Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 7/8/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Morning Digest: Despite Some Quiet GOP Moves, Democrats Have Booked Far More TV Time for House Races
Jul 8, 2016 | Daily Kos
By Daily Kos Elections
...The American Chemistry Council has launched what they're calling "a seven-figure ad campaign running across three states" in support of GOP Sens. Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, and Pat Toomey. The commercials praise the senators as fiscal conservatives... -
TSCA Reform is Real: EPA Publishes Its "First Year Implementation Plan" - Environment - United States
Jul 8, 2016 | Mondaq
By Seth D. Jaffe
On Wednesday, EPA released its “First Year Implementation Plan” for the recently enacted TSCA reform legislation. -
Inside EPA Reports on Loss of Green Chemistry Provision from TSCA Reform
Jul 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On July 1, 2016, Inside EPA published "Committee Jurisdiction Issues Blocked Green Chemistry From TSCA Reform," an article discussing the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law and the lack of language from previous versions boosting... -
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Bans Styrofoam, Passes Nation’s Toughest Anti-Styrofoam Law
Jul 8, 2016 | EcoWatch (In Truth-Out)
By Gwendolyn Wu
San Francisco residents will soon have to drink their to-go cups of coffee out of something else, because those soft Styrofoam cups will be no more. -
6 Everyday Chemicals That Harm Your Child's Brain Development
Jul 8, 2016 | Nature World News
By John Rosca
Many of the chemicals present in common household items were never adequately tested for safety. Now a coalition of health experts and consumer advocates is calling for more urgent action on the issue on the part of U.S. regulators. -
Dems Debate 'Fracking Ban,' But What Does That Mean?
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The writers of the Democratic Party's platform are preparing for another fight about whether to "ban fracking," continuing a debate that stirs passions but offers few specifics. -
Leasing Questions Swirl Around Interior Drilling Rule
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson and Elizabeth Harball
The Interior Department yesterday released final operating standards for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic outer continental shelf (OCS), a move that intensified speculation on whether the White House will allow new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas... -
The Obama Administration Just Made Arctic Drilling Hard to Do — But Not Impossible
Jul 7, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
The Obama administration on Thursday finalized rules that will require companies to have strict safety and environmental protection plans in place before they drill for oil or natural gas in the Arctic Ocean. -
Exxon Process Could Cut $200M from Yearly Petrochemical Costs
Jul 8, 2016 | Fuel Fix (In E&E Energywire)
By Jordan Blum
Technologies developed by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Saudi Arabian Oil Co. could revolutionize the production process in the petrochemical sector and save up to $200 million in yearly petrochemical costs, according to a new report released by the IHS Inc. data and consulting firm. -
States Are Right To Worry About Clean Power Plan Costs
Jul 8, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Terry Jarrett
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a stay on President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” (CPP.) That was good news for the 29 states now on record as formally opposing the president’s plan to vastly transform the nation’s power grid. But those states now appear doubly justified... -
Delaware Riverkeeper Network Files to Intervene in Lawsuit Challenging DRBC Drilling Moratorium
Jul 8, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
An environmental organization that has long opposed shale gas development in Pennsylvania has filed to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the Delaware River Basin Commission's (DRBC) ban on horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the 13,539-square mile watershed. -
DHS Urged to Update Preparations for Multiple Cyberattacks
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The United States is inadequately prepared for simultaneous, large-scale cyberattacks on more than one of its critical infrastructure sectors, advisers to the Department of Homeland Security warn. -
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Investigates Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Accident
Jul 8, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board launched its first major investigation in a year with a probe of a June 27 fire and explosion at a natural gas processing facility in Pascagoula, Miss. -
Industry Slams Proposed Federal Gas Pipeline Rules
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oil and gas industry groups yesterday criticized the Obama administration's proposed rules for natural gas pipelines, calling provisions "arbitrary" and disputing the government's cost analysis. -
Elected Officials Join the Call to Stop Oil Trains: 2016 #StopOilTrains Week of Action
Jul 7, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Todd Paglia
This week people gather at 60 events across North America to mark the third anniversary of the Lac Megantic oil train disaster. Stand organizes the Stop Oil Trains Week of Action to help raise the voice of communities who oppose these dangerous, unnecessary trains. -
Oil Transport Can Be Safer
Jul 8, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Editorial Board
As the debate continues over the safety of trains transporting crude oil through densely populated communities, many sensible steps that could meaningfully reduce risks continue to go unheeded. -
Port of Green Bay Becomes Importer of Refined Products as Pipeline Shuts
Jul 8, 2016 | Platts
By Beth Brown
Some of US cities supplied by the West Shore pipeline had to turn to unconventional supply sources this summer in order to meet area gasoline and diesel demand in the months since the indefinite closure of the Chicago-area refined products pipeline. -
Let the WOTUS Court Fights Commence!
Jul 8, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
The court battle over the Obama administration's contentious Waters of the U.S. rule kicks off today when plaintiffs make their case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals about what documents should be admitted in the trial. -
Jenkins Bill Targets Social Cost of Carbon Calculation
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) introduced legislation yesterday to bar the Department of Energy and U.S. EPA from using the government's social cost of carbon calculation in rulemaking. -
California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Drop, Barely
Jul 5, 2016 | San Francisco Chronicle (In Real Clear Energy)
By David R. Baker
Despite a surging economy, California’s greenhouse-gas emissions fell in 2014, according to new data from the state. -
The Climate Police Crack-Up
Jul 7, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Free-speech advocates have reason to cheer as two state attorneys general have walked back their subpoenas against Exxon Mobil Corp., tacitly admitting that their climate-change harassment lacks a legal basis.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Jul 8, 2016 | Daily Kos
By Daily Kos Elections
Leading Off:
ME-02, NV-03/04, VA-10: Democrats—in particular the DCCC and the House Majority PAC—have been really good about communicating the TV reservations they have planned for the fall. Republicans, by contrast, have not. Indeed, an NRCC spokesmanrecently said that the committee "does not publicly discuss the size or scope of our media buys," but this isn't merely a question of satisfying info-hungry reporters. Groups making independent expenditures can't legally coordinate with the campaigns they're trying to help, so they need to find some way to publicly communicate their spending plans. Typically, that's done through the press.
The NRCC, though, has generally eschewed that route (maybe they post announcements to some kind of semi-private website?), which is why our spreadsheet tracking airtime reservations is so heavily weighted toward the Democrats. But every so often, some GOP details leak out anyway, and thanks to some sleuthing, we've uncovered a few more races where Republicans (at least for now) are planning to compete during the stretch run.
Way back in April, Nathan Gonzales reported that the NRCC had booked time in the Las Vegas media market, but no details were available about how much it was planning to spend. The AP, though, reported not long ago that the committee had reserved $6 million to run ads, which could be used either in the open-seat race in the 3rd District or to shore up vulnerable freshman Rep. Cresent Hardy in the 4th. By contrast, the DCCC and HMP together have reserved $9.6 million in Vegas.
Over in Maine, meanwhile, the very same NRCC spokesperson who claimed his organization doesn't talk about media buys told the Bangor Daily News last month that the committee had reserved $1.3 million "statewide" to help 2nd District Rep. Bruce Poliquin, another first-term member. But what we don't know, though, is how this reservation is split between markets. About half the district is covered by the Bangor media market while about a third is in Portland, which is more expensive. (The remainder falls under Presque Isle, which is right up near the border with Canada; on our tracker, we're just going to divide the total between the two main markets.) The D-Trip, which is backing former state Sen. Emily Cain in a rematch, has reserved $870,000 in Portland and Bangor so far.
Finally, down in Virginia—or more accurately, Washington, DC—the National Journalreports that the NRCC has booked $3.2 million to shore up Rep. Barbara Comstock, who faces a challenge from Democrat LuAnn Bennett, a real estate developer and former wife of ex-Rep. Jim Moran. Together, the DCCC and HMP have reserved about $2.8 million in TV time in this market.
Overall, though, the disparity is stark. The two big Democratic groups have booked a total of $55.6 million combined. The NRCC, by contrast, has only reserved $12.8 million in TV time—at least, that we're aware of. That'll change, of course, but you do still have to wonder why Republicans have been so reluctant to commit to their House majority, especially when Donald Trump threatens to ruin everything. In any event, we'll continue to keep tabs on all House fall reservations, but if you ever spot any new information, please let us know!
2Q Fundraising:
Be sure to check out our second quarter Senate fundraising chart, which we'll be updating as new numbers come in.
● FL-Sen: Patrick Murphy (D): $2.4 million raised, $7.2 million cash-on-hand
● IL-Sen: Tammy Duckworth (D): $2.7 million raised, $5.5 million cash-on-hand
● KY-Sen: Jim Gray (D): $1.1 million raised (no self-funding)
● NH-Sen: Kelly Ayotte (R-inc): $2.5 million raised, $7 million cash-on-hand; Maggie Hassan (D): $3.2 million raised, $4.2 million cash-on-hand
● PA-Sen: Pat Toomey (R-inc): $3.1 million raised
● IN-Gov: Mike Pence (R-inc): $2.6 million raised, $7.4 million cash-on-hand; John Gregg (D): $2.8 million raised, $5.8 million cash-on-hand
● CA-52: Scott Peters (D-inc): $558,000 raised, $2 million cash-on-hand
● FL-18: Rick Kozell (R): $150,000 raised
● FL-23: Tim Canova (D): $1.7 million raised
● IL-10: Bob Dold! (R-inc): $850,000 raised, $2.3 million cash-on-hand
● NY-21: Elise Stefanik (R-inc): $575,000 raised, $1.4 million cash-on-hand; Mike Derrick(D): $325,000 raised, $450,000 cash-on-hand
● PA-11: Mike Marsicano (D): $330,000 self-funded, $273,000 cash-on-hand
● WI-08: Tom Nelson (D): $530,000 raised, $470,000 cash-on-hand
Senate:
● FL-Sen: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a reported $1.5 million buy to run a new ad attacking Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy over allegations that he inflated his resume. The traditional 30-second spot is very similar to a recent minute-long effort from the NRSC (minus the bizarre cell-phone-in-toilet shot), and it's aimed at denying Murphy the Democratic nomination in next month's primary. Note that this is on top of another $1.5 million in spending that's reportedly coming down the pike from another GOP group, the Senate Leadership Fund, but SLF hasn't released its ads yet.
● FL-Sen, MO-Sen, PA-Sen: The American Chemistry Council has launched what they're calling "a seven-figure ad campaign running across three states" in support of GOP Sens. Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, and Pat Toomey. The commercials praise the senators as fiscal conservatives who work across party lines. Interestingly, the ACC says their Florida spot is only airing in Spanish.
● OH-Sen: The Democratic group Senate Majority PAC has launched a $2.5 million buyagainst GOP Sen. Rob Portman that will last until July 18. Their first commercialfeatures a guy on a Segway (who is disappointingly not Gob Bluth) pointing to a building on Wall Street, where he says "somebody up there is probably writing Rob Portman a check." Segway guy goes on to accuse Portman of trying to privatize Social Security and concludes that "[m]aybe Rob Portman should be running for senator of Wall Street, not Ohio."
Gubernatorial:
● OR-Gov: A group called iCitizen, which we've never heard of before now, takes a look at the rarely-polled Oregon gubernatorial contest, and they give Democratic Gov. Kate Brown a 42-35 edge over physician Bud Pierce. The Portland Tribune describes iCitizen, which conducted its poll online, as a "nonpartisan public involvement organization." The only other poll we've seen here all year was a Pierce internal that gave Brown a 39-37 lead. For what it's worth, iCitizen has Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 46-32, which seems like a reasonable margin.
● VT-Gov: With a month to go before the Aug. 9 Democratic primary, ex-Vermont Secretary of Transportation Sue Minter is up with her second TV spot. The commercial features an aerial shot of Minter's hometown of Waterbury, as the candidate asks the audience to imagine it underwater, a reference to the floods that hit the area hardduring Hurricane Irene in 2011. Minter continues by saying that the community has "invested. Creating a vibrant downtown with new businesses and livable wage jobs," as graphics pop up that label buildings things like "New Restaurant," "New Brewery," and "Flood Resilience." Minter calls for doing the same thing across the state, and calls for two-years tuition free technical and community college and a green economy.
House:
● AK-AL: Former Alaska public broadcasting CEO Steve Lindbeck, who is challenging longtime GOP Rep. Don Young, has released a new internal poll from PPP, though it only contains information about the incumbent's favorability ratings. Young, the longest-serving Republican in the House, earns positive marks from just 39 percent of voters while 49 percent view him negatively. There are no horserace numbers, but it's easy to understand why you'd leave those off: Everyone in Alaska has known Young for decades, while Lindbeck has minimal name recognition, so any head-to-head matchups just won't look good for a challenger this early on. If Lindbeck can raise enough money to advertise (and fortunately, Alaska's a cheap state), he'll have a chance to change that calculus.
● FL-05: Multiple media outlets report that Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown has been indicted on charges related to Open Door for Education, an unregistered charity. However, the indictment apparently won't be officially announced until Friday.
A little while ago, the head of One Door pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Brown improperly used the House seal for solicitations for One Door, even though the group used almost none of the money it took in for scholarship in furtherance of its supposed mission. We'll likely know much more on Friday. Redistricting split up Brown's old congressional district, and she was already facing a tough primary with ex-state Senate Minority Leader Al Lawson on Aug. 30, and this certainly won't help her chances. This seat is safely blue.
● FL-26: A May poll from businesswoman Annette Taddeo confirmed that she was losing the Aug. 30 Democratic primary to ex-Rep. Joe Garcia by double digits, but she's hoping that TV advertising will help her turn things around. Politico reports that Taddeo will be spending $296,000 to go up on TV from July 19 to Aug. 22. Last month, Garcia sounded reluctant to advertise anytime soon, saying that he wanted to save his resources for the general election against GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo.
● LA-03: Lafayette School Board member Erick Knezek, one of the many Republicans seeking this safely red seat, has announced that he's "suspending" his campaign. Knezek had largely been self-funding his bid, but he would have had a tough time competing with Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle, who has plenty of cash and name recognition. Louisiana's filing deadline, which is the last in the nation, is July 22.
● House: The DCCC has announced that it is launching a "seven figure national advertising campaign" in 10 GOP-held congressional districts. Versions of two separate spots (here and here) will run on cable in each seat. The targeted incumbents are:
Steve Knight, CA-25
Mike Coffman, CO-06
John Mica, FL-07
Carlos Curbelo, FL-26
David Young, IA-03
Bob Dold!, IL-10
Erik Paulsen, MN-03
John Katko, NY-24
Will Hurd, TX-23
Barbara Comstock, VA-10
The first ad features several people, including one who identifies as a lifelong Republican, accusing GOP congressmen of putting loyalty to Donald Trump and his offensive remarks above loyalty to the country. One man sums it up by asking, if Trump "is our standard bearer, what the heck happened to our standards?"
The second commercial features several students bullying another kid as the narrator asks, "How would you feel if your child was the school bully? Would you feel much better to learn they were only the bully's sidekick?" The spot then links congressional Republicans to Trump, asking if they shouldn't be standing up to the bully instead of standing with him. We're likely to see some version of these messages in many, many downballot Democratic ads, as Team Blue works hard to link Republican candidates to Trump.
The Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir and Jeff Singer, with additional contributions from David Jarman, Steve Singiser, Daniel Donner, James Lambert, and Stephen Wolf.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/8/1546152/-Morning-Digest-Despite-some-quiet-GOP-moves-Democrats-have-booked-far-more-TV-time-for-House-races
-
Jul 8, 2016 | Mondaq
By Seth D. Jaffe
On Wednesday, EPA released its “First Year Implementation Plan” for the recently enacted TSCA reform legislation.
Before getting to the details, it’s worth emphasizing what a significant accomplishment it was to get TSCA reform passed in the current Congress. It’s also enlightening, because the message of TSCA reform may be that reform of existing legislation is possible, but only if the existing legislation is so obviously broken that it harms everyone. TSCA was ripe for amendment because not only was it not working, but it was a negative sum game: it was bad for business and it was bad for the environment. I’m not sure it provides much of a model for efforts to amend the Clean Air Act to address climate change or the Clean Water Act to figure out what a “water of the United States” is.
So, what is EPA’s plan for implementing the amendments? Here’s an example, the first item in the Plan:
New Chemicals
Requirement: Review and make an affirmative determination on all premanufacture notices (PMNs) and significant new use notices (SNUNs) before manufacturing can commence.
Goal: Meet the applicable deadlines. (My emphasis.) For companies that submitted PMNs prior to enactment and are currently undergoing review, EPA will make every effort to complete its review and make a determination within the remaining time under the original deadline. However, as a legal matter, the new law effectively resets the 90-day review period.
It’s not obvious to me that meeting the applicable deadlines constitutes an actual “plan.” It is, as EPA says, a “goal.” What would be interesting to know would be EPA’s actual plan for meeting that goal. To some extent, the prior version of TSCA failed because it simply wasn’t feasible to implement.
Good luck. Everyone wants this to work.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/508072/Environmental+Law/TSCA+Reform+Is+Real+EPA+Publishes+Its+First+Year+Implementation+Plan
-
Inside EPA Reports on Loss of Green Chemistry Provision from TSCA Reform
Jul 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On July 1, 2016, Inside EPA published "Committee Jurisdiction Issues Blocked Green Chemistry From TSCA Reform," an article discussing the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law and the lack of language from previous versions boosting federal support of green chemistry. The majority of the bill was reviewed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but the green chemistry provision would have needed to be reviewed by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, further complicating the fragile House and Senate negotiations. Inside EPA's source stated: "Nobody wanted to step on anybody's toes. [...] Pretty much everything else [was] in [Energy and Commerce's] jurisdiction or was sufficiently small enough [to not raise concerns.] There were a lot of concessions on all sides." The green chemistry provision was originally added to the Senate version of the TSCA Reform, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), and was primarily focused on funding the research and development of green chemistry.
The green chemistry provision of S. 697 called for a study of how to best incentivize sustainable chemistry research and development, as well as support "economic, legal and other appropriate social science research to identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of sustainable chemistry." The bill also created a working group to coordinate federal sustainable chemistry activities that would be lead by EPA's research chief and the National Science Foundation (NSF) director, as well as an advisory council to coordinate with the working group. Although green chemistry language in S. 697 did not remain in the final version of the bill, there are still supporters in Congress who are prepared to work to get the programs outlined in S. 697 into law.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/inside-epa-reports-loss-green-chemistry-provision-tsca-reform
-
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Bans Styrofoam, Passes Nation’s Toughest Anti-Styrofoam Law
Jul 8, 2016 | EcoWatch (In Truth-Out)
By Gwendolyn Wu
Article reprinted with permission from EcoWatch
San Francisco residents will soon have to drink their to-go cups of coffee out of something else, because those soft Styrofoam cups will be no more.
The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a ban last week on the sale of polystyrene foam, popularly known by the trademarked name Styrofoam. Foam packing, cups and mooring buoys will be prohibited starting Jan. 1, 2017.
"I just passed the toughest anti-Styrofoam law in the country and we did it unanimously," Board of Supervisors President London Breed wrote on her Facebook page after the vote. "This is a huge step for our environment and health. San Francisco is on our way to leading the country on environmental policy—again!"
Breed spearheaded the latest ban, extending a 2006 ordinance that ordered prepared-food merchants to stop using all polystyrene containers. Plastic foam products for crafts and insulation will not be affected by the ban.
"The reason why this was passed is that it's not practically recyclable, causes a unique harm in the environment and there were better alternatives," Jack Macy, commercial zero waste senior coordinator for San Francisco's Department of the Environment, told TakePart.
Polystyrene disintegrates slowly in landfills, taking centuries to break down entirely. There are a few polystyrene recycling centers in San Francisco, such as GreenCitizen and Recology, but they can only make a small dent in the 25 billion polystyrene to-go cups Americans throw away annually.
While there's been promising research on worms that eat polystyrene, scientists need to study their waste to make sure whatever is processed is safe. Environmentalists are also concerned about polystyrene foam ending up in the water, where the material falls apart and can look like fish eggs to hungry predators.
"The main challenge posed by Styrofoam is that it breaks into tiny little pieces, especially outside in the sun when it photodegrades," Allison Chan, the Clean Bay Campaign manager for the Oakland, California–based organization Save the Bay, told TakePart. "It looks more and more like food and makes them feel full and really, they're malnourished and they can die from that condition."
Critics of the ban said it will hurt supermarkets that use polystyrene trays for meat by not giving them enough time to make a switch to other food-safe packaging. The Board of Supervisors granted grocers a six-month waiver, however, to find eco-friendly packaging for meats and fish.
The American Chemistry Council disagreed with the wording of the ban, which it believes ignores the positives of using the foam and makes an assumption that substituted packing materials will be recycled at a higher rate.
"We share the city's dual goals to increase the amount of material diverted from landfill disposal and reduce materials that may be inadvertently littered in the environment," the council wrote in a letter to Breed. "However, we respectfully oppose the ordinance as drafted."
The council also wrote that the Food and Drug Administration "has approved polystyrene for food contact applications and the food safety benefits of plastic foodservice packaging, including polystyrene, are undisputed. Its inherent insulation properties maintain food temperatures and help keep food fresh, hot or cold and ready-to-eat."
The polystyrene ban is part of San Francisco's comprehensive zero-waste plan. Taxing cigarette purchases to fund cleaning cigarette butts off sidewalks and requiring new buildings to have water-bottle filling stations are some of the city's other environmental policy initiatives. More than 100 cities, including Seattle, St. Louis and Miami, have banned polystyrene foam packaging partially or completely.
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/san-francisco-bans-styrofoam-passes-nation-s-toughest-anti-styrofoam-law
-
6 Everyday Chemicals That Harm Your Child's Brain Development
Jul 8, 2016 | Nature World News
By John Rosca
Many of the chemicals present in common household items were never adequately tested for safety. Now a coalition of health experts and consumer advocates is calling for more urgent action on the issue on the part of U.S. regulators.
The group, Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental NeuroDevelopment Risks), released a consensus statement in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. In it, they called for a new approach in which chemical additives receive scrutiny in much the same way as drugs - which need to jump a few hoops before they can win regulatory approval.
"We as a society should be able to take protective action when scientific evidence indicates a chemical is of concern, and not wait for unequivocal proof that a chemical is causing harm to our children," says the group in the statement. It names a number of chemicals that are considered harmful to healthy brain development in children, based in part on reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Lead - A highly toxic metal that has long been known to damage the brain and central nervous system. Even low levels of exposure to lead in children can lead to impaired intelligence growth and behavior control issues. Old buildings may still harbor lead paint and lead pipes, which can contaminate tap water.
Phthalates - Also known as plasticizers, phthalates are additives used to give plastic materials greater flexibility. These industrial chemicals can be found in many plastic bottles and containers, including food packaging. Phthalates are associated with impaired brain development in girls.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) - These flame retardant chemicals have been phased out of use in U.S. factories, but many households products that are still around contain these additives. PBDEs can be found in drapes, carpets, upholstery, furniture foam, fabrics, and plastic casings used to house TVs and computers. Prenatal exposure to PBDEs is associated with lower intelligence and increased hyperactivity.
Organophosphate pesticides (OPs) - Originally developed to be toxic nerve agents for warfare, OPs were later put to widespread use in agriculture. They have yet to be phased out of use in America; "33 million pounds were still applied in 2007 alone," reports Project TENDR. Long-term exposure to OPs has been linked to autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The best way to safeguard against OP contamination in your produce may be to buy organic vegetables and fruit.
Combustion-related air pollutants - These are by-products from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gasoline, coal and natural gas. They comprise particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), formaldehyde, benzene and many other toxic chemicals. Air pollution's effects on children's development may include impaired intelligence, mood disorders and autism.
Mercury - This highly toxic chemical can cause brain damage and intellectual impairment. It is found in all kinds of fish, although some contain higher mercury levels than others. Consumer Reports advises against consuming shark, swordfish, king mackerel, gulf tilefish, orange roughy and marlin. Young children are advised to limit their intake of tuna, and to stay away from sushi made from tuna.
Project TENDR warns against a seventh chemical as well: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). They were once in widespread use as coolants and lubricants in electrical equipment. In 1977, PCBs were banned in the U.S., but not eliminated - these chemicals can persist in the environment for decades. Heavy PCB exposure is associated with an increased risk of liver cancer and skin cancer.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/24971/20160708/6-everyday-chemicals-harm-childs-brain-development.htm
-
Dems Debate 'Fracking Ban,' But What Does That Mean?
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The writers of the Democratic Party's platform are preparing for another fight about whether to "ban fracking," continuing a debate that stirs passions but offers few specifics.
Regardless of whether the proposal passes, it will likely remain unclear what such a ban would entail. How would it be accomplished? When would it start? Would it ban the process of hydraulic fracturing or drilling altogether?
The party platform is, after all, a philosophical document to be adopted at the national convention rather than a piece of legislation. And those who want that platform to include a fracking ban are likely to lose.
Nonetheless, just having one of the country's two major parties talking about severe curtailment of domestic oil and gas production shows the traction that the anti-drilling movement has gained with the political left.
The supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who want to ban fracking have already lost a round in voting two weeks ago at the platform drafting committee in St. Louis. But Josh Fox, the anti-drilling documentary filmmaker and platform committee member, plans to try again with the larger platform committee, which meets today in Orlando, Fla.
Fox acknowledges that the amendment he's presenting is short on details. He's well aware that the oil and gas industry defines hydraulic fracturing much more narrowly than activists like himself.
"If it came down to that, we define it as the waste pits, the truck trips and all that," Fox said in a phone interview as he prepared to board a train to Orlando.
Fox has two amendments he plans to propose. The first simply expresses support for a "national moratorium on fracking." The second references the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and says it should create incentives for renewable sources of energy and avoid the development of "fracked natural gas plants."
Fox says he considers the second proposal more important because building a new fleet of natural gas power plants would lock in natural gas production for decades, worsening climate change and sea-level rise.
"Do you want 300 fracked gas plants, or do you want the East Coast?" Fox said. "You can't have both."
Carol Browner, U.S. EPA administrator under President Bill Clinton, argued against a ban on drilling at the drafting committee meeting in St. Louis in late June. But Browner, representing presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign, said the regulatory exemption for fracturing commonly referred to as the "Halliburton loophole" should be eliminated.
"We believe it needs to be regulated," said Browner. "We do not support a national ban on fracturing."
A labor representative also spoke against the proposed ban, saying it could cost jobs.
During the Democratic primary, Sanders said flatly that he opposed fracking without offering definitions. Clinton said she would back regulations on water contamination, as well as disclosures for chemicals used in fracking fluids. She also supported blocking fracking where local or state governments oppose it.
"So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place," Clinton said (EnergyWire, March 7).
Many definitions of fracking
Defeating the frack-ban proposal could create friction between Clinton and the liberal activists who fueled Sanders' surprisingly strong bid for the nomination. But passing it could create problems for Democratic candidates in oil states and other conservative districts.
And either way, confusion will likely continue as to what "fracking" really is. The technical definition used by industry is that fracturing is a portion of the well construction process in which large volumes of water is pumped into a well to crack open rock and release gas.
The process was developed in the late 1940s and was primarily used to get more oil and gas out of existing wells. In recent years, oil companies have perfected drilling techniques to extract gas from formations that could not be tapped at all without fracturing. The newer methods use far more water and pressure. They have spread oil and gas development into areas that hadn't seen drilling in generations.
More than 90 percent of wells brought online onshore in the Lower 48 states in 2015 were fracked in some way, according to IHS Energy. Fracturing is less common offshore, and if offshore wells are included, that figure falls to 65 percent.
To critics, fracking has come to mean everything associated with the onshore drilling boom, from when land is cleared for a well all the way through to plugging the hole.
There's also differences in what is considered a ban. New York's ban still allows low-volume fracking. In 2014, New York's 12,826 wells produced more than 350,000 barrels of oil and 20 billion cubic feet of gas. A moratorium imposed in Maryland last year, however, prevents any kind of hydraulic fracturing, no matter how small the volume.
When he proposed a fracking ban at the platform committee in St. Louis, environmental activist and Sanders representative Bill McKibben described his proposal as being akin to New York's fracking ban.
Fair game for Congress
One possible reason for the lack of specifics in the debate is that presidential and congressional campaigns rarely focus directly on oil and gas production. That's because the federal government exercises relatively little authority over onshore drilling. Regulation of oil and gas is generally done by state agencies, with federal officials playing at the edges with rules on air quality and waste disposal.
But just because Congress hasn't gotten involved in onshore drilling doesn't mean it can't. Legal experts say oil and gas development is clearly interstate commerce, giving Congress the authority to weigh in.
"I don't see anything preventing a congressional act to ban the practice," said Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University law professor who specializes in energy and environmental law.
But Wiseman and Jason Hutt, an energy lawyer at Bracewell LLP, said EPA wouldn't have authority to ban fracking on its own. Wiseman said EPA might have some authority to rein in drilling by getting tougher on disposal rules.
But Hutt said he wouldn't expect a Clinton administration to clamp down on broad swaths of the industry. Blocking drilling in states that oppose it, for example, wouldn't change much in high-production areas like Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota.
Instead, he would expect a Clinton administration to use what authority it has to take on specific environmental problems.
"I think there will continue to be footholds to address the challenges that come up," Hutt said. "I expect they would continue to look at places to address those challenges."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/08/stories/1060039961
-
Leasing Questions Swirl Around Interior Drilling Rule
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson and Elizabeth Harball
The Interior Department yesterday released final operating standards for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic outer continental shelf (OCS), a move that intensified speculation on whether the White House will allow new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas under its eagerly awaited next five-year leasing program.
The Arctic-specific mandates apply to future offshore exploration from a floating drillship or jack-up rig in federal waters along Alaska's northern shores. They don't affect Hilcorp's pending request to pump oil from a man-made gravel island at the company's Liberty leases in the Beaufort Sea.
Interior Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Janice Schneider described the new rules as "world class standards." She said the mandates were developed in part based on the lessons learned from Royal Dutch Shell PLC's attempts to find oil in the American Arctic.
Noting that the Chukchi and Beaufort seas contain a total of 24 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, Schneider said conditions in the Arctic require tougher controls than in the Gulf of Mexico.
"The Beaufort and Chukchi planning areas are remote, vastly undeveloped and subject to extreme weather and climate," she said in a telephone press briefing. "The Arctic rule will raise the bar for safety and environmental protection for any future exploration of Arctic OCS oil and gas resources."
The final rules require exploration companies to maintain a backup rig while drilling in the Arctic to allow them to sink a relief well in case of a blowout. They also mandate that companies have immediate access to blowout prevention equipment and that each applicant submit an integrated OCS exploration plan 90 days before actually submitting a request to drill in the Arctic.
And in a reference to problems encountered by Shell during its ill-fated 2012 drilling season, the new regulations require companies to submit a plan to effectively manage and oversee contractors working at the drilling operations.
The Obama administration estimated that complying with the regulations will cost industry $2.05 billion. But Schneider noted that responding to a drilling accident in the Arctic could be far more expensive than $40 billion price tag for cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Interior officials were careful to draw a distinction between the safety regulations released yesterday and the department's upcoming decision on Arctic Ocean leasing (EnergyWire, June 23).
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Abigail Hopper said her agency is currently sorting through a record number of comments on the five-year plan, adding it would be "incredibly premature to make any statements about what the end results of that analysis would be."
But Alaska state officials and industry groups said the government's announcement contains a glimmer of hope for future Arctic oil development.
"Even though the Administration has aggressively pursued a policy that restricts oil and gas development, today's regulations do signify its recognition that America's largest energy opportunity -- the offshore Arctic -- can be explored safely and responsibly," the Arctic Energy Center, an industry group, said in a statement.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, asserted that the rule "continues to hint toward an even more uncertain future for the regulatory regime in this region. I am dismayed by the regulatory onslaught the administration is launching on American energy production in its final days."
Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, asserted that the controls "will only make it more difficult to entice companies back to the Arctic when oil prices rebound."
Global energy firms have recently relinquished millions of acres of oil and gas leases in the Arctic Ocean amid tumbling gas prices. But operators still hold 42 leases in the Beaufort Sea and one in the Chukchi that have not expired. Today's regulations would apply to those leaseholders if they decide to do exploratory drilling.
Arctic drilling can't be safe, enviros assert
The conservation community had a mixed response to the Interior Department announcement. Eleanor Huffines, senior officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts' U.S. Arctic project, praised the administration for taking "an important step forward. If and when Arctic exploration ever does move forward, these rules will be a significant step towards helping improve prevention and safety."
But a number of environmental groups charged that the safety measures fall short of the White House's ultimate goal to protect the Arctic and the climate.
"No regulations will make Arctic drilling safe," Niel Lawrence, Alaska director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in statement. "Instead of pretending that new regs will end the horrific risks, BOEM should be recommending that President Obama use his statutory authority to take Arctic drilling off the table forever."
Many green groups maintain that allowing drilling in the Arctic conflicts with the Obama administration's broader goal to address climate change.
"Drilling in the Arctic Ocean would only deepen our reliance on dirty energy, at a time when scientists say we must transition off fossil fuels completely by mid-century to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change," Rachel Richardson, director of Environment America's Stop Drilling Program, said in a statement.
"The only 'safe' form of drilling for the Arctic and the climate is none at all," she said. "That's why we urge the president to take Arctic oil and gas drilling off the table, for the next five years and forever."
This story also appears in EnergyWire.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/07/08/stories/1060039963
-
The Obama Administration Just Made Arctic Drilling Hard to Do — But Not Impossible
Jul 7, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis
This story has been updated.
The Obama administration on Thursday finalized rules that will require companies to have strict safety and environmental protection plans in place before they drill for oil or natural gas in the Arctic Ocean.
The new regulations do not expressly prohibit drilling in the Arctic, but they require companies to submit detailed plans for how they will drill safely and respond to oil spills and other emergencies. In part because of an extended slump in global oil prices, and also because of major setbacks to prospects for drilling in the Arctic, the industry has largely steered clear of plans to drill in the area recently.
But that doesn’t mean companies won’t seek to drill there in the future. Thursday’s rules specifically cover drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, to the northwest and north of Alaska, respectively.
Among other measures, they require companies to have oil spill response plans, ice and weather forecasting capabilities, and to have a relief rig on hand to drill a relief well in the event of well problems.
“The unique Arctic environment raises substantial operational challenges,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), in a statement accompanying the release of the new rules. “These new regulations are carefully tailored to ensure that any future exploration activities will be conducted in a way that respects and protects this incredible ecosystem and the Alaska Native subsistence activities that depend on its preservation.”
The real question, however, is which companies will now want to operate under these regulations.
Royal Dutch Shell had already suspended its plans for drilling in the fragile Arctic region late last year after an unsuccessful attempt at one exploratory well in the Chukchi Sea, citing costs as well as a “challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment.” Shortly afterwards, so did the Norwegian oil giant Statoil, at least for the Alaskan Arctic.
The Obama administration also canceled two Arctic drilling lease sales last year, citing a lack of industry interest.
Royal Dutch Shell’s U.S. media manager, Curtis Smith, said Thursday the company is “reviewing the final Arctic regulations,” but added that “it’s worth noting we still have no plans to conduct exploration activities offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future.”
Still, some analysts have suggested that these moves were as much a response to low oil prices as to an aversion to regulation or the challenges of Arctic operations — and that in a future of higher oil prices, companies may line up to exploit Arctic resources again.
No wonder, then, that some environmentalists praised the move Thursday even as industry groups faulted it.
Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for the conservation advocacy group Oceana, said the rules finalized Thursday involve “common-sense precautions” aimed at preventing devastating oil spills such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
“The new rules should help lead to better choices by the government and companies in the future,” LeVine said in a statement, calling the regulations both necessary and long overdue. “Until and unless companies can operate safely and without harming the health of Arctic Ocean ecosystems, the government has no business selling leases or authorizing exploration in the region.”
However, the Natural Resources Defense Council took a different tack. “Where we drill, we spill,” Niel Lawrence, Alaska director for the council, said in a statement Thursday. “The Arctic is harsh, fragile, remote, and pristine. We can’t contain or clean up the oil from a blowout in these waters. And we can’t protect them from the devastation that would bring. That’s why no regulations will make Arctic drilling safe.”
Lawrence argued that while the new regulations are better than what has come before, President Obama should use his authority to cease any future drilling in the Arctic.
“This is an unfortunate turn by this administration and will continue to stifle offshore oil and natural gas production,” Eric Milito, upstream and industry operations director for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement Thursday. “We remain concerned about various regulatory activities related to offshore energy development including today’s proposals for Arctic operations.”
The group has maintained that the U.S. oil and gas industry has a track record of working with the government to improve the safety of offshore drilling and that proposed new regulations only hinder innovative advancements in the industry, without actually making the practice safer. The industry has argued that rather than place onerous requirements on drilling in the Arctic, regulations need to be flexible enough to take into account new technologies and balance safety and environmental concerns with potential economic benefits and the interests of local communities.
“America’s energy resurgence is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that has put this country on a path toward economic growth, consumer benefits, environmental progress and a more secure energy future,” Milito said. “This administration has already fallen short of creating opportunities for new jobs, while also erasing millions in revenue to the government. Expanding offshore development is integral to the safe and responsible path for securing the domestic energy supplies future generations of Americans demand.”
Darryl Fears contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/07/the-obama-administration-just-made-arctic-drilling-hard-to-do-but-not-impossible/
-
Exxon Process Could Cut $200M from Yearly Petrochemical Costs
Jul 8, 2016 | Fuel Fix (In E&E Energywire)
By Jordan Blum
Technologies developed by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Saudi Arabian Oil Co. could revolutionize the production process in the petrochemical sector and save up to $200 million in yearly petrochemical costs, according to a new report released by the IHS Inc. data and consulting firm.
The processes transform crude oil directly into ethylene, the base chemical for most plastics, skipping the middle step of refining crude into naphtha, which is usually more expensive than crude oil and is the primary feedstock for most petrochemical plants outside the United States.
"It is this feedstock spread that contributes most of the cost-savings advantage," said Anthony Pavone, director of engineering at IHS Chemical and co-author of the report.
Exxon Mobil's only crude-to-ethylene plant opened in 2014 at its Singapore Chemical Plant, producing 1 million tons of ethylene from crude per year. The Exxon technology saves up to $200 per metric ton of ethylene. Similar technology developed by Saudi Aramco has not yet been used in production (Jordan Blum, Fuel Fix, July 6).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/08/stories/1060039944
-
States Are Right To Worry About Clean Power Plan Costs
Jul 8, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Terry Jarrett
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a stay on President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” (CPP.) That was good news for the 29 states now on record as formally opposing the president’s plan to vastly transform the nation’s power grid. But those states now appear doubly justified in opposing the effort, thanks to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) recent study on the CPP’s projected costs.
For starters, the EIA says the plan will mean “significantly higher” prices for residential and commercial electricity. They attribute this to “higher transmission and distribution costs” coming at a time when electricity consumption will also grow slightly (in 2015-2040.)
Interestingly, the EIA projects that these higher electricity prices will actually reduce demand 2% by 2030. Why? Because “compliance actions and higher prices” will force cash-strapped consumers to adopt their own austerity measures.
A key part of the CPP is the dismantling of coal-fired power in the U.S. As the EIA sees it, “Coal’s share of total electricity generation, which was 50% in 2005 and 33% in 2015, falls to 21% in 2030 and to 18% in 2040.” Coal power plants currently anchor America’s base-load electricity generation, so it’s understandable that their elimination would drive up prices. But is such a move justified?
The EIA projects that “renewable energy” (solar and wind) will play a “significant role in meeting electricity demand growth throughout most of the country.” It’s a bold gamble, since the EIA believes that renewables will account for 27% of total U.S. generation by 2040. But EIA data shows wind and solar power supplying only 5.6% of U.S. electricity generation in 2015. So, the jump to 27% will require significant investments.
What’s instructive is EIA data on Germany, where residential retail electric prices have risen, and are expected to keep rising, due to higher taxes and fees for renewable power. Overall, Germany’s foray into green energy has driven the average residential electricity price to 35 cents/kWh, almost three times the U.S. average of 13 cents/kWh. Along with Denmark, Germany has some of the highest residential electricity prices in Europe.
Under the Clean Power Plan, the EIA envisions the most significant changes in power generation occurring in regions where coal-fired power has played a key role, including the industrial Midwest. In the Northern Plains, coal power displaced by the CPP is expected to be replaced with increased renewables generation.
The net “benefit” of the CPP is that it will lower total power sector carbon dioxide emissions 20% by 2030. However, the EIA doesn’t mention the simultaneous increase in CO2 emissions from new coal plants in China, India, and other emerging Asian nations.
Overall, the CPP will impose massive expenses on businesses and consumers for CO2 reductions that will be instantly negated by far larger CO2 emissions growth overseas. Perhaps this explains why the Obama Administration’s former Department of Energy fossil fuel director, Charles McConnell, recently told a Congressional panel that the EPA’s plan is “ideological mumbo jumbo” that will not significantly affect global CO2 emissions.
As McConnell, who now serves as executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative, subsequently explained, he is “not against climate regulations…but I am against stupid regulations.”
The Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan remains in effect, and governors currently have no legal obligation to comply. But thanks to the findings of the Energy Information Administration, they now have more reasons not to follow through.
Jarrett is an energy attorney and consultant, and a former commissioner on the Missouri Public Service Commission.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/286906-states-are-right-to-worry-about-clean-power-plan-costs
-
Delaware Riverkeeper Network Files to Intervene in Lawsuit Challenging DRBC Drilling Moratorium
Jul 8, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
An environmental organization that has long opposed shale gas development in Pennsylvania has filed to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the Delaware River Basin Commission's (DRBC) ban on horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the 13,539-square mile watershed.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network said it supports the DRBC's contention that it has authority to "impose and advance the moratorium." It filed a motion to intervene in the case this week in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Wayne Land and Mineral Group (WLMG) filed its lawsuit against the DRBC on May 17, arguing that the commission is impeding the development of private land and appeasing environmental groups opposed to oil and gas produced by unconventional drilling (see Shale Daily, May 20).
"The WLMG lawsuit seeks to advance drilling and fracking in our watershed to the detriment of tens of millions who rely upon a healthy Delaware River system, and it does so by seeking to fundamentally disempower the DRBC and its ability to protect our water resources from such dangerous industrial operations," said Delaware Riverkeeper Network leader Maya van Rossum.
In its lawsuit, WLMG said DRBC "lacks authority under the Delaware River Basin Compact to review and approve a natural gas well pad, a gas well and related facilities and associated activities on WLMG's property in the Delaware River Basin."
The U.S. Congress approved the compact in 1961. It's an agreement among the United States, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware to better protect the Delaware River watershed. Pennsylvania is a member of seven other interstate river basin organizations.
The DRBC decided in 2009 that all gas drilling in the basin needed to be reviewed, saying it would not approve any development until it adopted new rules governing the industry (see Daily GPI, June 1, 2009). In 2010, it decided to postpone the review of natural gas development and has failed to act on adopting new rules, leaving in place a de facto moratorium.
At the time the lawsuit was filed, the commission had no comment other than to say it would defend against WLMG's claims. It filed a motion in June for an extension to reply to the complaint, which was granted by the court. The commission said it needed more time to consult with the governments included in the compact, adding that WLMG had no objection to the extension, which was granted until July 8.
A conference has been scheduled for Aug. 25 to discuss the case and its schedule.
WLMG owns about 180 acres of land in Wayne County, PA, where it is headquartered. Seventy-five of those acres are within the river basin. According to its lawsuit, the company acquired the property last year with the intent to explore for, extract and sell natural gas from shale formations underneath the property. It said it plans to build an access road and well pad there before drilling an exploratory well.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107000-delaware-riverkeeper-network-files-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-challenging-drbc-drilling-moratorium
-
DHS Urged to Update Preparations for Multiple Cyberattacks
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The United States is inadequately prepared for simultaneous, large-scale cyberattacks on more than one of its critical infrastructure sectors, advisers to the Department of Homeland Security warn.
A subcommittee of the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council has called on the Obama administration to update a 6-year-old interim National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) with new measures to address the threat of attacks on electric utilities, telecommunications networks and the banking system all at once, compounding the damage and the restoration challenge.
"Adversaries may not do the United States the kindness of attacking only a single sector," the subcommittee report said, citing the cyberattack last December against three utilities in Ukraine, which blacked out power to about 225,000 customers. In addition to taking down the utilities' control systems, the attackers jammed telephone lines into the utilities, disrupting power restoration (EnergyWire, March 21).
"With the increasingly severity of the threat, and above all, the risk of simultaneous attacks on multiple infrastructure sectors, the need is paramount for a better integrated mechanism to coordinate across the federal government, and with the states, and with the private sector," said Paul Stockton, subcommittee co-chairman and general manager of Sonecon LLC, a security consultancy. Stockton formerly was assistant secretary of the Defense Department for homeland defense and global security.
"Our assessment is that each sector on its own is making significant progress in building preparedness to restore services after a cyberattack," Stockton added. "The challenge today is being prepared for simultaneous attacks. The attack in Ukraine gave us a taste of the threat to come."
The subcommittee criticized the interim DHS emergency response plan, saying the current NCIRP process for triggering government responses to a cyberattack based on the attack's severity was unclear and unworkable. The existing system "continues to lack the clarity needed to characterize the severity of attacks on critical infrastructure, and to set thresholds to trigger different types of response operations and the use of progressively higher levels of government authority," the report said.
DHS declined to discuss the subcommittee report or the status of the NCIRP.
"There's too much ambiguity in those [alert] categories, and it's too difficult to tell when a particular threshold has been crossed calling for government and industry action. So we proposed a new cyber risk alert level system that is much more clear and provides a stronger base for collateral action," Stockton said.
The Obama administration is preparing to issue a new policy statement clarifying the roles of DHS, the FBI, and other federal departments and agencies in the aftermath of a major cyberattack, the report authors said, based on information from DHS. An administration spokesman declined to comment.
In a model recommended by the subcommittee, a cyberattack at the lowest level could be handled by utilities and their vendors under current legal authorities. At the fifth, or top level, of severity, a presidential declaration of emergency authorizing extraordinary responses could be necessary.
A new response plan should "jettison any reliance" on the existing system "and adopt a more operational useful way of characterizing threats," the subcommittee said.
The subcommittee also urged that governors be engaged more directly and effectively in recovery actions following a major cyberattack.
Work in progress
ssues with the NCIRP threat rating system were exposed in a DHS cybersecurity exercise in 2011 called Cyber Storm III but have not yet been addressed, according to the subcommittee.
The interim NCIRP report was drafted in 2008, sent to the White House the following year and published in 2010. It has remained incomplete since then, said Robert Dix Jr., policy vice president for Juniper Networks. Dix, a former staff director of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Technology, was part of the group drafting the plan.
"It is unclear who is in charge or has the responsibility for leading efforts to mitigate, respond to and recover from a cyber event that may include significant damage or disruption to data, networks, systems and critical infrastructure such as power, transportation, water, communications, information technology and more -- or even injury or death," he said.
"It is not even clear when or at what level of escalation a cyber event falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security or when it might have sufficient national security implications to fall under the purview of the Department of Defense," Dix wrote in a blog commentary this year.
"We have never experienced a cyber event that would qualify as a national impact [event]," Dix added in an interview. "If we have something that begins to escalate beyond one location, one company, how do the various elements of the government react. And where does the private sector plug into the process, as the owners of the networks we rely on?
"What happens in the event of an attack we determined came from outside the continental U.S., which presents a threat not just to the homeland, but to national security?" Dix said. "Where does a transfer of authority occur from DHS to DOD?
"This has been raised in exercise after exercise for years. There was almost a fistfight right in a control center over who was in charge based on certain level of escalation in a cyberattack," he said.
Call for cross-examination
Last August, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson asked the department's advisory group of military, law enforcement, security and academic leaders to examine cross-sector threats as DHS prepared to complete the national cyber response plan.
"We focused on the power grid, the financial services sector and the communications sector in order to bound the problem sufficiently to put out our report on time," Stockton said. The subcommittee hopes to add recommendations on water supply and other critical sectors, he said.
"We need to recognize that cyberattacks will create very different response challenges than do hurricanes and other traditional national hazards," Stockton added. Responders knew where Superstorm Sandy was going and its impact once it hit. Cyberattacks are potentially nationwide in scope, and there is no guarantee when the threats have passed, if hidden malware remains after the initial attack, he said.
"With advanced persistent cyberthreats, the risk will exist unless you scrub all the malware from your networks, that malware is going to attack again and again and again, leading to great uncertainty over restoration times and potentially severe political challenges in communicating with the American people about what they should expect," Stockton said. Sowing confusion and battering public morale may be a primary goal of attackers, he added.
The report said the relationships between federal agencies and state governors and their administrations must be clarified and strengthened. "Our focus was assuring governors have a seat at the table that's appropriate given their leading role in protecting the public health and safety of their citizens regardless of the source of the event, regardless whether it is an ice storm, hurricane or a cyberattack," Stockton said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/08/stories/1060039933
-
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Investigates Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Accident
Jul 8, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board launched its first major investigation in a year with a probe of a June 27 fire and explosion at a natural gas processing facility in Pascagoula, Miss.
The past year was difficult for CSB, involving a congressional investigation and the termination of the board’s former head. Last October, new CSB Chair Vanessa Allen Sutherland announcedthat the board would halt new investigations and reboot its organization and structure. The freeze on probes continued until the Mississippi incident.
No one was injured in the accident, but the plant has remained shuttered since it happened, says a spokesperson for Enterprise Products Partners, which owns the facility. The accident occurred in one of three process lines, or trains, as the facility handles incoming hydrocarbons and separates the material into natural gas liquids and residual gas.
The cause of this late-night accident is unclear at this time, say CSB and company officials.
A former BP facility, the Enterprise Products Partners plant processes approximately 42.5 million cubic meters per day of natural gas from offshore operations in the Gulf of Mexico. It is one of 25 similar U.S. processing plants the company operates.
Once separated, the natural gas liquids are transported from the Pascagoula plant to a facility in Louisiana through a pipeline for further refining.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i28/US-Chemical-Safety-Board-investigates.html
-
Industry Slams Proposed Federal Gas Pipeline Rules
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oil and gas industry groups yesterday criticized the Obama administration's proposed rules for natural gas pipelines, calling provisions "arbitrary" and disputing the government's cost analysis.
"This goes significantly further than anyone had anticipated," said Robin Rorick, midstream director for the American Petroleum Institute (API). The proposal, he said, "is not driven by a risk-informed approach, targeted at eliminating the most significant risks posed to public safety and the environment."
API and the American Gas Association (AGA) used the end of the comment period yesterday on the rules proposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as an opportunity to air their argument that the agency is overreaching.
In a statement, AGA said the agency is ignoring existing rules and voluntary safety initiatives and imposing "prescriptive and burdensome requirements."
The Environmental Defense Fund, by contrast, called the proposal a "much-needed overhaul" that has the added benefit of reducing leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
"By strengthening standards for pipeline integrity, reducing leaks and minimizing emissions, PHMSA could both prevent pipeline accidents and reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Holly Pearen, senior attorney for EDF's U.S. Climate and Energy program.
The rules trace back to the 2010 natural gas pipeline explosion in the San Francisco suburb of San Bruno that killed eight people and leveled 38 houses.
Agency officials stressed that the proposal is far from complete. The agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, which invites comment from companies, interest groups and the public. After reviewing the comments, the agency is to produce a proposed rule.
"We look forward to reviewing all comments received from the public and our stakeholders as we work to finalize this rule in the months ahead," PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said in a statement. "The proposed rule will make commonsense and critical improvements to pipeline safety."
The rules are intended to update safety requirements for natural gas transmission pipelines and initiate federal regulation of smaller "gathering lines" that have proliferated amid the nation's drilling boom in recent years.
In addition to San Bruno, the rules include responses to recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board and watchdog agencies, and address mandates in pipeline legislation passed by Congress in 2011.
The rules incorporate a recommendation NTSB made after San Bruno that pipelines built before 1970 be tested.
They also add new assessment and repair criteria for gas transmission pipelines and make pipelines in medium-population areas subject to greater scrutiny.
PHMSA officials say the rule should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 1,500 metric tons and methane emissions by up to 8,100 metric tons.
The agency estimates the cost of the proposal to industry at $597 million but says it has benefits of more than $3.3 billion. API is challenging that with a study it commissioned setting the cost many times higher -- $33.4 billion. API's study says the rules have safety and environmental benefits adding up to about $437 million.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/08/stories/1060039949
-
Elected Officials Join the Call to Stop Oil Trains: 2016 #StopOilTrains Week of Action
Jul 7, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Todd Paglia
This week people gather at 60 events across North America to mark the third anniversary of the Lac Megantic oil train disaster. Stand organizes the Stop Oil Trains Week of Action to help raise the voice of communities who oppose these dangerous, unnecessary trains. In 2016, elected officials joined our call for a stop to oil trains.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Oregon Governor Kate Brown are challenging federal railroad officials on the safety of trains carrying millions of gallons of explosive, toxic crude oil. They join Oregon Senators Wyden and Merkley, Washington Senator Cantwell, and New Jersey Senator Booker on a long and growing list of state and local elected officials who understand that the oil trains rolling through American cities and towns are too dangerous for the rails. Or, in the words of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a year ago, “a reckless gamble that we just can’t afford to make.”
Concern about these dangerous trains spiked again following the June 3 derailment and explosion in Mosier, Oregon. A rare windless day in the Columbia River Gorge prevented the fire from spreading to nearby homes or a school just a few hundred yards away. But the potential threat, and the inability to contain and control an oil train fire, was not lost on first responders to the inferno of explosive crude in Mosier. “What’s at stake?” asked Mosier fire chief Jim Appleton in an interview with theOregonian:
“Do we want to test the abilities of a small town again to respond to Armageddon? Or just understand, it’s not worth the risk. It ain’t worth shareholder value. I know the railroad’s argument. But we need to tell them: You can’t ship that cargo.”
July 6 marks the third anniversary of the fatal oil train disaster in Lac Megantic, Quebec, that took the lives of 47 people. In the three years since that 2013 disaster we’ve seen more than a dozen major oil train derailments and explosions in the US and Canada. Mosier was another close call. In January Christopher A. Hart of the National Transportation Safety Board recognized the threat when he said, “We have been lucky thus far that derailments involving flammable liquids in America have not yet occurred in a populated area... But an American version of Lac-Megantic could happen at any time.”
The Washington State Council of Fire Fighters first asked for a ban on oil trains in 2014, and followed up their request in a June 8 letter to Governor Inslee citing the danger from an oil train fire:
“...evidence keeps growing that there is no safe way to transport Bakken crude. A derailment and fire in dry wildfire fuels with high winds could easily overwhelm available personnel and equipment in many parts of our state and grow into a conflagration of immense proportions.”
A week after the Mosier derailment and fire Governor Inslee responded to federal railroad officials that he was not “interested in symbolic measures,” and called for a halt to oil trains traveling through Washington until railroads meet six specific safety improvements. In a joint letter to the administration Oregon Senators Wyden and Merkley requested, “that the FRA place a moratorium on unit trains transporting crude oil and other hazardous materials through the Gorge until the FRA has issued a final investigative report for the Mosier accident.”
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown was even more direct, calling for a moratorium on oil trains in the Columbia River Gorge, “until the strongest safety measures are put in place by federal authorities to protect Oregonians.”
The railroads and oil industry, meanwhile, have ignored calls for safety improvements or a halt to oil train traffic while investigations move forward. Railroads point to common carrier requirements and federal preemption to ignore requests from fire fighters, local and state, and even federal, elected officials. Railroads like Union Pacific and even more so BNSF, and their owners, like Warren Buffet, cast morality aside and hide behind the thin veil of federal authority to avoid dealing with safety concerns about oil trains.
Imagine oil trains running down the Columbia River Gorge in between the burnt out skeletons of the derailed Mosier oil train cars cast along the sides of the tracks. It actually happened. Oil continues down those same tracks and thousands of miles of other rail lines in our cities and towns without any changes to the inspection system that led to the conflagration in Mosier. The exclusion of safety and fire officials, and all local and state elected officials, in decisions about rail safety leaves the protection of the 25 million Americans living in the blast zone tracks in the hands of the Warren Buffet and the other railroad executives of the world who care more about making even more money than public safety.
On July 6 more than 100 groups and elected officials delivered a letter to President Obama asking him to stop crude oil trains. These deadly trains add nothing to our energy security, but they undermine the safety of millions of Americans who live in the dangerous oil train blast zone. It’s time to end this reckless industry before our luck runs out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-paglia/elected-officials-join-th_b_10868452.html
-
Jul 8, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Editorial Board
As the debate continues over the safety of trains transporting crude oil through densely populated communities, many sensible steps that could meaningfully reduce risks continue to go unheeded.
After what may be a worse-case-scenario disaster, at least so far – the July 2013 explosion in Lac Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people – new focus was put on the vulnerabilities of older-model rail tank cars in crashes and derailments. The poor condition of the tracks also drew attention. The stunning disclosure that the transporters are not required to carry liability insurance surfaced as an issue as well, in light of the estimated $3 billion cost to clean up and rebuild after the Lac Megantic explosion – money that has had to come largely from local and national government sources.
Lac Megantic also raised the issue of how easily oil can ignite during a train derailment. The flammability of crude oil is measured by its vapor pressure in pounds per square inch. The higher the pressure, the more volatile – and potentially more flammable and explosive – the petroleum. A Canadian Transportation Safety Board report found the Bakken crude from North Dakota in the Lac Megantic disaster was as volatile as gasoline.
In response, the state of North Dakota stepped up – or made a show of it, anyway. It pledged in November 2014 to process its highly flammable Bakken crude to reduce its vapor pressure to a safer level before shipping it across the continent.
While that alone would not remove all the risks, substantially reducing the oil’s flammability factor would have been an important step – if only North Dakota had done so. In reality, its standard, 13.7 psi, was well above the average pressure for most oil being shipped from the state, and above the pressure in the Lac Megantic disaster.
ust last month, a train crash in Oregon involving Bakken crude resulted in an explosion – one that may have been avoided had North Dakota set a standard of 9 psi or less, as industry critics and environmentalists had urged.
The disagreement over vapor pressure comes as the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Department of Energy are in the midst of a study which will be used to develop federal psi standards. Meanwhile, thousands of tank cars filled with the still-volatile Bakken crude move across the rails, including through the Capital Region and other parts of New York.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, blames the delay in psi standards on the rail and oil industry lobbies. He is one of nine Democratic U.S. senators urging federal officials to use emergency powers to immediately issue more rigid standards for crude oil flammability. It follows a recent similar call by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
It is time for U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to heed these calls and take immediate action to establish a rigid, prudent oil volatility standard. It might just prevent the next Lac Megantic.
http://blog.timesunion.com/opinion/oil-transport-can-be-safer/35782/
-
Port of Green Bay Becomes Importer of Refined Products as Pipeline Shuts
Jul 8, 2016 | Platts
By Beth Brown
Some of US cities supplied by the West Shore pipeline had to turn to unconventional supply sources this summer in order to meet area gasoline and diesel demand in the months since the indefinite closure of the Chicago-area refined products pipeline.
On July 6, the barge the GM 6506 arrived at the Port of Green Bay from Whiting, Indiana, at US Oil’s terminal carrying diesel. Green Bay is the northern-most city at the segment of the West Shore pipeline that has been shut since March, and has been importing approximately two barges per week of gasoline and diesel since May through the Michigan Great Lakes in order to supply the local markets.
“We were exporting diesel, gasoline and ethanol to the East Coast last year and the previous year, but this year we’ve flipped to an importer,” said Dean Haen, director of the Brown County Port and Resource Recovery Department.
The new reality is a result of West Shore Pipeline’s decision to indefinitely shut the northern stretch of its line, which connects Milwaukee to Green Bay. The 115-mile stretch of refined products line has been shut since March after “unique conditions” were discovered. In June its operator and part-owner Buckeye Partners LP announced that the closure would be indefinite as it evaluates alternatives to rebuilding the line.
The closure has forced the four-year-old Green Bay port to flip from being an exporter of upwards of 100,000 mt per year to an importer, Haen said. According to the county’s recovery department data, domestic exports of petroleum products are down 77%. By May 2015, the Port of Green Bay had exported 41,658 mt, or 300,000 barrels, of petroleum products, but so far this year it has only exported 9,741 mt.
The petroleum product flows switched to imports, of which they had none in all of 2015 and Haen said they had not done since the port opened. Through May 2016, the most recently available data, the port imported 5,135 mt.
Haen said imports of gasoline and diesel have been coming from Montreal, New York and Toledo, and diesel can be shipped from Chicago.
Pricing points further down the supply chain from Green Bay, such as Michigan, have also been affected. In Michigan’s Energy Appraisal summer outlook for 2016, it explained that fuel is typically transported to Green Bay via the West Shore pipeline, then companies supply the city of Cheboygan, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and northern Wisconsin.
“As a result of the pipeline loss, concerns have been raised regarding the supply of fuel to these regions,” the report states. “Using additional tanker trucks, rail cars, and in the case of Cheboygan, barges, the petroleum companies have thus far been able to provide an adequate supply of gasoline and diesel to the UP and Cheboygan markets despite the pipeline outage. However, as the summer driving season approaches and demand increases, supplies may become tight, resulting in price increases.”
Pricing impacts
As the point farthest removed from the rest of the Chicago pipeline complex, Green Bay diesel and gas prices have soared.
DTN, a rack data service provider, showed Green Bay gasoline has jumped 18 cents/gal in a week to $1.75/gal on July 4, the highest since November 2015. Diesel prices on Thursday were $1.67/gal, according to DTN, and unleaded gasoline in the region was valued at $1.575/gal on Thursday.
Wisconsin Governor Scott issued a state of emergency in May to allow truckers transporting petroleum products to work longer hours following the shut down of the West Shore Pipeline, which he warned “may trigger widespread terminal outages and shortages of petroleum products in the Green Bay area.” Michigan Governor Rick Snyder declared a similar state of emergency in May and then extended it in June.
Haen said he has heard that it costs about 2 cents/gal to ship fuel on the West Shore pipeline, about 4 cents/gal to ship on barges and between 6 to 8 cents/gal to truck fuel.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/07/08/port-green-bay-importer-refined-products-pipeline/
-
Let the WOTUS Court Fights Commence!
Jul 8, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
DING! ROUND ONE IN WOTUS COURT FIGHT BEGINS: The court battle over the Obama administration's contentious Waters of the U.S. rule kicks off today when plaintiffs make their case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals about what documents should be admitted in the trial. The administrative record may sound like a bureaucratic backwater, but in a case that’s heavily weighted with Administrative Procedures Act claims, documents showing how the agencies made key decisions about the rule could be hugely influential.
One set of documents likely to come up in plaintiffs’ brief: internal memos from a top Army Corps general to an Obama-appointed policy boss raising concerns about changes made in the final version of the rule and arguing his agency was cut out of the process. The memos argue that the rule, also called the Clean Water Rule, would shrink federal jurisdiction rather than expand it — as state and industry groups argue — but raise process issues that could have their desired effect of overturning the rule.
But will the fight stay in the 6th? Even as they’re off and running before the 6th Circuit, plaintiffs are still making their case that the challenges should first go through district court. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is weighing an appeal from Georgia and 10 other states of a lower court’s rejection of their preliminary injunction request, is slated to hear arguments today on whether it should take up the case. Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s attorney general has filed his own appeal on the same issue after a district court dismissed his challenge to the rule.
Critics of the water rule see district courts as being closer to the ground and more sympathetic to their interests. And a circuit split on where the challenges belong could also whet the Supreme Court’s appetite to weigh in on the issue. But even if they lose the jurisdiction fight, plaintiffs get to hold onto one big win — the nationwide stay of the rule granted by the 6th circuit.
With help from Elana Schor, Alex Guillén, and Annie Snider
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/07/let-the-wotus-court-fights-commence-215231
-
Jenkins Bill Targets Social Cost of Carbon Calculation
Jul 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) introduced legislation yesterday to bar the Department of Energy and U.S. EPA from using the government's social cost of carbon calculation in rulemaking.
The legislation would also prohibit the agencies from using a similar type of calculation for methane, a greenhouse gas that's more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide.
The social cost of carbon represents the long-term economic damage to society, in U.S. dollars, from each incremental ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
A working group made up of federal agencies last revised the estimate in 2015 to $36 per metric ton of CO2. That cost will rise to $50 a metric ton in 2030 and $69 a metric ton in 2050.
The social cost of carbon has appeared in reviews for dozens of rulemakings. EPA's recent analysis of its regulations to stem methane emissions from new oil and gas operations relied on the social cost of methane.
Republicans have long criticized the Obama administration for developing and revising the SCC behind closed doors. More recently, some Republicans demanded more information about EPA's process in developing the social cost of methane.
Spending legislation the House will take up next week contains a policy rider that would bar EPA from using the social cost of carbon.
Jenkins' office did not respond to a request for comment on his bill, H.R. 5668. The West Virginia Republican, a critic of EPA greenhouse gas regulations, yesterday also filed legislation to provide emergency unemployment compensation to coal miners who lose their jobs because of environmental regulations (see related story).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/08/stories/1060039983
-
California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Drop, Barely
Jul 5, 2016 | San Francisco Chronicle (In Real Clear Energy)
By David R. Baker
Despite a surging economy, California’s greenhouse-gas emissions fell in 2014, according to new data from the state.
But the paltry size of the drop — with emissions down less than 1 percent from the previous year — illustrates just how difficult meeting California’s ambitious global warming goals may be.
California’s factories, power plants, farms and cars pumped 441.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in 2014, according to the California Air Resources Board. That represents a decline of just 2.8 million metric tons from 2013.
Under the state’s landmark 2006 global warming law, California must cut its emissions back to 1990 levels — or 431 million metric tons — by 2020. If the trend shown in the most recent emission data holds, California should be on track to reach that goal.
“We feel it’s an indication we definitely can hit our 2020 target,” said Stanley Young, communications director for the Air Resources Board.
But California’s long-term goals will be much harder to reach. By 2050, state officials hope to slash emissions to roughly 86 million metric tons per year. Independent studies have warned that such steep cuts will be difficult to make if California’s population continues to grow.
The state has dramatically ramped up the use of renewable power, blocked utilities from signing new contracts with coal-fired power plants, offered incentives for drivers to buy electric cars and implemented a cap-and-trade system to limit the amount of emissions that industry can produce.
Taken together, those measures have trimmed California’s emissions by 9.5 percent from their 2004 peak of 487.6 million metric tons.
But progress has been uneven. Emissions rose in 2012, for example, after a small leak of radioactive steam shut down the San Onofre nuclear plant while California’s drought slashed the output of hydroelectric dams. Plants burning natural gas had to make up the lost power from San Onofre and the dams.
Hydropower production sank even further in 2013 and 2014, as the drought tightened its grip. So any drop in emissions at the same time is remarkable, said Erica Morehouse, senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund nonprofit group. So too is the state’s ability to trim emissions even as its economy accelerates.
“California is growing its (gross domestic product) and its jobs faster than the rest of the country,” Morehouse said. “The fact we’re seeing that, combined with emission decreases, is a pretty powerful trend.”
According to the Air Resources Board, California’s gross domestic product has grown 28 percent since 2001 while its emissions have declined about 8.1 percent in the same period.
While Gov. Jerry Brown has staked part of his legacy on the fight against climate change, factors beyond the drought could complicate it.
California’s largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., announced last month that it would close the state’s only remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, when its federal operating licenses expire in 2025. PG&E executives insist they will be able to replace the plant’s output without raising emissions — relying on renewable power, energy efficiency measures and energy storage. Nuclear advocates, pointing to the experience with San Onofre, question PG&E’s ability to fulfill that promise.
In addition, the future of California’s cap-and-trade system is uncertain. There's a debate in Sacramento over whether the legislature needs to reauthorize the system to keep it running past 2020. And a lawsuit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce charges that the system — which requires companies to buy permits called “allowances” for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit — constitutes an illegal tax.
Most of the allowances offered in the system’s most recent auction did not sell,the first time that has happened in the system’s history. Analysts blamed the development on the uncertainty about the program’s future, as well as low prices on the secondary market for allowances. The formal auctions, established by the state, contain a floor price for the allowance, while the private, secondary market does not.
“It wasn’t necessarily a referendum by the market on how the court case will come out,” Morehouse said. “There are slightly cheaper allowances available on the private market.”
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-8342038.php?utm_source=CP+Daily&utm_campaign=efb64c112f-CPdaily06072016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a9d8834f72-efb64c112f-110249649
-
Jul 7, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Free-speech advocates have reason to cheer as two state attorneys general have walked back their subpoenas against Exxon Mobil Corp., tacitly admitting that their climate-change harassment lacks a legal basis.
Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker recently withdrew his subpoena of Exxon Mobil. He was a leader among the 17 AGs charging that the oil giant defrauded shareholders by hiding the truth about global warming. That’s hard to prove when the company’s climate-change research was published in peer-reviewed journals.
Mr. Walker also targeted some 90 think tanks and other groups in an attempt to punish climate dissent. These groups and others, including these columns, pushed back on First Amendment grounds, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute counter-sued Mr. Walker and demanded sanctions. He pulled his subpoena against CEI last month.
Mr. Walker claimed he is dropping his Exxon subpoena so the U.S. Justice Department can more easily pursue its racketeering charges against the company. But that’s glitter on a surrender document. The reason the state AGs chose to pursue Exxon for shareholder fraud is because anyone with legal knowledge knows how difficult it would be for the feds to bring a successful RICO case. To our knowledge, Justice doesn’t even have such an investigation underway.
Meantime, Massachusetts AG Maura Healeyfiled court documents declaring she won’t enforce her subpoena against Exxon until the oil giant’s countersuits against the AGs are settled. Exxon has sued Ms. Healey in Texas federal court to quash her subpoena as a violation of its First and Fourth Amendment rights. Mrs. Healey clearly sensed the political dangers of dragging her office on a long, anti-free-speech march and is putting the investigation to the side.
That leaves California’s Kamala Harris and New York’s Eric Schneiderman as the two remaining AGs with outstanding Exxon subpoenas. Mrs. Harris joined this escapade to burnish her progressive bone fides as she runs to replace retiring Senator Barbara Boxer,and her office has done little investigating. Mr. Schneiderman has the most prosecutorial leeway under his state’s egregious Martin Act, which doesn’t require proof of intent in civil cases. But he has also been on the political defensive for trying to punish policy disagreements.
The climate police would do more for their cause if they spent more time persuading the public on the merits of climate risks and policy. Their resort to abusive government power suggests that they think they have a weak case.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-police-crack-up-1467933366
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested