Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/24/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Basic Materials Stocks to Look Out For: FMC Corp. (FMC), Legacy Reserves LP (LGCY)
Jun 24, 2016 | Zerg Watch
By Alen Hook
FMC Corp. (FMC) ended last trading session with a change of 1.17 percent. It trades at an average volume of 1.53M shares versus 1.65M shares recorded at the end of last trading session. -
(ACC Mentioned) Talkin' Trash: Quotes from Mr. T Carting, NWRA, Call2Recycle, and More
Jun 24, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Kristin Musulin
In case you missed it: Thoughtful, newsworthy comments from industry professionals, consumers, and legislators. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations
Jun 23, 2016 | Law Street
By Inez Nicholson
Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. -
Make Asbestos a Top Priority Under New Chemical Reform Law, Advocate Says
Jun 24, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency must make asbestos one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act, says the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) co-founder. -
Sen. Gillibrand Calls for EPA Action on Toxic Chemical PFOA
Jun 24, 2016 | North Country Public Radio
By Associated Press
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is calling on federal regulators to use new powers under the toxic substances reform bill to determine if the industrial chemical PFOA should be restricted or banned. -
Brexit Vote Raises Legal Questions
Jun 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The result of yesterday’s UK referendum in favour of leaving the EU raises important questions about how UK-based companies’ obligations under REACH will change, say law firms and consultancies. -
UK Chemicals Industry ‘Pragmatic’ About Impact of Brexit Vote
Jun 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
UK chemical industry associations say the sector will continue to take a "pragmatic" approach and can even "prosper", following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. -
(ACC Mentioned) Suing and Spewing
Jun 24, 2016 | Center for American Progress
By Erin Auel
The Clean Power Plan, or CPP, was finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, on August 5, 2015, and establishes the first-ever standards for carbon emissions from power plants. -
GOP Lawmakers Seek Extension of Deadlines if Rule is Upheld
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
More than 100 Republican lawmakers say U.S. EPA should push back the deadlines of the Clean Power Plan if the carbon program for power plants is upheld by the courts. -
Court Delays Challenge to Obama Carbon Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court is delaying the schedule for a lawsuit challenging a White House regulation that limits carbon dioxide emissions. -
Court Puts Temporary Halt on Challenge to New Plant Carbon Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today put a hold on the briefing schedule for the lawsuits over EPA’s carbon rule for new power plants, the sister rule to the Clean Power Plan. -
ClimateWire's Chemnick Discusses Impact of Brexit on U.K. Climate Goals, Paris Agreement
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
With news breaking overnight that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, there are immediate questions about the U.K.'s ability to stick to its climate commitments and the impacts of Brexit on the Paris Agreement. On today's The Cutting Edge, ClimateWire reporter Jean Chemnick discusses the challenges ahead for the United Kingdom and Europe on climate and energy policy. -
U.K. Out of E.U.; Cameron Steps Down; Climate Ambition in Doubt
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The European Union's second-largest economy voted yesterday to leave it, a stunning move that toppled Britain's prime minister and ushered in a new era of economic and political uncertainty. -
Natural Gas Bucks Brexit Trend And Surges on U.K. EU Vote
Jun 24, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Miriam Malek
U.K. natural gas is one of the few commodities world-wide which is actually being boosted by the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union. -
First Marcellus NatGas-Fired Power Plants Complete
Jun 24, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The first two natural gas-fired power plants designed and proposed to utilize Marcellus Shale gas have been completed and turned over to the project developer Panda Power Funds LP for commercial operations. -
Ventura Oil Spill Misses the Ocean, but Damage on Land is Unclear
Jun 23, 2016 | LA Times
By Matt Hamilton, Joseph Serna and Veronica Rocha
Before the sun rose Thursday, Kirk Atwater’s wakeup call was a noxious breeze that filled his bedroom with fumes. He stepped out of his ranch that overlooks an arroyo in the Ventura hills and saw a creek of thick, black goo traveling through the canyon that was dry just the day before. -
AGA Identifies Areas of Concern With PHMSA's Proposed Pipeline Rules
Jun 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
As the clock runs out to respond to more than 700 pages of documents over proposed rules governing natural gas pipelines by the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the American Gas Association (AGA) said it has identified several areas of concern. -
Poor Upkeep Caused Fiery Ore. Oil Train Derailment -- Feds
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Union Pacific Railroad's "failure to maintain its track and track equipment" resulted in a fiery 16-car oil train derailment earlier this month in Oregon, federal rail safety regulators said yesterday. -
Ozone-Spewing Home Products Create 'Serious Concern' -- Study
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
It may not take a Code Orange ozone exposure air alert to trigger problems for at risk children and adults -- just a trip to the laundry room may do the trick.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Basic Materials Stocks to Look Out For: FMC Corp. (FMC), Legacy Reserves LP (LGCY)
Jun 24, 2016 | Zerg Watch
By Alen Hook
FMC Corp. (FMC) ended last trading session with a change of 1.17 percent. It trades at an average volume of 1.53M shares versus 1.65M shares recorded at the end of last trading session. The share price of $49.3 is at a distance of 53.54 percent from its 52-week low and down -9.47 percent versus its peak. The company has a market cap of $6.69B and currently has 135.72M shares outstanding. The share price is currently 1.21 percent versus its SMA20, 6.48 percent versus its SMA50, and 22.72 percent versus its SMA200. The stock has a weekly performance of 0.61 percent and is 26.5 percent year-to-date as of the recent close.
On June 21, 2016 FMC Corporation (FMC) has been recognized by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) with the 2016 Responsible Care® “Initiative of the Year” Award. This year’s award recognizes FMC’s implementation of its new “Process Hazard Level (PHL) Screening Tool,” which is used to identify, analyze and rank process safety hazards across the company globally.
“We’re honored by ACC’s recognition of our new PHL screening tool. This unique way of managing process safety risks aligns with ACC’s recent updates to the Responsible Care Process Safety Code of Management Practices and is already having a positive impact at FMC,” said Barry Crawford, vice president of Operations. “The PHL tool is scalable, making it easy to share and have an impact on the larger chemical manufacturing community.”
Legacy Reserves LP (LGCY) recently recorded -3.05 percent change and currently at $1.91 is 213.11 percent away from its 52-week low and down -80.36 percent versus its peak. It has a past 5-day performance of -5.45 percent and trades at an average volume of 1.21M shares. The stock has a 1-month performance of -21.4 percent and is 9.14 percent year-to-date as of the recent close. There were about 65.3M shares outstanding which made its market cap $124.72M. The share price is currently -17.17 percent versus its SMA20, -17.94 percent versus its SMA50, and -19.67 percent versus its SMA200.
On May 12, 2016 Legacy Reserves LP (LGCY) announced that the board of directors of the general partner of Legacy has appointed Paul T. Horne, President, Chief Executive Officer, and director, as the Chairman of the Board, and that Kyle D. Vann, director, has been named as lead independent director of the Board. Cary D. Brown, the former Chairman of the Board, continues to serve as a director.
Mr. Horne is a founding member of Legacy’s executive management team and was added to the Board in December 2014. He has managed operations at Legacy and certain of its predecessor companies since 2000 until being named the President and Chief Executive Officer on March 1, 2015. Previously, he worked for Mobil E&P U.S. Inc. in a variety of petroleum engineering and operations management roles, primarily in the Permian Basin.
http://www.zergwatch.com/2016/06/24/basic-materials-stocks-to-look-out-for-fmc-corp-fmc-legacy-reserves-lp-lgcy/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Talkin' Trash: Quotes from Mr. T Carting, NWRA, Call2Recycle, and More
Jun 24, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Kristin Musulin
In case you missed it: Thoughtful, newsworthy comments from industry professionals, consumers, and legislators.
"We’ve got an image issue and we know that."
— National Waste & Recycling Association CEO and President Sharon Kneissto The Kansas City Star. Kneiss recognized that the waste industry isn't always attractive to potential employees due to the nature of the work, and noted that this is an issue when trying to recruit drivers and other workers.
"You cannot let stress get the best of you ... Having that CDL means a lot more than you think it does."
— Paul Zambrotta, safety director for Mr. T Carting, at the NYC commercial waste safety symposium held last week. Zambrotta reminded drivers that their commercial driver's license (CDL) comes with many responsibilities, and staying alert on the road needs to be a top priority.
"It is important that we promote the conversation of how organizations pursue the tenets of a circular economy."
— Call2Recycle CEO and President Carl Smith on the value of a closed-loop supply chain. Call2Recycle recently released a white paper to guide organizations into implementing the circular economy.
"When it is a success, philanthropists will be standing in line asking to join us."
— Dutch Environment Minister Sharon Dijksma to The Guardian on a project that aims to clear the ocean of plastic debris. The Ocean Cleanup, founded by Boyan Slat, plans to deploy a 62-mile barrier into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in order to capture trash and dispose of it properly.
"Plastic bags and other film packaging are recyclable and have real value — just not in our curbside bins."
— Connecticut DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee on the state's efforts to divert plastic film from the landfill. Connecticut just became the third state to join the American Chemistry Council's Flexible Film Recycling Group Wrap Action Recycling Program (WRAP).
"One big fire in the wrong place will become very big, very fast ... I’m afraid people are going to die."
— Randy Hanvelt, a supervisor in Tuolume County, CA, to the San Francisco Examiner on the state of California's forests. Officials are debating how to dispose of millions of dead trees that have been killed due to drought and a bark beetle epidemic.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/talkin-trash-quotes-from-mr-t-carting-nwra-call2recycle-and-more/421478/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations
Jun 23, 2016 | Law Street
By Inez Nicholson
Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.
The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.
“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”
The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.
“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”
In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passedin the House with a 403-12 vote.
“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”
The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.
But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.
The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.
http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/politics-blog/obama-chemical-regulations/
-
Make Asbestos a Top Priority Under New Chemical Reform Law, Advocate Says
Jun 24, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency must make asbestos one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act, says the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) co-founder.
“The success of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act hinges on the EPA’s ability to prioritize asbestos in the first 10 hazardous chemicals and to expeditiously ban asbestos,” Linda Reinstein, ADAO co-founder and president, told Bloomberg BNA.
President Obama signed the Lautenberg Act, which amended TSCA for the first time since 1976, into law June 22.
Throughout the years that led up to TSCA reform, legislators referred to a 1991 court ruling that overturned the EPA’s asbestos ban as the best example of why the 40-year-old law had to be revamped.
In remarks prior to signing the law, Obama said: “The law placed demands on the EPA that were so tough, so onerous that it became virtually impossible to actually see if those chemicals were harming anybody.”
“The system was so complex, it was so burdensome, that our country hasn't even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos—a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year. I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by all that,” he said.
The law has been amended, Reinstein said. “The time is now to end the asbestos man-made disaster.”
Reinstein isn’t the only advocate who’ll be watchdogging the implementation of the new law.
David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA the council will participate in the many implementation requirements of the law.
NRDC is prepared to challenge, legally if necessary, decisions the agency makes and delayed deadlines, he said.
http://www.bna.com/asbestos-top-priority-b57982074697/
-
Sen. Gillibrand Calls for EPA Action on Toxic Chemical PFOA
Jun 24, 2016 | North Country Public Radio
By Associated Press
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is calling on federal regulators to use new powers under the toxic substances reform bill to determine if the industrial chemical PFOA should be restricted or banned.
The New York Democrat says in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday that health concerns about the chemical have been heightened by the recent discovery of drinking water contamination in upstate New York, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Gillibrand said an EPA assessment would give a better understanding of the long-term effects of PFOA exposure and ensure communities are better protected.
PFOA, long used to make Teflon and numerous other products, has been linked to cancer and thyroid issues.
EPA has been considering regulation of PFOA under the Toxic Substances Control Act since 2010.
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/32104/20160624/sen-gillibrand-calls-for-epa-action-on-toxic-chemical-pfoa
-
Brexit Vote Raises Legal Questions
Jun 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The result of yesterday’s UK referendum in favour of leaving the EU raises important questions about how UK-based companies’ obligations under REACH will change, say law firms and consultancies.
Unless the UK decides unilaterally, and in breach of its obligation under the EU Treaty, to no longer be subject to existing EU Regulation, said Jean-Philippe Montfort of law firm Mayer Brown, REACH will continue to apply in the UK until it has left the EU. Once the UK government invokes these proceedings, the negotiations must be completed within two years.
But there may also be transition periods after this, said Mr Montfort, applying to a range of EU legislation applicable in the UK, including REACH. And the post-Brexit status of the UK “may well be such that it will retain application of some EU legislation, such as REACH, as REACH is currently also applicable in the European Economic Area” [comprising all the EU member states plus Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway]. “So, in principle, Brexit should not affect the REACH 2018 deadline.”
Even if the UK decides to “jump the gun”, he said, “it is hard to imagine that it will immediately call off the application of EU rules intended to protect human health and the environment, such as REACH, before it has in place alternatives rules, and it is not likely that its priority will be to overturn REACH. But if it did, shipments of chemicals from the UK would be considered as imports into the EU from a non-EU country and thus be subject to registration by new EU importers. “This would obviously have profound consequences on the entire system.”
UK manufacturers might need ORs
Unless the UK gains some sort of EEA status that allows continued application of REACH, “any company trading with the UK will need to review its situation”, said Mr Montfort. For example, UK manufacturers would become non-EU manufacturers and be required to appoint only representatives (ORs) in the EU to avoid their EU customers facing registration obligations. Conversely, ORs based in the UK would no longer be able to operate and the current non-EU manufacturers, which appointed them, should then consider appointing a legal entity in another member state to ensure continued compliance by importers.
UK chemicals suppliers and chemical service providers will need to reassure their customers that the resulting volatility will not affect the terms of supply agreements in the short term, said Riku Rinta-Jouppi of consultancy REACHLaw.
A lot now depends on the terms of the UK’s departure, he said, and the new relationship between the UK and the remaining EU. Given that the mood seems to be that “out means out”, he surmised, a Swiss-style “out of REACH” solution looks more likely than a Norwegian-style “still in REACH” arrangement.
UK exporters will still need to meet EU standards
Elizabeth Shepherd of law firm Eversheds said a period of review will now begin, in the UK, to understand exactly which environmental laws are derived from the EU, where the regulatory gaps will lie, and what should be repealed in whole or in part or changed. “The UK has the opportunity to reappraise and possibly reduce environmental regulation. There may be scope for some simplification, but radical changes are unlikely, given the increasing globalisation of environmental standards. In practice, meeting those standards will, in any event, be a precondition for sales into the EU and wider markets.
“It may no longer be possible for UK companies to undertake certain compliance tasks, including REACH registration, following exit,” she warned. “Any pan-EU business, sourcing products from outside the EU which has organised its supply chain so that its UK legal entity is “importer” for REACH purposes (and so holds the REACH registrations/pre-registrations for supplies to all group members in the EU), potentially has an immediate compliance problem. Once the UK leaves the EU, that business will not be REACH compliant unless one or more of its EU group members re-registers.”
Another issue, said law firm Steptoe & Johnson, is how the ongoing work of the UK competent authorities, such as dossiers for substance evaluation or restriction under REACH or work on biocides and plant protection products, will be transferred to other national authorities.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48252/brexit-vote-raises-legal-questions
-
UK Chemicals Industry ‘Pragmatic’ About Impact of Brexit Vote
Jun 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
UK chemical industry associations say the sector will continue to take a "pragmatic" approach and can even "prosper", following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.
Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, said: “It is not the decision that our sector wanted [but] I am confident that an important and resilient industry, such as ours, can prosper in this new situation.”
He added that, while business “craves certainty”, it is also used to operating in “challenging and changing” circumstances.
He has called on the UK government to “work hard” on securing the best exit plan for the country and to establish new trading arrangements.
“Whilst we need to progress with both these negotiations as soon as we can to limit uncertainty, we also need an immediate period of calm reflection to minimise instability.”
The Chemical Business Association (CBA) said that the referendum result brings “risks and opportunities” for the UK’s chemicals supply chain.
“In addition to satisfying the expectations of ‘leave’ voters, the UK faces currency volatility and an adverse market reaction,” CEO Peter Newport said. “It must also resolve internal social and constitutional tensions, as well as redefining its international role as a trading partner independent of the EU.”
He said it will continue to monitor the situation and consider its links with Europe and any proposed regulatory framework changes. “The industry’s pragmatism has always been one of its major strengths – for the time being it’s business as usual.”
Cefic, meanwhile, said its member companies had jointly supported the UK remaining part of the EU “since it opens markets and reduces trade barriers for UK industry”.
It added that the industry needs to work closely to ensure that existing trade and investment is not “weakened and future opportunities are seized”.
“As the implications of today’s referendum unfold, we look to the respective governments, parliaments of the UK and EU member states to work hard with the Commission on securing the right framework for establishing new arrangements so our economies can continue to grow.”
According to Cefic, the UK contributes on average 9% (€46.3bn) of total EU28 chemicals sales of €531bn. EU chemicals exports to the UK are around €22.3bn, while EU chemicals imports from the UK total €20.3bn.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48253/uk-chemicals-industry-pragmatic-about-impact-of-brexit-vote
-
(ACC Mentioned) Suing and Spewing
Jun 24, 2016 | Center for American Progress
By Erin Auel
The Clean Power Plan, or CPP, was finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, on August 5, 2015, and establishes the first-ever standards for carbon emissions from power plants. The CPP will help the United States reduce the pollution that causes increased global temperatures, rising sea levels, and other effects of climate change. According to the Energy Information Administration—a federal agency that collects and analyzes data on energy production and usage—the CPP will reduce the power sector’s carbon pollution by 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This puts annual pollution levels more than 400 million metric tons lower than their projected totals without the CPP in place. The power producers who would be responsible for achieving these emissions reductions have had a mixed response to the plan. Some power producers have supported the CPP, recognizing business opportunities in a growing clean energy sector. Some have remained neutral pending judicial review of the rule while other power producers are opposing the CPP altogether, because they are heavily invested in higher-polluting electricity generation.
On October 23, 2015, electric power producers, trade associations, coal companies, and 24 state attorneys general filed suit against the EPA to block implementation of—and ultimately undo—the CPP. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay of the CPP and halted implementation requirements of states’ emissions reductions plans until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the rule on its merits. The court will hear oral arguments on this case—State of West Virginia, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.—on September 27, 2016. Much of the opposition to the CPP comes from power producers and the trade associations that represent them—both of these groups have a vested interest in continuing to pollute at current levels. This issue brief details the amount of carbon pollution emitted by the largest power producers that are affiliated with the lawsuit against the CPP in order to demonstrate the significant effect these entities have on domestic and international efforts to curtail climate change.
Power sector petitioners
Some of the electric power producers that will be affected by implementation of the CPP—including the Southern Company, a large integrated electric utility; NRG Energy Inc.; and Energy Future Holdings Corp.—are litigating as petitioners. More information on these companies and their reasons for suing the EPA are is listed below.
Other companies are affiliated with the litigation through their membership in trade associations that are suing the EPA in this case. As noted in West Virginia v. EPA, “Trade association Petitioners have standing on behalf of their members.” These trade associations do not always make their membership rosters publicly available—a practice that can conceal the identity of individual power producers that might intentionally be supporting litigation anonymously. Conversely, even in cases where a trade association’s membership is made public, the member companies may have had other reasons for joining the trade association and may be, in fact, neutral or even supportive of the EPA’s actions. For example, Dominion Resources Inc. and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power filed amicus briefs in support of the CPP while also remaining members of a litigating trade association.
Below are some of the key identified litigants in West Virginia v. EPA.
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE
ACCCE advocates for the continued use of coal in the U.S. power sector, albeit through so-called cleaner technologies. On behalf of their members, ACCCE has fought against the EPA and its efforts to set stronger standards against urban smog. In addition to its lawsuit, ACCCE has also launched a messaging campaign against the CPP, claiming it poses a “major threat to electric reliability” and pointing to emissions from other countries to suggest that the United States should not act to reduce domestic emissions. ACCCE identified itself as a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group, or UARG, in 2014.
American Public Power Association, or APPA
The APPA represents public power producers that supply power to 14 percent of electricity consumers nationwide. They have a long history of fighting the EPA’s emissions standards, including standards to ensure clean, breathable air, claiming that such measures would be burdensome for public utilities. The APPA often points to a downward trajectory for emissions levels, asserting that power producers are already taking the needed steps without regulations. They have filed a joint suit with UARG against the CPP, claiming it “tries to do too much too fast for public power utilities and their customers in many states.”
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, or NRECA
The NRECA represents more than 900 rural electric cooperatives that account for 12 percent of domestic electricity sales. These cooperatives are owned by rural ratepayers and produce about 70 percent of their power from coal, as compared to the average for all utility power of 37 percent. The NRECA has sued the EPA over the CPP and has opposed the EPA’s regulations in the past, including its updates in standards for urban smog and the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, which reduces toxic pollution from power plants. It claims that such standards would cause stranded assets and force consumers to pay the bill.
Utility Air Regulatory Group, or UARG
UARG is a group of individual generating companies and it exists to litigate environmental standards. A current list of its member companies is not publicly maintained. While UARG has no website and last released a list of its members in 2006, its team of lawyers has pursued multiple lawsuits against the EPA, including the EPA’s standards for toxic air pollution and urban smog, and regulation of carbon pollution. UARG claims the CPP sets targets that are too ambitious for the mandated time frame. An addendum to the docketing statement for West Virginia v. EPA from UARG and the APPA states that, “Although UARG and APPA members could participate in this litigation individually, they have chosen to participate as a group, and given the nature of the claims asserted and the relief requested, no reason exists to require participation by members individually.”
Southern Company
Southern and its many subsidiaries compose the third-largest generating company in the United States. On behalf of the Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power companies, Southern is suing the EPA over the CPP, claiming the compliance timeline is too short and too costly. Additionally, Southern and its subsidiaries are members of ACCCE and UARG.
NRG Energy Inc.
NRG Energy Inc. is a publicly traded, integrated power company that owns generation assets across the country. On behalf of 10 of its subsidiaries, NRG Energy Inc. filed suit against the EPA as well, on the grounds that the rule is “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the United States Constitution and the Clean Air Act … and is otherwise contrary to law.”
Energy Future Holdings Corp.
Energy Future Holdings is a privately held energy company—the largest power producer in Texas—and the parent company of Luminant and TXU Energy. On behalf of these and other subsidiaries, it joined the suit against the CPP. In addition to this lawsuit, Energy Future Holdings sued the EPA over air-quality standards and limits on toxic air pollution. Through Luminant, Energy Future Holdings is also a member of UARG—as disclosed in Luminant’s 2014 comments to the EPA.
Emissions from power producers affiliated with the lawsuit
The Center for American Progress identified the 100 electric power producers with the most power generation in 2013—as detailed in the Methodology section of this issue brief—and compared them with the corporate and association petitioners in the suit against the EPA. CAP then tallied the carbon dioxide emissions from the power producers that are affiliated with the lawsuit directly or indirectly.
Again, although membership in a trade association does not in itself mean that a company opposes the CPP, it is fair to include these emissions in calculations about the emissions of the litigants, because the trade associations have standing to sue on the basis of their members. Additionally, if the member companies disagree with the trade association’s position on the CPP lawsuit, they can withdraw their membership. This is not without precedent. For example, in 2009, Exelon withdrew from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over their position on climate change policy.
CAP found that 43 of the top-100 electric power producers are directly or indirectly affiliated with the lawsuit. Some key findings include:
In 2013 alone, these power producers emitted nearly 1.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or 21 percent of the United States’ total carbon pollution that year.
In one year, the power producers affiliated with the lawsuit polluted as much carbon dioxide as 129 countries combined. This means that if the power producers were their own country, they would be the 6th biggest CO2 emitter in the world.
The carbon pollution from these power producers was greater than that of 6 of the 10 top economies in the world.
It would take more than 30 billion new trees growing for 10 years to offset the carbon pollution that the power producers emit in one year.
Methodology
To identify the top-100 power producers in terms of power generation and carbon emissions, CAP referred to M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC and Natural Resources Defense Council’s 2015 joint report, “Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States.” From this list, CAP identified companies that are litigants in West Virginia v. EPAand the consolidated cases. CAP then identified companies that hold membership in at least one of the nine trade associations that have filed suit against the EPA. As noted above, several of the trade associations do not list members publicly. In these cases, the author used one of three sources to determine each power producers’ membership: self-identification of membership in 2015 or 2016; power producers’ membership as disclosed in 2014 comments on the proposed CPP; and phone calls to power producers to request confirmation of current membership based on sources other than the aforementioned categories.
ACCCE, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the NRECA, and the National Mining Association all have public membership lists—all of which are cited in the appendix of this issue brief. The National Association of Manufacturers releases a quarterly list of affiliated organizations. The APPA’s members are not publicly disclosed, and that association also did not respond to CAP’s request for a member list. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also officially states that they “will not confirm the membership status of organizations.”
Determining whether power producers were members of UARG posed a unique challenge, because UARG’s only public activities are its comments to and lawsuits against the EPA. UARG does not have a website or provide information on their leadership. CAP aimed to identify which power producers were members of UARG through open source information and power producers’ self-identification by following the methods above. CAP also contacted UARG’s legal representative to request a list of current members, but received no response.
The Appendix to this issue brief lists each of the power producers, their affiliations, and the sources that confirmed these affiliations. (Note: The Appendix can be found in the PDF version of this issue brief.)
Conclusion
The power producers currently affiliated with the lawsuit to block the EPA’s Clean Power Plan are responsible for 1.2 billion tons of carbon pollution each year. The undoing of the CPP would not only set the United States back from meeting its greenhouse gas emissions goals, but it would also allow these power producers to avoid curbing their pollution.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2016/06/24/140213/suing-and-spewing-the-massive-pollution-behind-the-fight-to-overturn-the-clean-power-plan/
-
GOP Lawmakers Seek Extension of Deadlines if Rule is Upheld
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
More than 100 Republican lawmakers say U.S. EPA should push back the deadlines of the Clean Power Plan if the carbon program for power plants is upheld by the courts.
In a letter to Administrator Gina McCarthy, the 112 GOP members said that the Supreme Court's February stay of the program would be "meaningless" and that states and stakeholders would be harmed if the agency did not extend compliance time.
The GOP lawmakers also wrote that they were "concerned" that the EPA chief has been ambiguous about whether the agency would in fact toll the program's deadlines.
"We seek clarification to ensure that your statements do not result in states and other stakeholders expending scarce resources to unnecessarily comply with the CPP's deadlines," the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers submitted eight questions for EPA to answer regarding the Clean Power Plan's deadlines. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) led the effort.
EPA's Clean Power Plan, finalized last August, requires states to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. In February, however, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the program in a 5-4 decision, freezing it until complex litigation is resolved.
Dozens of challengers, including 27 states, are arguing that EPA has gone beyond its authority in issuing the Clean Power Plan.
Challengers of the program had filed several applications with the Supreme Court seeking to stay the Clean Power Plan during litigation; some of those applications called for the high court to either suspend or delay the program's deadlines as part of the stay.
But in the wake of the stay, agency officials have said it's not clear whether, and to what extent, deadlines would have to be pushed back if the high court eventually upholds the program.
The Supreme Court did not say anything specifically about deadlines in its decision granting the stay, EPA has argued.
McCarthy testified along those lines at a March hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&E Daily, March 23).
"We are concerned that your statements before Congress undermine the certainty that the American people deserve and the Supreme Court was seeking to provide," the GOP lawmakers wrote.
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan believe judges could adhere to most of the agency's original timelines, requiring power plants to show emissions cuts starting in 2022. Several states have continued planning for Clean Power Plan compliance despite the stay (ClimateWire, March 24).
The Center for American Progress, which supports the program, today pushed back against power companies that are suing EPA.
The liberal group released an analysis that found power producers that are either suing EPA or a member of a trade group suing the agency over the Clean Power Plan emitted almost 1.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2013. That's 21 percent of that year's total carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
CAP used data previously released by M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC and the Natural Resources Defense Council to calculate emissions.
"The undoing of the CPP would not only set the United States back from meeting its greenhouse gas emissions goals," the group said, "but it would also allow these power producers to avoid curbing their pollution."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/24/stories/1060039390
-
Court Delays Challenge to Obama Carbon Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court is delaying the schedule for a lawsuit challenging a White House regulation that limits carbon dioxide emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule being challenged sets limits for newly constructed coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. It is separate from the Clean Power Plan, which applies to existing plants and is also being challenged in court.
The delay of the briefing schedule by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit means attorneys may not finish submitted briefs on the case until President Obama is out of office.
The appeals court implemented the delay Friday at the request of the states and energy interests who filed the case, led by North Dakota and the Utility Air Regulatory Group.
They argued that after the EPA in May denied a set of petitions to reconsider the regulation — most from parties to the lawsuit — those petitioners should be given time to file lawsuits, and the court should decide whether those lawsuits should be combined with the initial one.
The litigants have until July 5 to file appeals of the denials, and until July 12 to ask the court to consolidate them. At that point, the court may consider setting a briefing schedule.
The Obama administration opposed the motion to delay the case.
Both the new plant rule and the Clean Power Plan were made final in August 2015. The Supreme Court put the Clean Power Plan on hold earlier this year while it is litigated.
The rule for existing plants is based on a section of the Clean Air Act that requires regulators also write a rule for new plants. If the new plant rule is struck down, the existing plant rule cannot be enforced.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/284776-court-puts-hold-on-challenge-to-obama-carbon-rule
-
Court Puts Temporary Halt on Challenge to New Plant Carbon Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today put a hold on the briefing schedule for the lawsuits over EPA’s carbon rule for new power plants, the sister rule to the Clean Power Plan.
The pause will allow for any lawsuits filed over EPA’s denial of five petitions for reconsideration of the 111(b) rule to be consolidated into the primary suits challenging the rule.
The Obama administration had opposed delaying briefing, arguing that the new suits could be consolidated while still wrapping up briefing on the previous deadline, Nov. 14. The challenge to the Clean Power Plan, placed on a fast track, will see oral arguments before the full circuit on Sept. 27.
It is unclear exactly when briefing in the 111(b) challenge will resume or conclude, but the final briefs now might come under the next president — and at the very least would stretch into the hectic final days of the Obama administration.
Challengers have until July 12 to ask for suits over the denials to be added to the main challenge, and on Aug. 4 the parties are slated to propose a new briefing schedule. The challengers had suggested shifting the previously established deadlines by a fixed number of days, though the court will make the final decision on new dates.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
ClimateWire's Chemnick Discusses Impact of Brexit on U.K. Climate Goals, Paris Agreement
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
With news breaking overnight that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, there are immediate questions about the U.K.'s ability to stick to its climate commitments and the impacts of Brexit on the Paris Agreement. On today's The Cutting Edge,ClimateWire reporter Jean Chemnick discusses the challenges ahead for the United Kingdom and Europe on climate and energy policy.
Transcript Found Here: http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2145/transcript
Video Found Here: http://www.eenews.net/tv
-
U.K. Out of E.U.; Cameron Steps Down; Climate Ambition in Doubt
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The European Union's second-largest economy voted yesterday to leave it, a stunning move that toppled Britain's prime minister and ushered in a new era of economic and political uncertainty.
The British referendum to leave the European Union received nearly 52 percent of the vote. Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed in a speech this morning that the "will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered."
"So there can be no doubt about the result," he said.
Cameron, who campaigned hard against Brexit, or the British exit from the European Union, said he will remain as prime minister through October to "steady the ship." Candidates to succeed him are likely to include some of his pro-Brexit rivals, including the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Cameron noted that the withdrawal would mean eventual changes in everything from the markets to Britain's relationship with the compact it is leaving.
"We must now prepare for a negotiation with the European Union," he said.
The treaty that binds the European Union together sets a two-year period of negotiations when any country opts to leave, but experts said Britain and the 27 remaining E.U. members could spend many more years hashing out new relations on everything from tariffs to British expatriates and foreign nationals to energy markets. Some businesses warned before the vote that they would be forced to relocate operations elsewhere if Britain left the union.
The response to the vote was swift. The pound sterling sell-off began when early poll results gave the pro-Brexit camp an edge, and markets fell all over the world on investor fears that the move would affect trade.
On Twitter, many leaders who had been in the "remain" camp, including people in Europe's climate change community, expressed shock and fear at the news. "Weep," the CEO of the United Nations' Sustainable Energy for All initiative, Rachel Kyte, said just after 1 a.m. EDT, tweeting a headline of the Brexit news.
John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK, released a statement saying the organization is "determined that this country does not go back to year zero on environmental protection" in the wake of the vote.
"There is a very real fear that Cameron's successor will come from the school that supports a bonfire of anti-pollution protections. The climate change-denying wing of the Conservative Party will be strengthened by this vote for Brexit. That means the green movement, indeed every Briton who values a clean and safe environment, may need to stand up for nature in the face of an attack on the natural world," he said.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, hailed the vote. Arriving in Scotland to check on one of his business ventures, Trump declared that voters in the United Kingdom have "taken their independence back."
Climate questions loom
Opponents of Brexit both in and outside of Britain also worried before the vote that Britain's withdrawal could trigger a larger disintegration of the European Union as opponents of the union in other countries consider withdrawal attempts of their own.
Sebastian Mallaby of the Council on Foreign Relations said earlier this month that French voters report even stronger opposition to E.U. membership than British voters have -- a fact that might encourage French leaders to make the withdrawal as hard on Britain as possible.
"If Britain thinks it can easily negotiate a deal with Europe on the terms of its departure, it's got another thing coming, because the French need -- they don't just want -- they need to punish the U.K. to send a message to their own domestic populists who would like to follow Britain's example," he said.
It's against this backdrop that Britain will begin to chart a new course for itself, both in gaining access to a continental energy market analysts say it needs to balance its own renewables-heavy power mix and on other important policy issues like climate change. The future looks murky this morning.
"The truth is, nobody has any idea what will happen if we vote to leave," said Tom Burke, chairman of Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), ahead of the vote.
Because it will take years for the United Kingdom to sever ties with Europe, some say Brexit will have relatively little impact on Europe's pledge to last year's landmark Paris climate deal, which calls for an overall greenhouse gas emissions cut of 40 percent compared with 1990 levels by 2030. Britain and the European Union could agree -- and likely would agree -- to continue to work together, some said, ensuring that Britain would continue to carry out its share of the reductions and the rest of the compact would not have to take up the slack.
Others predicted that Britain would need to formulate its own pledge while the European Union found alternative means to deliver what it had promised ahead of the December agreement. There was little doubt that Britain would remain a proactive player.
"In the political and economic chaos we will now see, it is important to remember the U.K. has strong national climate laws, and there is no mandate or majority from this vote to unpick them," said Nick Mabey, chief executive of E3G. "The U.K. will ratify the Paris Agreement."
Access to energy markets in doubt
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said Wednesday at a press event for the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy in Brussels that a Brexit would require the "recalibration" of Europe's contribution to Paris. While she said it was too early to tell whether that review of commitments would increase the deal's ambition or decrease it, she seemed to suggest Britain's withdrawal would buck the larger historic trend of "moving to larger tents of collaboration."
Figueres, who is preparing to step down in July, will participate in a workshop in London next week as part of the Business & Climate Summit to consider ways to strengthen ambition.
Britain's departure does remove or downgrade one of the most ambitious voices within the European Union ahead of 2018, when countries are asked to consider tightening their Paris pledges. In fact, the United Kingdom was scheduled to take over the E.U. presidency the year before that stock-take in 2017.
"The U.K. has been a real leader within the European Union on climate issues for a long time," said Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, in an interview before the vote. "If there was a vote to leave and that resulted in them not being able to be part of the E.U. policymaking process on climate, I think that would be a negative overall."
Brexit also cast doubt on whether the United Kingdom would retain access to the European energy markets, which Burke noted it needs to balance its heavy use of renewable energy without requiring costly storage capacity.
"Whether Britain would be able to negotiate and be part of the single electricity market would be one of the big reservations you'd have," he said. "That would chill investment until that becomes clear."
While few thought the Brexit vote would erode Britain's own climate position, which is enshrined in law, there was some chance that it could give U.K. opponents of climate action a boost. Some of the leaders of the Brexit movement cast doubt on man-made climate change, and polls showed that pro-Brexit voters were twice as likely to doubt established climate science as the average Briton.
Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate aide and former fellow on climate change at Oxford University, said in a statement this morning that movements like Brexit erode the world's ability to act collectively to confront global problems like climate change or terrorism.
"At the same time, the trend in international climate protection reflected in the Paris Agreement is one of global federalism, in which individual countries take action that adds up to real progress," he said. "National action is still the heart of all climate action, and the UK is committed, so the Brexit in and of itself should not slow climate protection efforts."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/24/stories/1060039366
-
Natural Gas Bucks Brexit Trend And Surges on U.K. EU Vote
Jun 24, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Miriam Malek
U.K. natural gas is one of the few commodities world-wide which is actually being boosted by the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union.
Prices at the U.K. natural gas hub, known as the National Balancing Point, were trading up by around 3.3% for the July and August contracts respectively.
U.K. natural gas is arguably the most important natural gas hub globally. It has the highest trade volume of any gas hub in Europe and is used to regulate supply across the continent, with the U.K. being capable of both importing and exporting volumes of pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas.
Many gas traders, even in Asia, price their gas deals off the U.K. hub because of its liquidity and strength in prices.
U.K. natural gas is one of the few sterling-denominated commodities. Most European natural gas contracts are denominated in euros and world-wide, most commodities, including liquefied natural gas, are denominated in the U.S. dollar.
The pound plummeted to a 30-year low on Friday as markets reacted to uncertainty over Britain’s financial future.
Traders have been quick to selloff, but U.K. gas prices have benefited from a cheaper pound, which makes U.K. gas less expensive for investors which hold foreign currencies.
U.K. natural gas prices could be supported at higher levels beyond a mere short rally, according to Hugo Batten, senior project leader at Aurora Energy Research. If the pound stays low, the phenomenon could be longer-lasting because of the natural trading arbitrage which will exist between the U.K. and Europe, Mr. Batten said.
Beyond the currency markets, gas traders will by eyeing any clearer hints about what kind of form Britain’s breakaway from the European Union will take, and how it will affect trading between the U.K. and the continent.
“If there was some sort of import and export taxes, that would be the main thing that could affect gas, but Europe is a huge trading partner and that won’t change overnight,” said Trevor Sikorski, an analyst at Energy Aspects.
Further ahead, an outage at the Rough facility is limiting prices for winter gas.
“There is a possibility that we may not be able to fill up the Rough Field this summer if it is out of action for too long. This might have ramifications for winter gas prices” said Niall Trimble, Managing Director of The Energy Contract Company.
Meanwhile, other commodities, such as the global oil benchmark, Brent, have been pushed lower by sterling depreciation. Brent was experiencing intraday swings of up to 6%.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-bucks-brexit-trend-and-surges-on-u-k-eu-vote-1466762557
-
First Marcellus NatGas-Fired Power Plants Complete
Jun 24, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The first two natural gas-fired power plants designed and proposed to utilize Marcellus Shale gas have been completed and turned over to the project developer Panda Power Funds LP for commercial operations.
The engineering and construction firm, Gemma Power Systems LLC, said this month that the 829 MW Liberty generating station in Bradford County, PA, was completed on April 30, while the 829 MW Patriot generating station in Lycoming County, PA, was finished earlier this month. Combined, the facilities will generate enough electricity to power more than two million homes, Gemma said. The company built the facilities for Panda through a joint venture with the Lane Construction Corp.
The Liberty facility is located in Asylum Township on a 33-acre site. The plant received its air quality permit from the state in October 2012, which was later revised in July 2013. The Patriot facility is located in Clinton Township on an 85-acre site, and it received an air quality permit in August 2013. Ground was broken on both facilities in 2014 (see Daily GPI, Aug. 13, 2014; May 16, 2014). At the time, Panda said both facilities would enter commercial operation sometime in 2016.
The facilities are the first in the U.S. to use state-of-the-art Siemens' H-class turbines. The single-shaft power train, Gemma said, makes them "among the most flexible and most efficient natural gas-fired generating plants in the United States."
Completion of the facilities marks another milestone for development of the Marcellus Shale. Since 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Air Quality Program has issued plan approvals for more than two dozen natural gas-fired power plants (see Daily GPI, May 13). Several more applications are currently under review.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106867-first-marcellus-natgas-fired-power-plants-complete
-
Ventura Oil Spill Misses the Ocean, but Damage on Land is Unclear
Jun 23, 2016 | LA Times
By Matt Hamilton, Joseph Serna and Veronica Rocha
Before the sun rose Thursday, Kirk Atwater’s wakeup call was a noxious breeze that filled his bedroom with fumes.
He stepped out of his ranch that overlooks an arroyo in the Ventura hills and saw a creek of thick, black goo traveling through the canyon that was dry just the day before.
A pipeline valve had somehow opened and sent thousands of gallons of crude oil down into an arroyo that flows through the city of Ventura and reaches the ocean near the Ventura Pier.
Atwater, 56, called 911 and the oil pipeline company. His early notice helped officials stop the oil in a drainage basin before it reached the ocean, but not before an estimated 29,400 gallons of unrefined crude bled into the canyon.
It marked the latest significant oil spill in California and underscored the hazards of the oil and natural gas industry along the Central Coast, where last year a corroded pipeline spewed 143,000 gallons of crude oil onto Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara.
“There’s no excuse for this happening,” said Henning Ottsen, a 74-year-old engineer who has lived for more than three decades across the canyon from where Thursday’s spill originated. Some of the oil flowed onto his property, coating rocks and foliage with black tar.
“We know the oil fields are back in the hills,” he said. “It should be assured they take care of the infrastructure and not let this sort of thing happen.”
County officials initially estimated that up to 210,000 gallons had flowed out of the pipe, but they later downgraded the figure. The oil flowed down a steep canyon slope and traveled about half a mile through Prince Barranca, a gorge that typically fills with water during storms.
The oil then pooled in a storm water basin, allowing officials to block the crude from flowing farther.
“There’s no way it can get to the ocean,” Ventura County firefighter Marisol Rodriguez said.
Still, residents were concerned that the toxic liquid would harm wildlife. Ottsen, whose ranch and garden sit about 60 feet above the barranca, said he typically sees coyote, deer and mountain lion tracks in the dirt during the mornings.
“It’s a freeway for the animals,” he added.
Capt. George Struble of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife said there were no reports of animals affected.
The cause of the spill is under investigation by a team of state and federal agencies, according to Ventura County Fire Department Capt. Mike Lindbery. Investigators with the state Office of Spill Prevention also arrived to assess the site, an agency spokeswoman said.
Owned by Colorado-based Crimson Pipeline LLC, the 10-inch underground pipeline was installed in 1941 and is up to date on state and federal inspections, according to Kendall Klingler, a spokeswoman for the company.
The pipeline, however, had been undergoing maintenance Wednesday and was not at its full rate of flow or pressure, Klingler said. The valve that was the source of the oil had been replaced Wednesday, she added.
The pipeline company offered a lower estimate of the spill than county officials, saying that no more than 25,200 gallons had been released.
Crimson Pipeline is responsible for the cleanup effort and deployed contractors to lay down large, absorbent booms in the barranca to mop up the crude. On Thursday afternoon, workers in white haz-mat suits hiked down to the canyon with industrial pumps and planned to vacuum the pools of liquid that formed along the riverbed. A caravan of trucks would then haul the liquid away.
Officials could not provide a timetable for the cleanup.
State agencies were working in concert with the pipeline company to monitor the cleanup effort, Klingler said.
Thursday’s spill marked Crimson’s 11th pipeline spill or equipment incident since 2006, according to records compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
In total, about 313,000 gallons of hazardous liquid have been spilled since 2006, records show. The largest occurred in Ventura in 2008, when equipment failure caused about 280,000 gallons to spill. The most recent occurred in December, when an error during excavation caused more than 8,800 gallons to be released in Somis, Calif.
The company whose pipeline was involved in last year’s spill in Santa Barbara, Plains All American Pipeline, was indicted in May on 46 criminal counts, including four felony charges of knowingly discharging a pollutant into state waters. The Houston company faces fines of nearly $3 million.
That rupture had devastating effects on wildlife in the area: 204 birds and 106 marine mammals died as a result of the spill, according to UC Davis’ Oiled Wildlife Care Network.
The smaller spill in Ventura prompted Mati Waiya, the executive director of Ventura Coastkeeper and the Wishtoyo Foundation, to declare oil pipelines as unsafe sources of pollution.
“The only thing that will stop their negative impact to people, wildlife and waterways is to shut them down and keep fossil fuels in the ground,” Waiya said in a statement.
Officials praised the swift response for averting a more damaging disaster by keeping the crude out of the ocean.
But Atwater, surveying the barranca with a mask covering his mouth and nose to block the pungent odor, was not convinced: “We have a tragedy in my backyard.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ventura-county-oil-spill-20160623-snap-story.html
-
AGA Identifies Areas of Concern With PHMSA's Proposed Pipeline Rules
Jun 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
As the clock runs out to respond to more than 700 pages of documents over proposed rules governing natural gas pipelines by the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the American Gas Association (AGA) said it has identified several areas of concern.
The trade association added that the rules are "very prescriptive and convoluted" and said it is difficult to determine the regulatory agency's intent in several areas.
In a 549-page notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued last March, PHMSA proposed adding thousands of miles of gathering lines to its purview, requiring pipeline inspections after extreme weather events such as floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, and more frequent inspections of pipelines in rural areas (seeDaily GPI, March 21). Two months later, it granted the oil and gas industry an additional 30 days to submit comments on the NPRM, half of what was requested (see Daily GPI, May 10).
During a conference call Thursday, Erin Kurilla, AGA director for operations and engineering services, said her association and others also had to pore over more than 200 pages of an environmental assessment related to the proposed rules.
"The heart of this rulemaking was around addressing Congressional mandates and NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] recommendations," Kurilla said. "We at AGA have not dismissed PHMSA's goals of achieving those mandates and recommendations but instead offered alternative code language."
Christine Wyman, AGA senior counsel, added that the association "came across several areas where there were inconsistent statements, or possibly unintended consequences, of very prescriptive and convoluted regulations."
Definition of a transmission line
An example is the definition of a transmission line, something Wyman said has not changed much since the beginning of pipeline safety regulations.
"PHMSA has proposed to revise it slightly, so that it would incorporate additional pipeline mileage," Wyman said. "This is an area where we've had extensive conversations with our members about how this would impact them, the possible safety benefits and the unintended consequences. We have really worked with our members to figure out what our position should be."
But Wyman said that task is made more difficult because PHMSA hasn't offered any justification or explanation for the change, nor has it provided an assessment of potential impact from changing it.
"Ironically, in their response to the comments on the advance NPRM, PHMSA responded that the definition is actually outside the scope of this rulemaking," Wyman said. "So with that context, we're left to have conversations with our members that are really speculating as to what PHMSA's concerns are. As we approach what our position is going to be and how we're trying to address those concerns, it's really all just based on speculation as to why PHMSA's doing this."
Maximum allowable operating pressure
Kurilla said a second area of concern to the AGA relates to maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), an important subject as regulators and the industry try to avoid another disaster such as the pipeline rupture and explosion in San Bruno, CA, in 2010 (see Daily GPI, Sept. 15, 2010).
Under the proposed rules, grandfathered pipelines, or those constructed before 1970, face a Congressional mandate to perform some form of MAOP verification. PHMSA has provided six different methods to do so, but Kurilla said that creates a problem with the rules' applicability.
"A pipeline that is grandfathered -- and therefore has no record of a pressure test but is using historical pressures to verify their MAOP -- would be required to verify their MAOP through one of these six new methods offered PHMSA, five of which are not pressure tests," Kurilla said. "Therefore, if they choose any of those five, they would still be required to perform a pressure test in order to meet all of the requirements within that new section of code.
"If it sounds complicated, that's because it is. It took a lot people that are arguably very smart to realize that this is a circular reference that really forces operators' hands versus providing the flexibility that Congress asked PHMSA to provide."
Distribution lines also impacted
Although PHMSA has repeatedly stated the proposed rules are to cover transmission and gathering lines, Wyman said revisions to the agency's safety code would also impact distribution lines.
"We've found numerous places where PHMSA is proposing new requirements or revising requirements that aren't limited in applicability to just transmission lines," Wyman said. "There are significant distinctions between transmission and distribution lines that need to be taken into account. This changes the tone of our comments and how we need to respond to PHMSA because it seems in their documentation that they're focused solely on transmission.
"We're trying to identify all of these areas where distribution is included as well, provide comments as to the appropriateness of this, provide solutions for dealing with distinctions between transmission and distribution, and just remind PHMSA of the unintended consequences of generally revising some of these regulations that have pretty broad applicability."
Problems with material verification, hydrostatic testing
Kurilla said the material verification section of the proposed rule appears to be based on outdated technologies and standards.
"This is a new section of code that would force operators who do not have reliable, traceable, verifiable and complete material property records to then go and verify those material properties," Kurilla said. "PHMSA has introduced very prescriptive sampling frequencies and testing frequencies on pipelines and their components.
"[But] AGA believes those sampling and testing frequencies are based off very dated technologies. When you see our comments, you will see a drive to bring these prescriptive requirements up to modern understanding and the tools that are available to operators today."
Kurilla said there were also issues with hydrostatic testing, especially for AGA's members who operate intrastate pipelines embedded within distribution systems.
"Whenever you introduce water, you're introducing an unknown element into a pipeline system that's not intended to be there," Kurilla said. "When you perform hydrostatic testing in a new construction environment, you're able to dry that system out completely and thus not expose the pipeline to potential internal corrosion. But in doing it for in-service pipelines, not only do you have to bring that pipeline out of service -- which could thus impact the ability for that company to maintain service to their customers -- but also you're introducing an element that's not meant to be there: water.
Hydrostatic testing also costs a lot more. "It costs significantly more to hydrostatically test a pipeline than to in-line inspect that pipeline," Kurilla said. "In-line inspection is one of the methodologies that PHMSA cites as an option for MAOP verification, although that flexibility seems to be taken away due to the way in which the code requirements are written."
Loss of regulatory flexibility
Wyman added that AGA was concerned about the loss of such regulatory flexibility.
"PHMSA has gone to great lengths to tout the proposed regulations in offering operators flexibility in meeting these Congressional mandates," Wyman said. "We appreciate that because our pipelines are more unique and can be challenging to perform these methods on.
"But the way the regulatory text is drafted, it eliminates flexibility. That's inconsistent with what PHMSA is saying about the rule. It's not reflected in their impact assessment, which actually suggests that most pipelines, including intrastate transmission, are going to use a combination of in-line inspection technology as well as the engineering critical assessment. This is where we're struggling."
Expected tone of AGA's comments
Kurilla said the AGA "won't necessarily introduce alternate methodologies, but instead provide clarity and updates to the methodologies that PHMSA has introduced, and cleaning up the regulatory language such that these loops don't exist anymore. Again, we're basing a lot of this off speculation. Not a lot of it is discussed at length in the proposed rule, so we're speculating a bit on PHMSA's intent."
But Kurilla added that the AGA will suggest that issues related to distribution lines be addressed in a separate rulemaking. "Even PHMSA states that was the intent in the preamble language," she said. "PHMSA makes it pretty clear that was their intent, but in the actual code text they bring in distribution. We have to assume that was not their intent.
"We're going to ask them to make sure that that's clear in the final rule, and if they have any concerns about distribution this needs to be addressed in a separate rulemaking."
AGA spokesman Jake Rubin said the association expects to file its comments in a couple weeks. PHMSA has set a July 7 deadline for comments [PHMSA-2011-0023].
PHMSA said its proposed regulations would meet four congressional mandates from the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, one recommendation by the Government Accountability Office, and six recommendations from the NTSB, including one requiring that more modern testing be performed on pipelines built before 1970. PHMSA officials told NGI that approximately 57% of all onshore gas transmission pipelines were constructed before 1970.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106863-aga-identifies-areas-of-concern-with-phmsas-proposed-pipeline-rules
-
Poor Upkeep Caused Fiery Ore. Oil Train Derailment -- Feds
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Union Pacific Railroad's "failure to maintain its track and track equipment" resulted in a fiery 16-car oil train derailment earlier this month in Oregon, federal rail safety regulators said yesterday.
Broken bolts along the train tracks led to the June 3 accident, which hurt no one but prompted evacuations and exhausted the water supplies in the nearby town of Mosier, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's preliminary investigation into the incident.
Worn-out or sheared bolts are easiest to detect by walking along the tracks, the FRA said, "and are critically important to resolve quickly."
The FRA also used computer modeling to conclude that an advanced braking system could have prevented two fewer crude oil tank cars from derailing and one car from being punctured. The UP train had been equipped with an air braking system as opposed to faster-acting electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking systems.
UP contested those findings, with spokeswoman Raquel Espinoza saying ECP braking technology "has yet to meet service reliability standards."
"The train involved in the Mosier accident was equipped with distributed power, which has a braking capacity nearly identical to ECP," she said. "We do not believe ECP brakes would have resulted in fewer rail cars derailing."
The FRA's findings intensified calls for an end to all oil train traffic through the region, even as UP prepares to resume regular service through Mosier.
Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of the environmentalist group Columbia Riverkeeper, said the FRA should heed the calls of several leading Oregon politicians and "issue an immediate moratorium on dangerous oil trains through the Columbia River Gorge."
"Despite its dangerous tracks, Union Pacific claims it will restart oil trains this week," he added in a written statement.
Espinoza said the railroad has enhanced its regular inspection process since the derailment and that the lag bolts that failed before the derailment are being replaced with rail spikes.
"Union Pacific's rail fastening system, which includes lag bolts, has an outstanding history of safety and reliability," she said.
The FRA has said it is "evaluating" potential enforcement actions against UP following the derailment, which leaked at least 10,000 gallons of crude oil into Mosier's wastewater system.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/24/stories/1060039343
-
Ozone-Spewing Home Products Create 'Serious Concern' -- Study
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
It may not take a Code Orange ozone exposure air alert to trigger problems for at risk children and adults -- just a trip to the laundry room may do the trick.
That's the conclusion of a newly published study by California Air Resources Board researchers. In testing for ozone emissions from 17 consumer products and home appliances, they found more than half emitted ozone at higher than background levels and five released enough of the lung-irritating gas "to pose potential health risks to their users," according to a news release summarizing the findings.
"As far as we are aware, our study is the first such study looking at these types of products and ozone emissions," said Melanie Turner, an ARB spokeswoman, in emailed replies to questions from Greenwire.
The study was published online yesterday in the journal Indoor Air.
Among the products studied that belched out high levels of ozone gases were two facial steamers, two fruit and vegetable washers and a home laundry water treatment system.
The laundry treatment system, for example, pushed indoor ozone levels far above California's one-hour ambient air standard of 90 parts per billion (ppb), the board found. For one wash cycle, users could be exposed to an ozone level up to half of the amount that a typical Californian would face over the course of a day. For other products tested, the average emissions were low but with "surprisingly high spikes" in some cases, the board found. For a facial steamer that used ozone-emitting ultraviolet bulbs, levels soared as high as 1,100 ppb.
While the health effects of short-term exposure to high ozone levels have not been recognized, the agency said in a separate fact sheet that such exposures may raise concerns for people "with respiratory diseases who use these products repeatedly."
Ground-level ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, is the product of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds reacting in sunlight. In children, ozone can help trigger asthma attacks. In adults, it can worsen emphysema symptoms.
Last October, after years of study, EPA lowered the federal standard -- which is keyed to an eight-hour average -- from 75 ppb to 70 ppb, citing the need to protect public health. That step is now the target of several lawsuits as well as congressional legislation to delay implementation of the new benchmark. In EPA's color-coded air quality index, orange ranks in the middle, with pollution at levels considered unhealthy for sensitive groups.
But in the home appliances business, ozone is also marketed as a disinfectant or odor remover, with seemingly little regulatory oversight or attention.
While no follow-up research to the ARB study is planned, Turner said, the board is sharing the findings with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which has regulatory authority over home products.
But manufacturers' claims of their products' benefits "are not well-supported," the California agency cautioned. To kill fungi and bacteria, for example, ozone concentrations of at least 5,000 ppb are needed, according to the board's fact sheet. That's more than most appliances can produce and more than is healthy, the board added.
"Therefore, the benefits of using these appliances may be minimal, while the negative health impacts of such ozone exposures may be a serious concern," the ARB fact sheet said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/24/stories/1060039397
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested