Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/7/16
-
(ACC Blog) Celebrating the First National Nanotechnology Day
Oct 7, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
The U.S. Nanotechnology community will come together to celebrate the first National Nanotechnology Day on October 9, 2016 (an homage to the nanometer scale, 10-9 meters). -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Launches Ads Backing Five Republicans
Oct 7, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Anthony Adragna
The American Chemistry Council released ads on Thursday aimed at boosting three candidates in closely watched Senate contests and two House incumbents, including Majority Whip Steve Scalise. -
(ACC Mentioned) WHO Agency Under Investigation for Saying Bacon and Coffee Cause Cancer
Oct 7, 2016 | Daily Mail
By Mia De Graaf
A World Health Organization cancer agency is under scrutiny for allegedly causing too many public health scares. -
Recently Enacted TSCA Reform Will Fundamentally Change US Chemical Regulation
Oct 7, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Peter Duchesneau
Astonishingly, in an election year and at a time of unprecedented partisanship, this past June, Congress adopted significant reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with sweeping support from both sides of the aisle. -
Calif. Restricts Use of Common Pesticide
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
California regulators announced yesterday that they will restrict the use of a common pesticide considered a carcinogen by state officials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips’ $6 Billion Expansion Nears Completion
Oct 7, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
The dozen or so cranes readily visible from Interstate 10 in Baytown will only remain for a few more months as Chevron Phillips Chemical’s $6 billion petrochemical expansion moves closer to completion. -
Top EPA Lawyer Claims Confidence in Court Showdown Over Rule
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
While praising the "extraordinarily high-quality" arguments made by opponents of the Clean Power Plan, U.S. EPA's top lawyer yesterday expressed confidence in the legality of the landmark climate rule in the wake of last week's marathon court showdown. -
Climate Protesters Turn Up the Heat on Democrats
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Climate activists are pressing Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to take a position on the Dakota Access oil pipeline when she debates Republican nominee Donald Trump on Sunday at Washington University in St. Louis. -
Gulf Coast Groups Sue EPA Over Flaring Emissions Estimates
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA would have to revisit a key gauge for estimating emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural gas production flaring operations if Gulf Coast environmental groups prevail in a new lawsuit. -
Oil-Field Emissions Drop Again — EPA
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
U.S. EPA has recorded another drop in methane released from the nation's petroleum and natural gas sector, prompting calls from industry to take down Obama administration efforts to control emissions from oil and gas sources. -
US Mission at the IEF: Promote Transparency and Innovation in Energy Markets
Oct 7, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Herman Wang
The US is the world’s largest consumer of oil, as well as one of its largest producers, making it uniquely positioned at the recent International Energy Forum in Algiers. -
Proposed Gas Project Challenged by Sinking Land
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Entergy Corp.'s plan to build a new natural-gas-fired power plant in New Orleans has encountered a problem — sinking land. A recent report finds that the sinking land close to the plant site threatens the overall viability of the project. -
Six States Sue EPA to Force Action on Upwind Ozone Petition
Oct 6, 2016 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
New York and five New England states today sued EPA to force the agency to respond to a 2013 petition seeking to add 10 states to the “Ozone Transport Region,” the group of states established to address air pollution that flows across state lines.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Celebrating the First National Nanotechnology Day
Oct 7, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
The U.S. Nanotechnology community will come together to celebrate the first National Nanotechnology Day on October 9, 2016 (an homage to the nanometer scale, 10-9 meters). The annual event will serve as a day to inform the public about nanotechnology, to share the accomplishments of the industry and to promote the future possibilities and benefits nanotechnology offers.
Nanotechnology is the science of extremely small structures generally measuring less than 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter. To better visualize the size of a nanometer, imagine the size of a soccer ball relative to the size of the earth. This is roughly the same relation of the size of a nanometer to the size of a soccer ball. Nanotechnology studies the properties and behaviors of these structures and how they can improve our way of life.
In fact, earlier this week three nanotechnology scientists were awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on manipulating individual atoms to create self-powered nanoscale machines. Their work has tremendous potential for transforming drug delivery, enhancing energy storage and developing material with new useful properties.
Nanotechnology has gone from laboratory curiosity to improving many aspects of our everyday lives. It is being used to create new purification methods to help provide cleaner water by filtering pollutants in the ground and waterways. Nanotechnology enhances our national security by improving our abilities to detect chemical or biological threats while also contributing to the enhanced performance of military equipment. Within the medical field nanotechnology is improving doctors’ ability to detect the presence of cancerous cells and other medical conditions while also providing a new approach to treatments. Nanotechnology has also increased our ability to be more energy efficient by improving solar panels, strengthening wind turbines, developing lighter vehicle components and increasing fuel efficiency.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative plays a critical role in coordinating research, investments and education efforts across the federal government. Alongside these efforts, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Nanotechnology Panel is at the forefront of ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnologies domestically and internationally and providing a scientifically sound approach to nanotechnology policy.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/10/celebrating-the-first-national-nanotechnology-day/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Launches Ads Backing Five Republicans
Oct 7, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Anthony Adragna
The American Chemistry Council released ads on Thursday aimed at boosting three candidates in closely watched Senate contests and two House incumbents, including Majority Whip Steve Scalise. The ads back Sen. Rob Portman in Ohio, Sen. Roy Blunt in Missouri and Rep. Joe Heck, who is running for the Nevada seat being vacated by retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The Ohio spot also supports Rep. Pat Tiberi’s reelection bid.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/10/nrdcs-suh-on-whats-next-for-environmental-protection-216734#ixzz4MPuMNIhc
-
(ACC Mentioned) WHO Agency Under Investigation for Saying Bacon and Coffee Cause Cancer
Oct 7, 2016 | Daily Mail
By Mia De Graaf
A World Health Organization cancer agency is under scrutiny for allegedly causing too many public health scares.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) publishes research that shapes global lifestyle trends.
Their reports have branded coffee, mobile phones, processed meat and the weed killer glyphosate - among other things - as dangerous products that cause cancer.
However, US government officials have now called for an official review, questioning how much evidence there is to categorize these items as carcinogens.
An aide to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform told Reuters that National Institutes of Health officials have agreed to give an in-person briefing to the committee.
It comes after questions were raised by lawmakers over its grants to the IARC, a semi-autonomous part of the WHO based in Lyon, France.
The hearing will be in private, with NIH officials answering questions from committee investigators, the aide said.
The committee is working with the NIH to schedule the briefing soon, the aide said, but no date has yet been set.
The briefing comes after the committee's chairman added his voice to growing concerns among some senior US lawmakers about the way IARC reviews and classifies substances.
Its critics, including in industry, say it is sometimes too quick to conclude that substances might cause cancer, causing unnecessary health scares. It defends its methods as scientifically sound.
In a September 26 letter to NIH director Francis Collins, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz describes IARC as having 'a record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies' and asks why the NIH, which has a $33 billion annual budget, continues to fund it.
'IARC's standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic, and therefore cancer-causing, appear inconsistent with other scientific research, and have generated much controversy and alarm,' Chaffetz wrote.
The NIH confirmed in an email to Reuters that it had received Chaffetz's letter and 'will respond directly to the committee'.
The WHO referred Reuters to IARC for comment. A spokeswoman for IARC told Reuters that Chaffetz's letter contained 'misconceptions' which IARC's director, Chris Wild, has sought to address in a letter of his own to the NIH director.
Wild's letter, dated Oct. 5 and copied via email to Reuters on Thursday, rejects Chaffetz's criticisms and says IARC's classifications, known as 'monographs', are 'widely respected for their scientific rigour, standardised and transparent process and ... freedom from conflicts of interest'.
Wild also defends IARC's evaluation of coffee and disputed Chaffetz's description of it as a 'retraction'. IARC's previous assessment of coffee as 'possibly carcinogenic' was updated in June this year, when IARC said it had found 'no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect'.
'The (coffee) report in 2016 was not a 'retraction' but a re-evaluation based on an additional 25 years of scientific evidence,' Wild said.
Chaffetz, however, asks the NIH to detail its standards for awarding grants and the vetting and oversight of grantees.
It also asks for full disclosure of NIH funds to IARC or money spent in relation to IARC's activities.
Questions over grants awarded by NIH to IARC could put a significant portion of IARC's funding at risk.
IARC's resources are relatively modest. Its 2014 revenue was about 30 million euros ($33 million).
In his letter, Chaffetz's cites the NIH's grant database as showing that it has given IARC more than $1.2 million so far this year. The database also shows that since 1992, NIH grants to IARC have totalled some $40 million.
The American Chemistry Council also joined those voicing concern, issuing a statement following Chaffetz's letter accusing IARC of 'a long history of passing judgment on substances through a fundamentally-flawed process that yields questionable results'.
'We welcome the interest of the House Committee ... and hope it will shed light on the close and somewhat opaque relationship between IARC and NIH, including the use of taxpayer dollars and resources to support IARC's activities,' it said.
IARC is also in dispute with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and United Nations and United States regulators over glyphosate, a widely-used weedkiller developed by Monsanto.
IARC says glyphosate is 'probably carcinogenic', while EFSA and several other regulators say it isn't.
This dispute prompted Robert Aderholt, chairman of the U.S. congressional Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, to write in June to NIH's Collins questioning funding of IARC.
In that letter, Aderholt says IARC's conclusions 'appear to be the result of a significantly flawed process' and adds that 'some in academia have raised questions about the quality of the science and the transparency of the process'.
The glyphosate dispute also held up a decision on whether to relicense the product for use in Europe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3825866/US-lawmakers-investigate-funding-WHO-cancer-agency.html#ixzz4MQLXNWJz
-
Recently Enacted TSCA Reform Will Fundamentally Change US Chemical Regulation
Oct 7, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Peter Duchesneau
Astonishingly, in an election year and at a time of unprecedented partisanship, this past June, Congress adopted significant reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with sweeping support from both sides of the aisle. In the words of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act addresses “fundamental flaws” in TSCA that have hampered the agency’s ability to restrict and otherwise regulate dangerous chemicals. Although there are many facets to the new law, perhaps none are more central to its future success than the new standards to be utilized by EPA for evaluating chemical risk and regulating chemicals. The reformed TSCA not only mandates that eventually all chemicals be prioritized for review by EPA, but also changes the standards for evaluating chemical risk and for the promulgation of rules to prohibit and limit the use of chemicals found to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. When these new standards are compared with the prior law of the past 40 years, it is apparent that major changes in our nation’s chemical regulation are in store.
By most accounts, TSCA largely failed as an effective mechanism for imposing rules to prohibit or limit chemical use. Despite TSCA’s enactment in 1976, EPA has only imposed restrictions on a handful of chemicals under TSCA Section 6 pertaining to the tens of thousands of chemicals that existed in EPA’s chemical inventory at the time of its original enactment. These are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium, and it bears mentioning that the statute specifically required EPA to regulate PCBs. Among the factors perceived to have hobbled EPA’s effort to regulate a greater number of chemicals were the burdens imposed upon the agency when evaluating chemical risk and further impediments for adopting rules to protect against such risks. For one, Section 6 was interpreted as imposing a balancing test on EPA that included consideration of costs when evaluating a chemical’s risk. Moreover, when promulgating a rule to protect against an unreasonable risk of a chemical, Section 6 required EPA to use the least burdensome requirements. These hurdles ultimately proved fatal to EPA’s attempt to ban asbestos-containing products. In 1991, EPA’s final rule that prohibited the manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in almost all products was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991). In doing so, the Court concluded that EPA had failed to present sufficient evidence to justify its asbestos ban since it failed to consider all necessary evidence, including costs, and failed to adequately address the least burdensome alternatives under Section 6 of TSCA. Thereafter, in the years following the court’s decision, EPA did not move to regulate any other existing chemicals under its TSCA authority. This stalemate ultimately contributed to the chorus for TSCA reform.
The recently enacted TSCA reforms significantly amend the provisions of Section 6 for evaluating chemical risk and for promulgating rules to protect against such risks. In particular, EPA must now conduct risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors. EPA’s evaluation of chemical risk has also been broadened to now consider unreasonable risks to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, which include individuals who, due to either greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to a chemical, such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers and the elderly.
Although cost does not play a role in the evaluation of chemical risk anymore, EPA still considers cost among a host of other factors when promulgating protections for chemicals found to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA is no longer mandated to promulgate the least burdensome alternative that long hampered its previous regulatory efforts. Under the new regime, which includes vestiges of the prior standard, when promulgating a rule for regulating chemicals, and to the extent practicable when selecting among prohibitions and other restrictions, EPA must consider:
The effects and magnitude of the exposures for human beings and the environment;
The benefits of the chemical substance or mixture for various uses;
The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, including (a) consideration of the likely effect on the national economy, small business, technological innovation, the environment and public health and (b) the costs, benefits and cost effectiveness of the proposed regulatory action and of one or more primary alternative regulatory actions; and
To the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment will be reasonably available as a substitute.
Further, while EPA previously lacked a defined mandate to act, the recently enacted TSCA reforms now impose deadlines to tackle the backlog of chemical risk evaluations and deadlines for EPA to regulate chemicals when found to pose an unreasonable risk. In particular, after publishing a final risk evaluation determining that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA has one year to propose a rule and two years to publish a final rule. This deadline may only be extended by a total of two additional years. Any rule adopted by EPA to ban or phase-out a chemical must also specify mandatory compliance dates which must be as soon as practicable, but no later than five years after promulgation of the rule. Only limited exemptions to these strict timeframes are allowed under the new law, which require EPA to find:
(1) The specific condition of chemical use is a critical or essential use for which no technically and economically feasible safer alternative is available, taking into consideration hazard and exposure;
(2) Compliance with the requirement, as applied with respect to the specific condition of use, would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure; or
(3) The specific condition of use, as compared to reasonably available alternatives, provides a substantial benefit to health, the environment, or public safety.
EPA has a lot of catching up to do after decades of stagnation, but there is little doubt that the recently enacted TSCA reforms pave the way for significant changes to come. While Congress may have come together to finally reform TSCA, it is nonetheless likely that there will be considerable debate when TSCA’s new provisions are employed by EPA. Stakeholders should therefore be prepared to participate in the newly enacted processes under TSCA’s reforms to ensure that EPA’s forthcoming decisions on chemical risk and its rules to address such risks are appropriately vetted and well-reasoned.
Peter Duchesneau is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. His practice focuses on environmental law involving litigation, administrative proceedings, regulatory compliance and business transactions. Mr. Duchesneau has significant experience with emerging chemicals and holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering. He regularly counsels clients on regulatory compliance related to the TSCA, green chemistry, pesticides, and the California’s Proposition 65 (The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act), among other matters.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/10/07/recently-enacted-tsca-reform-will-fundamentally-change-u-s-chemical-regulation/
-
Calif. Restricts Use of Common Pesticide
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
California regulators announced yesterday that they will restrict the use of a common pesticide considered a carcinogen by state officials.
The product, Telone, will not be banned outright, but California will be the only state to limit use of the compound, according to Charlotte Fadipe, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation spokeswoman.
The chemical is pumped into fields pre-planting, and though it doesn't show up in food products, California regulators say its fumes — released during application — are a threat to public health.
"I believe that overhauling the way we manage the pesticide, to be based upon a fixed amount, will be health-protective and simpler to manage," said Brian Leahy, director of the pesticide regulation department.
Farming groups, which say Telone is a key pest-killer, expressed ire at the decision.
"It's going to have an impact on consumers," said sweet potato farmer Bob Weimer. "There's no question about it."
Dow AgroSciences LLC, which makes Telone, was recently sued by the California-based Center for Environmental Health, claiming that the company failed to warn farming communities when its product is applied.
The new rule will go into force on Jan. 1.
However, the Pesticide Action Network slammed the move as allowing for "even greater use" of Telone, claiming that California had banned the chemical decades ago.
"Once again, DPR has chosen to listen to Dow Chemical instead of agency scientists," Mark Weller, co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform, said in a statement. "It's beyond me how DPR can spin this as an improvement. And it's simply egregious that DPR has again ignored the voices of the frontline communities most at risk, who have repeatedly demanded better protections from this cancer-causing chemical".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/07/stories/1060044006
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips’ $6 Billion Expansion Nears Completion
Oct 7, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
The dozen or so cranes readily visible from Interstate 10 in Baytown will only remain for a few more months as Chevron Phillips Chemical’s $6 billion petrochemical expansion moves closer to completion.
Chevron Phillips’ “U.S. Gulf Coast Petrochemicals Project” is more than 80 percent complete. It is expected to be up and running in about a year. The effort involves building a massive ethane cracker — on a plot the size of 44 football fields — at its Cedar Bayou plant in Baytown to take a component of natural gas to churn out 1.5 million metric tons a year of ethylene, the most common building block of plastics.
Chevron Phillips also is building two new polyethylene plastics units southwest of Houston in Old Ocean by Phillips 66’s Sweeny complex to take that ethylene and turn it into plastic resin that’s shipped both domestically and internationally
The idea for the U.S. project began in 2010, after Chevron Phillips had focused most of its growth in the Middle East with major projects in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, said Ron Corn, Chevron Phillips senior vice president of projects and supply chain,
“It was quite radical at the time,” Corn said of building massive petrochemical projects in Texas. “These are big, big projects — very complex.”
The effort is the continuation of the petrochemical boom primarily along the Gulf Coast to take advantage of cheap and ample ethane derived from natural gas through the ongoing shale revolution. The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade group, estimates that more than 250 petrochemical projects are under construction or planned across the country through 2023, and they will create about 70,000 jobs. The combined cost is about $160 billion, including about $50 billion in Texas.
The growing demand for plastics is mostly coming in Asia, primarily China, but also India and Indonesia.
“They’re basically entering the consumer class,” Corn said, and demanding products like single-serve shampoo packets for the first time.
There’s a lot of competition from other ethane crackers ___-popping up throughout Texas and Louisiana. The Chevron Phillips cracker includes eight giant furnaces that essentially heat up the ethane and cook it into ethylene. The project has created 10,000 temporary construction jobs — Baytown and Old Ocean combined — and 400 new permanent positions once it’s completed.
Also in Baytown, Exxon Mobil is building a cracker with 1.5 million tons of capacity as well. Exxon’s new plastics plants are being built nearby in Mont Belvieu
Houston-based Occidental Petroleum Chemical and Mexico’s Mexichem have another cracker going up outside of Corpus Christi, while South Africa’s Sasol is building a new ethane cracker and petrochemical complex near Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Exxon also is in the process of choosing a site in Texas or Louisiana to build the world’s biggest cracker in a joint venture with the Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp., known as SABIC. Likewise, Paris-based Total is tentatively planning to build a new cracker in Port Arthur.
Corn said he’s convinced global plastics demand is growing quickly enough to consume the upcoming supply explosion.
“The spotlight is on the U.S., and the world needs the U.S. production,” Corn said.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/10/07/chevron-phillips-6-billion-expansion-nears-completion/
-
Top EPA Lawyer Claims Confidence in Court Showdown Over Rule
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
While praising the "extraordinarily high-quality" arguments made by opponents of the Clean Power Plan, U.S. EPA's top lawyer yesterday expressed confidence in the legality of the landmark climate rule in the wake of last week's marathon court showdown.
Avi Garbow, the agency's general counsel, said that EPA's "very, very robust" record and analysis of the rule would help carry the Clean Power Plan to legal victory.
"I feel quite strongly that the rule is lawful," Garbow said, "that the agency's legal rationale for each of the arguments and the issues ... are not only defensible but also highly supported by the record and legal analysis."
The Clean Power Plan, finalized last August, requires states to develop strategies for reducing CO2 emissions from existing power plants. Overall, the rule aims to slash power plants' CO2 emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Dozens of entities, including 27 states, have raised various challenges to the rule, including that EPA exceeded its Clean Air Act authority and usurped states' rights.
Last Tuesday, a panel of 10 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned 16 attorneys for nearly seven hours in a mammoth oral arguments session.
Garbow is the first EPA official to publicly comment at length about the showdown, which attracted hundreds of energy experts and attorneys, most waiting several hours to enter the courtroom. Garbow spoke yesterday on a panel at an American Bar Association annual environmental law conference.
The top EPA lawyer was in the courtroom for all of the Clean Power Plan arguments, sitting in a row with other high-ranking EPA officials, including EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy — who left around the time of the court's lunch break — and acting air chief Janet McCabe.
"It was really a remarkable scene," Garbow said. On all sides, he said, there were "extraordinarily high-quality, interesting and important arguments."
John Cruden, assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division, who also sat on the same bench as the EPA officials during the arguments, today also praised the atmosphere in the courtroom.
"The Clean Power Plan — no matter where you are — was a good day for the rule of law," Cruden said. "When you have 10 judges hearing arguments from 9:30 to 6, with virtually all of them participating, the litigators were wonderful, excellent, the judges were involved — it's a time all of us should be proud of our court system."
Garbow noted that the room contained many of the same people who have argued other large Clean Air Act cases, suggesting that the familiarity in the room backed EPA's contention that the rule was not as transformative as opponents have suggested.
"If you looked around the room in the D.C. Circuit just a week ago," Garbow said, "you would see a roster of Clean Air Act lawyers who I guarantee were not first retained by these power companies to defend their interests in the Clean Power Plan."
"It's not as though we are embarking, if you will, to an area that is virgin territory for the agency in terms of its regulatory interaction with companies," Garbow said.
Environmentalists have also argued that the rule makes use of Clean Air Act tools, like trading, that have been used and upheld by the courts in the past.
"It's just the application of familiar techniques to sources that have been regulated in the past that the Supreme Court already says extends to carbon dioxide emissions," said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Garbow also touted what he called a strong scientific background, helped by a "reinvigoration" of science at EPA starting in 2009 under the Obama administration, that underpinned the need to address climate change. Garbow said that it was important that nobody last Tuesday questioned the science or whether EPA had a role in addressing the issue — just whether the Clean Power Plan was a legal way to go about doing so.
"There was not a sense that anybody was trying to, I think foolishly, relitigate Mass. v. EPA," he said, referring to the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which found EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
But Elbert Lin, the solicitor general of West Virginia who argued on behalf of state challengers to the rule, yesterday downplayed the relevance of EPA's scientific evidence on climate change to the legality of the rule.
"The question is not whether it's a wise policy. The question is not necessarily whether the science supports it or, as people think, demands it," Lin said. "The question is ... is this within the scope of the authority that Congress has delegated to the agency?"
Among other arguments, West Virginia and other challengers say that Congress never intended EPA to use the Clean Air Act to issue such a sweeping regulation over the power sector or to require the power industry to shift from coal to other forms of generation.
"That's not what EPA has done in the past," said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell who represents industry clients. "Never before has EPA looked at the entire generating sector and said, 'You know what? We think we ought to take 30 percent of business from these plants and just shift it to these plants.'"
EPA's top lawyer, however, yesterday questioned the motives of interests challenging the rule, calling it "telling" that some of the same entities — including West Virginia — unsuccessfully sued the agency over the proposal for the Clean Power Plan before it was even finalized.
"There was something about the alacrity with which certain interests went out and challenged the agency in the midst of its process," Garbow said.
While he maintained that the rule was legal, Garbow would not offer a prediction of where the 10 judges would come down in their decision on the rule.
"There has been an extraordinary amount of punditry in the last week," he said, adding, "The ball is not in my court. ... The ball is now, if you will, for this case in the court of the 10 judges."
Most observers of the litigation expect that a ruling will come out sometime after the November elections, likely in early 2017. After that, it's likely that parties will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
"We all have been working on this for a number of years," Garbow said. "I'm not sure we're honestly in the fourth quarter of it yet. We'll see kind of where this carries us."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/07/stories/1060044010
-
Climate Protesters Turn Up the Heat on Democrats
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Climate activists are pressing Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to take a position on the Dakota Access oil pipeline when she debates Republican nominee Donald Trump on Sunday at Washington University in St. Louis.
350.org is urging its members to cast online votes to ensure the nominees are asked in the town hall debate about the standoff between developers of the $3.7 billion Bakken oil pipeline and tribal nations at the South and North Dakota line.
ABC and CNN moderators have agreed to consider the top 30 questions from the online poll. Receiving more than 15,000 votes as of this afternoon, a question asks, "What will you do to protect the rights of Native Americans and their land?"
Says a blurb attached to the question: "Currently Native American lands are being threaten by the land being sold off by the government to oil companies to build pipelines. Their water sources are endangered. What will you do to protect it?"
The Dakota Access project, at the center of a court battle and federal review, has gained symbolic status for activists trying to halt the spread of fossil fuel infrastructure to keep global temperatures in check.
While Trump has said he would fast-track the approval of such projects, green groups are focusing on Clinton, hoping she will make a stand now to more carefully review or even block oil and gas pipelines, power plants and other infrastructure for fossil fuels.
350.org co-founder Bill McKibben in a Sept. 7 editorial said the Democratic platform is "great" but is weakening each day Clinton remains silent on Dakota Access.
Jason Kowalski, a spokesman for 350 Action, noted Clinton mentioned climate change at the outset of the first debate last month — a move that's drawing support from the base of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — but said opposing specific fossil projects can be politically trickier.
"Saying no to fossil fuel projects has proved harder for politicians," Kowalski said. "It's easier to say 'yes' to clean energy than to say 'no' to fossil fuel energy."
Activists have also pushed Clinton's running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe to clarify their position on the Atlantic Coast pipeline, a maneuver that's pushing Democrats into a corner on supporting the need for new infrastructure and jobs versus full-scale opposition to fossil fuels.
McAuliffe this week shrugged off climate and anti-fossil protests and arrests in Richmond to reiterate his support for Dominion Resources Inc.'s 600-mile-long Atlantic Coast pipeline project, calling it a "renaissance" for energy jobs in Virginia and distancing the project from controversy surrounding the practice of hydraulic fracturing.
Approval of the pipeline, he said, rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on state statute that will underpin water and air quality permits the company is seeking — not the governor's office.
"If folks don't like that, they should probably protest the General Assembly to change the regulations, but let me be clear, I support the pipeline," McAuliffe said Tuesday. "We need gas in Virginia, we're not fracking the gas that's coming into Virginia."
Without pipelines, natural gas would be shipped by rail or truck, he added, options that pose more danger to the state's environment. The state, he added, has more pipeline miles than interstate miles, and the Atlantic Coast project will be the "latest and most sophisticated."
Twenty-three activists were arrested yesterday after blocking the gate to the governor's mansion in Richmond.
Tale of 2 pipelines
Protesters are calling on McAuliffe to take a page out of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) playbook by denying proposed natural gas pipeline water permits to cross in-state streams and other water bodies.
Dominion, which is building the Atlantic Coast pipeline, needs both a state permit under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Department of Environmental Quality and approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404.
Cuomo's administration earlier this year rejected permit requests for the 125-mile Constitution pipeline for crossing streams in New York, saying it would damage trout habitat and old-growth forests. The project developers, the administration said, had declined to co-locate the line on an existing highway right of way. Developers of the pipeline have since said they will fight the governor's decision (EnergyWire, April 27).
"The state of Virginia has the clear authority to grant or deny the Water Quality Certification that each pipeline needs under section 401 of the Clean Water Act — and Gov. McAuliffe and his Department of Environmental Quality must exercise it," activists wrote in a fact sheet being circulated.
But drawing comparisons between the Constitution and Atlantic Coast pipelines could prove difficult.
ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christi Tezak noted the Atlantic Coast pipeline would deliver gas for customers in Virginia whereas gas slated to run through the Constitution project wouldn't have benefited customers in New York.
What's more, Tezak said, sponsors of the Atlantic Coast project say customers in North Carolina and Virginia will save $377 million in net average annual energy costs. That, she said, is not trivial.
Tezak noted that green groups are waging legal battles to challenge water permits for pipelines in a number of other states.
Doing so for the Atlantic Coast pipeline could be difficult given utilities have received state approval to buy gas from the pipeline, she said.
And getting Virginia's governor to push for denial of a water quality permit under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act when the state's utility commission has signed off on utility agreements to buy the gas as part of Virginia's carbon-reduction plan appears to be a much "steeper challenge" than what opponents of Constitution faced in New York, she said.
"The question is, in our view, whether they will succeed in getting projects delayed or denied," Tezak said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/07/stories/1060044017
-
Gulf Coast Groups Sue EPA Over Flaring Emissions Estimates
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA would have to revisit a key gauge for estimating emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural gas production flaring operations if Gulf Coast environmental groups prevail in a new lawsuit.
The suit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, alleged that EPA's "emissions factor" for the natural gas well flaring category hasn't been reviewed since 1985, contrary to a Clean Air Act requirement that such standards be re-examined every three years.
Because "poor quality emissions factors" can significantly underestimate air pollution releases, the result could be dirtier air than the law allows, the suit said. In this instance, the existing emissions factor estimates that 5.6 pounds of VOCs are released from flares for every million cubic feet of gas produced.
But that calculation assumes that flaring achieves a 98 percent destruction efficiency, while more recent EPA and Bureau of Land Management regulations assume that the rate is only 95 percent, the suit added.
The other three plaintiffs are the Community in-Power and Development Association Inc., based in Port Arthur, Texas; the Louisiana Bucket Brigade; and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services. Collectively, they want a judge to order EPA to review the existing emissions factor and make any changes needed to appropriately update the standard.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment this morning on pending litigation.
VOCs are a class of gases that include benzene, toluene and formaldehyde. In sunlight, they react with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, a lung irritant that is the primary ingredient in smog. EPA relies heavily on emissions factors — which number more than 1,700 for some 200 different pollutants — as a substitute for direct monitoring. Last year, under a settlement to a 2013 suit by the same four plaintiffs, the agency released a package of revised and new emissions factors for the chemical manufacturing and refinery industries.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/07/stories/1060044022
-
Oil-Field Emissions Drop Again — EPA
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
U.S. EPA has recorded another drop in methane released from the nation's petroleum and natural gas sector, prompting calls from industry to take down Obama administration efforts to control emissions from oil and gas sources.
Methane from energy production, processing and storage infrastructure reached 70.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2015, down 3.8 percent from 73.1 million metric tons the year before. Last year marked the fourth consecutive year that the sector's methane emissions have declined (EnergyWire, Oct. 7, 2015).
For the first time, the industry's overall greenhouse gas contribution also dropped. Last year, oil and gas operations emitted 231 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, down 1.7 percent from 235 million metric tons in 2014, according to EPA. The number of reporting facilities stayed roughly the same.
Methane emissions from energy activity in the San Juan Basin have nearly halved over the course of four years (EnergyWire, Aug. 16). In 2011, the industry leaked 8.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Last year, that number dropped to 4.7 million metric tons.
Across production fields in oil-rich Texas, methane emissions fell by a combined 3.58 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent between 2011 and 2015.
Industry groups have pointed to declining emissions as evidence that regulations like EPA's methane rule are unnecessary.
"EPA's own data show that oil and gas companies in Texas have cut methane emissions by more than 3.5 million metric tons, yet the EPA is still pushing costly new methane rules that will destroy jobs and reduce local tax revenue," Steve Everley, spokesman for North Texans for Natural Gas, said in an emailed statement. "Every dollar that must be spent on regulatory compliance is a dollar not invested in the kinds of research and technology that have actually reduced emissions."
Environmental groups have attributed those reductions to existing rules. According to the EPA data, the most significant cuts came from completions, a regulated process.
"It's clear that in these areas where strong regulations are in place, you're seeing decreases in methane emissions," said Hillary Hull, senior research analyst for the Environmental Defense Fund. "The oil and gas industry won't fix this problem on its own."
Holes in the data set may also be warping the trends, she said. EPA notes in its industrial profile for petroleum and natural gas systems that its reporting thresholds do not cover the entire industry.
"There are so many facilities that aren't required to report," Hull said. "It's very difficult to take the trends that you see in the reported data and apply that to what's actually happening."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/07/stories/1060043982
-
US Mission at the IEF: Promote Transparency and Innovation in Energy Markets
Oct 7, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Herman Wang
The US is the world’s largest consumer of oil, as well as one of its largest producers, making it uniquely positioned at the recent International Energy Forum in Algiers.
The forum’s intent is to bring together oil producers and consumers every three years for two days of dialogue, analysis of energy trends, and promotion of greater transparency in energy markets.
This year’s forum was overshadowed by the OPEC meeting on the sidelines. Though the US is not a member nor is its oil industry state-controlled, the producer group’s decisions still resonate there, making the US’ representative at the IEF, Assistant Energy Secretary Jonathan Elkind, a keen observer of the proceedings.
The message he had for OPEC: transparency is good, market controls are not.
“We come back time and again to the point that artificial intrusions into the market, whether one is talking about production or price constraints, they don’t work,” Elkind said in an interview. “What does work is respecting that markets are meant to be flexible, they’re meant to be dynamic. They’re not meant to be stable, though everybody has a stake in good information that helps to tamp down volatility.”
Of course, OPEC would eventually decide in Algiers to freeze production between 32.5 million to 33 million b/d, with the full details – including individual country allocations – to be decided at the organization’s next formal meeting November 30 in Vienna.
That’s a cut of between 240,000 to 740,000 b/d from OPEC’s current production levels.
Some American oil industry officials, such as Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm, who is advising Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, have openly urged OPEC to freeze output, as such action is likely to put a floor under prices and help boost US shale drillers.
Indeed, the response of the US shale industry, whose boom prompted OPEC two years ago to adopt its market share strategy that it has now apparently abandoned, will be key to OPEC’s decision making in Vienna.
Algerian oil minister Noureddine Bouterfa was quoted October 6 as saying OPEC could decide to cut further, if market conditions warrant.
The US Energy Information Administration last month projected that 2017 crude production in the US will be 8.5 million b/d, which is 200,000 b/d higher than its August forecast for next year.
“Shale has dramatically changed the kind of strategy that OPEC was employing,” Adam Sieminski said in an interview with S&P Global Platts’ Takeo Kumagai. “OPEC will be looking at our production statistics and if they saw US production beginning to recover, would make difference to what they were doing.”
In Algiers, Elkind maintained a neutral stance at the IEF. Low prices, after all, are good for consumers, and the US has a lot of those.
“Fundamentally the core answer here is that we are a believer in markets,” he said. “We believe in the power of markets that are well informed to provide signals to investors and consumers. At the household level, at the company level, markets will provide the guideposts that tell participants whether there is scarcity or abundance. We think that’s the right way to think about the oil markets today.”
Most of his discussions with his ministerial counterparts involved promoting market data transparency through the Joint Organizations Data Initiative.
He said he also discussed energy innovation and how governments can get involved in fostering their own energy industries, whether in renewables or traditional fossil fuels.
Elkind noted that the US Department of Energy’s investments in fracking and horizontal drilling research during the 1980s and 1990s were key in helping those techniques reach commercial scale, unlocking the US’ vast reserves of shale oil and gas.
“It’s fundamentally all about enabling and enhancing energy security in a form that is affordable and accessible,” he said. “The sweet spot in IEF is in providing information that allows producers and consumers to think about the market ahead.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/10/07/us-mission-promote-transparency-innovation-energy/
-
Proposed Gas Project Challenged by Sinking Land
Oct 7, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Entergy Corp.'s plan to build a new natural-gas-fired power plant in New Orleans has encountered a problem — sinking land. A recent report finds that the sinking land close to the plant site threatens the overall viability of the project.
The report, released by the Louisiana Public Health Institute and the Alliance for Affordable Energy, has examined the subsidence threat, as well as the potential for pollution and higher customer bills.
The authors pointed out that the use of groundwater for power generation could be causing soil to sink faster. It found that the proposed site — the former Michoud power plant site — has subsided up to 2 inches per year, or about twice the rate of the entire city.
The report is urging the New Orleans City Council to consider the findings as it decides whether to approve the new plant. It suggests that the council ban Entergy from pumping groundwater and monitor the air quality near the site. The groups also criticized the plan as shortsighted, saying the council failed to consider long-term effects on consumers and renewable energies.
Entergy is hoping to get the city council's approval by January 2017 to build the power generators. The company has touted its proposal as the most reliable and affordable way to meet the city's future power needs.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/07/stories/1060043984
-
Six States Sue EPA to Force Action on Upwind Ozone Petition
Oct 6, 2016 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
New York and five New England states today sued EPA to force the agency to respond to a 2013 petition seeking to add 10 states to the “Ozone Transport Region,” the group of states established to address air pollution that flows across state lines.
Adding states like North Carolina, Ohio and Illinois to the OTR would require those states to install and enforce additional ozone pollution controls, even in areas that meet the national standard, because their emissions harm air quality in downwind states.
EPA was supposed to have acted on the petition by June 2015, but has not yet replied. New York said EPA never replied to an April 6 letter seeking action either. The suit seeks to force EPA to respond.
“States upwind of New York that don’t take adequate responsibility for their pollution shift the cost and public health burdens of this pollution onto New Yorkers,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.
The Northeastern states are not the first to sue EPA over this petition.
In March, North Carolina itself sued EPA to force it to answer the petition because the continuing uncertainty harmed the state. That suit was put on hold over the summer so EPA could finish its update to the Cross-State Air Pollution rule to take into account the 2008 ozone standard.
That update, released last month, ultimately did not include North Carolina because modeling indicated it does not contribute to downwind air quality issues.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy#ixzz4MQBaf7aJ
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested