Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/13/16
-
(ACC Blog) Restricting POPs: Why the Stockholm Convention Matters
Oct 13, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Robert Simon
Over a decade ago, more than 150 countries signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), a global treaty to manage chemical substances that warrant global control due to their PBT (persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulation) characteristics and ability for long-range environmental transport. -
Agency Targets Five Chemicals Under New Law
Oct 13, 2016 | Courthouse News Service
The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it will move quickly to cut back on exposure to five industrial chemicals that can be toxic to humans. -
Scientists in N.J., Germany Support 'No Safe Level' of Teflon Chemical in Drinking Water
Oct 13, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
PFOA, a carcinogenic chemical formerly used to make DuPont's Teflon, contaminates drinking water for at least 7 million Americans and is in virtually everyone’s blood. -
Board of Appeal Annuls Echa Nanomaterials Compliance Check Decision
Oct 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has annulled the agency’s decision on a registration dossier compliance check that requested identity information on a "nano-structured" substance. -
Echa's BoA Dismisses BASF Appeal
Oct 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) has dismissed BASF's appeal against an agency decision. This challenged a request for a pre-natal developmental toxicity study to fulfil information requirements of Annex IX of REACH. -
Echa Round-Up
Oct 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has added 14 substances to its public activities coordination tool (PACT) for risk management option analysis (RMOA) or hazard assessment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dooley: US Leaders Should Know EPA Rules, Impact of Possible Changes
Oct 13, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
The next president should review the rules of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to give manufacturing a boost, according to trade groups and industry leaders. -
Tribes Dig in for Winter as Pipeline Tensions Rise
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The makeshift protesters' village here near the confluence of the Missouri and Cannonball rivers is buzzing. -
Sanders, Dem Senators Press Obama to Halt ND Pipeline
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of Democratic senators is asking President Obama to halt work on the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline and conduct more thorough cultural and environmental reviews of the project before allowing it to go forward. -
Senate Dems Call to Stop Project, Impose Climate 'Test'
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A handful of top Senate Democrats today called on President Obama to immediately halt construction of the $3.78 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline until a deeper review is conducted and subject all "significant" fossil projects to a climate test. -
Pipelines to Protesters: 'Get in the Boat, Let's Row Together'
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The new chairwoman of a Washington, D.C.-based pipeline industry group expressed alarm about attacks on Tuesday against five oil pipelines that cross the Canadian-U.S. border, which activists affiliated with Climate Direct Action targeted in a protest of Canadian oil sands production. -
U.S. Veterans Call on Obama Administration to Finalize a Strong Natural Gas Waste Rule Now
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Gen. Donald Edwards
A group of over 200 U.S. service veterans, including two retired generals and the Vet Voice Foundation, sent a petition calling for an end to wasting American energy resources from oil and gas leases on public lands to President Barack Obama, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze. -
U.S. West Coast LNG Exports Problematic Amid Shifting Supply-Demand, Say Experts
Oct 13, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The long stalled -- and final -- proposed U.S. West Coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project was little more than an afterthought at a regional gas conference in Denver Tuesday, where a panel of experts gave their views on the shifting supply-demand balance, which is bolstered by more takeaway capacity to Mexico and via newly opened terminals on the Gulf Coast. -
Railroad Giants, Regulators Spar Over Watchdog's Oil-by-Rail Findings
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A major rail industry group is calling on the U.S. Department of Transportation to scrap costly braking requirements for oil and ethanol trains, citing new doubts about the empirical basis for the regulations. -
Transportation Chief: Agencies Struggling to Implement Safety Technology
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - Transportation
By Melanie Zanona
Transit agencies have struggled to adopt a potentially life-saving train technology because they are often operating on “thin margins,” the head of the Department of Transportation (DOT) said Wednesday. -
CO2 Released at Lowest Levels in 25 Years
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
The release of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in the first half of this year sank to their lowest level since 1991, the Energy Information Administration said yesterday. -
Ken Bone was Right: Energy Must be a Priority for Next President
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Jonas Monast, Sarah Adair and Kate Konschnik
"What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?" Like it or not, the next president will need an answer to this question, posed by audience member Ken Bone in the second presidential debate, in the early days of his or her administration.
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
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Restricting POPs: Why the Stockholm Convention Matters
Oct 13, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Robert Simon
Over a decade ago, more than 150 countries signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), a global treaty to manage chemical substances that warrant global control due to their PBT (persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulation) characteristics and ability for long-range environmental transport. This treaty is considered a significant environmental agreement, and is broadly supported by governments, NGOs, and industry. Although the United States signed the agreement in 2001, the Senate has yet to provide advice and consent to ratification. U.S. participation as a full party to the Stockholm Convention is needed to ensure the treaty fulfills its objective.
Once substances are listed as POPs under the Convention, their production and use are significantly curtailed or eliminated. The Convention was originally conceived and structured to address legacy substances that were not in production and use or in general global decline. In recent years, the scope of the Convention’s work has changed; governments are now considering industrial chemicals that are in active use. This includes substances that do not necessarily fit well within the Convention’s established scientific criteria and processes.
Future nominations will likely involve more “borderline” cases that arguably do not meet the treaty’s listing criteria. Some substances being considered as POPs candidates are heavily integrated in the global supply chain and provide essential benefits to society. This has the potential to significantly expand the scope of the treaty and could impact a broad range of products that rely on these chemistries. Given this recent development, the Convention is at an interesting turning point. The treaty includes a risk-based nomination and evaluation process, which could be reinforced with U.S. participation as a full party. In particular, greater consideration needs to be given to how the evaluation process is applied to substances that fall outside the “traditional POPs” and proper consideration needs to be given to the risk-based principles that are inherent components of the Convention.
Next Steps
The Stockholm Convention’s Parties will meet next in April 2017. Because the United States is not a full party, it will participate as an observer government, with no formal role in the decision-making process. But U.S. leadership is critical to a meaningful evaluation of the approach to reviewing candidate substances, and updating the treaty’s policy and processes to ensure current scientific best practices and evidence are integrated into the Convention’s decision-making framework. In April, governments should consider the following elements as part of this evaluation:
Ensuring the quality of scientific data considered and employing a weight-of-evidence evaluation of that data
Taking full account of all stakeholder input based on scientific merit
Focusing on substances that meet all qualifying criteria under the convention including understanding where those criteria may not be applicable or suitable for certain substances
Factoring the critical benefits that a chemical may provide to society, including contributions to other important sustainability goals, into any decisions to regulate a chemical
Taking actions that result in actual, meaningful benefits to human health and the environment
Encouraging the Convention to continue stakeholder discussions and ensure its decisions are based on the best available scientific evidence requires broad support from governments who are Parties to the Convention. Unfortunately, the U.S. voice is largely silent because the Senate has not yet acted on the treaty. This is increasingly problematic as actions under the Convention affect not only chemical manufacturers, but have a broad impact on members of the value chain and the global economy. As the Convention considers chemicals that are still widely used in the global supply chain, the U.S. voice will be even more valuable in the Parties’ discussions.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/10/restricting-pops-why-the-stockholm-convention-matters/
-
Agency Targets Five Chemicals Under New Law
Oct 13, 2016 | Courthouse News Service
The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it will move quickly to cut back on exposure to five industrial chemicals that can be toxic to humans.
The five chemicals, which are classified as "persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic," or PBT, will receive expedited action from the agency under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed into law in June.
"The threats from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals are well-documented," Jim Jones, assistant administrator in EPA's office of chemical safety and pollution prevention, said in a statement. "The new law directs us to expedite action to reduce the risk for these chemicals, rather than spending more time evaluating them."
The chemicals the EPA will expedite include two flame retardants, a chemical used to make rubber compounds and lubricants, an agent that makes rubber "more pliable," and an additive to fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant, according to an agency press release.
Under the new law, manufactures had the chance to ask the agency to conduct a full risk evaluation of certain chemicals instead of the expedited action the EPA announced it would take Tuesday. Two chemicals used in fragrance mixtures are slated to receive such a review, the agency announced.
For the chemicals undergoing the expedited process, the EPA will establish how people are exposed to them before formally proposing limitations on their use. By law, the EPA has until June 22, 2019, to propose action on how to limit exposure to these chemicals, according to the press release.
PBT chemicals are potentially dangerous for humans because they build up in tissue and can cause serious health problems at relatively low concentrations.
"PBT chemicals are of particular concern because they remain in the environment for significant periods of time and concentrate in the organism exposed to them," the agency said. "These pollutants can transfer among air, water and land and span boundaries of geography and generations."
The Environmental Working Group said in a statement that it welcomed the EPA's decision on the five specified chemicals, but it is "deeply disappointed that industry is exploiting a loophole in the new law to delay action on two chemicals commonly used in fragrances."
"These two chemicals... are suspected to build up in bodies and should be subject to the same expedited deadlines as other PBT chemicals," the group said.http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/10/12/agency-targets-five-chemicals-under-new-law.htm
-
Scientists in N.J., Germany Support 'No Safe Level' of Teflon Chemical in Drinking Water
Oct 13, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
PFOA, a carcinogenic chemical formerly used to make DuPont's Teflon, contaminates drinking water for at least 7 million Americans and is in virtually everyone’s blood.
The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to set a legal drinking water limit for PFOA, but last spring significantly lowered the unenforceable health advisory level. Now, new health assessments from government scientists in New Jersey and Germany show that the EPA's research is flawed, its health advisory is still far too weak and there may effectively be no safe level of PFOA in drinking water.
In June, a month after the EPA lowered its advisory level, the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute proposed what it calls a health-based maximum contaminant level for PFOA in water of 14 parts per trillion, or ppt – five times lower than the EPA health advisory of 70 ppt. (The EPA advisory level is for the combined level of PFOA and the related chemical PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M's Scotchgard.) If New Jersey legislators adopt the recommendation as a drinking water standard, it will be the only legal limit on PFOA in the nation.
In proposing the health-based limit, the New Jersey scientists were very critical of the EPA health advisory finding, saying drinking water with PFOA at the advisory level would cause a significant increase in concentrations of the chemical in Americans' blood. They also said:
The EPA failed to consider women who may become pregnant and their future children as more sensitive to PFOA.
The EPA ignored studies showing that current levels of PFOA in Americans’ bodies are already causing health problems.
The EPA ignored studies on PFOA's effects at lower concentrations on the development of mammary glands.
Last month, the German Human Biomonitoring Commission went even further. German scientists determined that the level of PFOA in blood not expected to cause adverse health effects is below what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has already found in the average American, meaning that any additional exposure through drinking water should be avoided.
In developing this standard, the German agency used human data dismissed by the EPA that showed PFOA exposure caused problems with pregnancy, hormones and thyroid, and reduced the effectiveness of vaccines. The blood level standard set by the German scientists would correspond to a limit for PFOA in drinking water of 1.9 ppt – 36 times more stringent than the EPA health advisory.
It's been more than 15 years since the EPA was first alerted to PFOA's hazards, but the agency says it could be 2019 before it even decides whether to begin the process of setting an enforceable nationwide standard. As EWG wrote in April to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the “glacial pace and uneven approach to protecting the public from this highly persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemical... borders on an abdication of the agency’s responsibility to protect public health.”
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/10/scientists-nj-germany-support-no-safe-level-teflon-chemical-drinking-water
-
Board of Appeal Annuls Echa Nanomaterials Compliance Check Decision
Oct 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has annulled the agency’s decision on a registration dossier compliance check that requested identity information on a "nano-structured" substance.
BoA said Echa’s decision breached the principle of legal certainty, which says that administrative acts producing legal effects “should be clear so that the person concerned knows, without ambiguity, his rights and obligations”.
In its decision, Echa had asked the co-registrants of the substance, silicic acid, aluminum sodium salt, for information concerning the identity of the substance - namely its molecular and structural formula and composition.
But co-registrants Evonik Degussa, IQESIL, JM Huber Finland and Rhodia Opérations appealed the decision, arguing that the lack of clarity regarding the terms "forms", "grades" and "nanoforms" meant they could not determine how to comply. They requested the BoA annul the decision.
The board sided with the co-registrants (appellants), saying the terms are not defined in REACH or the available agency guidance and that Echa’s decision failed to clearly define or describe their meaning.
BoA comments
This is the first time the BoA has examined appeals against an Echa compliance check decision that requested further substance identity information from registrants of a nano-structured substance.
Given the agency’s use of the term nanoform, it said the wording of the decision implied Echa first presumed the appellants intended to register the substance both in bulk form and as a nanomaterial, within the meaning of the Commission recommendation.
However, BoA said it should have been clear to Echa, from the chemical safety report, that the appellants did not intend to register the substance in a bulk form. Consequently, requiring further information on nanoforms created uncertainty as to what additional information the appellants were to provide, it said.
“Importantly, the BoA acknowledged that the appellants had described the substance as a nano-structured substance in their registration dossier,” Ruxandra Cana from Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing the appellants, said.
“The board also acknowledged that the guidance on Iuclid 5 does not require companies to submit different information for nanomaterials than would be submitted for non-nanomaterials.”
Echa’s arguments
In its defence, Echa had said the plea, concerning the breach of the principle of legal certainty, must be “rejected as unfounded” as the decision did define the terms "form" and "grade".
The agency argued that for nanomaterials, which are characterised by their size, it is not sufficient to identify a substance based on composition alone. The necessary information to characterise them is not only the composition but also the form, including the size, of the substance as manufactured or imported. “It would therefore be misleading for the decision to refer only to compositions, when addressing nanomaterials.”
The agency said in order to avoid such misunderstandings, the decision referred to grades, which reflects considerations of both the composition and the form.
Echa said the decision refers to nanoforms as specified by Commission recommendation 2011/696/EU on the definition of nanomaterial. It added that the term is commonly used to describe more concisely the nanomaterial form of a bulk substance. Nanoform is implicitly covered by the recommendation and extensively used by the European regulatory community, Echa said.
But the appellants said they have their own understanding of what they consider to be nanomaterials. They had no way of knowing what the agency understands by that term, as there is no single accepted meaning of nano in European legislation.
The BoA annulled the decision and referred the case to Echa’s competent body for re-evaluation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50288/board-of-appeal-annuls-echa-nanomaterials-compliance-check-decision
-
Echa's BoA Dismisses BASF Appeal
Oct 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) has dismissed BASF's appeal against an agency decision. This challenged a request for a pre-natal developmental toxicity study to fulfil information requirements of Annex IX of REACH.
It followed a compliance check of the company's registration dossier for the substance prop-2-yn-1-ol.
BASF claimed that its read-across proposal was not taken into account. In particular, it said Echa had breached REACH Regulation in not considering a dossier update made after the draft decision was referred to the member state competent authorities.
However, the BoA found the agency had complied with procedural requirements. It said Echa had acted correctly in its "assessment and rejection of the read-across proposed by the appellant".
The information demanded by Echa must now be supplied by 13 October 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50250/echas-boa-dismisses-basf-appeal
-
Oct 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
PACT tool
Echa has added 14 substances to its public activities coordination tool (PACT) for risk management option analysis (RMOA) or hazard assessment.
The hazard assessments of 13 are under development. These will be for their endocrine disrupting properties. And Echa says it is appropriate to initiate risk management action on the other substance, ethylenediamine for its sensitising properties.
Testing proposals
The agency has invited third parties to submit scientifically valid information and studies on four testing proposals for two substances:
n-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-4-amine; and
tert-pentyl hydroperoxide.
Vertebrate testing is proposed for both for hazard endpoints of reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity) and sub-chronic toxicity (90-day): oral.
They have a submission deadline of 21 November.
Authorisation consultations
And the agency is to start publishing information on uses and substances that will be covered in upcoming public consultations on authorisation applications.
The agency says it aims to give third parties as much time as possible to prepare their comments.The next consultation will start on 9 November. Further information is available from the agency's website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50214/echa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dooley: US Leaders Should Know EPA Rules, Impact of Possible Changes
Oct 13, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
The next president should review the rules of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to give manufacturing a boost, according to trade groups and industry leaders.
Cheap natural gas is driving a chemical boom in the United States, said American Chemistry Council CEO Cal Dooley at a September conference examining what the next U.S. president should do to strengthen manufacturing, but regulations need to help, not hinder for U.S. manufacturers to see long-term benefits.
Inexpensive natural gas has prompted $170 billion new investment in the United States’ chemical sector, with more than $100 billion coming from foreign direct investment. North American polyethylene producers particularly are seeing huge expansions as a result of newfound supplies of natural gas throughout the region. These affordable supplies have been realized through the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking.
Whichever candidate prevails in November, U.S. manufacturers will be looking for “a legitimate commitment” to continue to access natural resources “in a responsible way” within the first 100 days of the new administration, Dooley said.
“We have a once in a generation opportunity to capitalize on this,” Dooley said. “We need a Congress and an administration that wants to maximize the production of natural gas in the United States. That would send a strong message for a second wave of investments in the industry.”
While fracking was viewed negatively by the general public initially, opposition from local governments has fallen off in recent years and had little impact on natural gas production, particularly as methods have improved and environmental concerns have waned.
The possibility of regulating fracking to the point of over-burdening industry remains very real, experts say. Even the best-intended regulations do not turn out they way they were intended and should be reviewed over their life, not just before they are implemented, said Susan Dudley, director of the George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center and head of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2007 to 2009.
“Not evaluating after the fact would be unheard of in any other sphere,” Dudley said. The next administration should require EPA regulations to be evaluated by a third party, she said, and even then, they must be evaluated on a policy basis, whether current regulations are effective, what their ripple effects are and how outcomes could be improved — not just on science.
“Science doesn’t tell you what the right policy choice is,” she said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161013/NEWS/161019899/dooley-us-leaders-should-know-epa-rules-impact-of-possible-changes
-
Tribes Dig in for Winter as Pipeline Tensions Rise
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The makeshift protesters' village here near the confluence of the Missouri and Cannonball rivers is buzzing.
While the Dakota Access pipeline grinds forward, more than 1,000 opponents at the Sacred Stone Camp delegate daily chores, listen to speakers at the central campfire and plan civil disobedience actions designed to halt the "black snake" that has brought them all together.
"When I first came and saw all the people and just the spirit that the camp had, it was beautiful," said Winona Kasto, a member of the nearby Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, who joined the camp in August. "We were only supposed to be here for a couple days, and I ended up just staying here."
The camp itself has become semipermanent, too. In a field of teepes, tents and trailers, a large Army-green shelter houses the main kitchen. A medic station and several school tents and teepees stand nearby, relying on donated supplies.
Large whiteboards announce the day's activities, volunteer needs and ride-share options. And every afternoon, new campers can attend a workshop on nonviolent protests.
Less than 20 miles away, pipeline workers are on the move. After a federal court last weekend gave Dakota Access the all-clear to continue construction up to the edge of a dammed section of the Missouri River known as Lake Oahe, the company has taken quick action.
The 1,172-mile pipeline, which would move as much as 570,000 barrels a day of oil from North Dakota to Illinois, runs primarily along private land but has sparked massive opposition from tribal advocates who say the Sioux were not adequately consulted, despite the area being their ancestral homeland.
They also say the newly opened section of the pipeline route contains cultural artifacts. On Labor Day weekend, Dakota Access workers began to clear an area near Highway 1806 where a tribal representative said he found evidence of burial grounds just one day earlier.
Protesters walked onto the pipeline right of way and were eventually met with private security forces and guard dogs. The violent altercation launched the protests into the national spotlight, and a week later, the Obama administration intervened to ensure that the pipeline does not cross Lake Oahe until agencies have time to review the impacts.
Building the pipeline
Away from Lake Oahe, construction on the $3.8 billion project has resumed.
Attorneys for Dakota Access said last week the company has faith it will ultimately get the necessary Lake Oahe approval and wants to complete as many other sections as possible in the meantime. Once the final approval is secured, Dakota Access can complete the Lake Oahe section within two months.
Yesterday, at least two backhoes dug into the ground just east of Highway 6, a state road that connects the Bismarck area to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. A long caravan of trucks arrived around noon, carrying bulldozers and other construction equipment.
No protesters were on the scene at the time.
Law enforcement, meanwhile, was abundant. Officers from the Morton County Sheriff's Department and several other counties fanned out along state highways in the area. Some officers from as far away as Wisconsin just arrived this week and said things have been relatively quiet since Monday, when dozens of protesters were arrested near this site.
Dakota Access hasn't made its way back to the contentious Highway 1806 site yet. There, a satellite group of protesters has set up camp to guard the area.
The National Guard is manning at least one "information point" along the highway. Yesterday, armed officers checked in with passing vehicles, asking drivers their destination and warning them to slow down and watch for pedestrians near the Sacred Stone Camp.
Sacred Stone
Back at camp, the protesters are not wavering.
On a brisk but sunny afternoon this week, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe delivered propane tanks to various camp clusters. The group is preparing for winter.
Leaders say the camp has kept steady at about 1,500 people on most days over the past month but swells during weekends and whenever anti-pipeline activity spikes. Some tribal members and allies from across the country come for a week or two at a time and then return later.
Many, like Kasto, are simply staying put.
"I decided to stay and stay until the end," she said. "So I'm here."
Kasto spends her days cooking for the masses — using both donated foods and traditional Sioux foods, including buffalo soup, homemade bread and wojapi, a berry pudding.
And she has no doubt the efforts will pay off.
"We're going to eventually, through our prayers, we're going to overcome this," she said. "But we just have to hang in there and be strong and be there for each other. That's why I want to be here and cook.
Speaking around a campfire yesterday afternoon, Dakota Sioux elder Emmett Eastman urged others to feel the same optimism.
"I think that we can overcome this obstacle that we have here, the black snake, and we can replace it with something more healthful and not so hazardous," he said.
But most importantly, he added, the anti-pipeline movement is a reminder to take pride in their tribal identity.
"I'm not American, I'm Dakota," he said. "And all of you should be proud of that."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/13/stories/1060044194
-
Sanders, Dem Senators Press Obama to Halt ND Pipeline
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of Democratic senators is asking President Obama to halt work on the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline and conduct more thorough cultural and environmental reviews of the project before allowing it to go forward.
In a Thursday letter to Obama, the senators, led by former White House candidate Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.), called the pipeline “a violation of tribal treaty rights,” and said federal regulators didn’t do a thorough enough assessment of its route before approving it.
“We support the tribes along the pipeline route in their fight against the Dakota Access pipeline project,” the senators wrote.
They also tied the project to the Keystone XL pipeline, which last year saw Obama reject its permit request on environmental grounds. The senators said the oil that would travel through Dakota Access would contribute to climate change.
“It is imperative that the [Army] Corps’ permitting process be transparent and include public notice and participation, formal and meaningful tribal consultation, and adequate environmental review. Until that occurs, construction of this project must be halted.”
Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Ed Markey (Mass.) and Ben Cardin (Md.) also signed the letter.
The senators’ message comes days after a federal appeals court allowed construction of the 1,170-mile, $3.8 billion pipeline to move forward, ruling against the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's request to temporarily block the project. The pipeline’s developers said they will undertake a “prompt resumption” of work.
The Army Corps and pipeline developers said they took pains to avoid tribal heritage sites in North Dakota. Another federal judge last month ruled against the tribe and gave his approval to the Army Corps’ permitting process.
Sanders was an early foe of the Dakota Access project, which has become a major issue for anti-fossil-fuel activists and environmentalists in Congress. A group of House Democrats has also asked Obama to stop construction on the project and do another assessment of it.
The White House has so far sidestepped questions on the matter, citing the legal challenges. The Obama administration is conducting an internal assessment of its permitting decisions for the project and is currently withholding an easement required for construction along a segment of the line to move forward.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/300775-sanders-dem-senators-press-obama-to-halt-nd-pipeline
-
Senate Dems Call to Stop Project, Impose Climate 'Test'
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A handful of top Senate Democrats today called on President Obama to immediately halt construction of the $3.78 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline until a deeper review is conducted and subject all "significant" fossil projects to a climate test.
The letter from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I) and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts urges Obama to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to require a full environmental impact statement for a portion of the 1,134-mile Dakota Access pipeline slated to cross Lake Oahe, to include "meaningful tribal consultation."
The Democratic senators, drawing a parallel between the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, also called for a review of all "significant" fossil fuel projects to vet their contributions to climate change, a plea repeatedly made by groups like Bold Alliance, 350.org and Oil Change International.
"All fossil fuels infrastructure projects of this significance must be subjected to a test to consider the long term climate impacts," the senators wrote. "As such, there must be a serious consideration of the full potential climate impacts of this pipeline prior to the Army Corps of Engineers approving any permits or easements for the Dakota Access pipeline."
If built, the line would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Dakotas to Illinois.
The senators also joined their colleagues in the lower chamber in calling for the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline to be stopped in light of a federal appeals court decision that allows developers to move forward despite the need for a deeper review. Last month, 19 House Democrats called on Obama to rescind federal permits for the pipeline and embark on a new environmental review of the project (Greenwire, Sept. 30).
Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, and his colleagues said the administration should go further than simply pausing construction on a portion of the line to require a new, more thorough review and tribal consultations.
"In light of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's request for a temporary halt to construction, the project's current permits should be suspended and all construction stopped until a complete environmental and cultural review has been completed for the entire project," they wrote.
The senators welcomed the administration's decision to halt construction of the Dakota Access pipeline on federal land and under Lake Oahe pending a review of prior decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act and government-to-government consultation with the tribes. "In addition, we appreciate the administration's decision to reassess the way the federal government incorporates tribal concerns regarding permitting decisions more broadly," the senators wrote. "This is a longstanding problem, and these efforts must bring about long overdue, meaningful change."
But, they noted, pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners has vowed to continue building the project.
"We support the tribes along the pipeline route in their fight against the Dakota Access pipeline project," the senators wrote. "It is imperative that the corps' permitting process be transparent and include public notice and participation, formal and meaningful tribal consultation, and adequate environmental review. Until that occurs, construction of this project must be halted."
Climate test
The letter reveals the growing reach of a national, grass-roots campaign to increase scrutiny and pressure Capitol Hill against the spread of oil and gas pipelines, a push sparked by debate surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline.
In calling for a climate "test," the lawmakers aligned themselves with groups like the Bold Alliance, Sierra Club, 350.org and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which laid out theirproposal earlier this year for gauging greenhouse gas emissions tied to each new energy project proposal — be it a pipeline, power plant, compressor station or export terminal.
Doing so, the groups said, would help the United States stay in line with its obligations under the Paris climate agreement, aimed at limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
"In addition to assessing the need for a project or policy in a scenario consistent with international climate goals, decision-makers should evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a project, assess the environmental impact of those emissions and evaluate their effect on national and international efforts to meet long term carbon reduction targets. In assessing the carbon pollution from any proposed project, the government should be able to show how that upward pressure is accounted for in their plan to meet their targets in the medium and long term," the green groups' proposal states.
In the letter, senators cited Oil Change International, an anti-fossil advocacy and research organization, saying the Dakota Access pipeline would add the equivalent in emissions of putting 21.4 million more cars on the road or building an additional 30 new coal plants.
The Democrats' message arrives within days of climate activists shutting down at least four pipelines carrying crude oil from Canada into the United States in a series of coordinated protests (E&ENews PM, Oct. 11).
The Climate Disobedience Center said it targeted all five major oil pipelines across the U.S.-Canada border this week as a protest against the development of the Canadian oil sands and as a show of solidarity with Native Americans and others who are protesting the Dakota Access pipeline.
Industry and union leaders have called on protesters to steer clear of "vandalism and sabotage" and have said companies may need to harden their defenses.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/13/stories/1060044209
-
Pipelines to Protesters: 'Get in the Boat, Let's Row Together'
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The new chairwoman of a Washington, D.C.-based pipeline industry group expressed alarm about attacks on Tuesday against five oil pipelines that cross the Canadian-U.S. border, which activists affiliated with Climate Direct Action targeted in a protest of Canadian oil sands production.
Four of the pipelines were temporarily shut down as a result of the acts, which involved breaking into valve stations and manually shutting down the flow of crude. The fifth pipeline targeted was not in operation at the time of the incident. Those responsible have been charged with offenses including second-degree burglary, criminal sabotage, criminal mischief and trespassing, and could face prison time (EnergyWire, Oct. 12).
"Trespassing and sabotage is not a good idea," Diane Leopold, the president of Dominion Energy and incoming chairwoman of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, said of the incident. "[It's a] very risky move going into locked facilities there," she added, noting that the protesters put themselves and others in danger by tampering with the pipeline and could have caused a spill that damaged the environment.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, Leopold said common ground in the national debates around fossil fuel use will require all sides to set "realistic expectations" as the United States addresses the reliability, cost, safety and environmental issues.
The United States is "in a great debate about what is clean and green, what is safe and right, and what is the true cost of it all," she said. "Standing still as we shout 'no' at each other is not an option."
Leopold said natural gas pipeline facilities are protected by elements like fencing and monitoring, but if the industry is faced with protesters willing to cut wires and break into pipeline facilities, it could need to harden those defenses.
In the bigger picture, she said, the industry and its opponents need to work together better to address their shared concerns.
"If you truly believe there is a climate crisis, if you think our economy could be strangled by bad energy policy, if you are concerned we are on a sinking ship, then you can't stand around arguing about which seat you get in the lifeboat or whether you get to steer," she said. "We are in this together. Get in the boat and let's row together, or get left behind."
On the specifics of how the pipeline group will address those issues under her leadership, Leopold pointed to a list of familiar measures.
INGAA has supported its member companies' participation in various methane emission reduction programs and been active in federal rulemakings about leaks from its infrastructure, Leopold said, and will continue to work on cutting carbon emissions through that route.
She said the process used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit pipelines is "far from a rubber stamp" and generates thousands of pages of documentation that addresses many of the industry's critics' concerns; INGAA can do more to convert that information overload into concise "infographics" and set some protesters' concerns to rest, she said.
And the natural gas industry can continue to share its own "best practices" to expand on an already-strong safety record, Leopold said.
Don Santa, INGAA's president and CEO, noted that for some protesters there is nothing the industry can say or do to win them over. "If you're in the keep it in the ground movement and you're opposed to the production of fossil fuels, no matter how well it's regulated, you won't be satisfied."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/13/stories/1060044190
-
U.S. Veterans Call on Obama Administration to Finalize a Strong Natural Gas Waste Rule Now
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Gen. Donald Edwards
A group of over 200 U.S. service veterans, including two retired generals and the Vet Voice Foundation, sent a petition calling for an end to wasting American energy resources from oil and gas leases on public lands to President Barack Obama, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze.
Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management proposed rules to cut natural gas waste during oil and gas development on our nation’s public lands. Veterans support BLM’s natural gas waste rule because it is critical for our energy security, our economy, climate, communities, and health.
It is simply unconscionable that while we allow oil and gas companies to waste America’s energy resources from taxpayer-owned public lands while we have put our soldier in harm’s way for decades trying to bring stability in the Middle East where we are far too dependent on foreign oil.
Oil and gas companies waste America’s energy resources when methane, the primary component of natural gas, is deliberately vented and flared or through leaks from equipment and infrastructure.
In fact, nearly $330 million dollars’ worth of natural gas is wasted on public and tribal lands each and every year. That’s enough natural gas to meet the heating and cooking needs of over 1.5 million American homes per year – or a city the size of Chicago.
And just last month, NASA found that oil and gas operations were a huge contributor to a methane cloud the size of Delaware over the Four Corners region of the U.S.
What’s more, oil and gas companies aren’t required to pay royalties on the natural gas they burn, leak, or outright release into the air, further robbing individual states of millions of dollars in royalty revenue that would go to local infrastructure projects, public education, and more.
At a time when many states are struggling with budget deficits, oil and gas companies have a moral obligation to ensure that American energy and tax dollars do not, literally, go up in smoke.
Methane is also a dangerous greenhouse gas and has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. As areas of our country are already experiencing devastating weather patterns linked to climate change, reducing natural gas waste and cutting methane pollution is the most important thing we can do now to slow the effects of climate change that we are already experiencing in this country.
Natural waste also poses a public health threat. Other toxic chemicals such as benzene are released which pose a threat to families living near oil and gas operations and to workers. Drilling operations also create ozone-forming pollutants which can trigger asthma attacks and worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema.
The truth is that oil and gas companies are putting short-term profits ahead of America’s energy interests. There are cost-effective technologies exist today to capture methane and reduce leaks, which would only cost pennies on the dollar to implement.
Cutting natural gas waste also creates employment opportunities. The methane mitigation sector is growing, currently employing people in well-paying jobs across 46 states, and reducing natural gas waste has resulted in thousands of jobs across our country.
As American service members, we swore to defend America – including our public lands and energy resources. We cannot stand by and watch companies burn off natural gas, especially when a family down the road cannot afford to heat their homes or pay for electricity. That is unacceptable.
The BLM must adopt their natural gas waste rule now. Every month that goes by means millions of dollars in wasted natural gas and lost royalty revenue. We call on the Obama Administration to protect our energy resources, states, communities, and public.
Major General Donald E. Edwards was Adjutant General of the State of Vermont from 1981 to 1997, served in the Vermont House of Representatives, and is a Vietnam veteran.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/300753-us-veterans-call-on-obama-administration-to-finalize-a
-
U.S. West Coast LNG Exports Problematic Amid Shifting Supply-Demand, Say Experts
Oct 13, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The long stalled -- and final -- proposed U.S. West Coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project was little more than an afterthought at a regional gas conference in Denver Tuesday, where a panel of experts gave their views on the shifting supply-demand balance, which is bolstered by more takeaway capacity to Mexico and via newly opened terminals on the Gulf Coast.
Four panelists, including one from Canada, expressed different views about what was unfolding, but all agreed that the supply-demand picture will be quite different by the end of next year, not to mention the next 10 years, during the LDC Gas Forum Rockies & West conference.
"There will be changes in the direction and what will drive the natural gas market in the next 10 years," said ICF International’s Michael Sloan, a senior economist who sees a fundamental shift in demand growth ahead.
Sloan and his fellow panelists gave varying views on the relevance and chances for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export project at Coos Bay, OR, which potentially could draw heavily from beefed up future U.S. Rockies gas supplies (see Daily GPI, April 19)..
S&P Global Platts energy analyst Thad Walker said the world market for LNG is too oversupplied to support the Jordan Cove project for the foreseeable future. "We don't think the global supplies will balance out until 2020 or 2022, so until you get to that point, it is unlikely that anyone could go forward and make an investment decision on a project like this," he said.
However, Colorado-based Andrew Browning, COO of the Consumer Energy Alliance, said there has been an unprecedented bipartisan support in his state, including the Western Slope gas producers, for the Jordan Cove project.
"I've never seen such a bipartisan effort, including the Western Slope producers, local officials, the governor and Congressional representatives, joining forces and making an all-out effort to mount support in Colorado to help the Jordan Cove project move forward," Browning said.
Sloan said he thinks the timing for the U.S. West Coast LNG exports is at least 10 years out. "I cannot seriously see something like this in today's [global LNG] market," he said.
Meanwhile, in Canada the federal government has approved the multi-billion-dollar Pacific Western LNG project in British Columbia, said Earnscliffe Strategy Group principal Charles Bird, a former Canadian government official. "This is a $11 billion facility that eventually will export 3 Bcf/d of LNG," he said.
The pipelines required to get Western Canada supplies to the export facility require another $7 billion in investment, said Bird. He estimated the full investment in the export project was around $36 billion when exploration/production investments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing over the next 30 years are also included. "There are a lot of details still to be filled in, but essentially this is the course the [Canadian] federal government has committed to.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108081-us-west-coast-lng-exports-problematic-amid-shifting-supply-demand-say-experts
-
Railroad Giants, Regulators Spar Over Watchdog's Oil-by-Rail Findings
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A major rail industry group is calling on the U.S. Department of Transportation to scrap costly braking requirements for oil and ethanol trains, citing new doubts about the empirical basis for the regulations.
Meanwhile, a DOT spokesman yesterday accused freight railroads of favoring a "Civil War-era braking system" to preserve their bottom line.
The dispute surfaced yesterday after a government watchdog picked holes in the analysis behind a sweeping 2015 rule mandating advanced, electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes for certain "high-hazard" flammable trains.
The Government Accountability Office said DOT modeling of the brakes' effectiveness "lacked transparency," noting independent researchers would have trouble replicating DOT's findings.
"In a situation where little real-world information about the benefits of ECP brakes exists, the public may not have reasonable assurance as to DOT's projected safety benefits, limiting confidence in DOT's overall findings," the report concluded.
The ECP requirement was part of a broader rule designed to cut down on a series of devastating oil and ethanol train derailments.
The Association of American Railroads, which represents major crude-by-rail operators such as BNSF Railway Co. and CSX Corp., supported the bulk of DOT's 2015 rail safety rule but took issue with the braking requirements.
"The GAO's conclusions validate the freight rail industry's position that the DOT had negligible data or testing results to justify the mandating of ECP brakes," said Edward Hamberger, AAR president and CEO, in a statement yesterday. "The DOT should withdraw the brake rule and fully implement the GAO's recommendations."
The Department of Transportation offered no indication it would back down from the braking requirements, which wouldn't start to be enforced until at least 2021. The agency also disagreed with GAO's recommendations to publish more information about its modeling techniques and "acknowledge uncertainty in its revised economic analysis of ECP brakes."
Matthew Lehner, a spokesman for the DOT's Federal Railroad Administration, said the requirement for ECP brakes "makes sense."
"These trains are transporting millions and millions of gallons of [hazardous materials] through our small towns and large cities, alongside schools and apartment buildings and college campuses," he said, adding in an emailed statement that "what the industry doesn't like about electronic brakes is the cost."
ECP brakes send an electronic signal across a train's entire consist, instantly applying brakes to all cars.
By contrast, traditional air braking systems transmit the "stop" signal from car to car at the speed of sound, taking several seconds to engage brakes along the whole train during an emergency.
Both industry and DOT models agree that ECP brakes work faster — but the railroads say the safety benefit is marginal, while DOT says ECP brakes could reduce the number of oil tank cars punctured in a derailment by 20 percent.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/13/stories/1060044193
-
Transportation Chief: Agencies Struggling to Implement Safety Technology
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - Transportation
By Melanie Zanona
Transit agencies have struggled to adopt a potentially life-saving train technology because they are often operating on “thin margins,” the head of the Department of Transportation (DOT) said Wednesday.
Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters that he is not satisfied with the rate at which U.S. railroads are implementing Positive Train Control (PTC), which is a system that automatically slows down a train that is going over the speed limit.
But Foxx acknowledged that financial constraints have limited the pace of progress at public transit agencies.
“In the transit agencies, it’s particularly challenging. They’re running their systems at such thin margins that the cost of getting Positive Train Control adopted is significant relative to their budgets,” Foxx said. “That’s not an excuse, that’s just a fact.”
The comments come nearly two weeks after a speeding New Jersey Transit commuter train barreled into the Hoboken station, killing one person and injuring more than 100 others.
Although the cause of the crash is still unknown, the incident has shed a light on the lack of PTC across the nation. The DOT has been pushing for the technology for decades, and President Obama proposed $1.25 billon for PTC in his fiscal 2017 budget request.
Congress originally required all railroads to install the technology by the end of last year, but lawmakers extended the deadline to at least the end of 2018 as railroads struggled to comply with the costly mandate.
The cash-strapped New Jersey Transit has so far made little progress in implementing PTC, while other railroads like Amtrak and BNSF Railway have made far more substantial progress, according to a recent federal report.
The industry predicts that the total cost of implementation could climb to over $10 billion.
Congress has already doled out $650 million in grants since 2008 and provided a $1 billion loan for New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority to implement PTC.
Foxx applauded the recent inclusion of $199 million in PTC grants in a surface highway transportation bill but warned: “We sure need a whole lot more in transit agencies across the country to get it done.”https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/transportation/300684-transportation-chief-public-transit-agencies-face-greater-challenge-in
-
CO2 Released at Lowest Levels in 25 Years
Oct 13, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
The release of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in the first half of this year sank to their lowest level since 1991, the Energy Information Administration said yesterday.
The agency attributed the decline to a warm winter, slumping use of coal-fired electricity, and strong growth in renewable and hydroelectric power. It was the first time in 25 years that emissions during the first six months of any year were that low.
Overall energy use fell 2 percent in the first half of 2016 compared with the same period last year, according to EIA. Coal consumption, in particular, saw steep declines by dropping 18 percent, while natural gas use dipped just 1 percent, versus 2015 rates.
"The decrease was most notable in the residential and electric power sectors," EIA said. Energy use shrank 9 and 3 percent, respectively, in those portions of the economy.
The EIA said the use of renewables rose 9 percent. Nearly half of that increase was due to wind energy, roughly a third from hydroelectricity and more than 10 percent from solar power.
In a separate report released in September, EIA analysts predicted carbon emissions for 2016 will fall to their lowest level since 1992 — three years before the United Nations held the first of its 21 global summits on climate change, called the Conference of the Parties.
The agency's statement is the latest in a series of signals, dating back to 2014, that the world's nations have begun to separate economic growth and carbon emissions.
Historically, emissions and economic growth have moved in lockstep, with greenhouse gases dipping during recessions and climbing during boom times. The International Energy Agency first said two years ago that global energy-sector emissions had declined while the world expanded economically, though critics point out that the measurement excludes emissions from other sources, such as agriculture (ClimateWire, March 17).
"Today's report is another example of the great benefits that come from clean-burning natural gas," Marty Durbin of the American Petroleum Institute said in a statement.
In the run-up to the Paris climate accords and the months after, the trade group has organized a campaign touting the benefits of natural gas (E&E Daily, Jan. 6).
Durbin was the CEO of America's Natural Gas Alliance, an industry association that API took over last year.
In its jobs report issued Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the mining sector held steady in September at about 630,000 workers nationwide. The mining sector, which covers workers in the coal, oil and gas trades, has lost 220,000 jobs since peaking in September 2014.
The BLS stopped tracking "green jobs" in 2013 due to across-the-board cuts to federal spending known as sequestration.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/13/stories/1060044188
-
Ken Bone was Right: Energy Must be a Priority for Next President
Oct 13, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Jonas Monast, Sarah Adair and Kate Konschnik
"What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?"
Like it or not, the next president will need an answer to this question, posed by audience member Ken Bone in the second presidential debate, in the early days of his or her administration.
The electricity sector that powers our country is undergoing its most significant transition since mass electrification. Last year, for the first time ever, the United States generated as much electricity from natural gas as from coal, thanks to the shale gas boom and historically low natural gas prices.
Renewable energy, meanwhile, was the largest source of new capacity and now meets 7 percent of our electricity demand. This dramatic growth of natural gas and renewable power is edging out coal and, in some instances, nuclear power.
Decisions by the next president will shape how the electricity sector responds to these and other changes that carry with them wide-ranging economic and environmental consequences.
Yet energy policy has barely registered as an issue this election cycle despite dramatic differences in the candidates’ platforms.
That's a shame, because a combination of market forces, statutory deadlines, pending lawsuits and open agency rule-makings will force the nation's 45th president to tackle a wide range of energy issues. These decisions could shape the electricity sector for decades to come.
For example, the incoming administration will likely face immediate decisions on the Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. Last month, 10 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the rule. With a decision anticipated by early 2017, the next president must choose from one or more possible courses of action, including whether to implement, amend or withdraw the rule, or to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
If it reaches the Supreme Court, this case could play a starring role in nomination hearings for a ninth justice (Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February 2016 after voting to stay the Clean Power Plan's implementation). The fate of the Clean Power Plan, in turn, may impact our international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the new global Paris agreement, set to take effect next month.
Decisions by the next administration could also change the balance between federal and state power in the electricity sector. So far, states have used their authority over retail electricity markets to influence the fuel mix on the grid and spur technology innovation. That includes requiring utilities to procure renewable energy and meet energy efficiency targets, setting rates for rooftop solar, pricing carbon and initiating pilot projects to test new technologies.
States have also considered subsidizing at-risk coal or nuclear plants. Many of these policies are being challenged in the courts and by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which has expanded its responsibilities to encompass growth of interstate electricity markets that now serve two-thirds of U.S. electricity demand.
Three Supreme Court decisions in the past two years have sought to clarify the boundaries between state and federal action over energy regulation, but tensions between state and federal policies remain. Any resolution of these tensions — likely to emerge through FERC decisions and future court cases — will impact the degree to which states can spur innovation and determine the future of the grid.
These are just a snapshot of the energy policy issues the next president will face in office. In an election focused on the economy, the trajectory of the electricity sector that underpins it deserves a robust debate.
Where are the conversations about natural gas production and consumption, nuclear energy, economic development in coal communities, energy innovation, energy infrastructure development, and energy efficiency incentives and mandates? Voters need a better understanding of the candidates' plans for tackling the inevitable — and consequential — challenges that are certain to arise.
Monast is the C. Boyden Gray Distinguished Fellow, assistant professor and co-director of the Center on Climate, Energy, Environment & Economics at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Adair is a senior policy associate in the Climate and Energy Program at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Konschnik is the founding director of the Harvard Law School's Environmental Policy Initiative.
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/300610-ken-bone-was-right-energy-policy-must-be-priority-for
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested