Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/7/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Webinar Will Cover Latest Recycling Report
Nov 6, 2016 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Here’s a chance to dive deeper in a recently released post consumer plastic bottle recycling report. -
(ACC Mentioned) PG&E Corporation’s (NYSE:PCG) Files An 8-K Reports Third-Quarter 2016 Financial Results
Nov 7, 2016 | Market Exclusive
PG&E Corporation’s (NYSE:PCG) third-quarter 2016 net income after dividends on preferred stock (also called “income available for common shareholders”) was $388 million, or $0.77 per share, as reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). -
(ACC Mentioned) Election Jitters Haven't Derailed The Economy
Nov 5, 2016 | Calafia Beach Pundit (In Seeking Alpha)
The elections are upon us, and the outcome seems more uncertain now than it did before. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Finalizes Flexibility Changes To Hazardous Waste Generator Rule
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has finalized long-awaited revisions to regulations governing hazardous waste generators, providing compliance flexibility for waste shipped from different sites within a single company and for episodic waste generation, as well as easing some requirements that had been included in the proposed version of the rule. -
Six Products to Avoid Whenever Possible
Nov 4, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
By Paige Wolf
I don’t believe in “Always” or “Never,” and certainly not scare-tactic click bait headlines that throw parents into a panic. But as a parent concerned about the cumulative effects of toxic chemicals on my children’s health, I do believe in trying to do better. And, with that, I present the top products I avoid as much as possible. -
Much of US Drinking Water Is of Questionable Quality
Nov 5, 2016 | Live Trading News
By Paul Ebeling
For example, in the US, the Safe Drinking Water Act regulates just 91 contaminants. Meanwhile, more than 80,000 chemicals are used in the US. How many of these chemicals, and at what levels, end up in the water supply is anyone’s guess, no one is testing and measuring these unregulated chemicals in our drinking water. -
Model Carbon Trading Rule Sent to OMB Despite Power Plan Stay
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving ahead with model rules that states could use to establish greenhouse gas emissions trading programs for the electric-power utility sector, even though the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the agency's Clean Power Plan that would reduce carbon emissions. -
EPA Sends Model Carbon-Trading Rules To White House
Nov 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Emily Holden
The Obama administration submitted a recently finalized portion of the Clean Power Plan last night to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review. -
EPA, Advocates Oppose Industry Bid To Sever Oil & Gas Air Rule Lawsuits
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA and environmentalists are opposing the oil and gas industry's bid to sever briefing in its suit over the agency's methane standards for new drilling operations into a case of “fundamental” legal issues to be addressed immediately and “implementation” issues to address later, saying such separation would be inefficient and is unnecessary. -
Carbon Taxes and Economic Growth in Washington State
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Frederick R. Treyz
On Nov. 8, Washington State voters will decide if their state becomes the first in the nation to adopt a carbon tax—a concept long discussed by economists and environmentalists but never attempted in the U.S. -
Can Fracking Bans Succeed in Oil and Gas Country? All Eyes Are on Monterey
Nov 3, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The movement to ban fracking is winning victories across the U.S. Yet the campaign has largely failed to win where it matters most—in places oil and natural gas are produced. -
Magnitude 5.0 Quake Strikes Near Cushing, Oklahoma: USGS
Nov 7, 2016 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 5.0 struck near Cushing, Oklahoma, prompting evacuations, but there were no reports of injuries, authorities said. -
Sierra Club Shifts Focus to Energy Department in LNG Fight
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Sierra Club's fourth and final lawsuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a liquefied natural gas pipeline was denied by a federal court, putting the group's focus on similar legal battles pending with the Energy Department ( Sierra Club v. FERC, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1133, 11/4/16). -
Colonial Delays Restart as Pipe Segment Replaced
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Blewitt
Colonial Pipeline Co. delayed until Nov. 6 the expected restart of the largest U.S. fuel pipeline, which was shut this week by an explosion and fire in Alabama. -
Alaska Exempt From Rule on Oil, Gas Work in National Parks
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Alaska is exempt from a new set of regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas work in national parks. -
Nations Seek Progress at Morocco Climate Talks, After Paris Breakthrough
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Negotiators from nearly 200 nations are arriving at a UN climate change summit for the first time without the specter of years, or even decades, of failed climate deals hanging over their heads. -
North Carolina Addition to Ozone Region to Be Decided in 2017
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
The Environmental Protection Agency will act within a year on a petition to add North Carolina to the Ozone Transport Region as part of a proposed consent decree with the state (van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C., No. 5:16-cv-00138, proposed consent decree filed 11/4/16). -
EPA Eases Ability to Rescind Some Air Pollution Permits
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is easing the ability to rescind some air pollution permits regulators deem no longer necessary as part of a final rule to be published in the Federal Register Nov. 7. -
Industry Coalition Faults EPA 'Regional Consistency' Air Rule
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
A coalition of businesses known as the Air Permitting Forum is outlining the legal attacks it plans to raise in pending litigation over an EPA rule that allows an exception to all of its regions having to adhere to an adverse appellate court ruling against the agency.
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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 Mentioned) Webinar Will Cover Latest Recycling Report
Nov 6, 2016 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Here’s a chance to dive deeper in a recently released post consumer plastic bottle recycling report.
The Association of Plastic Recyclers, one of two trade groups behind the latest numbers, is hosting a webinar at 1 p.m. eastern time Nov. 7 to discuss the new 2015 National Postconsumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Rate Report.
Both APR Executive Director Steve Alexander and Dave Cornell, a technical consultant to the trade group, are scheduled to make comments during the webinar.
The new report is a joint effort between the APR and the American Chemistry Council. The latest results show that post consumer plastic bottle recycling fell slightly in 2015 compared to 2014.
Interested persons can register here.
And the report is here.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161106/NEWS/161109905/webinar-will-cover-latest-recycling-report
-
Nov 7, 2016 | Market Exclusive
PG&E Corporation’s (NYSE:PCG) third-quarter 2016 net income after dividends on preferred stock (also called “income available for common shareholders”) was $388 million, or $0.77 per share, as reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). GAAP earnings for the same period in 2015 were $307 million, or $0.63 per share.
GAAP results include items that management does not consider part of normal, ongoing operations (items impacting comparability), totaling $137 million pre-tax, or $0.17 per share, in the third quarter of 2016. This includes $59 million pre-tax for safety-related expenditures disallowed as part of the San Bruno penalty, $31 million pre-tax for work to clear pipeline rights-of-way, $23 million pre-tax for legal and regulatory costs related to natural gas matters and regulatory communications, $16 million pre-tax for expenses related to the Butte fire, $4 million pre-tax for fines associated with the federal criminal trial and the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) gas distribution record-keeping investigation, and $4 million pre-tax for disallowances imposed by the CPUC in connection with prohibited ex-parte communications.
“Results for the third quarter reflect PG&E’s solid operating performance and strong capital investment program. Looking ahead, we continue to see significant growth and investment opportunities in support of our commitment to deliver safe, reliable, affordable and clean energy for customers,” said PG&E Corporation Chairman and CEO Tony Earley.
Among the company’s operational highlights from the third quarter, PG&E:
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Became the nation’s first energy provider to earn the American Chemistry Council’s RC14001® management system standard for process safety.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Replaced more than 100 poles and over 10 miles of conductor to restore power to customers impacted by the Clayton wildfire, which destroyed hundreds of structures in Lake County.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Completed PG&E’s largest liquefied natural gas/compressed natural gas project to date in support of pipeline safety upgrades and strength testing in California’s North Valley.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Announced the launch of new technology demonstration projects with General Electric, Solar City and others to advance integration of distributed energy resources, such as solar and battery storage.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Inspected its one millionth gas line using the highly advanced Picarro methane detection technology.
Earnings from Operations
On a non-GAAP basis, excluding items impacting comparability, PG&E Corporation’s earnings from operations for the third quarter of 2016 were $471 million, or $0.94 per share, compared with $412 million, or $0.84 per share, during the same period in 2015. The difference in quarter-over-quarter earnings from operations reflected additional authorized revenue collected through rates as a result of the final phase one decision in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 2015 Gas Transmission and Storage (GT&S) rate case and higher rate base earnings. These increases were partially offset by certain timing-related tax expenses.
Earnings Guidance
PG&E Corporation is adjusting its previously issued guidance for projected 2016 GAAP earnings to the range of $2.79 to $3.05 per share and is maintaining previously issued guidance for projected non-GAAP earnings from operations in the range of $3.65 to $3.85 per share.
PG&E Corporation is providing 2017 guidance for projected GAAP earnings in the range of $3.51 to $3.80 per share, which includes forecasts for the revenue true-up authorized in the 2015 GT&S rate case, pipeline-related costs, legal and regulatory expenses, penalties imposed by the CPUC, as well as other items. On a non-GAAP basis, the guidance range for projected 2017 earnings from operations is $3.55 to $3.75 per share.
Guidance is based on various assumptions and forecasts, including those relating to authorized revenues, future expenses, capital expenditures, rate base, equity issuances, and certain other factors. PG&E Corporation discloses historical financial results and provides guidance based on “earnings from operations” in order to provide a measure that allows investors to compare the underlying financial performance of the business from one period to another, exclusive of items impacting comparability. See the accompanying tables for a reconciliation of earnings from operations to consolidated income available for common shareholders for the third quarter of 2016 and for 2016 and 2017 earnings guidance.
Supplemental Financial Information
In addition to the financial information accompanying this release, presentation slides for today’s conference call with the financial community have been furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission and are available on PG&E Corporation’s website at: http://investor.pgecorp.com/financials/quarterly-earnings-reports/default.aspx.
Conference Call with the Financial Community to Discuss Financial Results
Today’s call at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time, is open to the public on a listen-only basis via webcast. Please visit http://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/events-and-presentations/default.aspx for more information and instructions for accessing the webcast. The webcast call and the related materials will be available for replay through the website for at least one year. Alternatively, a toll-free replay of the conference call may be accessed shortly after the live call through November 18, 2016, by dialing (866) 415-9493. International callers may dial (205) 289-3247. For both domestic and international callers, the confirmation code 1659# will be required to access the replay.
About PG&E Corporation
PG&E Corporation (NYSE:PCG) is a Fortune 200 energy-based holding company, headquartered in San Francisco. It is the parent company of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, an energy company that serves 16 million Californians across a 70,000 square-mile service area in Northern and Central California. For more information, visit http://www.pgecorp.com.
https://marketexclusive.com/pge-corporations-nysepcg-files-8-k-reports-third-quarter-2016-financial-results/36164/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Election Jitters Haven't Derailed The Economy
Nov 5, 2016 | Calafia Beach Pundit (In Seeking Alpha)
The elections are upon us, and the outcome seems more uncertain now than it did before. Half the electorate believes Clinton is a chronic liar and deeply corrupt; if she wins, she will almost certainly face more scandals, a potential prosecution for felony offenses, and possibly impeachment. The other half is appalled that someone as uncouth and unpredictable as Trump should have access to immense power. Whichever one wins, he or she will face an uphill battle to impose an agenda. I think Trump would be more likely to change policies for the better (with the notable exception of trade), whereas Hillary's agenda would be uniformly negative. Under Hillary, the economy would very likely continue to limp along; under Trump, there is a reasonable chance the economy could strengthen. I'm not a fan of either, but I'll take my chances with Trump.
Putting that all aside, the latest readings on the economy show no signs of emerging weakness or budding strength, in spite of all the worries. It's steady and slow as she goes. To me, it's an economy that is half full rather than half empty; there is plenty of upside potential waiting to be unlocked by whomever has the right keys (i.e., pro-growth policies). Here are some recently updated charts which tell the tale:
As the election approaches, markets have become more nervous, and stock prices have fallen. Given the great degree of uncertainty that surrounds the election outcome - and the outlook for future policy shifts - it's amazing the market hasn't dropped even further. I take this as a sign that the market has been skeptical all along.
Confidence has been slowly rising from unprecedented lows throughout the current recovery, but it is still far below levels that might be termed enthusiastic. As the chart above shows, the current level of confidence is only slightly above its long-term average.
Trade has been one of the economy's most persistent soft spots for years, after experiencing explosive growth in prior decades. The latest September figures show an encouraging increase in both exports and imports.
Industrial commodity prices are up almost 20% since late last year, in spite of a modestly stronger dollar (they usually move in opposite directions). That is a good indication that global economic activity has perked up somewhat.
The American Chemistry Council's index of chemical activity is up 4.5% in the past year, and at the very least, this rules out any weakening in the economy's fundamentals.
The pickup in chemical activity suggests that industrial production is likely to pick up as well in coming months, as the chart above illustrates.
The ISM service sector indices suggest that the economy continues to experience moderate growth. It's encouraging to see a bit of a pickup in the service sector of the Eurozone.
Productivity continues to be weak, and this reflects a dearth of business investment; this has been and continues to be the economy's biggest problem since 2009.
Private sector jobs growth is poking along at just over 1.5% per year. With productivity running around 0.5%, this suggests the economy remains on a 2% growth trajectory.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4020008-election-jitters-derailed-economy
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Finalizes Flexibility Changes To Hazardous Waste Generator Rule
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has finalized long-awaited revisions to regulations governing hazardous waste generators, providing compliance flexibility for waste shipped from different sites within a single company and for episodic waste generation, as well as easing some requirements that had been included in the proposed version of the rule.
The agency Nov. 3 posted on its website the final Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, which Administrator Gina McCarthy signed Oct. 28. EPA plans to publish the rule soon in the Federal Register.
In a fact sheet on the rule, the agency says EPA has made more than 60 revisions to the generator regulations. The final rule provides a "much-needed update to the hazardous waste generator regulations to make the rules easier to understand, facilitate better compliance, provide greater flexibility in how hazardous waste is managed, and close important gaps in the regulations," according to a rule summary.
"The new rule directly responds to feedback from our regulated community, states, communities, and other stakeholders and represents a significant investment in evaluating and addressing the challenges in the hazardous waste generator program," EPA says in the fact sheet. EPA received more than 200 comments on the draft rule.
EPA is also touting its decision to reorganize the regulations so they will generally be found in one place in the Code of Federal Regulations. The agency recognized a need to improve the user-friendliness of the regulations as the most common response from stakeholders responding to a 2004 program evaluation of the generator program, it says in a frequently asked questions document on the rule.
While the rule applies to a wide variety of sectors, the agency has cited the revisions as a first step in its new strategyto address the retail sector’s concerns over the ill fit between federal waste rules, which were developed for the manufacturing sector, and retail waste.
Two key measures in the rule to give generators flexibility in complying with hazardous waste requirements address very small quantity generators (VSQGs) -- formerly known as conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) -- and the occasional generation of large amounts of waste.
If VSQGs generate 100 kilograms or less of hazardous waste on a monthly basis, they can send their waste to a large quantity generator (LQG) for consolidation under the control of the same company, the Frequent Questions document says. And companies can maintain their smaller generator status even if they have an episodic generation of waste that exceeds the small quantity limits in a month, the rule says.
Regulatory Changes
EPA, however, has eased back on a measure dealing with recordkeeping for non-hazardous waste determinations that drew concerns from industry parties in comments on the proposed rule. Retail groups argued in written comments last year that EPA lacks the legal authority to require such recordkeeping and disputed EPA claims of minimal costs stemming from the proposal. “[T]he costs to the retail industry alone could very well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the first year alone," the retailers said.
EPA in the final rule maintains it has that authority but is not using that authority here. Nonetheless, it says in the rule it "supports this non-hazardous waste determination recordkeeping practice by industry and recommends it as a best management practice."
Also in response to public comments, EPA removed a provision mandating that generators label containers and tanks of hazardous waste with a description of the container contents. Instead, the container must say "Hazardous Waste," describe hazards of the container and provide the date of initial accumulation, EPA says in the Frequent Questions document.
Further, EPA extended the time frame for an episodic event from 45 days to 60 days. And it revised the time frame for small quantity generators' (SQGs) re-notifications -- moving them to every four years starting in 2021, EPA says.
Industry groups representing the paper, chemical and other sectors were critical of various facets of EPA's proposed rule, although they generally expressed support for EPA's objective to clarify and consolidate requirements for hazardous waste generators. However, they warned that the proposed changes could turn into an "improper enforcement assault" and would increase industry's regulatory burden.
A host of industry groups calling themselves Industrial Generators commented last year that the agency was using the proposed rule to "impose new burdensome requirements on hazardous waste generators.”
"Unfortunately, in this proposed rule, EPA would expand and extend the generator rules in many significant ways without fully considering the cumulative burden that will be placed on generators from these additional rules," the groups, which included the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, The Fertilizer Institute and others, said in their comments.
Emergency Planning
While EPA made some revisions in response to concerns, it also maintained other aspects of the proposal. For instance, industry parties also took issue with EPA's proposal that hazardous waste determinations be made at the initial point of generation -- but the agency in the final rule maintains that as a requirement.
The proposal also drew requests from environmentalists to tighten the rule, in particular calling on EPA to strengthen requirements that apply to CESQGs. The Sierra Club had asked the agency to "revoke unlawful and arbitrary provisions allowing CESQGs to treat, store, or dispose of their hazardous wastes at non-hazardous waste sites," arguing such allowances circumvent Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) and Clean Air Act rules.
In addition to adopting what EPA says are flexibilities to the regulations, the agency in the final version also updates emergency response and contingency planning provisions for SQGs and LQGs "to include Local Emergency Planning Committees . . . among those emergency planning organizations with which a generator may make response arrangements and to require that new and existing LQGs submit quick reference guides with key information when they either develop or update their contingency plans to local responders for easy access during an event," the fact sheet says.
The rule also clarifies "inconsistent guidance on which generator category applies when a generator generates both acute and non-acute hazardous waste in a calendar month," the fact sheet says.
Further, the rule makes technical corrections, "[c]orrecting inadvertent errors in the regulations, obsolete programs, and unclear citations," the fact sheet says.
EPA decided to undertake revisions to the generator regulations after problems were identified in 2004 and 2013 EPA evaluations of the hazardous waste generator program. The revisions also seek to address responses to a 2014 notice of data availability that EPA issued on the retail sector asking for comment on hazardous waste management practices in that sector and on challenges they face in complying with RCRA.
The rule will become effective six months from its publication.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-finalizes-flexibility-changes-hazardous-waste-generator-rule
-
Six Products to Avoid Whenever Possible
Nov 4, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
By Paige Wolf
I don’t believe in “Always” or “Never,” and certainly not scare-tactic click bait headlines that throw parents into a panic. But as a parent concerned about the cumulative effects of toxic chemicals on my children’s health, I do believe in trying to do better. And, with that, I present the top products I avoid as much as possible.
1. Canned Food laden with BPA: In addition to preservatives and an often low level of food quality, canned foods are worrisome due to the inside plastic coating. Many of these coatings contain BPA, an endocrine-disrupting chemical. Some companies are eliminating BPA from their cans, but most are not transparent about what they are replacing it with. A recent study found many companies are replacing BPA with clearly regrettable substitutes like PVC. Canned tomatoes are particularly troublesome due to their acidity, but fortunately there are a few brands offering organic tomatoes in jars. Canned foods are useful in a pinch, and I can’t seem to get my kids off store-bought “Elmo soup,” but try to avoid cans as much as you can. If you use a can, look for those that are “BPA-free” and ask the company what they’re using instead.
2. Artificial Scents: If whoever created the earth did not create that scent you should probably avoid it. Scented air fresheners, deodorizers, and artificially scented candles, perfumes, and body products are often loaded with phthalates, a chemical linked to various health issues. They also adversely affect those around you who may have fragrance sensitivities (cough, cough).
3. PVC/vinyl Shower Curtains: Those cheap plastic shower curtains reek of chemicals for a reason. Stay away from anything with that “fresh plastic” smell, like a new shower curtain, a likely sign of phthalates. One study found vinyl shower curtains can release over 100 VOC’s into indoor air. PVC Blow up beach balls and swimmies are also hard to avoid, so at least keep them outdoors.
4. Squishy Toys from Cereal Boxes: You know those spiders that you throw at the wall and they crawl down? Basically a phthalate with eight legs.
5. Harsh Cleaning Products: Bleach, ammonia, and harsh cleaning products are linked to respiratory and other health issues. These are easily replaced with safer store bought cleaners and homemade miracle workers like white vinegar and baking soda. Look for those that have been certified by EPA’s Safer Choice program, especially those that are “fragrance-free”.
6. Non-Stick Stuff: If you registered for your wedding gifts in the past 50 years, you probably have a few non-stick metal pans coated with a synthetic polymer commonly known as Teflon. There is peer-reviewed research—as well as sad anecdotal evidence—that the toxic fumes from the Teflon chemical released from pots and pans at high temperatures are actually notorious for killing pet birds. Additionally, studies link chemicals in the Teflon family with various adverse health and environmental effects. Avoid anything labeled as “non-stick” or “stain repellent.” Learn how to season a cast iron pan with cooking oil and remove stains with baking soda instead.
Contrary to the misleading idea that greener and healthier living can be a hassle, each of these tips is relatively simple and cost-effective. In fact, a few of these can actually save money! Start by trying to eliminate or minimize these items one by one, and you can make a big difference.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/11/04/six-products-to-avoid-whenever-possible/
-
Much of US Drinking Water Is of Questionable Quality
Nov 5, 2016 | Live Trading News
By Paul Ebeling
It’s difficult to get a complete overview of the severity of water pollution.
For example, in the US, the Safe Drinking Water Act regulates just 91 contaminants. Meanwhile, more than 80,000 chemicals are used in the US. How many of these chemicals, and at what levels, end up in the water supply is anyone’s guess, no one is testing and measuring these unregulated chemicals in our drinking water.
What little we do know suggests the situation is dire.
Tests show drinking water in the US contains potentially unsafe levels of many different contaminants. Some of the contaminants that have started gaining more widespread attention include but are not limited to:
• Polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs). According to a recent Harvard study, 16.5-M Americans have detectable levels of at least 1 kind of PFAS in their drinking water, and 75% of the samples with elevated PFAS came from 13 states: California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Arizona, Massachusetts and Illinois.
• Lead. More than 18-M Americans receive drinking water from water treatment facilities that have violated federal drinking water rules for lead. And, in 9 out of 10 cases, the EPA has taken no enforcement action against the violators. Many water treatment facilities have also been caught using incorrect testing methods to avoid detecting high levels of lead.
This means the number of Americans drinking lead-contaminated water may be higher than suspected.
For example, a recent review of the testing done in 1,500 New York City school buildings revealed strategies were employed to artificially lower the lead levels in the water for the tests. So, while officials told parents the water is safe to drink, the reality may be that students are ingesting unsafe levels of lead.
• Perchlorate. An estimated 16-M Americans also have perchlorate, a chemical used in explosives and rocket fuel in their drinking water.
• Pharmaceutical drugs. There is no drinking water standard for drugs in the US, and typical water treatment methods are not designed to filter them out. Depending on the method used, anywhere from 10 to more than 80 of the drugs in the water fail to be removed during treatment.
In 1 Y 2015 investigation (see video below) concluded at least 41% Americans in 24 major cities are drinking water contaminated with a wide range of drugs, including painkillers, hormones, antidepressants, antibiotics, cholesterol drugs and several dozens more.
• Atrazine. According to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 75% of the US population has detectable levels of pesticides in their urine, and unless you are a farmer, your diet and drinking water are 2 of the most likely routes of exposure.
The EPA’s risk assessment for atrazine found the chemical can cause reproductive harm to mammals, fish and birds, with the level of concern already surpassed by nearly 200X using real-world scenarios for mammals.
Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in US waters, so be sure to always filter your tap water both for drinking and bathing, with a filter certified to remove it.
According to a Frontline report, killer whales are dying at an alarming rate, and tests have reveled high levels of PCBs in the deceased animals.
PCBs have also been linked to fertility, reproductive and endocrine damage along with neurological effects, including damage to learning and memory.
Even though PCBs have been banned in the US for decades, these chemicals are extremely persistent in the environment.
Frontline discusses Boeing’s (NYSE:BA) involvement in the PCB pollution problem, and how Boeing has been playing the blame game of who’s responsible for cleaning up the contamination.
Today, the focus is primarily on Monsanto (NYSE:MON).
Various lawsuits by individuals and municipalities are now trying to hold Monsanto accountable for PCBs’ widespread pollution.
For example, Seattle filed a lawsuit against Monsanto for PCB pollution. They want Monsanto to pay to help to clean up pollution it caused in the Duwamish River and also wants to hold Monsanto responsible for making the river’s fish too contaminated to eat. The city alleges that Monsanto knew all along that PCBs were toxic but continued to market them anyway.
In an obvious effort to aid Monsanto, the US House of Representatives slipped a clause into the proposed update to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Once reformed, “The Act” will determine how the chemical industry is regulated, including which chemicals are allowed and who can sue over any related problems. But, the inserted clause actually shields the company from legal liability related to PCBs.
Sadly, our choices are limited when it comes to avoiding certain water contaminants, especially if they’re unregulated, such as pharmaceuticals.
Others, such as microbeads, are simply difficult to filter out. To be certain you are getting the purest water you can, filter the water both at the point of entry and at the point of use.
The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute recommends using granulated activated carbon “or an equally efficient technology.”
Filtering your water is your best immediate option.
Ultimately, we really must address the issue of pollution on a much larger scale. We need much stronger regulations, but it seems that in order to get that, we must 1st break the industrial stronghold on politics.
The agricultural and meat lobbies in the US are just as efficient and powerful as the chemical lobby when it comes to their political and regulatory influence, and they are opposing efforts that would make them accountable for the toxic waste and pollution they create during the course of their business. There are no simple answers to these problem, but it is certainly an issue that must be faced and addressed.
Eat healthy, Be healthy, Live Lively
http://www.livetradingnews.com/much-us-drinking-water-questionable-quality-20489.html#.WCBTPi196M8
-
Model Carbon Trading Rule Sent to OMB Despite Power Plan Stay
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving ahead with model rules that states could use to establish greenhouse gas emissions trading programs for the electric-power utility sector, even though the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the agency's Clean Power Plan that would reduce carbon emissions.
The final model trading rules, submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review Nov. 3, are consistent with the Supreme Court's stay of the greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants, according to the EPA's most recent regulatory agenda. The OMB review is typically the final step before a final regulation is released to the public.
Issuance of the model training rules (RIN:2060-AS47) would aid states, tribes and utilities who are voluntarily moving forward with actions to curb power sector emissions and ensure that those entities are prepared if the stay is lifted and the Clean Power Plan goes into effect, the EPA said.
“This action would offer states model trading rules that they could follow in developing their own plans in order to capitalize on the flexibility built into the final emission guidelines,” the agency said.
The Supreme Court halted implementation of the Clean Power Plan in February pending resolution of litigation brought by states and industry organizations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September heard oral arguments in the litigation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052741&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052741&jd=100052741
-
EPA Sends Model Carbon-Trading Rules To White House
Nov 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Emily Holden
The Obama administration submitted a recently finalized portion of the Clean Power Plan last night to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review.
The move will likely spur complaints from opponents of the climate regulation that U.S. EPA is violating a Supreme Court order from February halting implementation of the rule.
EPA cannot require states to plan for the rule, which would not begin until at least 2022. But the agency argues it can continue work, including finishing model carbon-trading rules that would serve as a federal plan for states that don't write their own.
"Many states have asked EPA to move forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and developing tools related to the Clean Power Plan, including the model trading rules and Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP)," said EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison in an emailed statement. "We are developing these tools in a way that is consistent with the Supreme Court's stay of the Clean Power Plan."
Harrison added that "even for states that are choosing not to act during the period of the stay, these tools will assist their decisions regarding options for plan development when the stay is lifted."
Bill Becker, who heads the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents states that must implement the rule, said those still planning "welcome the technical and legal support."
EPA accepted comments on the separate incentive program this week, prompting coal company and litigant Murray Energy Corp. to call the continued work illegal.
"While Murray Energy was successful in obtaining a Nationwide stay from the Supreme Court, the Obama EPA has continued to flout the law and the Supreme Court, and continue to implement their illegal agenda," the company said in official comments for the Federal Register. "It is deeply offensive to the Supreme Court, to the employees of Murray Energy and their families, and to the people of the United States of America to see the Obama EPA continue to promulgate this illegal CPP Incentive Program without any legal authority."
Murray argues that when the Supreme Court granted the stay, it simultaneously agreed to all the requests of the petitioners that EPA stop working on the rule. EPA has countered that that's not true and that a stay is not as strong as an injunction.
Legal challengers will probably have the same reaction to EPA's work on the model trading rules, although states have said they would be helpful in their thinking about how to comply with the power-sector carbon standards if the Clean Power Plan moves forward.
Almost all states and electric utilities would like to use carbon trading under the rule. In a carbon-trading system, a company that falls short of its standards could purchase allowance from companies that cut more carbon than they need to in order to comply. Carbon trading is likely the simplest and least expensive way to meet the rule's goals, according to modeling.
EPA explained the model trading rules "provide a pathway to adopt a trading system supported by EPA and make it easy for states and power plants to use emissions trading."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/04/stories/1060045308
-
EPA, Advocates Oppose Industry Bid To Sever Oil & Gas Air Rule Lawsuits
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA and environmentalists are opposing the oil and gas industry's bid to sever briefing in its suit over the agency's methane standards for new drilling operations into a case of “fundamental” legal issues to be addressed immediately and “implementation” issues to address later, saying such separation would be inefficient and is unnecessary.
Justice Department (DOJ) attorneys on EPA's behalf in a Nov. 3 response say federal policy goes against “piecemeal litigation of appeals,” to avoid unnecessary delays and to promote judicial efficiency, citing a 1999 Supreme Court ruling, Cunningham v. Hamilton County. “Those considerations are fully applicable here, as bifurcation would substantially delay the final resolution of these petitions for review by requiring two full rounds of briefing and oral argument in proceedings involving challenges to the same agency rule,” DOJ says.
Similarly, a coalition of environmental groups in a separate Nov. 3 response say “Petitioners provide no compelling rationale to bifurcate the briefing along the artificial lines they propose -- an approach that is unworkable and, far from creating efficiencies, would likely substantially increase the time it takes for this Court to review” the rules.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), several states and others are suing EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case State of North Dakota, et al., v. EPA.
They are challenging EPA's 2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) that imposed first-time limits on emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from the oil and gas sector.
State and industry petitioners filed an Oct. 21 motion with the court asking it to bifurcate the suit into one immediate case on the fundamental legal issues and another on the implementation issues. Industry petitioners also asked the court to hold in abeyance the implementation-based issues until after the groups have had time to discuss potential settlement measures on those issues.
'Two Bites At The Apple'
While DOJ is not opposing the petitioners' request to consolidate the suit with another challenge pending in the D.C. Circuit to the agency's 2012 NSPS for the oil and gas sector, it says in the brief that many of the petitioners' “implementation-based issues” go to core aspects of the June 3 rule. As such, dividing the cases would prolong regulatory uncertainty and give industry “two bites at the apple.”
For example, DOJ says that the industry group GPA Midstream Association raises not only “fundamental” legal issues but “has indicated that it intends to challenge aspects of the Rule ranging from the definition of key terms that define the sources to which standards apply (e.g., 'affected facility,' 'fugitive emissions component' and 'compressors'), to whether the Rule is cost effective or unduly burdensome, to notice-and-comment issues.”
Moreover, the issues raised by the petitioners cannot be cleanly divided into “fundamental legal” and “implementation based issues,” the response says.
The “line Petitioners have attempted to draw between their two categories of issues appears to be entirely arbitrary -- or perhaps drawn based on which issues Petitioners want to brief in the short term,” DOJ argues.
Environmentalists' response makes similar points in urging the D.C. Circuit to reject the request to bifurcate the case, according to the filing from the coalition that includes the Clean Air Council, Earthworks, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island and the city of Chicago.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advocates-oppose-industry-bid-sever-oil-gas-air-rule-lawsuits
-
Carbon Taxes and Economic Growth in Washington State
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Frederick R. Treyz
Dr. Frederick R. Treyz is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Economist at Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). Dr. Treyz is one of REMI's original owners, and has led the company for more than a decade. He joined REMI in 1995 and was named CEO in 2000. He holds a B.A. in Economics from Princeton University and a Ph.D. in Regional Science from the University of Pennsylvania.
Chris Brown, Manager of Business Development at REMI, and Brian Boyd, a REMI associate, contributed to this article.
Nov. 4 — On Nov. 8, Washington State voters will decide if their state becomes the first in the nation to adopt a carbon tax—a concept long discussed by economists and environmentalists but never attempted in the U.S.
The proposal, Initiative 732, would impose a tax on carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels, while cutting the sales tax by 1 percentage point, reducing taxes on manufacturing, and increasing a low-income exemption. The plan is another sign of growing interest in the carbon tax as an alternative to regulations.
In 2013, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) worked on behalf of a pro-carbon tax group, Washington Environmental Tax Reform (ETR-WA), to develop several simulations related to different levels of a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the state and to produce a report on our findings.
Our firm develops economic modeling software and provides consulting services. We take no position on the ballot initiative, but we are familiar with the complex issue of carbon taxes. We have assisted in the analysis of proposals in Massachusetts and Vermont, and we also studied the issue on the national level for the nonprofit Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
ETR-WA asked us to find ways to use the revenue from the carbon tax to get the most economic growth. They gave us wide latitude in developing scenarios to simulate, but they specifically wanted to help protect manufacturing and low-income families.
Methodology and Findings
In our study, we made the point of helping manufacturing by lowering the business and occupation (B&O) tax and providing relief to low-income households through the Working Family tax credit. These elements have informed the proposal being considered by Washington voters.
We assessed a possible tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels and electricity—the scenarios included a fee at $10 per metric ton, $30 per ton, $50 per ton, and $100 per ton, phased in at $5 a year. To offset the tax, we reduced the B&O and sales taxes and increased the low-income household rebate. In total, these offsets are equal to the new revenue.
Our findings show the following results for Washington depending on the particular scenario:
• By 2022, the state could gain approximately 5,000 to 20,000 jobs and approximately $250 million to $1 billion (2013 dollars) in economic output, when compared to baseline.
• By 2035, the state could gain approximately 5,000 to 40,000 jobs and approximately $250 million to $2.75 billion (2013 dollars), when compared to baseline.
Generally, all things else being equal, one would expect a tax to increase prices and dampen economic growth. Revenue-neutral carbon taxes, on the other hand, present intriguing economic questions. There are two sides of these proposals—the tax increases costs for consumers and businesses, but they are fully or partially offset by cuts to other taxes or rebates.A Tax With Moving Parts
Revenue-neutral carbon taxes are complicated policy measures with several moving parts. We used our economic model to account for both the increased costs and the “recycling” of proceeds back into the private sector. Our research suggests that matching the new tax with cuts to other taxes or a rebate can offset job losses from higher costs of energy.
So what matters most is how you handle the proceeds. In a revenue-neutral scenario, you are returning money to households that can go to other expenses.
Carbon taxes can affect regions differently, depending on the underlying industry base. For states that have a large industrial base built around fossil fuels or have energy-intensive sectors, there can be net losses in both jobs and value added.
Industries that benefit directly from household spending—such as health care, retail, and housing—stand to gain the most, since consumers are able to spend their refund on those sectors. At the same time, a carbon tax can reduce output in the capital-intensive fossil fuel extraction, pipeline, and refinery industries. Since labor-intensive sectors such as health care benefit, though, on balance, the employment picture ends up being positive.
Supporters argue the carbon tax is a more efficient than imposing regulations, because it would harness market forces rather than create new layers for rules. By placing a price on carbon, a tax would account for the social cost, and send a signal that encourages companies and households to reduce their carbon emissions. The tax would provide industries with incentive to innovate and find new ways to protect the environment.
If designed correctly, a revenue-neutral carbon tax may also benefit the economy by redirecting the proceeds into other types of consumption and by offsetting costs with other tax reductions.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052739&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052739&jd=100052739
-
Can Fracking Bans Succeed in Oil and Gas Country? All Eyes Are on Monterey
Nov 3, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
SALINAS, Calif.—The movement to ban fracking is winning victories across the U.S. Yet the campaign has largely failed to win where it matters most—in places oil and natural gas are produced.
A Nov. 8 ballot measure will test that pattern in Monterey County, famed for its farms and scenic coastline.
Two counties bordering Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz, have banned fracking, although neither has a sizable oil industry. Monterey’s San Ardo oil field has been churning out crude for nearly 70 years, and the county has no ban.
Measure Z, an initiative on Monterey County’s ballot, seeks to ban fracking and new wells, and to restrict how oil companies use water byproducts.
The measure is being closely watched by national groups on both sides. Its supporters have received donations and other help from national environmental groups. Monterey County for Energy Independence, which opposes it, has outspent backers roughly 30 to 1, according to election filings through Oct. 22, spending nearly $5.5 million; it is funded almost entirely by Chevron Corp. and Aera Energy LLC, a joint venture between Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC..
The fight has reached an intense pitch in Monterey County, home to activists in both the environmental movement and oil industry. It divides along what locals call the “lettuce curtain.”
On one side are inland farm regions, with fields ranging from lettuce to wine grapes, where voters tend to be politically more conservative and to oppose Measure Z. On the other are residents living nearer the coast, often liberal-leaning politically, who tend to favor the ban.
Public opinion is increasingly turning against hydraulic fracturing, in which water and sand laced with chemicals are injected underground to unlock oil and natural gas, along with other extraction techniques. A March Gallup poll found 51% of Americans opposed fracking, up 11 points from a survey a year earlier.
Of hundreds of anti-fracking and similar measures across the country, almost all are where there is little or no oil or gas production. New York banned fracking in 2014 but doesn’t have a sizable oil industry, though that move did head off any potential growth of the sector there. Vermont banned fracking in 2012 but has no commercial natural gas or oil resources.
Where fossil fuels are produced in any significant quantity by any method, such measures have generally failed. In Colorado, activists couldn't gather enough signatures to get two anti-fracking measures on the ballot this year. Voters in Denton, Texas, passed a binding measure against fracking, but the state quickly passed a law banning local bans.
Among the legally binding bans passed in Pennsylvania over the past few years, none are in areas where companies are producing in the Marcellus Shale natural-gas formation in any large quantity, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of government data of active wells and a tally of bans compiled by anti-fracking group Food and Water Watch.
Monterey County has a storied place on the American landscape, with Big Sur’s cliff-side Highway 1, acres of green fields that inspired John Steinbeck and the 1967 Monterey Pop festival featuring the likes of Jimi Hendrix.
It is also California’s 4th-largest oil-producing county, although there are currently no fracking operations in the county. Chevron and Aera dominate production that totaled nearly 22,000 barrels a day in March.
Measure Z would shut down Monterey’s oil production, industry officials said, by barring not just fracking but also new oil or gas wells and by requiring companies to stop using wells and ponds to dispose of water produced from underground as a drilling byproduct.
“Measure Z bans oil production in the county because it does not leave any way to manage the produced water,” said Dallas Tubbs, a Chevron engineer, speaking at the San Ardo field.
Aera referred inquiries to the opposition group it co-funds, whose spokeswoman, Karen Hanretty, said the measure if passed would likely be overturned in court.
The Monterey debate centers on how oil companies handle water they pull up. Chevron recycles one-third of its water. That process, called reverse osmosis, yields a liquid called brine consisting of a high concentration of naturally occurring minerals that must be disposed.
Measure Z’s backers say drillers should be required to treat and recycle all of it rather than inject it back underground. They worry that water reinjected into the ground could contaminate the area’s drinking water.
“I’m not against fracking per se, I’m against contaminating the water,” said Ted Walter, 57, co-owner of Passionfish, a restaurant in Pacific Grove along the coast, who has appeared in ads backing Measure Z and calls the San Ardo oil fields “ugly.”
Chevron’s officials say they aren't sure it is technically possible to recycle all the water byproduct, but that in any case it is financially prohibitive. “We’ve been operating in this field for 70 years,” Chevron’s Mr. Tubbs said. “We monitor the groundwater monthly. The groundwater is as clean today as it was 70 years ago.”
Regulators haven’t found contamination related to reinjection in Monterey—something both Ms. Hanretty of the industry-funded opposition group and Measure Z backers agree on.
Steve McIntyre, who manages roughly 12,000 vineyard acres in the county, opposes Measure Z. A board member of the Big Sur Land Trust, he said he is a registered independent, supports renewable energy and is proud his vineyard has been certified “sustainable.”
He said he also supports the way the oil industry operates, emphasizes America’s dependence on oil and believes the anti-fracking measure is a cover for a broad assault on fossil fuels.
“Let’s not be misleading here,” said Mr. McIntyre, 59 years old. “I believe they are using fracking as a hot button to get under people’s skin and get them excited.”
The opponents group has aired ads showing a handsome veteran and a chiseled rancher extolling local energy. Monterey’s county auditor in a report projected potential lost jobs of 730 if the measure passes. Joe Gunter, mayor of Salinas, Steinbeck’s hometown in the county, is among local officials opposing the measure.
Supporters of Measure Z include Sen. Bernie Sanders, who spoke at a rally supporting it, as did Dolores Huerta, a famed farm-labor activist. Anti-fracking activists marched with a large puppet of a condor in the Labor Day parade.
Measure Z proponent Andy Hsia-Coron, a 59-year-old retired teacher living near Monterey Bay, at a recent taco fundraiser laid out the arguments for the measure: climate change and clean water.
“Oil is hindering the effort in terms of both moving toward renewable energy and safe environmental practices,” he said. Of the water reinjection, he said, “eventually what they put down there will find its way to other parts of the county.”
Both sides have done internal polling, which they decline to share. Many on both sides expect the vote to be close.
“If they win in Monterey, it sets a precedent,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director for energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis. “It would show there’s real political force behind this movement.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-fracking-bans-succeed-in-oil-and-gas-country-all-eyes-are-on-monterey-1478183036
-
Magnitude 5.0 Quake Strikes Near Cushing, Oklahoma: USGS
Nov 7, 2016 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 5.0 struck near Cushing, Oklahoma, prompting evacuations, but there were no reports of injuries, authorities said.
The quake was centered 2 miles (3.2 km) west of Cushing, a small city of about 8,000 people some 50 miles west of Tulsa, which is the location of intersecting oil pipelines and is considered a hub for crude oil shipment.
The oil and gas division of the Oklahoma Corporation commission said in a statement that they are in contact with pipeline operators, but so far there were no immediate reports of damage to pipelines.
Cushing authorities said the downtown area was being evacuated due to gas leaks and infrastructure inspection.
The quake was among the larger temblors felt recently in Oklahoma, part of a flurry of seismic activity geologists say is linked to energy production and is fueling growing concern.
People posting on Twitter, including some as far away as Kansas City, Missouri, reported that they felt the shaking.
Pictures on Twitter showed broken concrete that apparently fell from buildings in downtown Cushing and products littering the aisles of stores after being shaken from shelves.
Cushing High School canceled classes on Monday in order to assess damage, according to a message on its Facebook page.
Two smaller earthquakes, one at a 3.1 magnitude and the other at a 3.6 magnitude, rattled the area around Perry, Oklahoma, earlier on Sunday.
About two months ago a magnitude 5.6 quake, one of the strongest ever recorded in Oklahoma, shook the area.
Most earthquakes occur naturally, but scientists have long linked some smaller tremors to oil and gas work underground, which can alter pressure points and cause shifts in the earth.
In a report released last year, the Oklahoma Geological Survey said that the earthquakes were linked to the practice of injecting wastewater from oil production into the ground.
Some of that is related to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves injecting water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into rock to extract natural gas or other products. But the report said fracking is responsible for only a small percentage of the wastewater injected into wells in Oklahoma.
(Reporting by Heide Brandes in Oklahoma City, Peter Cooney in Washington, Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, Calif. and Chris Michaud in New York; Editing by Chris Reese and Michael Perry)
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/11/06/us/06reuters-oklahoma-quake.html
-
Sierra Club Shifts Focus to Energy Department in LNG Fight
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Sierra Club's fourth and final lawsuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a liquefied natural gas pipeline was denied by a federal court, putting the group's focus on similar legal battles pending with the Energy Department ( Sierra Club v. FERC, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1133, 11/4/16).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Nov. 4 ruled that the FERC had properly reviewed the environmental impacts of Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Corpus Christi LNG pipeline in Texas.
While its legal pathway against FERC's environmental review of LNG pipelines has likely closed for now, the Sierra Club has filed four lawsuits—which are in various stages of the briefing process—against the Energy Department over the same four LNG pipelines that have been approved by FERC and the Energy Department.
The D.C. Circuit in an unsigned opinion dismissed the petition filed by Sierra Club challenging FERC's approval of Cheniere Energy's Corpus Christi terminal in San Patricio County, Texas. The Sierra Club has said that FERC didn't properly assess the increased greenhouse emissions natural gas would produce, an argument the court rejected.
The latest court denial of Sierra Club's petition was expected and the decision, in fact, refers to reasoning provided in previous denials of Sierra Club petitions related to Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG terminal, Freeport LNG Development L.P.'s Freeport LNG terminal and Dominion Resources Inc.'s Cove Point LNG terminal. The court decided in October not to hold oral arguments on the Corpus Christi case, saying it would issue a decision based on the arguments made in the briefs.
The Sierra Club has filed lawsuits against the Energy Department on these same four pipelines, making similar claims that the agency didn't assess indirect and cumulative effects of the projects under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Sierra Club will evaluate whether to seek rehearing of the court's decision regarding the Corpus Christi case, Nathan Matthews, a staff attorney representing the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 4.
Carol Jayne Banta, a trial attorney with FERC, filed the respondent briefs on behalf of the agency in the case.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052766&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052766&jd=100052766
-
Colonial Delays Restart as Pipe Segment Replaced
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Blewitt
Colonial Pipeline Co. delayed until Nov. 6 the expected restart of the largest U.S. fuel pipeline, which was shut this week by an explosion and fire in Alabama.
Colonial aims to restore service on the main 1.3 million-barrel-a-day gasoline pipeline one day later than originally expected, it said in an online statement. The six-day outage means that nearly 330 million gallons of gasoline will be stopped up at the pipeline's Gulf Coast origin by the time the line restarts.
Federal and state agencies have taken action to ensure that gasoline is delivered to consumers potentially affected by Colonial's outage. Governors in Alabama, North Carolina and Georgia temporarily lifted restrictions that enforce how long truckers can haul fuel to market.
The Environmental Protection Agency's waiverof certain Clean Air Act regulations means that densely populated cities don't have to use reformulated gasoline to control emissions until Nov. 23. The CME Group, owner of the New York Mercantile Exchange, is reviewing the waiver's possible effects on Nymex futures contract deliveries, spokesman Chris Grams said by e-mail from Chicago, and will communicate directly with customers as needed.
“The EPA waivers are not going to affect the New York Harbor market so much as the sharp sell-off in crude and expectations of motor gasoline imports,” Patricia Hemsworth, senior vice president at Paragon Global Markets in New York, said by instant message from New York. “Any disappointments in the startup date past Sunday might bring the market back but for now, the entire complex is under pressure.”
Front-month gasoline futures touched a daily low of $1.3676 a gallon Nov. 4 after Colonial advised shippers that conventional and reformulated gasoline grades could be commingled in its pipeline per EPA's waiver. Prices have pared gains since jumping the most in almost eight years after trading reopened following the blast.
Pipeline Repair Progress
Colonial said work crews made “substantial progress” Wednesday night to facilitate removing product from a portion of Line 1. After all fuel is removed, the damaged section will be replaced with a 36-inch-diameter pipe as a permanent repair.
“Colonial's team on-site is constantly reassessing our timeline for restoration of service on Line 1,” the company said in the statement on its website at 11:30 p.m. New York time Nov. 4.
The blast took out service on one line of a system that brings gasoline, jet fuel and diesel more than 5,000 miles from refineries in Houston to storage facilities near New York City. Colonial Pipeline, which is owned by a group that includes subsidiaries of Koch Industries Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, supplies about half of the refined products used on the East Coast. This week's events followed a spill in September that left the line out of service for 12 days.
The second mainline, which delivers diesel and sometimes crosses with Line 1, was closed for several hours this week. Colonial's inspection of Line 2 showed no effect from the blast.
Watching Timeline
The pipeline makes shipments of gasoline in five-day cycles to Southeastern states that are otherwise cut off from access to refineries that produce motor fuel. A batch of regular conventional gasoline left Oct. 31 from Baton Rouge, La., according to a Colonial shipping schedule.
Supplies to markets in Alabama, the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia are at risk when this line goes down, said Andy Milton, senior vice president of supply and distribution at Mansfield Oil Co., a fuel supplier based in Gainesville, Ga.
So far retail gasoline rises have only been significant in Georgia, where pump prices rose 6 cents since last Friday, according to Tamara Johnson, a spokeswoman for AAA, a motorist advocacy group. Nationwide retail prices averaged $2.224 a gallon Nov. 3, reflecting a 1.4-cent increase since the accident, AAA data show.
—With assistance from Ryan Sachetta and Lucia Kassai.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052754&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052754&jd=100052754
-
Alaska Exempt From Rule on Oil, Gas Work in National Parks
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Alaska is exempt from a new set of regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas work in national parks.
The National Park Service published its final rule Nov. 4 in the Federal Register to establish revised regulations that will boost bonding requirements for oil and gas companies, add some other costs and set stricter permitting requirements. The rule becomes effective Dec. 5.
Alaska's national parks in were exempted because of a unanimous Supreme Court decision March 22 that concluded the Park Service nationwide regulations failed to respect the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Sturgeon v. Frost, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 82 ERC 1001, 2016 BL 86935 (2016)).
The Park Service also used its Federal Register notice to explain another noteworthy exemption. Companies that drill from outside a park boundary to reach oil or gas under a park can apply for a case-by-case exemption.
“The availability of the exemption is intended to continue to provide an incentive for operators to locate surface facilities outside a System unit,” the service said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052750&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052750&jd=100052750
-
Nations Seek Progress at Morocco Climate Talks, After Paris Breakthrough
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Negotiators from nearly 200 nations are arriving at a UN climate change summit for the first time without the specter of years, or even decades, of failed climate deals hanging over their heads.
The Nov. 7-18 Marrakech summit comes less than a year after the nations of the world clinched the first truly global climate pact in Paris, one that virtually everyone assumed would take years to ratify and implement.
Instead, more than 90 parties—including the U.S. but also rapidly developing China, India and Brazil—have already formally joined the accord, more than enough countries to ensure it goes into effect Nov. 4, just days before the two-week Morocco summit opens.
Now what?
Perhaps to tamp down expectations, veteran negotiators and environmental groups that track the negotiations are quick to note what won't be done at the Morocco summit, or at best will get minimal attention at the summit, known formally as the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
For one, negotiators won't be considering further strengthening the pledges nations made to cut greenhouse gases; those aren't scheduled to be revisited until a 2018 “facilitative dialogue” where the parties are to assess whether they need to be more ambitious to address the global climate threat.
There is broad agreement that the actions developed and developing nations pledged, called Nationally Determined Contributions, aren't enough. A Nov. 3 report from the UN Environment Program warned that the world still needs to shave another 25 percent of its projected greenhouse gas emissions through 2030 to avoid blowing past the global temperature goal nations agreed to in Paris.
Emissions Gap Looms Ahead
Under the Paris pact, countries vowed to keep global temperature rise “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, compared to pre-industrial levels, and “pursue efforts” to hold the line at a 1.5 degree Celsius increase (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The 2016 Emissions Gap Report, the first UNEP has issued since the climate deal was reached in December, says the world is still on track to see temperatures rise between 2.9 degrees Celsius and 3.4 degrees Celsius later this century.
The report says global emissions totaled 52.7 gigatons in 2014 and have been on the rise for decades; in recent years emissions have increased at about 1.8 percent a year, although that's an improvement over the 3.5 percent increase in 2010 and 2011.Work Plan Expected for Implementation
On the Morocco agenda will be how to ensure nations are transparent in the monitoring, reporting and verification of their climate actions, although again, final decisions—on what negotiators refer to as “modalities, procedures and guidelines” for implementing the Paris Agreement—also aren't due until 2018. Thus, negotiators say, expect only modest progress in Marrakech.
Jonathan Pershing, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, said the speedy entry into force means negotiators are now under pressure to produce some results in Morocco, even if they are largely in the form of a “work plan” for the multiyear implementation of key issues in the Paris pact. Those issues include transparency of each country's actions on emissions but also how to help nations vulnerable to sea level rise and other climate impacts adapt to those changes.
“So the work plan happens here” at the Morocco summit, “and the work itself will take place between now and probably 2018,” Pershing told reporters Nov. 3. “So I don't anticipate that we will see a set of decisions that are conclusive from this meeting [but] more like, how will the work be carried forward [and] what do we want to prioritize?”
Essentially, Pershing said, negotiators now have to construct what many of them call a “rule book” to implement the Paris deal.
The largely procedural Morocco summit is getting more attention and facing slightly raised expectations because virtually no one expected countries to get the climate pact across the finish line this soon.Finance, Loss and Damage
The nearly 200 nations also are likely to resume a still-simmering debate over whether richer nations provide enough funding and technological aid to help vulnerable developed nations adapt to climate impacts; there will also be a review of progress thus far on how to address the loss and damage suffered by nations already being hit by climate impacts.
Also expected: several countries, including the U.S., are to discuss how they hope to decarbonize their economies by 2050; countries were called on to prepare such plans under the Paris pact. Pershing said, however, that it's unlikely the U.S. will actually release its detailed plan in Morocco.
“We intend to have it by the end of the year,” he told reporters Nov. 3, adding “the exact plan is still to be determined.”
All Eyes on U.S. Elections
The Morocco summit also opens against the backdrop of the Nov. 8 U.S. election between Democrat Hillary Clinton, who has vowed to build on the Obama administration's climate agenda, and Republican nominee Donald Trump, who wants to dismantle it.
The U.S. election, which includes the possibility Democrats who favor legislative climate action will win control of at least the Senate, will almost certainly have the attention of negotiators looking to be reassured that the U.S. is not on the verge of walking away from engagement with China and other nations in crafting an international approach to climate change.
The good news, says David Waskow, director of the World Resources Institute's international climate initiative: at least negotiators likely won't have long to wait before they know the results of the election.
U.S. voters go to the polls on the second day of the two-week Morocco COP. Barring something unexpected, negotiators won't be holding their breath over the entire 10-day summit to gauge whether the U.S. intends to remain a player on the international climate front.
“So there won't be anticipation for very long,” he said.
Global cooperation on climate has come a long way, Waskow said, from March 2001 when President George W. Bush essentially withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, citing concerns that only developed nations faced binding emissions targets under the deal. The Paris Agreement by contrast commits developed and developing nations to act, although the actions they will take were offered as pledges rather than mandatory targets.It's unusual for the annual climate summit to be held against the backdrop of a U.S. presidential election: President Barack Obama had won his first term nearly a month before the 2008 UN climate summit opened in Poland. Obama also had already won re-election weeks before the 2012 summit in Qatar.
Even if Trump wins, Waskow predicted the candidate would likely have to rethink his calls for withdrawing from the deal once those larger diplomatic entanglements became more evident. The issue of climate change has moved away from the “periphery of international diplomacy to one that is very much in the center” of diplomatic relationships among the U.S., China, India and other nations, Waskow said.
Climate Woven Into Diplomatic Relations
Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the former Peruvian environment minister who oversaw the 2014 summit in Lima, told Bloomberg BNA any preoccupation with the U.S. election results will give way to the task at hand in Morocco.
“Even though the COP coincides with the U.S. election, that is not going to change the expectation of what needs to come out of this COP,” which is concrete progress on implementing the Paris deal, said Pulgar-Vidal, who now heads WWF's climate and energy practice.
Besides the early work on the rulebook for implementing the Paris deal, the November summit will highlight the need for continued engagement by the private sector, cities and others outside the negotiating rooms deemed crucial to getting the Paris climate deal agreed to one year ago.
Morocco climate envoy Hakima El Haite told Bloomberg BNA the summit will include a focus on the needs of developing countries, which account for the bulk of emissions over the coming decades. There will also be events in Marrakech to “brainstorm” about new solutions from cities, regional governments, the private sector and other institutions and include daily themes to highlight climate challenges and solutions for agriculture as well as oceans.
The Morocco talks are also to review work done over the last three years on the issue of loss and damage suffered by poorer countries vulnerable to climate change. Negotiators at the 2013 talks in Poland launched the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage to address the issue, although the U.S. and many other richer countries have made it clear they'll strongly resist any notion they are on the hook financially for such damage.The Paris pact included a compromise, providing developing nations an explicit reference to the loss and damage issue in the text. But in a concession to developed nations, the text of the deal cautions that nothing in the agreement should be interpreted as a “basis for any liability or compensation.”
The Open and Suspend Option
One looming issue: As host of the first climate summit since the Paris deal crossed the finish line, Morocco would like the bragging rights that would come with hosting the first meeting of the body set up by negotiators in Paris to begin implementing the agreement. That body would go by the unwieldy title of the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, or the CMA.
But that new body can only do so much on even the most technical or procedural issues such as greenhouse gas reporting and accounting rules. That's because more than half of the nations that adopted the deal in Paris haven't ratified it and thus wouldn't have official standing there.One simple solution is to open and then suspend that negotiating track. Thus, the first meeting of the CMA is in fact slated to open in Morocco—it's now on the schedule to do so on Nov. 15, just before the opening of the summit's high-level segment brings top negotiators into the fold. The high-level segment brings world leaders and top ministers into the final days of the negotiations along with presentation by outgoing Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who made getting a global agreement in Paris one of his top priorities.
At best, the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement would remain open only a few days for what most expect to be relatively informal speeches and presentations. It'll then be suspended and resumed, possibly as early as the next mid-year climate negotiations to be held in Bonn, Germany.
Suspending the CMA wouldn't bring work to a halt on implementation because the parties have a separate negotiating track—the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (ADP), launched by the parties at the Paris talks and including those that have yet to ratify the deal. The ADP is to continue to push procedures and policies forward. Down the road, its draft decisions would be funneled to the CMA for formal adoption.
One priority for the U.S. and other countries in Morocco will be to get a firm date for concluding CMA-1, say in two or so years, but well before the 2018 facilitative dialogue.
Negotiators opted for the 2018 dialogue to ensure countries move quickly to consider strengthening their emissions reduction pledges; the Paris deal doesn't call for a more thorough global “stocktake” to assess a range of actions to meet the agreement's long-term goals until 2023, and every five years after that. The 2018 dialogue is more limited, essentially a review of only mitigation efforts, and the actual revised pledges are expected in 2020.
The Morocco summit also could be an opportunity for negotiators and climate advocates to pressure some top greenhouse gas emitters that have yet to ratify the deal, a group that includes Russia, the world's fourth largest emitter as well as Japan (5th) and Australia (14th). Some of the countries yet-to-ratify are likely to use the spotlight of the Marrakech negotiations to announce they have formally joined the pact.
Resisting a Weak Outcome
Environmental and other groups that closely monitor the UN negotiations say the low-stakes nature of this year's summit could free up negotiators to make more progress than might be expected.
“We will definitely see real decisions at COP-22 as it is not a terribly high-stakes COP, which means that there aren't any huge, grand bargains that people are going to die in a ditch over,” said Liz Gallagher, senior policy adviser at E3G, which pushes for global climate action.
But “it is the precision and the very clear mandate that those decisions give that is at stake,” she said, adding that “a weak outcome in Marrakech could put the future regime on the wrong path” in which countries lose sight of the need to accelerate implementing the accord.
The talks also open on the heels of surprising progress this year on two other related global climate deals: one, struck in mid-October in Kigali, Rwanda, is to rapidly reduce global consumption and production of super polluting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs], used in air conditioning and refrigeration; a second reached weeks before targeting carbon pollution from international flights, which was concluded only after roughly two decades of talks under the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization.Suddenly, Need to Show Progress
That perhaps unexpected progress, along with early entry into force of the Paris pact, has put the two officials overseeing the negotiations in the somewhat awkward position of having to demonstrate tangible progress at talks that were never intended to produce it: Morocco's Minister of Foreign Affairs Salaheddine Mezouar, who will serve as COP president for the Marrakech talks, and the new head of the UN climate secretariat, Mexico's former Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinosa.
Morocco will be Espinosa's first high-level UN climate summit since taking the position in July; her predecessor Christiana Figueres had led the negotiations for six years before departing months earlier. Espinosa, in a statement issued at the UN's Climate Week event in September, said she wants progress on implementing the Paris deal on multiple fronts in Marrakech.
At COP-22, “[m]any issues need to be progressed, ranging from the development of a rule book to operationalize the agreement up to building confidence among developing countries” that industrialized nations will make good on their pledge to provide $100 billion in annual climate funding by 2020. Negotiators at the 2015 Paris climate talks formalized that pledge, designed to help developing nations cut carbon pollution and adapt to climate impacts.
The world is “out of the blocks” given the number of countries that have already formally joined the Paris Agreement, but it is “by no means the end” for global action that is likely to take decades, she warned, to halt rising emissions linked to warming global temperatures.
The Paris Agreement is going into effect as of Nov. 4 because countries more than surpassed the agreed-upon threshold to get it across the finish line—at least 55 nations accounting for 55 percent of global emissions had to deposit instruments of ratification or other documents showing they had joined. They hit that mark on Oct. 5, clearing the way for the deal to enter into force 30 days later, on Nov. 4.
As of Nov. 3, a total of 94 nations had ratified the Paris Agreement.
Eric J. Lyman in Rome contributed to this story
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052738&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052738&jd=100052738
-
North Carolina Addition to Ozone Region to Be Decided in 2017
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
The Environmental Protection Agency will act within a year on a petition to add North Carolina to the Ozone Transport Region as part of a proposed consent decree with the state (van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C., No. 5:16-cv-00138, proposed consent decree filed 11/4/16).
The EPA pledged to make an initial decision on that expansion by Jan. 18, 2017, and finalize its action by Oct. 27 of next year after taking and considering public comment, according to the proposed consent decree filed Nov. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
States within the Ozone Transport Region, which runs down the eastern seaboard from Maine to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, are required to submit a state pollution control plan and require the installation of pollution controls on industrial facilities, even if they fully meet the national ozone standards. In 2013, several mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states petitioned the EPA to expand the region to add nine states, including North Carolina. Pollution from the nine states in the petition blows into the Ozone Transport Region, hindering the Northeastern states’ ability to comply with federal air quality standards, they had argued.
North Carolina had sued the EPA for failing to respond to the petition within 18 months, as required under the Clean Air Act.
The timeline for action included in the proposed consent decree only applies to North Carolina. The EPA recently said that it anticipated issuing a proposal on the entire petition within a year.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052767&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052767&jd=100052767
-
EPA Eases Ability to Rescind Some Air Pollution Permits
Nov 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is easing the ability to rescind some air pollution permits regulators deem no longer necessary as part of a final rule to be published in the Federal Register Nov. 7.
The rule (RIN:2060-AS56) eliminates language in the EPA's prevention of significant deterioration and new source review permitting requirements that limits state and federal regulators’ ability to rescind permits to only those based on rules in effect on or before July 30, 1987.
The recision updates are necessary for greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the EPA cannot require industrial facilities to obtain the permits solely for their greenhouse gas emissions (Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2014 BL 172973, 78 ERC 1585 (2014 )).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100052753&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100052753&jd=100052753
-
Industry Coalition Faults EPA 'Regional Consistency' Air Rule
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
A coalition of businesses known as the Air Permitting Forum is outlining the legal attacks it plans to raise in pending litigation over an EPA rule that allows an exception to all of its regions having to adhere to an adverse appellate court ruling against the agency.
In a Nov. 3 statement of issues to be raised in the consolidated litigation National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Air Permitting Forum questions whether EPA's Aug. 3 final rule amending its regional consistency regulations is arbitrary and capricious in two specific respects.
The group questions whether “the rule’s codification of the doctrine of intercircuit nonacquiescence is inconsistent with the plain language of Section 301(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act,” which establishes requirements for EPA to promulgate regulations to ensure the regionally consistent application of its policies by its regional officers.
The section says that such regulations should be designed “to assure fairness and uniformity in the criteria, procedures, and policies applied by the various regions to implementing and enforcing” air law rules, and also “to provide a mechanism for identifying and standardizing inconsistent or varying criteria, procedures, and policies being employed by such officers and employees in implementing and enforcing” policy.
EPA's rule provided a “narrow” exception to the policy for adverse court rulings, rejecting claims from various industry groups that the change will create major regulatory confusion. Under the EPA policy, the only courts whose rulings have automatic national effect are the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court.
NEDA/CAP, which is another coalition of businesses, and other industry groups filed suit over the rule, and Air Permitting Forum's statement of issues also questions whether “the final rule is arbitrary and capricious by allowing fundamental regulatory terms to be defined differently for otherwise identical industrial sources and thereby subject them to dramatically different regulatory requirements as a matter of federal law.”
NEDA/CAP's own state of issues released Nov. 2, meanwhile, says only that it will explore whether EPA's rule “is arbitrary and capricious or inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/industry-coalition-faults-epa-regional-consistency-air-rule
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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