court after judges backed the advocates' arguments on whether groundwater releases can require permits, and rejected the industry defendants' bid for immediate, consolidated review of the question in the 4th Circuit.
Judges in both cases held in orders that rejected industry motions to dismiss the complaints that groundwater releases can be subject to CWA restrictions if the pollutants then flow to protected waters. However, both judges left for later in the litigation a decision on whether the defendants had actually acted unlawfully.
Yadkin Riverkeeper, et al., v. Duke Energy, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and Sierra Club, et al. v. Dominion Virginia Power, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, are proceeding to trial on those liability issues, with appeals to the 4th Circuit likely to come soon after.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-staff-divided-allowing-cwa-permits-groundwater-discharges
-
Supreme Court Ruling Means More Clean Water Act Lawsuits are Likely
May 31, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider
The Supreme Court opened the door to more lawsuits over the Clean Water Act in a Tuesday ruling that allowed businesses to challenge the federal government's decisions on which wetlands and streams it can regulate.
The ruling that Army Corps of Engineers wetland determinations are reviewable by courts also offers hints about the justices' leanings on broader, high-stakes questions about the law's reach that the high court will likely eventually consider in lawsuits over the Obama administration's Waters of the United States rule, which is being challenged by dozens of states, industry groups, activists and environmental nonprofits.
In Tuesday's case, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., the eight active justices unanimously agreed that the determinations should be open to court review, but four offered concurring opinions outlining separate lines of reasoning for reaching that conclusion.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion signaled major doubts about the government’s power under the fundamental water law. After observing during oral arguments that the Clean Water Act is perhaps "unconstitutionally vague," Kennedy wrote Tuesday that the law “continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government's power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation." That could signal trouble for WOTUS, given that the rule is pegged squarely to Kennedy’s opinion in a 2006 wetlands case that turned Clean Water Act regulation into a muddy mess.
"The fact that the ruling was unanimous shows that even the liberal justices will not automatically defer to the Obama administration's Clean Water Act policy interpretations which impact property rights," said Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser at Dawson and Associates and former Justice Department environmental attorney. "The ruling also suggests that the WOTUS rule will likely face similar scrutiny should it reach the Court."
The Hawkes decision is a big win for conservatives and property rights activists who have long challenged the federal government's broad reach under the Clean Water Act.
"Everyone who values property rights and access to justice should welcome this historic victory," Reed Hopper, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation who argued the case for Hawkes, said in a statement. The foundation also successfully argued a 2012 wetlands case in which the high court unanimously ruled that EPA compliance orders are subject to judicial review, and is among the parties challenging the new water rule.
But environmentalists argued the Hawkes ruling underscored the need for WOTUS, also known as the Clean Water Rule. Jan Goldman-Carter, who leads wetlands work for the National Wildlife Federation, said that the corps’ process “will get even more cumbersome and time consuming” if regulators have to continue making individual, case-by-case decisions about properties — now with the threat of a lawsuit hanging over each one. The new water rule, which an appeals court put on hold across the country, would place more streams and wetlands under federal protection automatically.
Hawkes Co., Inc., a peat-mining operation that had plans to mine a piece of property in Minnesota, brought the case after the Army Corps of Engineers said it would need permits because wetlands on the property were connected to the Red River of the North, roughly 120 miles away. The company argued that the process of obtaining a permit to mine the property would be prohibitively expensive, and fundamentally disagreed that the wetlands fell under federal regulation.
The Justice Department argued that the determinations are not final, binding agency decisions, and that applicants still have options after receiving a determination that their property is subject to Clean Water Act protections — namely that they can either proceed without a permit and, if the agency brings an enforcement action, challenge that in court, or they can apply for a permit and then seek judicial review of that.
Those options did not sit well with the court. "Neither alternative is adequate," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the lead opinion, which was joined by six of the seven other active justices.
In part, Roberts' opinion rested on a Memorandum of Agreement between the corps and EPA, which jointly administers the Clean Water Act, making the corps' jurisdictional determinations "binding" for both agencies. This memorandum was key to Justice Elena Kagan, who appeared to lean toward the government during oral arguments, saying that both the federal government and regulated entities benefit from agencies being able to offer informal advice about how to interpret their regulations. In her concurring opinion, Kagan said that the memorandum "is central to the disposition of this case" because it creates a direct legal consequence to the jurisdictional determinations.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the memorandum came from left field in oral arguments — indeed, the Justice Department's attorney had to fumble through his papers to figure out what the justices were referring to when it was first raised — and wasn't ready to rest her opinion on it. She was the only justice not to join Roberts' lead opinion, although she concurred in a separate opinion with the judgment that jurisdictional determinations are the government's final say on the issue, and thus should be reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/pro-energy-story-scotuswetlands-snider-116906
-
Scientists Underestimated Sulfur Dioxide Emissions -- Study
May 31, 2016 | E&E News PM
New research suggests scientists may have underestimated worldwide sulfur dioxide emissions.
A study published yesterday in the journal Nature Geoscience has revealed nearly 40 previously unreported sources of the dangerous pollutant.
Sulfur dioxide is emitted by a variety of natural and industrial sources, but scientists previously relied on emissions inventories to document its prevalence in the atmosphere.
The new study draws on satellite data and wind information, which allows researchers to identify and map sources of sulfur dioxide. The authors say anywhere from 7 million to 14 million metric tons of the gas may be missing from global inventories each year.
"Generally, these previously unreported sources tended to pop up in more developing types of nations where perhaps their legal requirements for reporting are not as rigorous as what we might be used to in the U.S. and Canada, for example," said Chris McLinden, a research scientist with Environment and Climate Change Canada and the new study's lead author.
However, the researchers noted that due to limits to satellite technology, their method could only capture half the world's man-made sulfur dioxide sources, meaning there could be up to twice as many missing sources as they were able to detect.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/31/stories/1060038106
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested