Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/16/16
-
(ACC Blog) The Pursuit of Quality in Risk Assessment
Sep 16, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck
The Toxicology Forum is an international organization that encourages dialogue among government agencies, industry, academia, policymakers, and NGOs concerned with public health issues. -
Whistleblower Suit Claims Chemical Companies Concealed Data
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
A whistleblower lawsuit served yesterday in federal court in San Francisco alleges that several of the largest chemical companies in the United States have intentionally evaded federal law and owe over $90 billion in damages. -
Toxic Triclosan Banned From Soap But Lingers In Consumer Products
Sep 16, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Sonya Lunder
The Food and Drug Administration announced earlier this month that it will finally ban the use of triclosan, a toxic chemical associated with hormone disruption in people, in antibacterial hand soaps. -
US Congressmen Roll Out Cosmetic Oversight Proposal
Sep 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
US Congressmen Frank Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey) and Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey) have released a discussion draft of legislation intended to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) oversight of cosmetics. -
Advocates Press for Tighter Regulation of Discount Stores
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
A coalition of consumer health groups is calling for stricter regulation on toxic compounds found in discount retail store products across the country. -
(ACC Mentioned) Next President Should Fix Rules to Help Manufacturers
Sep 16, 2016 | Argus Media
The next president should review several rules of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to bolster manufacturing, a trade group executive said in a paper released this week. -
Clean Energy Shift Doesn't Negate Need for Rule, Advocates Say
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Lawyers for leading environmental groups are unconcerned that their arguments in favor of the Clean Power Plan could be undermined by the rapid transition by electric utilities to move away from coal-fired generation to cleaner energy without any federal mandate. -
House Panel Debates EPA's Methane Rules, How to Avoid Another Aliso Canyon
Sep 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The costs associated with implementing three new final rules by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) governing methane emissions from oil and gas industry sources would outweigh any benefits, industry supporters told a House panel on Thursday. -
Trump: 'I'm Not Running to be President of the World'
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Donald Trump believes the U.S. energy sector has been gutted by environmental regulation and that his administration would put tens of thousands of coal miners, oil field workers and other traditional energy-sector employees back on their feet as part of a sweeping "America first" agenda. -
FERC Issues Positive Review for Mountain Valley Gas Line
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Federal regulators today issued a positive draft environmental review for the $3.5 billion Mountain Valley pipeline, a 300-mile-long natural gas line slated to run from West Virginia to Virginia. -
Data Center or Power Plant? In Wyo., It's Both
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By David Ferris
In 2012, the governor of Wyoming made an exciting announcement: Cheyenne, the state's capital, would be the home to a huge new Microsoft data center. Then things got complicated, in ways that happen these days when a technology company demanding clean power meets a coal-heavy power grid. -
Moniz Defends DOE’s LNG Project Review Process Before Energy Committee
Sep 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Proposals by Congress intended to speed up the Department of Energy’s (DOE) approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects are unnecessary given the agency’s recent track record, according to U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. -
Gasoline Spill Brings State of Emergency to Ala., Ga.
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) declared a state of emergency yesterday over concerns of oil shortages stemming from a gasoline pipeline spill that released 250,000 gallons of gasoline in the state and shut down a major pipeline. -
Next President Will Get Lots of Climate Advice
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Erika Bolstad
The next president of the United States will have plenty of guidance on how to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for sea-level rise and other climate change consequences. The question is: Does he or she want to use it?
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) The Pursuit of Quality in Risk Assessment
Sep 16, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck
The Toxicology Forum is an international organization that encourages dialogue among government agencies, industry, academia, policymakers, and NGOs concerned with public health issues. Following Congress’s recent passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the Toxicology Forum’s summer meetingin Salt Lake City, featured a particularly interesting and timely session on “the pursuit of quality and objectivity in risk assessment.”
The session began with a presentation by noted social scientist Dr. Stuart Shapiro, from the Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. Dr. Shapiro discussed how a law enables a governmental agency to act (i.e. its authority), but leaves the interpretation of how to comply with the law to the agency. This allows the agency to use its discretion and flexibility to implement the law and it is here where the intersection of science and policy becomes particularly important.
For instance, the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) suggests the need for regulatory action when there is an “unreasonable risk.” However, what constitutes unreasonable risk is not fully articulated in the LCSA. The science policy determination, as outlined in the new law, will be left to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their implementation of the statute.
To add to the conversation, Dr. Shapiro’s slides provided examples of federal programs at the intersection of science and policy that work well (e.g., EPA’s pesticides program) and programs that don’t work quite as well (e.g., EPA’s IRIS program). Dr. Shapiro also discussed his interesting research findings that politics, law and bureaucracy put bounds on the influence of science but that within those bounds good science can make a real difference. A particular challenge for scientists is communicating about uncertainty to officials who want clear answers.
Dr. Tom Sinks, the Director of the EPA Office of the Science Advisor, then gave a great overview of the role of the Office of the Science Advisor and provided examples of quality indicators in risk assessments. Hisslide presentation focused on examples of how even limited data can be very useful for important policy determinations. Dr. Sinks provided a candid example of how directed assessments, conducted to justify a predetermined decision, lack scientific integrity and utility.
Dr. Sinks also provided a contrarian approach to evaluating some of the elements commonly considered to be key indicators of quality. This was a great introduction to the talk from Dr. Penelope Fenner-Crisp, an independent consultant and former EPA senior official, who provided an overview of her recent EHP publication. She described the key elements that could be used by risk assessors, peer reviewers, decision-makers, and other stakeholders to evaluate the quality of a risk assessment. As summarized in her presentation, the key elements can be used as a resource not only to evaluate risk assessments, but also as a performance standard when conducting a risk evaluation.
Dr. Dima Shamoun, Associate Director of Research at the Center for Politics and Governance at the University of Texas at Austin, provided another social scientist perspective. Dr. Shamoun’s presentationdiscussed the need for process objectivity in risk assessment when we often don’t know the “truth.” Dr. Shamoun also discussed the need to address concerns related to bias.
Other speakers in the session provided diverse perspectives on quality at different types of agencies and organizations:Antonia Mattia, a division director at the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), described how FDA ensures quality of regulatory risk assessments through stakeholder outreach, peer review and the reliance on high quality data and information that is thorough, unbiased and transparently presented.Steven Packham, a toxicologist at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, explained in his presentation how a state agency relies heavily on listening to residents in affected communities to ensure needs and quality of life standards are met. He also discussed the importance of personal risk assessment and described how a mobile tool can be used to inform individuals about air quality concerns taking personal considerations into concern in real time.R. Jeffrey Lewis, from Exxon Mobil Biomedical Sciences, provided an industry perspective in his presentation and described the new scientific standards required under the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act that will need to be followed by EPA and stakeholders in conducting risk evaluations.
The diversity of presentations led to a robust discussion about how to handle uncertainty in risk assessment and how to explain uncertainty to the public. Ensuring robust peer review and having a plan to communicate findings clearly and transparently to the general public were described as highly important elements of the risk assessment process. The mix of toxicologists and social scientists, all playing in the same science-policy sandbox, made for a discussion that American Chemistry Council (ACC) hopes will continue.
Risk evaluation and risk management issues cut across many sectors and the depth and breadth of expertise, as was found on this panel, and the dialogue that comes from putting all these experts in the same space will surely help to ensure that new regulations, like those in the LCSA, are informed by appropriately diverse and informed perspectives.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/09/the-pursuit-of-quality-in-risk-assessment/
-
Whistleblower Suit Claims Chemical Companies Concealed Data
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
A whistleblower lawsuit served yesterday in federal court in San Francisco alleges that several of the largest chemical companies in the United States have intentionally evaded federal law and owe over $90 billion in damages.
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP launched a complaint against BASF Corp., Bayer MaterialScience LLC (now called Covestro AG), Dow Chemical Co. and Huntsman International LLC, charging that the companies have profited off measurable human injury and breached their obligations to disclose chemical data.
The lawsuit seeks compensation on behalf of the federal government under the False Claims Act.
The suit zeroes in on a class of compounds known as isocyanates, which are used to make polyurethane foam. Such foam is regularly used in consumer products such as mattresses, cushions and insulation.
Polyurethane is also used in paints, coatings and adhesives, as well as automotive interiors.
Defendants "vigorously concealed" scientific evidence that isocyanates cause permanent harm to human health, the suit claims.
"To protect their substantial profits," companies clamped down on data showing "that merely touching those chemicals, or inhaling their vapors at concentrations thought (incorrectly) to be safe, can cause and has caused permanent pulmonary injury in humans."
The industry kept this information from consumers as well as U.S. EPA, said the law firm.
Since 1979, company scientists knew isocyanates were dangerous, the case states.
But in public, the companies "disputed the potential for ... respiratory injury" and have therefore "misled the EPA and shielded their isocyanate products from increased regulatory scrutiny."
Isocyanates also include compounds identified as potential human carcinogens.
Because the Toxic Substances Control Act demands proper disclosure of chemical data, "defendants have accumulated billions of dollars in civil penalties," reads the suit.
If EPA had access to industry data, the lawsuit implies, it could have moved to restrict exposure to isocyanates years ago.
A Dow spokesperson called the case "meritless."
"Dow has complied with all the federal laws and requirements referenced in the complaint," the spokesperson continued. "It is noteworthy that the law firm provided these allegations to the United States Department of Justice, which declined to intervene or take any action in support of the lawsuit. Moreover, the False Claims Act does not allow a claim for unassessed civil penalties."
Huntsman and BASF declined to comment. Covestro did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042957
-
Toxic Triclosan Banned From Soap But Lingers In Consumer Products
Sep 16, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Sonya Lunder
The Food and Drug Administration announced earlier this month that it will finally ban the use of triclosan, a toxic chemical associated with hormone disruption in people, in antibacterial hand soaps. The FDA determined there wasn’t enough information to prove that triclosan was safe and effective.
The FDA gave companies one year to get triclosan-containing hand soaps off the market, and banned 18 other antibacterial ingredients that were allowed in soaps. It is continuing to review the safety and efficacy of three other chemicals, as well as hand sanitizers.
EWG and other environmental and public health groups have campaigned for a ban on triclosan for years. While the FDA's action is welcome, it will not end Americans' exposures to triclosan.
Triclosan is still used in products such as acne treatments, body washes, Colgate Total toothpaste and some antibacterial dish soaps. It is also added to many other products, including fabrics and plastic items marketed as “germ-killing” or “antibacterial,” though it is not listed on their labels. EWG recommends consumers avoid purchasing products with antibacterial treatments whenever possible.
Read more about how to avoid triclosan.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/09/toxic-triclosan-banned-soap-lingers-consumer-products
-
US Congressmen Roll Out Cosmetic Oversight Proposal
Sep 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
US Congressmen Frank Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey) and Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey) have released a discussion draft of legislation intended to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) oversight of cosmetics.
Mr Pallone is ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He says the proposal "outlines a modern cosmetics regulatory framework that gives FDA the tools, information and resources necessary to protect Americans from potentially dangerous cosmetics products."
The proposed bill would grant new authorities for the FDA to:
collect information on ingredients and review the safety of their use in cosmetics. This may include setting limits or conditions on their use;
issue a mandatory recall "if there is a reasonable probability that the product is adulterated and likely to cause a serious health event or death";
require labels for products not appropriate for use for all members of the population; and
provide the FDA with $20.6m in user fees, tiered based on the annual sales of manufacturers.
Under the proposal, manufacturers would also be charged with:
registering facilities and ingredients;
reporting on serious adverse effects; and
complying with good manufacturing practices.
"This bill modernises statute that has been virtually unchanged for over 70 years," says Mr Lance. And it would extend "important safety practices many companies are already following on a voluntary basis to the broader industry".
The Personal Care Products Safety Act (S 1014) was introduced in the Senate last year. Despite support from industry and NGOs alike, the measure has remained stalled in committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49685/us-congressmen-roll-out-cosmetic-oversight-proposal
-
Advocates Press for Tighter Regulation of Discount Stores
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
A coalition of consumer health groups is calling for stricter regulation on toxic compounds found in discount retail store products across the country.
Representatives with the Campaign for Healthier Solutions, American Sustainable Business Council and Learning Disabilities Association of America met last month with federal officials to argue that lead, bisphenol A and other potential toxins from products sold in discount chains disproportionately affect people of color and low-income communities.
In their meetings with U.S. EPA and Food and Drug Administration regulators, the advocacy groups targeted Dollar Tree Inc., Family Dollar and 99 Cents Only Stores for failing to meet safety standards.
Family Dollar is now owned by Dollar Tree.
A 2015 report from HealthyStuff.org found that 81 percent of products purchased from those discount chains contained "at least one hazardous chemical above levels of concern." Around half contained two or more toxic compounds.
Campaigners noted that some toys may have avoided regulations by being labeled as products for adults.
The companies operate over 21,500 stores across the United States.
"Dollar stores are often located in Latino and black communities — whose children already face some of the highest levels of exposure to toxic chemicals in the nation. Learning disabilities caused by lead and other dangerous chemicals in products are an environmental injustice that no parent wants their children to face," said Jose Bravo, Campaign for Healthier Solutions coordinator.
Advocates claimed the retailers have taken no action to limit toxins in their products since the 2015 report.
"Dollar Tree, Dollar General and 99 Cents Only have the power, and the responsibility, to tell their suppliers to get toxic chemicals out of products sold in their stores — however, if these dollar stores are unwilling to take action, we'll continue pressing to get government involved," said Tracy Gregoire with the Learning Disabilities Association of America. "It's unacceptable that dollar stores are selling products containing dangerous chemicals, and it's time for someone to step up and protect our children's health."
Dollar Tree and 99 Cents Only Stores could not be reached for comment.
"[W]e are committed to our customers' safety and satisfaction, as well as helping to lead the way to a healthy way of life for people of all income levels," reads a statement on 99 Cents Only Stores' website. "[W]e specifically require that all products sold to us meet all local, state, and federal safety, labeling, environmental, and other laws and regulations."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042962
-
(ACC Mentioned) Next President Should Fix Rules to Help Manufacturers
Sep 16, 2016 | Argus Media
The next president should review several rules of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to bolster manufacturing, a trade group executive said in a paper released this week.
US manufacturers are put at risk by regulations, and the president should direct agencies to interpret laws to promote benefit-cost balancing, Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest and Paper Association, said.
Noe's paper criticizes both stationary and mobile source EPA regulations, as well as rules by other federal agencies. The paper was released at a conference held by Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Washington, D.C.
Noe signaled out EPA emission limits on boilers as a rule that should be changed. The rule was first proposed in 2010 and made changes to mercury and air toxics emissions standards for boilers, incinerators and process heaters.
Parts of the rule were struck down for the second time in July, which could affect over 1,000 boilers at facilities that just came into compliance in January.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals largely sided with environmental groups that challenged the earlier standards, set in 2011, as not stringent enough.
"Industry is prepared to comply but wants regulatory certainty," Noe said.
The Clean Power Plan,meanwhile, expands EPA's authority and could increase the costs of power and natural gas, Noe said.
EPA's New Source review program should be modified to allow manufacturers to make routine investments in maintenance and repairs without triggering time-consuming and costly permit changes, Noe said.
Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said EPA's lack of guidance with new regulations for the ozone rule change puts Louisiana in non-attainment status, meaning the state's emitters would have to use a cap-and-trade system to comply.
The state lacks the rules to issue these kinds of permits on a timely basis, Dooley said at the conference.
A scheduled midterm review of federal fuel economy standards for vehicles should be adjusted to reflect lower gasoline prices and higher compliance costs, including coordination of California regulations on greenhouse gasses and zero emission vehicles, Noe said.
http://www.argusmedia.com/news/article/?id=1313946
-
Clean Energy Shift Doesn't Negate Need for Rule, Advocates Say
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Lawyers for leading environmental groups are unconcerned that their arguments in favor of the Clean Power Plan could be undermined by the rapid transition by electric utilities to move away from coal-fired generation to cleaner energy without any federal mandate.
With oral arguments on challenges to U.S. EPA's sweeping rule to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants just days away, a panel of attorneys from leading clean air advocates yesterday expressed confidence that the rule will survive review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 27.
The transition is "driven mainly by fundamental market forces" such as lower natural gas prices, the lower cost of wind and solar power, energy efficiency, state and federal policies, and company planning decisions "that long predated the Clean Power Plan," said David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Every neutral analyst expects these market-driven trends to continue," he said at a briefing for reporters in Washington, D.C.
"Because of these trends, analysts expect the power sector to be well positioned to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon limits in 2022 and beyond," Doniger said, citing as an example once coal-heavy Southern Co.'s move to reduce its coal-fired generation by 60 percent over the past decade.
"We have the wind at our back. This transition's underway, but it's not going to take us where we need to go all by itself," he added.
The Clean Power Plan "does what air pollution control rules are supposed to do, which is to deal with harms that the marketplace doesn't deal with all by itself. It certainly helps that the marketplace is moving in the direction that it is."
Doniger noted that there is ongoing work at the state level by regulators and utilities "to explore this transition, what it would mean to implement the Clean Power Plan if, as we anticipate, the courts ultimately uphold it."
"That work has continued in most states. Sometimes it's under the cover of a different name because political leaders find it easier to talk about clean energy transitions than to openly talk about implementing the Clean Power Plan. But it's the same discussion and it continues," he said.
"Companies are already incorporating the Clean Power Plan into their planning," said Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club.
"These utilities want to see certainty. They want to plan for the CPP to take effect," she said.
Doniger is not concerned that opponents will point to the utility industry transition to clean energy that is underway in their argument to the court as a reason why the EPA rule is not needed.
The coal industry has "really gone all in on the theory that it is the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Power Plan only that is responsible for [the downturn in coal use] and the good days will come back if the courts strike it down," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042919
-
House Panel Debates EPA's Methane Rules, How to Avoid Another Aliso Canyon
Sep 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The costs associated with implementing three new final rules by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) governing methane emissions from oil and gas industry sources would outweigh any benefits, industry supporters told a House panel on Thursday.
But an environmental advocate countered that some regulation is necessary to avoid future disasters, such as the one that struck the Aliso Canyon underground gas storage facility earlier this year (see Daily GPI, Feb. 18).
Three of the four witnesses called to testify before the Subcommittee on Environment -- part of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Committee -- did so on behalf of the industry, which is challenging the need for additional regulation by EPA. Even the name of the hearing, "A Solution in Search of a Problem," strongly suggested that House Republicans are also skeptical of the agency's intentions.
A 'War on Natural Gas'
"I am concerned about the EPA's expansive interpretation of its regulatory scope and its continued use of questionable scientific basis for rulemaking. My concern extends to the EPA's methane rule," said subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK).
EPA unveiled the three rules last May (see Shale Daily, May 12). The rules, collectively updates to the New Source Performance Standards, are designed to reduce methane, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and toxic air pollutants. The agency said its actions would help the Obama administration meet its goal of slashing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45% from 2012 levels by the year 2025.
Bridenstine slammed EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for saying she would expedite issuing the regulations. He added that her decision seems especially egregious since a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that wetland and agriculture, not oil and gas production, were the main contributors to methane emissions.
"Rather than expedite methane regulation, EPA should take a breath and realize that the best available science does not support new rulemaking. But once again, EPA is back at it with cherry-picking and fudging data to fit a politically-driven agenda aided by a cabal of establishment environmentalists," Bridenstine said.
"The shale revolution has changed the U.S. economy and has been responsible for creating good-paying jobs. Instead of focusing on environmental protection however, the EPA is now pursuing a war on natural gas."
But Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), the subcommittee's ranking member, responded that regulation is necessary in order to avoid a repeat of incidents such as the four-month leak at Southern California Gas Co.'s Aliso Canyon underground natural gas storage field.
"Incidents like this highlight the importance of EPA's methane regulations, specifically the leak detection component," Bonamici said. "Although the new rule only addresses methane emissions at new, reconstructed and modified oil and gas sources, it represents an important first step -- a step that needs to be made so that the problems of today are not the problems of tomorrow."
EDF: Industry Playing 'Catch-Up' With Science
Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, called the Aliso Canyon incident "a terrible tragedy" but warned that there are currently about 400 similar facilities in the U.S.
"The single most important thing to address in the construction of a new storage facility would be well integrity...to make sure that you've got the well constructed correctly," Holstein said. "The second category of actions you want to take is to have leak detection and repair protocols, so that you see what's happening and get a handle on these problems before they become a three- or four-month disaster requiring thousands of people to be evacuated."
When asked by Bonamici if voluntary efforts by the oil and gas industry were enough to prevent future incidents, Holstein urged lawmakers to be cautious.
"If we look at the power of the methane molecule, it's an enormously powerful, nasty climate actor...84 times more powerful than a molecule of carbon dioxide," Holstein said. "What that really means is we can't afford to wait for the industry to play 'catch-up' with the science.
"Part of the problem that the industry has...is that these random events are significant. A lot of this is counterintuitive. You can't simply make an assumption that old facilities are going to leak more than new facilities, or the other way around. It's enormously random, and that's why we need comprehensive leak detection."
Costs 'Far Exceed Any Benefits'
Bernard Weinstein, professor and associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute, Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, said many of the costs associated with the regulations were unaccounted for by EPA's own cost-benefit analysis.
"Methane releases are a serious environmental issue," Weinstein said. "I just believe there are better ways to deal with these issues. [How does] a blanket regulation that would apply to all producers of natural gas, oil and transmission companies make any sense if there are targeted areas that can be addressed in terms of controlling emissions? There are a number of other specific areas that I think could be dealt with a lot more simply than passing a new slew of federal regulations."
As examples, Weinstein said state regulatory agencies have traditionally handled orphaned wells, a source of methane leaks. Cities in the northeast have also been handling old leaking lead pipes.
"On balance, I think what's being proposed, in terms of new regulations from EPA on methane emissions, the costs overall are going to far exceed any benefits," Weinstein said.
Erik Milito, director for upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry has voluntarily been deploying new technologies to reduce methane emissions for years. Some examples include green completions, reducing the use of pneumatic valves and controllers, and eliminating emissions from storage tanks.
"We are an industry that has been very active in deploying these technologies well before the EPA put any regulations forward," Milito said. "I would say that the EPA regulations are in many respects a lagging indicator of the industry because they're based upon technologies the industry has proactively developed."
Anthony Ventello, executive director of Progress Authority, an economic development organization serving Pennsylvania's Bradford and Susquehanna counties, said the new regulations come at a bad time for the industry, particularly with commodity prices in a slump.
"The industry has been pretty much self-policing," Ventello said. "We see a lot of improvements in what they've done. And of course, the release of methane is a loss of dollars. So there is a lot of effort to try to make sure that they do things to current standards. But in essence, right now in a low-cost environment, it would have a substantial impact long-term just because of the additional costs in not only improving the wells but also completions and transmitting.
"The key really lies in moving the gas so that you can minimize the amount of methane that is emitted from an idle situation."
Weinstein agreed. "We tend to forget that we are the world's number one gas producing country, and that we're also getting into the business of exporting natural gas," he said. "That has tremendous economic benefits, in addition to the environmental benefits.
"I think we need to be very careful in assessing new policies to regulations that can make it more expensive for us to produce and sell natural gas, unless there's overwhelming evidence that the benefits of regulation can exceed the costs."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107766-house-panel-debates-epas-methane-rules-how-to-avoid-another-aliso-canyon
-
Trump: 'I'm Not Running to be President of the World'
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Donald Trump believes the U.S. energy sector has been gutted by environmental regulation and that his administration would put tens of thousands of coal miners, oil field workers and other traditional energy-sector employees back on their feet as part of a sweeping "America first" agenda.
In a speech to the New York Economic Club focused on tax, trade and regulatory reform, the Republican nominee excoriated the energy policies of the Obama administration and depicted a future where U.S. land, "which has become so valuable because of what's underneath it," will be tapped for coal, oil and gas to fuel a massive boom in U.S. economic productivity.
"American energy, harvested from American sources, will power this nation," Trump told an audience of business leaders gathered at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan. "American workers will be hired to do the job. We will put new American metal and new American steel into the spine of this country. Jobs will return, incomes will rise, new factories will come rushing back to our shores. We will make America wealthy again, we will make America strong again, and we will make America great again."
National environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council denounced Trump's economic platform, calling his energy proposals a "polluter's wish list" and "a plan to make America dirty again."
"Once again [Trump] has displayed that he lacks the judgment needed to be president by completely ignoring the costs to people who have to worry about making sure their families can breathe easily and drink clean water," Clay Schroers, national campaigns director for the League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement.
Trump's picture of economic prosperity appeared to have no room for renewables, energy efficiency or clean tech, which have been among the country's fastest-growing economic sectors over the last eight years. According to the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, investment in clean energy was estimated at $56 billion in 2015 alone (ClimateWire, Sept. 15).
The absence of clean energy from his speech came as Trump predicted that his policies would stimulate economic growth to the tune of 3.5 percent and restore the United States' reputation as a place "to invest, hire, grow and create new jobs, new technologies and entire new industries."
Trump also didn't mention climate change, which is being cast as an economic threat by leaders like Henry Paulson, the former Treasury secretary and Goldman Sachs chairman, and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Trump made a glancing reference to the idea that extracting oil and gas, including through the use of hydraulic fracturing, poses risk to groundwater and subsurface stability. "We have to be careful. We have to be environmentally sound. That's very important," he said.
Mostly Trump reiterated his distaste for the Obama administration's policies, calling the president's signature energy and climate initiative, the Clean Power Plan, one of the nation's "most intrusive regulations," adding that "this Obama-Clinton directive will shut down most, if not all, coal-powered electricity plants."
"I mean, all over the country, they're shutting down," Trump said.
Many energy analysts say regulations can impact the coal sector, but they note that other factors such as aging power plants and steeply falling prices for cleaner fuels like natural gas play a larger role.
Citing figures from the Heritage Foundation, Trump predicted that by 2030 the Obama administration's climate and energy policies will lead to the loss of 500,000 manufacturing jobs, reduce economic output by $2.5 trillion and reduce incomes by $7,000 per person.
"Too many of our leaders have forgotten that it is their duty to protect the jobs, wages and well-being of American workers before any other consideration. Before anything, we have to do that," Trump said. "I'm not running to be the president of the world. I'm running to be the president of the United States of America."
Trump's views on climate change, which is a global phenomenon, align with what he described "a need to replace the present policy of globalism, which has just taken so many jobs out of our communities and so much wealth out of our country, and replace it with a new policy of America first."
Under such an approach, Trump said, "every decision we make must pass a simple test: Does it create more jobs and better wages for Americans?" He characterized his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as promoting the continuation of policies that "have surrendered our middle class to the whims of foreign countries."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042925
-
FERC Issues Positive Review for Mountain Valley Gas Line
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Federal regulators today issued a positive draft environmental review for the $3.5 billion Mountain Valley pipeline, a 300-mile-long natural gas line slated to run from West Virginia to Virginia.
Staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in a draft environmental impact statementfound that construction of the proposed pipeline would have some adverse environmental effects that could be mitigated.
FERC highlighted various programs Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC and Equitrans LP must follow when crossing karst terrain, coal mining areas, organic farms and wetlands, as well as a portion of the Jefferson National Forest.
Parties have until Dec. 22 to file comments on FERC's draft EIS. A spokeswoman for Mountain Valley said the company is still looking over the draft.
The project this week was the focus of a report Cambridge, Mass.-based research and consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics Inc. prepared for the Southern Environmental Law Center and Appalachian Mountain Advocates.
That report questioned the need for the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast projects, an assertion that triggered sharp backlash from developers.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042959
-
Data Center or Power Plant? In Wyo., It's Both
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By David Ferris
In 2012, the governor of Wyoming made an exciting announcement: Cheyenne, the state's capital, would be the home to a huge new Microsoft data center. Then things got complicated, in ways that happen these days when a technology company demanding clean power meets a coal-heavy power grid.
The first problem was that the data center's projected power demand, 200 megawatts, would almost double the amount of electricity needed in little Cheyenne.
The second, tougher problem was that the standard industry solution to the first problem — build a new coal-fired power plant — just wasn't going to happen. The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan had cast the future of high-emission coal power into doubt. Besides, the utility, Black Hills Energy, couldn't envision building a 40-year power plant for Microsoft, a part of the fast-moving tech business, where companies' big schemes can go poof overnight.
Then Microsoft and Black Hills struck on a novel solution that might have far-reaching implications for the relationship between utilities and electricity-hungry data centers.
Black Hills will buy power for Microsoft on the open market, and if there are any shortfalls, the utility will reach behind Microsoft's meter and tap the data center's backup generators, which are capable of producing many megawatts of power but mostly stand idle.
"We both kind of had an 'aha' moment," said Chris Kilpatrick, the director of resource planning for Black Hills. "We're building double capacity."
The plan, which got final approval from Wyoming's utilities commission in July, essentially turns the data center into a peaker plant. These plants go live only at rare times of peak demand, and utilities have struggled with how to plan and pay for them in an era when getting approval to build new fossil fuel power plants has never been harder.
It is the latest episode in a tug of war between states that like to power their grids with their own abundant coal (like Virginia, North Carolina and Wyoming) and the big tech companies (like Google, Facebook and Apple) whose huge, energy-slurping data centers are the linchpins of the modern digital era. They have made ambitious plans to power themselves with renewable energy, and have declared their intention to use their market power to force coal states to offer cleaner options (EnergyWire, May 23).
The deal also puts Wyoming — which has fewer people than Brooklyn and more coal than any other state — in the rare position of being at the cutting edge of both data-center design and energy policy.
"We're doing this not in California, not in New York," said Brian Janous, Microsoft's director of energy strategy, naming two states that are synonymous with technology and forward-thinking energy policy. "We're doing it in Wyoming."
Back that grid up
If successful, the Microsoft-Black Hills plan will prevent the building of any new power plants, aside from the generators that Microsoft will build.
Those backup generators are essential because a power outage would hobble Microsoft's internet operations. The company's cloud-computing platform, Azure, is the world's second-largest and carries out key operations for companies and governments around the world.
Now they will also be crucial to the operation of Cheyenne's grid.
The heart of the plan is a new tariff approved for Cheyenne by the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) that for now has exactly one qualifying customer: Microsoft.
The tariff is intended for big industrial customers that use at least 13 MW of electricity, have a significant amount of on-site backup power, and are willing to have the power company access that power source to make up for power deficits and keep the grid reliable. (Cheyenne's two biggest existing power users, an explosives manufacturer and a petroleum refinery, sought to be included in the tariff but were rebuffed, partly because of a lack of backup power.)
The tariff will kick in when Microsoft's load exceeds 35 MW. Microsoft is tight-lipped about its precise power usage, but Janous said it will cross that threshold soon.
The data center's heavy power needs are expected to have almost no financial impact on Black Hills' 41,000 other customers in Cheyenne. Microsoft is paying for a substation and transmission line, Kilpatrick said, and the tech giant will pay Black Hills back for the power it buys.
If Black Hills is in the position of buying two blocks of power, one for Microsoft and one for Black Hills' existing customers, the existing customers will get the better price.
"This solution makes common and strategic sense for everyone involved," the Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate wrote in the PSC's final decision.
Too many questions
The new tariff arrives as Wyoming's economy and parts of its power grid are struggling with a wrenching contraction in the coal industry.
Even as Cheyenne projects a doubling of its load because of Microsoft, the opposite is happening at the other end of the state, in the Powder River coal fields. The economy is struggling as climate worries have sent large coal producers into bankruptcy (ClimateWire, April 11).
There the local utility, the Powder River Energy Corp., has seen its profits drop by 18 percent a year, according to Alan Minier, the chairman of the PSC, in an interview.
Carbon emissions loomed large in the creation of Microsoft's new data center, but in a different way.
At the outset, Black Hills balked at the prospect of building power plants for Microsoft, partly because of two looming uncertainties: the possibility that a new regional transmission organization could shake up Wyoming's power market, and uncertainty around the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which has been stayed in the courts (ClimateWire, July 27).
"This is a particularly inopportune historical moment to pursue construction of new generation assets," the PSC noted in its tariff decision.
A further question mark was Microsoft itself, which is racing to keep pace in the fast-changing world of cloud computing and data centers. It doesn't have a firm timeline for building out its data center and cannot be counted on to stick around for the 40-year life span of a power plant.
"This scale of what was being required, and the potential for having the customer walk away from the thing on short notice, coupled with the volatility we were told about, meant that it would be a really bad idea to build a gas plant," Minier said.
Cracking open Wyo.
Carbon emissions, renewable energy and the bottom line all seem to have played a role in Microsoft's wooing of Cheyenne.
Backup generation is typically in the form of diesel-powered generators, which have high emissions. Janous said that this will be Microsoft's first large data center to run on generators powered by natural gas, which is plentiful and cheap in Wyoming and has a smaller carbon footprint than diesel.
It is likely that Microsoft will have to fire up these generators in service of Cheyenne's grid only rarely, possibly less than 100 hours a year, Janous said.
However, it is possible that in the future, Microsoft's generators could play a larger role on Wyoming's grid — in filling in the gaps around renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, that aren't always available.
"This type of installation is somewhat uniquely suited to provide the sort of quick responsiveness that will be necessary to integrate greater levels of renewables in the region," Janous wrote in an email, adding, "We look forward to sharing more news about renewable energy at this location in the near future."
That would dovetail with efforts that Microsoft and other data center titans to persuade coal-friendly states to go renewable.
In North Carolina, for example, Google leaned hard on Duke Energy Corp. to allow it, along with other big power customers, to buy the output of a big solar farm and use it to offset the power needs of its data center. In Virginia, Microsoft brokered a three-way deal between Dominion Virginia Power and the state government that for the first time allowed Microsoft to claim the output from a 20 MW solar plant.
Under the new tariff, the data center's generators would be called upon if no power could be found at the right price nearby. But the grids surrounding Cheyenne produce abundant excess capacity.
"That's a very clever play," said Jack Pouchet, a board member of the Green Grid, an organization that seeks greater efficiency at data centers (Microsoft is also active in the group). "Kudos to Microsoft for realizing that there's way more natural gas than we know what to do with in that area, and use it."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042950
-
Moniz Defends DOE’s LNG Project Review Process Before Energy Committee
Sep 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Proposals by Congress intended to speed up the Department of Energy’s (DOE) approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects are unnecessary given the agency’s recent track record, according to U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.
Moniz defended DOE’s LNG project review process while testifying on matters of energy security before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee Thursday.
“So far we have approved and, frankly, since our change in the process in 2014, we have approved quite speedily, every application that is ready for action,” Moniz said. “The idea that we are somehow dragging this out is simply incorrect.”
DOE has to gather the necessary information to make a national interest determination “including, for example [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s] action,” he said. “So right now we have acted on all of the applications, and frankly, up until now we’ve approved them all...since our streamlining of the process in 2014 we have approved them in as short as one day after FERC action…”
Moniz was asked about provisions included in energy reform bills passed through the House (seeDaily GPI, Dec. 3, 2015) and Senate (see Daily GPI, April 20) that would set deadlines for DOE to approve projects under the Natural Gas Act once FERC has signed off on them.
“We have consistently said we see no need for this by performance,” he said, adding that the deadlines could have “unintended consequences that can go in the opposite direction.”
Moniz fielded questions on a broad range of energy security topics from the House panel Thursday. Citing “growing infrastructure interdependencies,” he emphasized the need to modernize the nation’s energy infrastructure -- including natural gas pipelines -- against threats such as cyber attacks and weather events exacerbated by rising sea temperatures.
“The threats of energy security ultimately come to fossil fuel supply...as we go into a low carbon transition we are addressing energy security, but in the near- to mid-term we are also going to have to increase our approach to resilience of infrastructure, because among the many threats, the threats associated with climate change to our infrastructure are just growing, and they will grow further,” Moniz said. “So that’s where we need to harden our infrastructure, and we need to improve our response to the inevitable disruptions that we’re seeing.”
The recent opposition to pipelines and transmission projects creates “vulnerability if the infrastructure is not there” in the event of “another polar vortex, or who knows what would happen,” Moniz said, adding that this applies “not just [to] wires and pipes but inland waterways” and other kinds of infrastructure.
Noting that the United States is expected to become a net natural gas exporter by 2017, Moniz highlighted the positive effects of the shale boom, both domestically and globally. “It has led to a tremendous renewal in manufacturing, $170 billion invested just in the chemical arena and, by the way, reduced carbon emissions...geopolitically we are looked at in a very, very different way.” However, he also said the increase in crude oil exports since Congress lifted the ban last year (seeDaily GPI, Dec. 16, 2015) has been “very, very modest” as the United States continues to import 7 million b/d.
Moniz said he believes the United States must continue to invest heavily in innovation, not just in renewables but “across the board,” including in carbon capture and storage technologies (see Daily GPI, Aug. 25).
“We are heading in this direction inexorably in terms of lower carbon, and the Paris agreement [seeDaily GPI, Aug. 19], no matter what one thinks about it, tells you that we are developing a multi-trillion dollar global clean energy technology business, so we also want to be at the head of that train,” he said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107767-moniz-defends-does-lng-project-review-process-before-energy-committee
-
Gasoline Spill Brings State of Emergency to Ala., Ga.
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) declared a state of emergency yesterday over concerns of oil shortages stemming from a gasoline pipeline spill that released 250,000 gallons of gasoline in the state and shut down a major pipeline.
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) issued a similar executive order for his state Tuesday.
Pipeline operator Colonial Pipeline yesterday released this information: "Based on current projections and consultations with industry partners, parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be the first markets to be impacted by any potential disruption in supply."
"Colonial has briefed officials in these states and will continue to provide timely information to the public so that they can plan accordingly."
The order will allow fuel delivery trucks to work longer shifts to help offset shortages.
The pipeline normally moves 1.3 million barrels of refined gas per day in Houston to Southern states and the Eastern Seaboard.
Colonial has started using another pipeline it operates parallel to the damaged line for gasoline transport.
U.S. EPA has said that local residents are not in danger from the spill and that the gasoline is unlikely to enter the Cahaba River.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042960
-
Next President Will Get Lots of Climate Advice
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Erika Bolstad
The next president of the United States will have plenty of guidance on how to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for sea-level rise and other climate change consequences. The question is: Does he or she want to use it?
Scientists and climate experts from the government, academia and the private sector, led by the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, offered an assessment of the current climate science and released dozens of recommendations yesterday at a panel in Washington.
Ideas for how the next administration should approach global warming include addressing the emerging public health threats and building resilience in land-use planning. Experts released several papers that looked at clean energy research and development and at reforming and modernizing the electric sector.
The next president will have much more science at his or her fingertips — if he or she wants it. Scientific understanding about climate change has seen a rapid evolution even in the years since President Obama started his second term, said Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute.
He offered a grim picture on what scientists have learned. Much has gotten worse, he said, and the impacts of climate change not only are worse than scientists expected but are unfolding sooner than expected. For example, 2015 was the hottest year on record, with record-breaking temperatures nearly monthly.
But there are rays of hope, Field said, including signs that worldwide conditions are "generally empowering for the development for climate solutions." People are developing options for addressing the consequences of climate change, whether it's the knowledge base about what's needed to adapt or finding faster ways to transition to less carbon-intensive sources of energy.
Science is evolving quickly, Field said, with the emergence of new lines of inquiry like single-event attribution. Scientists are getting better at identifying whether climate change boosts the odds of certain types of extreme events, including heat waves and extreme precipitation events. Scientists also know more about the possible connection between the collapse of large ice sheets and extreme sea-level rise.
There's also evidence that global economic growth can persist even as carbon dioxide emissions decrease, Field said. It strengthens the case for rapid, ambitious and sustained action to reduce emissions.
"It's not to imply that CO2 emissions have peaked," he said. "But what we're beginning to see is the disconnection between economic progress and CO2 emissions — something that is fundamentally important and fundamentally enabling to further progress in dealing with the climate challenges."
Dan Reicher, executive director of the Stanford Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance and a former assistant secretary of Energy, released a paper that called for tuning up federal clean energy incentives, like grants, loan guarantees and tax credits.
Government support is essential, he said in his report, but the big money for clean energy — tens of trillions of dollars globally over the next few decades — must come from the private sector. That includes major long-term investors like pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and endowments. The next administration needs to move aggressively to help attract these investors to the clean energy table, he said.
There are stark differences on climate between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, but that may not matter, several of the scientists at the event said — especially when it comes to investing in clean energy, Reicher said.
"You can set aside climate science, but you shouldn't set aside the opportunity," he said.
If the next president fails to acknowledge the threat of climate change, the scientific community will have to highlight what Field called "co-benefits" of reducing emissions: improved health, air quality and reliability in low-emission energy systems.
"We're going to make better choices if we acknowledge the importance of the science and we build on the science information," he said. "There are pathways to taking a lot of the steps that need to be taken that can start out independent of acknowledging the science.
"That being said, it is important to realize the scientific consensus on the nature of climate change and that the role of the human in it is really overwhelming," he said.
The next president will also have to address the health consequences of climate change, said Katherine States Burke, deputy director at the Center for Innovation in Global Health at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
There are already public health and national security threats, she said, including lives lost to 100-year floods and raging wildfires in the West, tens of thousands of deaths in heat waves in Europe and Russia, babies infected with Zika across the Americas, and deaths from starvation in countries like Malawi.
"Health, I think, is fast becoming the human face of climate change," she said. "Every day, we read about health emergencies that can be linked directly or indirectly to climate change. We need to connect the dots between a warming planet and these threats to human health and security."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/16/stories/1060042947
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested