Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/8/2016
-
EPA Sends TSCA Prioritization Risk Review Rule to OMB
Nov 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposed rule to implement a mandate in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to develop a formal process for prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation, the first of several pending rules required by the overhauled TSCA. -
Interior to Square Off with Fracking-Rule Critics in January
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Interior Department and opponents of its hydraulic fracturing rule will face off in January in what is likely to be the final legal showdown over the contentious regulation. -
Oil and Gas Litigation's Fate Unclear Under New President
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the White House prepares for a changing of the guard, federal agencies are involved in several high-profile oil and gas lawsuits that will churn on no matter what the outcome on the ballots. -
Energy and the 2016 Presidential Election
Nov 7, 2016 | The Energy Collective (via Real Clear Energy)
By Geoffrey Styles
In less than a week, the most controversial and acrimonious presidential election in living memory will be over. Energy has largely been a second-tier issue in this contest, although the divergence in the candidates’ views on this vital subject is stark. -
What Will Energy Policy Look Like Under President Clinton or Trump?
Nov 8, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Daniel Cohan
Beyond the focus on polling and politics, it can be easy to forget the policy positions separating the leading presidential candidates. -
More Than a Pipeline is at Stake in Dakota Access Fight
Nov 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Jack Rafuse
In just a few brief words, President Obama made the situation surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline much more dangerous. Further, he demonstrated that he continues to put politics over the interests of the public. -
Enviros Urge Banks to Drop Pipeline Loan
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Environmental groups yesterday urged banks backing the Dakota Access oil pipeline with a $2.5 billion loan to halt their payments in an open letter. -
Iowa Landowners Keep Petitioning as Construction Nears End
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Although the Dakota Access pipeline is nearing completion in Iowa, the opposition to the pipeline and the way it has been built shows no signs of ebbing. -
BNSF, Enviros Clash Over Coal in Court
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Environmental groups battled freight giant BNSF Railway in federal court yesterday, alleging that the company must cover its coal shipments in order to prevent water pollution. -
State Mulls Carbon Tax, Other Alternatives to Cap and Trade
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
As California plots its carbon course to 2030, alternatives to its existing cap-and-trade program are getting some consideration. -
Appeals Court to Hear Challenge to EPA Ozone Rule
Nov 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court has scheduled a February session to hear oral arguments in an industry coalition’s challenge to the Obama administration’s 2015 rule limiting ground-level ozone pollution. -
Call to Action for Energy Efficiency in Healthcare
Nov 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Isaac Brown
Healthcare costs in the United States are at an all-time high, and continue to balloon. And while a slew of legislation introduced during the 114th Congress sought to address the issue, one of the most opportune areas for cutting costs — energy-efficient retrofits — is largely unexplored.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
EPA Sends TSCA Prioritization Risk Review Rule to OMB
Nov 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposed rule to implement a mandate in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to develop a formal process for prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation, the first of several pending rules required by the overhauled TSCA.
OMB received EPA's draft “Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act” rule Nov. 7, according to its website. OMB review typically takes 90 days but can take more or less time, and EPA has said it has a goal of issuing the proposed rule by mid-December.
Section 6 of the new TSCA law directs EPA to categorize existing chemicals -- those already on the market -- as high or low priority, and then perform risk evaluations of the high-priority chemicals.
Under the revised statute, the agency has until June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” and as low priority those that do not meet that standard.
EPA's “Action Initiation List” of rulemakings launched in July -- posted to the agency's website last month -- said the proposed prioritization rule would be released within “12 months or less.”
The AIL says “the process to designate the priority of chemical substances must include a consideration of the hazard and exposure potential of a chemical substance or a category of chemical substances (including consideration of persistence and bioaccumulation, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and storage near significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of use or significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical substance, and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the chemical substance manufactured or processed.”
The pending proposed rule is separate from a related regulation that EPA is developing that will outline the process through which the agency assesses chemicals to determine the risk that they pose to humans or the environment.
The agency is also developing a proposal to establish a fee structure for collecting fees from industry for certain TSCA activities. EPA intends to issue all three proposals by mid-December, and final rules by June 2017, though it only has statutory deadlines for the prioritization and risk review rules.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Interior to Square Off with Fracking-Rule Critics in January
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Interior Department and opponents of its hydraulic fracturing rule will face off in January in what is likely to be the final legal showdown over the contentious regulation.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 17 in Denver, where Interior will make its case for federal authority over fracking and opponents will urge the judges to uphold a lower court's conclusion that fracking oversight is a state issue.
The legal contest has been years in the making, with opponents readying lawsuits even before the Obama administration finalized the rule, which would set new requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands. When Interior's Bureau of Land Management unveiled the final version in March 2015, industry groups sued within minutes, and several states and an American Indian tribe quickly followed.
The challenger states — Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota and Utah — won the day at the district court level. They argued that BLM was barred from regulating the fracking process because the Safe Drinking Water Act assigned oversight responsibility to U.S. EPA and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 subsequently removed that authority. The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming agreed with that argument, striking down the rule in June (EnergyWire, June 22).
Interior and environmental groups that intervened to defend the rule say the states' understanding of the relevant laws is flawed. They say EPA's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act never displaced Interior's long-standing authority over oil and gas production on public lands.
Interior called the decision "manifestly incorrect" and appealed promptly. Some experts say the decision could threaten the federal government's ability to regulate other activities on public lands (EnergyWire, June 27).
Both sides have spent the past several months filing briefs at the 10th Circuit to refocus their arguments on the authority question. Former Interior officials and law professors have chimed in with friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the argument that fracking falls within the agency's jurisdiction, while business associations, conservative legal groups and four additional states have weighed in against the rule.
The January court date is the Tuesday following Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend, leaving some lawyers involved in the case scrambling to alter their vacation schedules.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/08/stories/1060045447
-
Oil and Gas Litigation's Fate Unclear Under New President
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the White House prepares for a changing of the guard, federal agencies are involved in several high-profile oil and gas lawsuits that will churn on no matter what the outcome on the ballots.
But while elections have no bearing on day-to-day courtroom activity, several big cases are expected to face significant indirect effects from today's results.
On the regulatory front, the Obama administration is facing legal challenges to two major oil and gas rules: the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule and U.S. EPA's new standards for methane emissions from the industry.
Meanwhile, dueling lawsuits from industry and environmentalists seek to reform BLM's oil and gas leasing practices on public lands. Finally, the fever-pitched controversy over the Dakota Access oil pipeline will likely advance in federal court next year, with the Army Corps of Engineers at the center of the battle.
The portfolio of ongoing litigation faces numerous election-related uncertainties, including how vigorously the next president defends Obama administration decisions and what actions a new leader might take that could send litigation off course.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton has offered many details about plans for oil and gas policy, but analysts expect Clinton to generally extend President Obama's cautious support for domestic production and expect Trump to consider more industry-friendly policies and slackening of certain regulations.
Here's how several cases may hinge — at least indirectly — on which candidate lands in the White House.
Regulatory challenges
When it comes to lawsuits over federal regulations, the most significant action Trump or Clinton could take to affect courtroom proceedings would be to withdraw the rule at issue or fail to defend it in court.
Experts say that's an extremely unlikely scenario for contested oil and gas regulations.
"For a Trump administration, if they're going to throw the fight, they might pick it for an issue with bigger national political value than energy," ClearView Energy Partners LLC analyst Kevin Book told E&E News. "That's a one-bullet gun. I don't think they'll get away with doing that too many times."
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who is representing industry groups against the fracking rule, agreed, noting that even if Trump viewed the rule as a top priority, he would likely not have political appointees in place soon enough to keep the Justice Department from defending it.
"As long as the rule is outstanding, then regardless of the politics, DOJ is going to defend it," Barron said.
The fracking rule is currently on appeal at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after being thrown out by a lower court in June. Oral arguments are expected to take place in January or later. The methane litigation, meanwhile, is just heating up, with opponents and supporters of the regulation lining up at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Book said a Trump administration most likely would dampen the effect of the fracking rule or methane rule by using discretionary enforcement. If federal courts uphold either rule, a Trump administration could decline to robustly enforce the rules' various requirements. Of course, that kind of light touch could also sprout new legal challenges from supporters of a rule.
"You don't have to go very far down the discretionary enforcement pathway before you get your first legal challenge," he said.
Barron added that congressional elections could also play a role in the fracking rule litigation, as the lawsuit centers on whether Congress has barred BLM from regulating the oil and gas production method.
"The down-ballot congressional elections could actually be more important than the presidential ones," he said. "Given that the argument that is pending in the 10th Circuit right now is an argument premised on the position that Congress has acted to specifically remove BLM's jurisdiction over hydraulic fracturing and that the power to regulate that activity ... rests with Congress, the makeup of Congress is really important. And no matter what happens in the court, both parties really could overturn that if they had a favorable Congress."
In other words, a Democrat- or Republican-controlled Congress could take control of the fracking rule's fate by passing legislation that specifies whether BLM has authority over fracking.
"I think it's high-profile enough that if the court were to go ahead and do something that whoever's the majority in Congress is unhappy with, they could correct if they want to," he said. "The whole argument is based on the intent of Congress."
Leasing lawsuits
Another potentially pliable legal front is the Obama administration's oil and gas leasing practices.
In August, the industry group Western Energy Alliance sued the administration, alleging it bowed to environmental pressure and failed to hold quarterly lease sales, as specified in the Mineral Leasing Act. Environmentalists were busy drafting their own challenge, accusing BLM later that month of ignoring the climate impacts for hundreds of thousands of acres of leases since early 2015.
Barron, who is representing WEA in its lawsuit, argued that the issue is technical, not political, and therefore is unlikely to be affected significantly by the election results.
"There are regulations that define whether or not lands are eligible, and we think that there's been times when eligible lands exist, and they still haven't had the sales," he said. "So I think that would really be up to a judge to say, 'You've got to do it.'"
Book noted, however, that a Trump administration may be likely to schedule more lease sales, rendering the industry lawsuit unnecessary.
The environmental groups' suit, meanwhile, is likely to feed an intense legal battle next year, as the case has high stakes for how the federal government weighs climate impacts for any decision.
A Trump administration is expected to vehemently defend against the lawsuit, as it would draw into question broad acreage of domestic oil and gas production. A Clinton administration's approach to the lawsuit is less clear, but environmentalists say they would not expect any major concessions if she wins.
"I'm under no illusion that a Clinton presidency is going to lead to an amazing settlement in the case and a wholesale reform of the federal oil and gas leasing program," said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians, the group leading the lawsuit. "They're going to fight it. And the Bureau of Land Management is still dead-set on meeting industry's demands to lease, and there's a lot that still needs to fall into place if we're going to see some meaningful reform for federal leasing."
Still, he said the lawsuit could spur a Clinton administration to take some action on climate review for federal leasing.
"I think the lawsuit, under a Clinton administration, it would continue to be something that hangs over their heads, that they realize the issues involved in that case warrant some scrutiny and perhaps some policy movement," Nichols said.
But he still doesn't expect the federal government to move to settle the case because "no administration likes to have it appear as if litigants bullied them into policy reforms."
According to Nichols, the Obama administration's recent action on coal leasing could serve as a model for a Clinton administration on oil and gas leasing. Friends of the Earth sued Interior in 2014, urging increased scrutiny of coal leasing's climate impacts. The administration defended itself against the lawsuit, winning at the district court level.
But Interior then announced a moratorium on new coal leasing while it conducted a broad environmental impact statement for the leasing program. An appeal from environmentalists has been on hold ever since. A Clinton administration could take a similar approach to the oil and gas leasing program, agreeing to consider reforms without giving in to the lawsuit, Nichols said.
"It could very well be that rather than settle, they could decide to go down that path, and the lawsuit could still live as needed," he said, adding later: "It seems like a viable model. It's working on the coal side. I see no reason why it wouldn't work for oil and gas."
Dakota Access
Litigation over the Dakota Access pipeline is perhaps the most unpredictable major oil- and gas-related lawsuit the federal government is currently facing, and today's election is just a small part of that uncertainty.
"The way the court schedules are going, the Obama administration will not be around to defend this," ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christi Tezak said.
But before a new president takes the helm, supporters and opponents of the project are closely watching the administration to see if Obama makes a decision on whether the project receives a necessary Army Corps of Engineers approval to cross the Missouri River. Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said he's optimistic that decision will happen before Obama leaves the White House.
"I think the president cares deeply about these issues and would like to find a solution," he said. "He's not going to hand this off. There will be a decision in this administration of some kind. That's not going to be kicked down the road."
If the approval is granted, pipeline construction is expected to move forward rapidly — likely rendering moot the tribe's ongoing appeal over freezing construction.
Tezak said Obama could also announce a broad and unprecedented environmental impact statement for the pipeline, which could result in the litigation being put on hold while the review takes place.
If the merits of the original lawsuit — whether the Army Corps complied with consultation requirements, the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when approving water crossings for the pipeline — are able to move forward at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, all eyes will be on how the next administration defends itself.
"The Army Corps is already vehemently defending against the lawsuit," Tezak said. "You would expect a Trump administration would probably continue that storyline. Whether or not a Clinton administration would soften that in oral argument or not defend it as strenuously is something that you would look for.
"Then again," she added, "courts tend to disfavor when an administration does an obviously political 180 and runs away from its own statements in the record."
Hasselman said a Clinton administration wouldn't necessarily offer pipeline opponents any better odds than the current administration.
"It's not like we're getting any help in the litigation from the fact that this administration is more sympathetic than a different one could be, so I feel like the question is much more a political one than a legal one," he said. "I don't expect a Clinton administration to be sympathetic to us in a way that the Obama administration has not."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/08/stories/1060045404
-
Energy and the 2016 Presidential Election
Nov 7, 2016 | The Energy Collective (via Real Clear Energy)
By Geoffrey Styles
In less than a week, the most controversial and acrimonious presidential election in living memory will be over. Energy has largely been a second-tier issue in this contest, although the divergence in the candidates’ views on this vital subject is stark. Fortunately, the energy consequences–planned and unintended–of the last two US presidential elections hold some useful lessons for considering the proposed energy policies of this year’s two front-runners.
As we look back, please recall that for most of the 2008 campaign the average US price for unleaded regular gasoline was over $3.00 per gallon. Much of that summer it was at or above $4.00. Four years later, from Labor Day to Election Day of 2012, regular gasoline averaged $3.76 per gallon. The comparable figure for the last two months of the 2016 campaign is just under $2.25.
In 2008 energy independence was a hot issue. Then-Senator Obama ran on a platform that targeted reducing US oil imports by over 3 million barrels per day, mainly through improved fuel efficiency. In his view US oil resources were effectively tapped out–remember “3% of reserves and 25% of consumption“? The main role he envisioned for the US oil and gas industry was as a source of increased tax revenue. His primary focus was on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through large federal investments in green energy technology. He would soon deliver on that promise with the $31 billion renewable energy package included in the federal stimulus of 2009.
When he was running for reelection in 2012, President Obama had kinder words for conventional energy, particularly the large expansion of US natural gas supply due to shale gas. He even took credit for “boosting US domestic production of oil“. That point provoked an extended argument in the second presidential debate that year. Importantly, when the President emphasized renewable energy, energy efficiency and emissions, it was within a broader framework of “all of the above” energy.
At the same time, following the failure of comprehensive energy and climate legislation in his first term, his administration has pursued major new regulations aimed at achieving its energy and environmental goals. However, some of the most sweeping of these, including the Clean Power Plan, have gotten hung up in the courts, while others have yet to be fully implemented.
In retrospect President Obama was lucky. The shale energy revolution wasn’t on his radar in 2008 and received little or no help from his administration, but it has increased US energy production by more than 17%, net of coal’s losses, since he took office. It has made a major dent in US oil imports and CO2 emissions. In the process, it saved consumers hundreds of billions of dollars on their energy bills, reduced the US trade imbalance, generated large numbers of new jobs when it mattered most, and provided the primary means for reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to their lowest level since before Bill Clinton ran for President.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy revolution on which his 2008 campaign pinned most of its hopes is still a work in progress. The cost of non-hydro renewables, mainly wind and solar power, has fallen dramatically and their deployment has grown impressively, expanding by a combined 135% from 2008 to 2014, or 15% per year. Wind and solar power are reshaping US electricity markets and changing the economics of baseload power plants, including nuclear plants. However, these sources still generate just 8% of US electricity and accounted for less than 3% of total US energy production in 2015.
What can we learn from the experience of the last two presidential terms? We are certainly in the midst of a long-term transition from a high-carbon energy economy to one using lower-carbon fuels and low- or effectively zero-carbon electricity. However, the numbers tell us that with regard to implementation, if not technology, we are closer to the beginning of that transition than to its end. The next President can double renewables, and that would still leave us reliant on conventional energy and nuclear power for three-quarters of our electricity and 90% of our total energy needs.
Going from 3% of energy from new renewables to the levels needed to meet the emissions targets that the US took on at Paris last year represents an enormous technical and financial challenge. It won’t happen without a healthy economy, supported by a diverse and flexible energy mix anchored by domestic oil and natural gas from public and private lands and waters.
Although the Obama administration has added numerous regulations affecting energy, it stopped short of derailing the shale revolution. As a result, it has benefited greatly from the increased flexibility and energy security shale is providing. President Obama adapted his approach to energy and came around to recognizing the need for an energy mix that balances new, green energy with the best conventional energy sources. That’s the lens through which we should view the energy proposals of this year’s candidates.
There’s no question that Secretary Clinton would promote the continued growth of renewable energy and the wider application of energy efficiency. If anything, she seems to be even more focused on climate change and clean energy than Barrack Obama was in 2008. However, her campaign website portrays oil and gas mainly in negative terms, with a focus on cutting their consumption, along with the industry’s tax benefits. While explicitly recognizing the role that increased US natural gas production has played in reducing emissions, her policies would directly target the primary source of that growth.
Shale gas now accounts for half of all US natural gas production, but Secretary Clinton is on record supporting much stricter regulations on “fracking”, the common shorthand for the technological processes involved in producing oil and gas from shale: “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said in a March debate with Senator Sanders.
Reversing the recent growth of natural gas production from shale would lead to higher emissions during the next four to eight years. With less gas available, natural gas prices would rise, and the remaining coal-fired power plants would ramp back up to fill the gap, even as renewables continued to expand. That is happening in Germany today as that country turns away from nuclear power. In the US, without the contribution from natural gas and nuclear power plants, another of which just shut down permanently, our climate goals would be out of reach.
Recently, Secretary Clinton was also cited as wanting to expand the current administration’s moratorium on coal development from public lands to encompass oil and gas. As shown in the chart below, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration, this production is already trending downward, overall. Imposing a moratorium on oil and gas development on public lands would accelerate that contraction, without new wells to offset the decline from mature fields.
If implemented as described, Secretary Clinton’s policy toward shale energy would have an even more pronounced effect on US energy supplies than restricting development on federal land. With oil prices low, shale oil production has already fallen by 1.2 million barrels per daysince output peaked in May 2015. The drop would have been much steeper had US producers not been able to focus their greatly reduced drilling activity on their most productive prospects.
US oil imports are increasing in tandem with falling shale oil production and rising demand. We still have 260 million cars, trucks and buses that require mainly petroleum-based fuels, while electric vehicles make up a tiny fraction of the US vehicle fleet. If shale oil drilling were further curtailed by new regulations, the shortfall would be made up from non-US sources and imports would grow even faster. The party that stands to gain the most from that is OPEC.
From what I have seen and read, Secretary Clinton’s proposed energy policy would undermine the all-of-the-above energy mix necessary to maintain US economic growth and energy security as we transition to cleaner energy sources. It is disconnected from the lessons of the last eight years and should not be implemented in its present form.
There is no doubt that Donald Trump views the shale revolution and the resources it has unlocked very differently from Secretary Clinton. It has been harder to gauge where he stands on other aspects of energy. During the primaries, Mr. Trump’s energy policy lacked much detail, as I noted at the time. He has since largely remedied that, though many of the points raised on the energy page of his campaign’s website seem mainly intended to counter Secretary Clinton’s positions.
Mr. Trump’s energy vision and goals are posted on his website, and he has made several speeches on the subject, focused mainly on expanding US oil and gas production and making the US a dominant global player in the markets for these commodities. His main theme is sweeping deregulation and reform, including revoking the current administration’s executive orders and regulations affecting infrastructure projects, resource development, and the role of coal in power generation.
He endorses an all-of-the-above approach, but there’s still little mention of renewables, efficiency or nuclear power. In any case his support for renewables is not linked to man-made climate change, which he disputes. He is also on record opposing US adherence to the Paris Climate Agreement.
How do Mr. Trump’s ideas on energy square with the lessons of the last eight years? It seems clear he would rather swim with, rather than against the tide of the shale revolution. It’s less clear how much additional activity that would stimulate in the near term if oil and gas prices remain low, even if regulations could be cut as he proposes. As for renewable energy, there doesn’t seem to be enough information to assess where it fits into his version of “all of the above”.
It’s important to keep in mind that energy is not an end in itself. Stepping back from the details, and at the risk of grossly oversimplifying some complex and thorny issues, the key difference I see between the two candidates in this area is that Mrs. Clinton’s energy policies seem designed mainly to serve environmental goals, while Mr. Trump’s energy policies seem aimed at mainly economic goals.
In that sense, the choice here looks as binary as on many other issues this year. Just don’t interpret that conclusion or my analysis above as an endorsement of either candidate.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/2392650/energy-and-the-2016-presidential-election
-
What Will Energy Policy Look Like Under President Clinton or Trump?
Nov 8, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Daniel Cohan
Beyond the focus on polling and politics, it can be easy to forget the policy positions separating the leading presidential candidates.
Nowhere is that gap wider than for climate and energy.
Those differences could have lasting implications for energy and the environment long after the final votes are tallied and allegations regarding emails, tax avoidance and sexual assaults are resolved.
As with many policy matters, comparisons are complicated by the fact that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has issued detailed position statements, while Republican nominee Donald Trump's positions must be gleaned from his speeches and tweets.
The candidates were asked only a single question about climate and energy, posed by voter Kenneth Bone, across the presidential debates.
Since presidents do not govern by fiat, neither position papers nor speeches ensure that intended outcomes will be achieved. In previous columns, I have discussed the challenges that a Clinton administration would face in meeting the U.S. pledge for carbon emission reductions under the Paris Climate Agreement, and in achieving her goal of 140 gigawatts of solar by 2020.
I have also explained why Trump would be unable to revive the heyday of coal employment in Appalachia, and his fallacy in pointing to China to rationalize renegotiating the Paris agreement.
For the electric sector, a recent report by S&P Global Platts sought to predict how electricity would be generated under Clinton or Trump policies. Platts projects vastly different futures for renewables and coal under those policies, with far narrower differences for natural gas and nuclear.
To make its projections, Platts assumes that Clinton would achieve her target of 500 million solar panels installed during her first term, and that subsequent administrations would adhere to her goal of renewables supplying 33 percent of electricity generation by 2027.
The report also assumes that Trump would allow subsidies for renewable energy to continue their scheduled scale down through 2020, and enact no new policies to support wind or solar.
Trump has said he is "fine with" existing wind energy tax credits, despite disparaging wind and not specifying his desired policies for renewable electricity. He has vowed to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which aims to curb climate-warming emissions from power plants.
Even without the Clean Power Plan or new federal policies, wind and solar would continue to gain market share, propelled by falling prices, existing tax credits and state policies supporting renewable energy. Platts projects renewables would reach 21 percent by 2027, not quite halfway from today's levels to Clinton's loftier target.
Assuming that the courts allow the Clean Power Plan to proceed under a Clinton administration and beyond, Platts projects utilities would retire 58 gigawatts of coal capacity from 2020 to 2027.
About a third of those retirements would occur even without the Clean Power Plan, as coal struggles to compete with natural gas and renewables. Despite Trump's vow to bring back coal jobs, it is unclear how he would avert closures of uncompetitive coal plants, most of which are over 40 years old.
Implications of Clinton and Trump policies would extend beyond the U.S. power sector. The transportation sector would be affected by how vigorously the next administration pursues enhanced fuel economy standards and research for advanced biofuels and vehicle technologies.
Trump recently vowed to slash funding for clean energy research. He would also roll backozone smog standards, negating their role in spurring tighter controls on air pollutant emissions from transportation and industrial sources.
On a global level, U.S. adherence to its commitments under the Paris agreement would bolster international efforts seeking to limit climate change to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
Climate negotiators convening in Morocco aim to flesh out details of how Paris agreement commitments will be achieved. Those talks began Monday, and could be rattled by Trump's vow to renegotiate the Paris agreement and his claims that climate change is a "hoax."
Separate talks in Kigali, Rwanda, last month led to a landmark agreement to slash emissions of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants. Controlling these exceptionally potent greenhouse gases could curb warming by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Though a Republican-led Senate could block the Kigali agreement, such a move would face resistance from not only environmentalists, but also corporations that stand to profit from replacement refrigerants.
This presidential election comes at a pivotal time for both national and global efforts to address climate change. The decisions of the next administration will reverberate across energy and climate policies both nationally and globally long after either president leaves office.
Voters who prioritize energy and climate issues would be wise to look beyond the political horserace and personal scandals to consider how each candidate's viewpoints align with their own.
Cohan is associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/304878-what-will-energy-policy-look-like-under-clinton-or
-
More Than a Pipeline is at Stake in Dakota Access Fight
Nov 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Jack Rafuse
In just a few brief words, President Obama made the situation surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline much more dangerous. Further, he demonstrated that he continues to put politics over the interests of the public.
In a recent interview, the president indicated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “is examining whether there are ways to reroute the pipeline,” which the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe says threatens sacred sites and a water source near their reservation in North Dakota.
Keep in mind that the Dakota Access pipeline was fully permitted by the regulating bodies in each of the four states impacted by the project. It was also approved by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, following a thorough and intensive two-year review process that included 389 meetings on cultural surveying results and 11 meetings between the USACE and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The project was allowed to move forward because it met or exceeded all environmental and cultural laws and regulations.
But now, Obama wants to reroute a pipeline that is already 75 percent constructed and has invested as much as $3 billion in the U.S. economy. His remarks will have two impacts: encouraging anti-energy, keep-it-in-the-ground protesters and causing any company building a much-needed energy infrastructure project to reconsider such an investment.
In fact, his words and efforts to just “reroute” a costly energy infrastructure project by executive decree could have a chilling effect on any private infrastructure development that has to go through the long, drawn out and thorough regulatory and permitting process, including roads, bridges, airports, ports and even utility transmission lines. If the administration can simply go back on its prior approvals, what private company would be willing to work in that uncertain environment?
Many opponents erroneously believe that if stopping the pipeline results in stopping the use of oil. However, demand for the energy resources that would be transported by Dakota Access will not change. In 2014, total U.S. petroleum consumption was about 19 million barrels per day, or 35 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. In addition, oil and its byproducts create plastics and other basic materials that are part of the everyday products we use in our daily lives, like our smartphones, clothes and even medicines.
Shutting down Dakota Access will not change the demand for oil, but it will make shipping crude much more dangerous. North Dakota is the second largest producer of oil and the state’s oil producers are desperate to move away from oil-by-rail shipments which are not only expensive, but subject to a higher rate of leaks and accidents. In fact, Dakota Access would replace the need for up to 700 rail cars a day – a much less safe and more carbon emissions-intensive mode of transportation – that currently carry crude oil from the Bakken region to markets across the country.
Meanwhile, pipelines have consistently proven to be the safest, most efficient, and most environmentally friendly means of transporting the resources that our nation needs. Approximately 70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products in our country are shipped by pipeline. More than two million miles of pipeline carry these and other energy products across America every day.
Once operational, Dakota Access will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines ever constructed, able to ship 450,000 barrels of oil a day safely.
Our energy renaissance of the past decade has created a tremendous opportunity for America. Through innovation and entrepreneurship, the U.S. energy conversation now emphasizes abundance instead of scarcity. But we won’t be able to take full advantage of that blessing if anti-energy activists are able to block energy infrastructure projects that keep American energy from going to where it’s needed.
President Obama’s latest comments could set a tremendously dangerous precedent, fueling the flames of anti-energy activists while simultaneously extinguishing the willingness of companies to invest in infrastructure projects. However, his administration can reverse that trend by granting Dakota Access its final construction permits and allowing the project to successfully reach completion.
Dr. Jack Rafuse is the former energy adviser in the Nixon administration, and heads the Rafuse Organization, an independent consultancy on energy, trade and security issues.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/304667-more-than-a-pipeline-is-at-stake-in-dakota-access
-
Enviros Urge Banks to Drop Pipeline Loan
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Environmental groups yesterday urged banks backing the Dakota Access oil pipeline with a $2.5 billion loan to halt their payments in an open letter.
"Banks have a choice to either finance the transition to renewable energy, or to finance pipelines and power plants that will lock us into fossil fuels for the next 40 years," said Johan Frijns, director of BankTrack, a Netherlands-based advocacy organization that led the campaign. "If we're serious about fighting climate change, we can't continue to finance fossil fuel infrastructure of any kind."
The letter from BankTrack and environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace was addressed to the Equator Principles Association, which is a consortium of global banks dedicated to responsible social and environmental practices.
Out of the 17 banks that contributed to the latest loan for the pipeline, 13 are members of the Equator Principles Association.
Environmental groups also say the oil pipeline should have no place in a future world dealing with climate change. According to the pipeline operator, Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline will carry half a million barrels of crude oil each day from North Dakota.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/08/stories/1060045438
-
Iowa Landowners Keep Petitioning as Construction Nears End
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Although the Dakota Access pipeline is nearing completion in Iowa, the opposition to the pipeline and the way it has been built shows no signs of ebbing.
Countless landowners who now have pipelines across their properties have filed complaints to the Iowa Utilities Board, which granted the permit to build the pipeline, claiming that construction practices are questionable and the state regulators have failed to protect them.
"I guess our biggest complaint is they show no respect," said a landowner who complained that the construction crews had not cleaned up debris on her land but buried it underground.
However, the builder of the pipeline, Dakota Access LLC, says it has upheld its commitments to landowners.
John Murray, a local attorney who has represented landowners along the pipeline route, said there are two problems with pipeline construction: The rules are too lax, and construction crews aren't following them anyway.
Some others say the issue is that contractors and crews are ill-prepared for the complicated web of underground drainage tile in northwest Iowa.
"I've never encountered the lack of understanding and cooperation as I have experienced with Dakota Access Pipeline," James Hudson, an attorney representing drainage districts in the area, wrote in a letter to the state utilities board. "The fact that there are serious problems in the construction of this pipeline is not surprising".
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/08/stories/1060045408
-
BNSF, Enviros Clash Over Coal in Court
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Environmental groups battled freight giant BNSF Railway in federal court yesterday, alleging that the company must cover its coal shipments in order to prevent water pollution.
The case, heard in Seattle by U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, charges that coal dust from shipments in the Pacific Northwest contaminates waterways and violates the Clean Water Act (Greenwire, Oct. 26).
But BNSF countered that its loading guideline "virtually eliminates any issues with coal dust — both at the mines and in the Pacific Northwest."
Columbia Riverkeeper, Spokane Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups are plaintiffs in the suit.
The decision could ripple beyond the coal sector as environmental groups are contending that any unpermitted materials dropping into waterways violate the CWA.
"It could be grain, it could be gravel," said Chris Wilke of the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/08/stories/1060045437
-
State Mulls Carbon Tax, Other Alternatives to Cap and Trade
Nov 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
As California plots its carbon course to 2030, alternatives to its existing cap-and-trade program are getting some consideration.
The California Air Resources Board is considering a carbon tax and the use of more direct regulations on oil refineries as methods of reaching its 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels, as mandated by legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) earlier this fall.
Regulators unveiled several new scenarios yesterday for meeting the target, which equates to 260 million metric tons of CO2 per year by 2030, or roughly 6 tons per person. One of them would eschew cap and trade and other market-based programs in favor of more direct regulations like a toughened renewable portfolio standard and emissions standards for industrial sources, refineries and the rest of the oil and gas sector.
Direct regulations will cost nearly six times as much as cap and trade — $9.7 billion by 2030, rather than $1.7 billion with the carbon market — ARB's analysis found.
Oil representatives are calling for ARB to stick with cap and trade.
"Cap and trade is really the only policy mechanism that ensures meeting your specific greenhouse gas policy goal," said Ralph Moran, BP's senior director of government and public affairs. "Cap and trade is by far the most cost-effective."
ARB is weighing the various policies as part of its compliance with A.B. 197, a bill signed in September that requires regulators to prioritize direct emissions reductions. At the same time, however, regulators are making plans to extend the cap-and-trade program past 2020 and use it as the main policy to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.
Demand for allowances has fallen in recent months due to oversupply and uncertainty over the program's extension (ClimateWire, Nov. 7). Besides the language of A.B. 197, a lawsuit from the California Chamber of Commerce in the California Courts of Appeal is still threatening the program.
"The oil industry is in the funny position now of needing to work hard to get stronger authority for cap and trade to continue in its current form," said Chris Busch, director of research at the consulting firm Energy Innovation. "That's what the Brown administration would like, too."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/08/stories/1060045426
-
Appeals Court to Hear Challenge to EPA Ozone Rule
Nov 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court has scheduled a February session to hear oral arguments in an industry coalition’s challenge to the Obama administration’s 2015 rule limiting ground-level ozone pollution.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Monday that a three-judge panel will hear from lawyers in the case Feb. 16.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the contested rule in October 2015, setting the allowable concentration of ozone at 70 parts per billion, down from the 75 part-per-billion limit from 2008.
Some ozone occurs naturally, but it is also a byproduct of some pollutants created by burning fossil fuels, so states may have to curtail fossil fuel use in order to comply. Ozone is a component of smog and is linked to numerous respiratory ailments like asthma attacks.
In court filings earlier this year, the business interests, led by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, told the judges that the regulation goes too far and violates the Clean Air Act.
Specifically, the groups and numerous conservative states say the rule did not properly account for background ozone that cannot be controlled, nor for various economic, social and other impacts from lowering the ozone limit.
The EPA told the court that the regulation fits squarely within the Clean Air Act, which requires that ozone levels are calculated based only on public health and environmental standards, not the costs of compliance.
A coalition of environmental and health groups like the Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility also sued the EPA, saying that the regulation is not strict enough. They will also argue their case at the February hearing.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304763-appeals-court-to-hear-challenge-to-epa-ozone-rule
-
Call to Action for Energy Efficiency in Healthcare
Nov 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Isaac Brown
Healthcare costs in the United States are at an all-time high, and continue to balloon. And while a slew of legislation introduced during the 114th Congress sought to address the issue, one of the most opportune areas for cutting costs — energy-efficient retrofits — is largely unexplored.
Hospitals are among the largest consumers of energy in our economy, burning through two and a half times more energy than the average commercial building. At a cost of over $9 billion in 2015 alone, this enormous expense trickles down to the end consumer, negatively impacting patient care and quality of life for hospital employees.
While the unique characteristics of the always-on 24/7 healthcare sector make energy cuts a challenge, we know it can be done. Innovative hospitals, like the Gunderson Health System in Wisconsin, have already made significant investments in energy-efficient technology.
When Gunderson began taking low-cost measures by retrofitting light fixtures in six buildings on two of its campuses in 2008, the system anticipated an energy cost savings of approximately $245,000 per year. By 2014, Gunderson’s retrofits had resulted in reaching a net-zero level of energy consumption, improving efficiency by over 40 percent and saving the system nearly $2 million.
Even modest investment can spur significant savings and economic growth: A 2011 Energy Foundation study found that each dollar saved through energy efficiency measures like implementing LED lighting is the equivalent of generating $20 in new enterprise revenue. Abandoning fluorescent lighting for LEDs delivers an estimated 75 percent in savings by enabling lower power consumption, a significantly longer lifespan, little maintenance and no hazardous materials.
But in the absence of a comprehensive national strategy, such modifications are limited in their impact. Congress has taken steps, introducing The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (also known as Shaheen-Portman) to broadly incentivize investment in energy-efficient products. But the current policies fail to address the healthcare sector in particular. If Congress is serious about improving efficiency and lowering hospital costs for the consumer, it must address this community directly and develop policies and incentives specifically tailored to its needs.
On behalf of the Health Energy in Healthcare Coalition, a group of hospitals and efficiency solutions companies, I urge Congress to do more to spur energy-efficient innovation in the healthcare sector. Such an effort would trigger widespread adoption of sustainable, cost-cutting, energy-efficient practices in America’s hospitals. The policies this effort would create stand to reduce healthcare costs and improve patient quality of care while spurring job growth and economic development in the United States.
Isaac Brown is the Executive Director of the Healthy Energy in Healthcare Coalition, a new coalition of businesses advocating for energy innovation advances within the healthcare sector, and a partner at 38 North Solutions.
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/304790-call-to-action-for-energy-efficiency-in-healthcare
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested