Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/9/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clinton, Trump Pose Threats To Global Chem Trade
Nov 9, 2016 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both expressed opposition towards trade agreements, at a time when the nation's petrochemical industry has enjoyed a growing trade surplus. -
Chemical Ranking Strategy Heads for White House Review
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A strategy the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to rank chemicals as high or low priorities for risk assessment is under review at the Office of Management and Budget. -
TSCA prioritisation Rule Proposal Submitted To OMB
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted its proposed rule on prioritisation, under the new TSCA, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. -
Name C&L Inventory Notifiers, Says Metal Association
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa and industry are not doing enough to clean up and harmonise the EU’s classification and labelling (C&L) inventory, says the International Molybdenum Association. -
Trump Win Rocks Energy World
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Robin Bravender
Donald Trump's election is sending shock waves through the energy and environmental world. -
Trump Victory Signals Sharp Turn In U.S. Energy, Climate Policy
Nov 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Donald Trump’s stunning victory on Tuesday and the Republican lock on Congress gives the U.S. fossil-fuel industry the opportunity to dismantle the Obama-era energy and climate change policies that the new Republican president has blasted as choking the nation's economy. -
Factbox: Energy Impacts Of Trump's Surprise US Residential Victory
Nov 9, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid and Meghan Gordon
...While Trump has given few concrete details about his energy plans, his statements during the campaign indicate he would likely adopt policies that attempt to expand fossil fuel production, ease regulations on industry and roll back President Barack Obama's clean air policies. -
Citing Stay, Procedural Defects, ESPS Opponents Seek CEIP Re-Proposal
Nov 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
State, utility and industry opponents of EPA's existing power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule are doubling down on charges that the agency's work on its Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) violates the Supreme Court stay of the rule, urging the agency to re-propose the incentive program if the rule is upheld, in part to clear a path to challenge the CEIP in future litigation. -
Court To Hear Obama Admin’s Appeal In Fracking Rule Case
Nov 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
fracking, even on federal land. The BLM appealed to the 10th Circuit Court, asking judges to reverse Skavdahl’s ruling, because it ignores long-standing precedent that gives the federal government wide authority over oil and natural gas drilling on federal land. -
Oklahoma Agency Plans to Shut Disposal Wells After Earthquake
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sheela Tobben and Jessica Summers
Oklahoma's oil and gas regulator plans to shut some disposal wells and reduce the volume of others as its initial response to the Nov. 6 earthquake near the oil hub of Cushing. -
Why Oklahoma Can't Turn Off Its Earthquakes
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
The 5.0 magnitude earthquake that hit Cushing, Okla., late Nov. 6, is the latest and, in some ways, the most troubling in a series of temblors that has rocked the Sooner State over the past few years. -
Energy Transfer to Keep Up Pace of Dakota Access Work
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
Energy Transfer Partners LP said it's not slowing construction on the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, dismissing as a mistake the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers statement that it would. -
Trump Win Raises Question About UN Climate Deal
Nov 9, 2016 | AP ( In the New York Times)
The election of a U.S. president who has called global warming a "hoax" raised questions Wednesday about America's involvement in the Paris Agreement on climate change — and the future of the deal itself. -
Six Reasons You Should Care About the Marrakech Climate Talks
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Officials from almost 200 countries are gathering in Marrakech, Morocco, this week for the first major summit since they agreed in December to curb greenhouse gas pollution and limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. -
California Air District Sues EPA Over Denial Of SIP Offsets Program Rules
Nov 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California Bay Area air district officials are suing EPA over its rejection of the district's new source review (NSR) emissions offsets program, claiming the agency is "misreading" Clean Air Act requirements and creating "arbitrary" demands for additional offsets to allow permitting of industrial facility modifications.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clinton, Trump Pose Threats To Global Chem Trade
Nov 9, 2016 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
HOUSTON (ICIS)--US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both expressed opposition towards trade agreements, at a time when the nation's petrochemical industry has enjoyed a growing trade surplus.
Voters will elect one of the candidates on Tuesday.
Both candidates oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed trade deal with 11 other countries.
Trump said he would seek to withdraw from the TPP. He would also pursue immediate renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
If Mexico and Canada do not agree to a renegotiation, the US would notify them that it intends to leave NAFTA, Trump said.
Clinton said she would oppose new trade deals that do not meet what she called a high bar. That includes the TTP.
Clinton also said she would review existing trade agreements. "Hillary has said for almost a decade that we need to renegotiate NAFTA, and she still believes that today," her campaign said in a policy briefing.
It is difficult to determine how such broad policy proposals would affect specific petrochemical markets.
Epoxy-resin producers in the US have complained about low-cost imports for years.
US regulators have investigated dumping allegations for melamine, styrene butadiene rubber(SBR) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
But the US has substantial trade surpluses in other petrochemicals. Because of the advent of shale gas, the nation's producers enjoy cost advantages for many of their products.
Crackers in the US rely on gas-based ethane as a feedstock, while much of the world relies on oil-based naphtha. Even with the decline in crude prices, ethane production has maintained its cost advantage against naphtha.
US producers have used this cost advantage to increase exports. This was critical for polyvinyl chloride(PVC) producers in the wake of the US housing crisis, when they needed new markets to offset the decline in domestic demand.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has compiled the value of imports and exports of various chemicals in 2014. The table lists the value of these imports and exports in millions of dollars.
The table shows surpluses in all chemical groups and subgroups except for agricultural chemicals. The trade surplus for these chemicals as a whole has increased by 65% from 2004 to 2014, according to the ACC.
Renegotiating or terminating existing trade agreements could threaten this surplus. Avoiding new trade agreements could limit its growth.
Among industry trade groups, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) support free trade.
The AFPM has gone as far as to voice no opposition to US oil exports – even though some of its refining members were against them.
For the ACC, it strongly supports the TPP, and it has said that it should be expanded to include other key members of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation).
Exports will become even more critical for US producers during the rest of the decade, when they start up new polyethylene (PE) plants.
From the beginning, the companies building these plants did not expect that the US would absorb all of this new capacity. All along, they planned to export the excess material, especially to Asia. Fostering trade will be critical for these producers.
Petrochemicals are not the only hydrocarbons shipped out of the US. The country is now the world's largest exporter of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and companies are now exporting ethane. US companies continue to commission new terminals to ship out liquefied natural gas (LNG). And Mexico imports massive amounts of gasoline from the country.
Mexico, in fact is the second largest export market for the US chemical industry, according to the ACC. The largest export market is Canada, the other member of NAFTA.
In regards to energy policy, Clinton's individual energy policies would require some trade-offs.
On the one hand, she wants to encourage consumption of natural gas because it is a clean-burning fuel. But other policies could discourage gas consumption.
Although Clinton wants to repair or replace thousands of miles of pipelines, she also wants to "ensure new natural gas pipelines are built to the highest standards".
New pipelines already face a web of permitting requirements from a large number of regulators. More layers of regulations could make the permitting process more difficult.
Gas producers need pipelines to ship the fuel to customers. Eventually, gas consumption will face constraints if it exceeds pipeline capacity.
Clinton also raised concerns about chemical disclosure used in hydraulic fracturing and induced earthquakes. Depending on the policies adopted to address these concerns, they could also hinder gas production.
Trump favours increased hydrocarbon and coal production. He wants the US to develop its "untapped shale, oil and natural gas reserves" and open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands.
Also, Trump would "declare American energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the US".
Trump said he would reduce barriers to what he called responsible energy production, although he did not specify what these barriers are.
Unlike Clinton, Trump's policy summary does not mention pipelines, induced earthquakes or chemical disclosures for hydraulic fracturing.
However, like Clinton, he does want to encourage natural gas consumption to reduce emissions.
Trump's policies could also require some trade-offs since he also wants to "protect clean air and water".
His summary adds, "We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources."
Conservation will need to be balanced with increased energy production.
On Tuesday, the chemical industry should learn what they could expect for the next four years.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/11/08/10051495/clinton-trump-pose-threats-to-global-chem-trade/
-
Chemical Ranking Strategy Heads for White House Review
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A strategy the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to rank chemicals as high or low priorities for risk assessment is under review at the Office of Management and Budget.
The proposed rule (RIN:2070-AK23), which the EPA submitted Nov. 7, is the first of four chemical rulemakings the agency must soon submit to the White House regulatory office to meet the agency's target of proposing them before the end of this year.
The OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which reviews federal rules before agencies may propose or issue them as final, has allowed agencies to submit proposed rules late in an administration's term, Susan Dudleytold Bloomberg BNA Nov. 2. Dudley described OIRA's practice when she served as its administrator from April 2007-January 2009 under President George W. Bush.
The rationale for reviewing proposed regulations late in an administration is that the incoming administration would have an opportunity to revise them before final publication, she said.
Three More Proposed Rules
The four chemical rules are needed to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) , which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act on June 22.
Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, has said the agency intends to submit three proposed procedural rules by Nov. 24, which the Lautenberg Act requires the agency to issue by June 2017.
Those rules are:
• the newly submitted proposal for prioritizing chemicals;
• the agency's approach to assessing chemical risks; and
• the process the EPA would use to update the TSCA inventory of chemicals, so it lists those that have been made in or imported into the U.S. over the last 10 years.
The Lautenberg Act does not mandate a deadline for the EPA to issue the fourth rule that would set fees to help the agency recoup its chemicals management costs.That rule, however, will provide critically needed resources to oversee chemicals.
Under Review
The prioritization rule joins two proposed chemical rules and one final rule that the EPA submitted to the White House regulatory affairs office in September and October.
The two proposed rules would restrict, require labeling for, or otherwise manage the risks posed by a few uses of three solvents: trichloroethylene (RIN:2070-AK11) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride (RIN:2070-AK07).
The fourth final rule would require companies to provide the EPA certain information about chemicals made, imported or processed as nanoscale materials and maintain certain records for such materials (RIN:2070-AJ54).
This rulemaking began years before the Lautenberg Act became law and does not have a statutory deadline. Chemical manufacturers sharply criticized the proposed nanoscale chemicals data-collection rule when the EPA published it in March 2015. Environmental advocacy organizations said it was long overdue.Dudley told Bloomberg BNA that when the Bush administration was leaving office it set deadlines for final rules. After those deadlines passed, OIRA generally would not approve the final rules, although it granted exemptions for rules with statutory deadlines, she said.
“This administration has also said it would avoid last-minute regulations but without the hard deadlines. I expect that it would also be willing to review and approve rules subject to statutory deadlines,” Dudley said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100132878&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100132878&jd=100132878
-
TSCA prioritisation Rule Proposal Submitted To OMB
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted its proposed rule on prioritisation, under the new TSCA, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The OMB reviews non-public drafts of proposed and final regulations under a variety of statutory and executive order authorities. They are typically limited to 90 days, but may be extended under certain circumstances; they have no minimum length.
The US EPA has signalled its intent to issue, by mid-December, a proposed rule for how substances will be prioritised for risk evaluation, under the recently reformed TSCA law. The other proposed rules slated for December publishing – covering risk evaluation, collection of fees and the “inventory reset” – have yet to reach OMB.
Outside of the prioritisation rule, three others are pending OMB review:trichloroethylene (TCE); rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a) – received 27 July;trichloroethylene (TCE); rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a): vapour degreasing – received 30 September; andn-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride; rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a) – received 24 October.
A final rule, governing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for nanoscale materials, is also listed as such, following receipt by the OMB on 7 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50852/tsca-prioritisation-rule-proposal-submitted-to-omb
-
Name C&L Inventory Notifiers, Says Metal Association
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa and industry are not doing enough to clean up and harmonise the EU’s classification and labelling (C&L) inventory, says the International Molybdenum Association.
Speaking at Chemical Watch’s Enforcement Summit in Brussels last week, the trade body's HSE executive, Sandra Carey, said industry engagement is "negligible" and more effort is required by Echa to correct erroneous hazard C&L information.
One way to improve the quality and consistency of data, she said, would be to make notifier details publicly available. “Article 41 of EU CLP Regulation states that notifiers and registrants must make every effort to come to an agreed entry for the same substance,” she said. “But how can they do this if they are anonymous?”
But making notifier details public could jeopardise confidential data, Cefic’s REACH director Erwin Annys told the meeting. “There was originally an idea from Echa to disseminate names of all notifiers. I don’t agree there is a need for this - the reason details are not disseminated publicly is because the C&L inventory contains notifications of research chemicals, if they are hazardous. If they are published, it will allow competitors easy access to the future product portfolio of other companies.”
A possible solution would be one that protects the confidentiality of these research chemicals, he said. But because they are not listed separately in the database, they would be difficult to find.
Another issue, said Ms Carey, is that some companies have approached the C&L inventory in the same way they approached REACH pre-registration and that “lots of notifications were made on a just-in-case basis”.
Mr Annys agreed, pointing out that in its communication to industry, the European Commission said “to be on the safe side” companies should pre-register and notify as much as they can.
“I’m sure the vast majority can’t remember they have sent in a notification and they don’t know which kind, so we are confronted with a major difficulty,” he said. “It will be difficult to sort it out, without giving too much additional workload for those who are doing a decent job.”
In its second five-year report on the operation of REACH and the CLP Regulation, Echa said the Commission should consider changing the latter law to allow the sharing of contact details of notifiers and registrants and to make notifications time limited.
Ms Carey said time-limited notification could be effective. Another option might be to require renotification and “if you don’t renotify, your existing notification becomes invalid. At the moment it isn’t clear where to go to cancel or update a notification. Until it is made mandatory in some form, there is not going to be an improvement.”
Mr Annys said an electronic clean-up by Echa could “probably solve 90% of the problem” because there are many cases where notifiers have given a substance the same classification but accidentally allotted it different hazard phrases or mis-spelled something – thus triggering the creation of a separate, unnecessary inventory entry.
Echa undertook two phases of a platform to encourage active participation from notifiers, including media awareness raising, but the second phase was discontinued in June with the advent of REACH-IT 3. Several member states, he said, were unhappy that the portal was closed.
A proposal from Echa that notifications should be regarded as “same enough entries”, provided there are no differences in pictograms, signal words or supplementary hazard statements in labelling sections, was presented for discussion, at June's meeting of Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal).
https://chemicalwatch.com/50858/name-cl-inventory-notifiers-says-metal-association
-
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Robin Bravender
Donald Trump's election is sending shock waves through the energy and environmental world.
The Republican's victory surprised even his supporters after polls showed him steadily trailing, and the win shocked Democrats, environmentalists and others on the left who thought Hillary Clinton had the presidential race clinched. When he takes office, he'll be backed by two Republican-held chambers of Congress and could appoint one or more members of the Supreme Court, leaving him poised to dramatically reshape energy and environmental policy.
Trump, who declared victory just before 3 a.m. EST today, has promised a fundamental shift from the Obama administration's energy and climate policies. Trump has proposed eliminating U.S. EPA, pledged to boost fossil fuel development and called global warming "bullshit."
Greens were dismayed last night as election results began to show Trump pulling ahead.
"This race was never as sure as I think folks had predicted," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. "It's somewhat unfathomable to contemplate if Trump wins when it comes to climate change and what we have to do. We can't afford another four years of delay and four years of attacking the science and four years of ignoring an issue of such consequence."
Pica said environmentalists will take a page from their defensive playbook during the George W. Bush administration and the Reagan administration. "We rally the American people to fight against Trump's — what we would presume is an anti-environmental agenda," he said.
Dan Weiss, a longtime environmental advocate, said in an interview in 2015 that greens were watching Trump's rise with "a mix of amusement and horror."
But as the election results came in last night, Weiss' amusement had subsided. "Donald Trump would be a nightmare for anyone who breathes air, drinks water or wants to have a livable climate," Weiss said last night in an interview.
If Trump does the things he said he would do on the campaign trail, "it would make his administration the dirtiest one since the first Earth Day in 1970," Weiss said. He predicted that Trump "would sign just about any anti-environmental legislation that the House has put through in recent years that have never made it through the Senate."Industry ascendant
Thomas Pyle, president of the pro-industry American Energy Alliance, which offered Trump its first-ever political endorsement, hailed the results in a statement this morning.
"This election showed that the American people are tired of their interests taking a back seat to special interests in Washington," he said. "President-elect Trump's victory presents an opportunity [to] reset the harmful energy policies of the last generation. He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and workers first."
Because the business mogul doesn't have a lengthy political record on energy, "we have to look at some of the things he said during the course of the campaign and some of the people who have been advisers to him," said Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at Bracewell LLP.
Much of that campaign rhetoric has been welcome news for the energy industry and critics of the Obama administration's regulations.
During an energy speech he gave in North Dakota in May, Trump touted oil and gas production while casting doubt about the viability of renewable power sources, including wind and solar.
"The federal government should get out of the way" of energy production, Trump said (E&ENews PM, May 26).
He also unveiled a "100-day action plan" pledging to scrap Obama administration rules on carbon emissions and clean water that he said have crippled the fossil fuel industry (E&E Daily, May 27).
George David Banks, a Trump supporter who was White House climate adviser during the George W. Bush administration, said, "You're not going to have some energy sources that are politically correct and others that are not. Trump is going to be pro-energy across the board."Energy personnel
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is heading Trump's transition operation, with the assistance of veteran Republican energy policy experts. Trump's transition team is expected to dramatically increase staffing as it prepares a policy agenda for the administration and works to fill top executive branch jobs.
Lobbyist and longtime congressional energy aide Mike Catanzaro is among those helping with the transition. Energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is leading the Energy Department transition team; climate change skeptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is heading up the EPA transition team; and former George W. Bush administration Interior official David Bernhardt is working on the Interior transition.
Trump enraged environmentalists by picking Ebell, a well-known climate change skeptic, to lead his EPA transition team. Climate scientist Michael Mann said of the pick, "If ever there was a case of the fox guarding the henhouse, this would be it" (Greenwire, Sept. 26).
Others who have advised Trump on energy and could play key roles in the transition or administration include Oklahoma oil tycoon Harold Hamm, Murray Energy Corp. CEO Robert Murray and North Dakota Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
Names that have circulated for top energy jobs under Trump include Craig Butler, head of Ohio EPA, and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading states' legal fight against the Obama administration's signature climate regulation in federal court.
Hamm is seen as a possible choice to lead the Department of Energy. Some Republicans, however, have pushed for lawmakers who are familiar with DOE's inner workings. The Trump team could also look for a business executive to become Interior secretary.Fate of EPA, SCOTUS, Clean Power Plan
Trump has proposed eliminating EPA entirely, a plan that many experts have called unlikely. Still, his White House win may spur an exodus of workers at that agency and others where federal employees disagree with his policies.
Former top EPA officials have said cutting the agency would involve a massive political lift, might lead to a patchwork of environmental policies across the country and could wind up hurting industries rather than helping them (Greenwire, July 20).
Banks said he thinks Trump will look to "reform how the EPA works and functions." Given that politically, "it would probably be very difficult to eliminate the EPA," Banks said, Trump's comments may be a "starting point in a negotiation" to reform the agency.
Banks is also expecting the Trump administration to aim to roll back some of the Obama administration's key climate change policies, including the Clean Power Plan to clamp down on power plants' carbon dioxide emissions.
"I wouldn't expect the Trump administration to defend the Clean Power Plan in court," Banks said. "I would expect the Trump administration to work on reversing the endangerment finding," he added, referring to the Obama EPA's determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That finding paved the way for Clean Air Act rules to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump has also said he would like to cancel the Paris climate change agreement. "That's probably a Day One agenda item," Banks said.
"We're going to cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop — unbelievable — and stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs," Trump said in May (ClimateWire, May 27).
Importantly, Trump could appoint at least one Supreme Court justice if Senate Republicans refuse to confirm Obama's nominee during the lame-duck Congress. That would solidify a 5-4 conservative majority, which would likely affect the fate of the Clean Power Plan and could tip the scales of the court for years.
Trump has released 21 names of conservative judges and has pledged to pick one of them for his Supreme Court nominee. Those lists enraged environmentalists and others on the left, who fear that another conservative justice on the court — or possibly more if more vacancies arise during Trump's term — could roll back agencies' authority and hinder environmental protections (Greenwire, Sept. 23).
But Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, struck a defiant tone in a statement this morning.
"It's time for every American who cares about a livable world — Republican and Democrat alike — to stand and defend our environment and health. If Donald Trump thinks he can launch a big polluter assault on our air, waters, wildlife and lands, we'll build a wall of opposition to stop him. Whatever else we may have voted for on Tuesday, we haven't turned away from generations of common sense environmental safeguards. We're not about to turn away now."
Join us live on Facebook Nov. 9 at 1 p.m. EST for E&E News reporters' postmortem on what election 2016 means for energy and environment issues.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/11/09/stories/1060045475
-
Trump Victory Signals Sharp Turn In U.S. Energy, Climate Policy
Nov 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Donald Trump’s stunning victory on Tuesday and the Republican lock on Congress gives the U.S. fossil-fuel industry the opportunity to dismantle the Obama-era energy and climate change policies that the new Republican president has blasted as choking the nation's economy.
Trump's win comes just days after the Paris climate change agreement officially took effect, a largely symbolic milestone that supporters of President Barack Obama's climate agenda have heralded as a major achievement. But in January, Trump will have the tools to shred that agenda, something he has vowed to do from day one.
Despite the assurances from nations that have ratified that U.N. agreement that the international momentum would continue, the pact carries no penalties for countries that fail to live up to their pledges to curb their pollution.
The president-elect has promised that the oil and gas industry “will like me so much” and vowed to restore the flagging coal industry, and he's said he would repudiate the global greenhouse emissions targets — and he has alarmed even Republican environmental regulators with plans to handcuff EPA.
“The energy business is being decimated,” Trump told oil and gas executives in Colorado last month as he denounced federal regulations as “probably your biggest problem.”
Yet even as Hillary Clinton unsuccessfully cast his environmental agenda as radical, Trump’s transition team has enlisted several energy advisers who hail fromthe GOP mainstream. Among them are Mike Catanzaro, a former energy aide to ex-Speaker John Boehner; Michael McKenna, who has lobbied for Koch Industries; and David Bernhardt, solicitor at the Interior Department under President George W. Bush.
The New York developer also promises to “conserve our natural habitats” and ensure “clean air and clean water,” but deep cuts to EPA’s already-pared-back budget as well as Trump’s plan to expand offshore and onshore drilling are poised to make those goals difficult to meet. Trump told Field and Stream magazine earlier this year that he would oppose transferring federal lands to the states, a long-held conservative priority later enshrined in the GOP platform, but that lone moment of divergence from Republican environmental doctrine has not stopped him from becoming Public Enemy No. 1 for the green movement.
That dynamic sets up four years of partisan combat with congressional Democrats after a brutal campaign season dominated by personality, not policy. Trump is expected to make good on many establishment Republicans’ hopes to freeze or roll back regulations that President Barack Obama used to start reshaping the nation’s energy mix, leaving Democrats in the closely divided Senate to fight back against perceived executive-branch overreach with the same gusto the GOP employed against Obama.
Myron Ebell, Trump’s transition adviser for EPA, may turn out to be a pivotal figure as Democrats craft their plan to fight the president-in-waiting’s energy agenda. As the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell has fought for years against “alarmism” over human-caused global warming and battled the scientific consensus that industrial activity is the major contributor to climate change.
Trump himself does not believe climate change is primarily caused by human activity, his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told CNN in September. And though officially withdrawing the U.S. from Paris climate accord will take years, the shift in policy under Trump from the world's No. 2 greenhouse gas emitter is likely to throw the global effort into disarray.
Two other players who could take key energy roles in Trump’s administration are Harold Hamm, the Continental Resources CEO who is on Trump’s shortlist for Energy secretary, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee who has become a high-profile surrogate for Trump as he courted conservatives on the trail.
One of the biggest hits to Obama’s energy legacy that Trump can deliver quickly is EPA’s Clean Power Plan, a challenge to which remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. While Trump may not be able to orchestrate an outright abandonment of the defense of EPA’s power-plant rules, his ascension to the presidency is likely to spell doom for the regulations in their current form.
Beyond EPA’s greenhouse gas rules for the power sector, Trump is also likely to wind down the legal defense of landmark regulations governing fracking on public lands before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. BLM’s second set of fracking regulations, which limit venting and flaring of methane, are set to be finalized by Obama as soon as this week but are now poised for dismantling by Trump.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/11/trump-victory-signals-sharp-turn-in-us-energy-climate-policy-137366
-
Factbox: Energy Impacts Of Trump's Surprise US Residential Victory
Nov 9, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid and Meghan Gordon
Letting markets decide what lands to drill
Dismantling US EPA for over-regulating industry
'America first' approach to trade policy
Republican Donald Trump has won the US presidential election in a surprise upset after polls had predicted a comfortable lead for his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, the Associated Press is projecting.
While Trump has given few concrete details about his energy plans, his statements during the campaign indicate he would likely adopt policies that attempt to expand fossil fuel production, ease regulations on industry and roll back President Barack Obama's clean air policies.
Here is a snapshot of some of Trump's energy-related statements:
SUPPLYTrump has said he supports all forms of energy and wants the market to decide which ones succeed. He has promised to open all federal lands and waters to fossil fuel production, in contrast to Clinton, who had called for new, stricter limits on oil and gas production on public lands and indicated she wanted US offshore production confined to only the Gulf of Mexico.
Analysts say it is impossible to determine just how much of an impact a Trump administration may have on domestic supply because of a number of shifting factors, particularly prices.
But Trump, widely seen as a far bigger supporter of the oil and natural gas industry, will likely rebuff any environmentalist attempts to curb domestic fossil fuel production and will likely give US producers access to far more on and offshore plays than Clinton would have."I think it's like the production of anything, if you have access to more of it, you're going to have more," North Dakota Representative Kevin Cramer, a Republican and top Trump energy adviser, told S&P Global Platts. "In fact, whether it correlates to more overall production or not, it certainly provides a diversity of opportunities for producers so that, with a low market price, they can pick the most productive places to drill with the greatest efficiencies."
DEMAND
Trump has said he will pursue a policy path to open up more US lands and waters to drilling and, in turn, boost consumption of even cheaper domestic oil and other fossil fuels. Analysts say his broad plans to boost US production and eliminate many of President Obama's regulatory efforts to combat climate change may result in less demand reduction than if Clinton were elected.
Trump would likely quash efforts to institute new greenhouse gas performance standards for petroleum refineries and may push to weaken future fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles, but those possible moves would not necessarily correspond with an increase in demand, particularly since efficiency gains already in place in the US vehicle fleet are already forecast to cut gasoline demand as much as 500,000 b/d by 2020.
At the same time, oil demand is driven by a country's gross domestic product and will likely be defined by economic factors largely outside the new president's control, said Stewart Glickman, head of energy equity research for S&P Global Market Intelligence. In spite of any policy changes, if GDP goes up, people will likely drive more and demand will increase, Glickman added.
REGULATIONS
Trump has promised to either dismantle or overhaul the Environmental Protection Agency and roll back Obama administration regulations to curb coal industry pollution. Cramer said Trump believes EPA needs to return to its core mission of protecting clean water and clean air, and that Congress has granted it too much leeway in interpreting legislation.
Trump is expected to try to scrap the Clean Power Plan. He questions the widely held scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change.
Trump is expected to abandon, or at least weaken, efforts by EPA and the Department of the Interior to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas operations and also could weaken future car and truck fuel-economy standards.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Trump has not addressed the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy, but he holds personal investments in project sponsors Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66. He has said that, if elected, he would urge TransCanada to renew its Keystone XL permit application, which the Obama administration rejected in late 2015 after years of debate.
Aside from those high-profile pipeline controversies, it's unlikely the next president will have a big impact on future midstream projects, since authority over most oil and gas pipelines falls outside the administrative branch. But LNG export facilities and cross-border oil and gas pipelines must receive a presidential permit, and Trump's appointees will be weighing those applications.
Trump has said he would spend "at least double" what Clinton planned on infrastructure, funding it with new debt to take advantage of still-low interest rates.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Trump's possible efforts to end incentives for alternative energy development would boost near-term demand for fossil fuels. For example, a potential cut in the Investment Tax Credit to 10% from the current 30% would slash solar installation demand by 60%, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.
BIOFUELS
Trump has offered broad public support to the Renewable Fuel Standard, but in September he unveiled an economic policy package that included a statement that the market underpinning the RFS, the EPA's Renewable Identification Number program, "penalizes" refiners for not meeting "impossible" requirements. After these statements were criticized, they were removed from Trump's campaign website and staffers claimed they were posted in error.
APPOINTMENTS
Trump will have the power to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, subject to Senate approval, potentially shaping the court's ideological balance for decades. Filling vacancies on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also could influence decisions about environmental regulations.
He will fill key positions at EPA, Interior, the Department of Energy and other agencies that make decisions affecting energy and make appointments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
TRADE
Trump said he would create an "American Desk" in the Department of Commerce to "protect the economic interests of the American worker and the national interests of the United States. It's going to be America first." In 2015, 70% of the 64 trade cases Commerce launched involved steel products.
--Edited by Valarie Jackson, valarie.jackson@spglobal.comhttp://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/factbox-energy-impacts-of-trumps-surprise-us-27706577
-
Citing Stay, Procedural Defects, ESPS Opponents Seek CEIP Re-Proposal
Nov 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
State, utility and industry opponents of EPA's existing power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule are doubling down on charges that the agency's work on its Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) violates the Supreme Court stay of the rule, urging the agency to re-propose the incentive program if the rule is upheld, in part to clear a path to challenge the CEIP in future litigation.
Their charges come in comments on EPA's June supplemental CEIP design proposal, which outlined several structural elements of the CEIP that were not included in the final power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS).
The CEIP is the voluntary incentive program accompanying the ESPS that seeks to encourage states to deploy clean energy ahead of the start of ESPS compliance by offering states and affected entities bonus credit for certain renewable energy projects and low-income energy efficiency and solar projects.
But the program is distinct because it straddles two rulemaking processes. Many of the fundamental details establishing the existence, intent and outline of the CEIP were finalized in the ESPS last year, though the specifics and structure of the program are still being worked out by the agency in this supplemental proposal.
EPA released the supplemental proposal despite a Supreme Court stay of the ESPS pending resolution of legal challenges, sparking strong criticism from opponents who charge any action to develop related rules violates the stay.
Additionally, the agency Nov. 3 sent draft final ESPS model trading rules to the White House for interagency review, following initial hesitations from EPA officials that they would move forward on those rules during the stay, a move that is likely to intensify the outcry.
EPA critics are reiterating their claims in comments on the CEIP proposal, and in some cases going further by arguing EPA must re-propose the entire incentive program if the ESPS is ultimately upheld. They argue EPA must take this step because the agency did not take comment on the incentive program in the proposed version of the ESPS.
One such group is the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), which notes in its Nov. 1 comments that it was unable to challenge the legality of the CEIP in current litigation over the power plant rule -- West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. -- because the agency had not yet acted on the group's petition for reconsideration that challenged the program.
“Because the CEIP was never proposed and there was no opportunity to comment on it prior to its creation, UARG requested that EPA address the legal authority for and other aspects of the program in a petition for reconsideration,” the group writes. “Because EPA has not yet acted on UARG's petition . . . questions regarding the legality of the CEIP could not be raised in the West Virginia v. EPA litigation.”
UARG, like several other groups, urges EPA to re-propose the CEIP “in its entirety” if the ESPS is upheld, likely in part to ensure a clear avenue for opponents to challenge the legality of the incentive program in the future.
Such a tactic could get around a hurdle outlined by EPA supporters, who say that opponents couldn't legally scrap the CEIP because they failed to raise the arguments in the current round of litigation. Because the final ESPS establishes the fundamental existence and legality of the incentive program, supporters say, critics could not challenge the program's basis in any litigation over the supplemental CEIP rulemaking.
“What you can challenge is what the rulemaking was about, not every prior thing that was part of the regulatory background or baseline for it,” an environmental attorney told Inside EPA earlier this year.
Re-Propose CEIP
The attorney said this notion is bolstered by language in the supplemental CEIP proposal in which EPA takes particular care to specify what the rulemaking sought to clarify and what it was not reopening for consideration.
“The rationale and legal authority for the CEIP in particular are also set forth in the final Clean Power Plan. . . . Nothing in this action reopens the legal determinations or rationale set forth in the final Clean Power Plan,” EPA wrote in the CEIP proposal.
UARG disputes this in its comments, however, arguing that EPA's failure to propose the CEIP in the proposed ESPS is a “procedural defect” and violates section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act.
“Because EPA never proposed the CEIP or otherwise remedied this key procedural defect, it cannot now assert that the CEIP was lawfully 'established' in the final [ESPS] and is forever immune from comment on certain issues. This is both unlawful and inappropriate,” UARG writes.
“Rejecting public comments on the existence of the CEIP, its size, and its basic structure and requirements impermissibly contravenes not only the [Clean Air Act] but also core values of the administrative rulemaking.”
UARG adds that the public “must also be given a full and fair opportunity to comment on all parts of the CEIP -- including the parts EPA purports to have 'finalized' in the final [ESPS]. EPA cannot establish the CEIP and implement its requirements, either in evaluating state plans or promulgating or revising federal plans, until it satisfies its obligations under section 307(d).”
Several other ESPS opponents -- including industry trade groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers -- also argue that EPA must re-propose the CEIP if the ESPS survives litigation.
The Chamber-led comments, for example, call on EPA to both re-open the supplemental rulemaking's docket for post-litigation comments and re-propose “all aspects of the CEIP” for comment if the rule is upheld. The Nov. 1 comments also urge EPA, as well as all other parties, to halt work on the incentive program until the litigation is resolved, due to the possibility that even a partial victory for the agency could require changes to the CEIP.
“[T]here is a significant likelihood that the CEIP would also have to be withdrawn or at a minimum revised substantially to comport with the courts' final decision regarding the legality of the [ESPS],” the trade associations write.
'No Laughing Matter'
Beyond charges that EPA must re-propose the incentive program, opponents also appear to be prepping for a legal fight over EPA's decision to continue work on the CEIP while the Supreme Court's stay is in place. States, utilities and trade associations all renewed their claims that EPA's actions are in direct violation of the high court stay.
“Even though the Supreme Court issued a stay, you press on, undaunted. Indeed, we learned that in response to the Supreme Court stay, your EPA colleague Joe Goffman sent you a link to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' song I Won't Back Down, and you replied 'Love it,'” coal mining firm Murray Energy writes in its Nov. 1 comments, referencing an email exchange between Goffman and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
“Your refusal to comply with an order of the Supreme Court, however, is no laughing matter, and you are not above the law,” it adds.
A coalition of 31 states and state agencies, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), struck a similar tone, filing comments “under protest to formally register their continued belief” that the supplemental CEIP rulemaking violates the stay.
“Under the law governing the Supreme Court's stay, the undersigned States and state agencies reserve their right to comment on the substance of the CEIP in the event that the Power Plan is upheld,” their Nov. 1 comments read, though some of those states filed separate comments addressing some of the design details and technical aspects of the CEIP.
The comments from UARG and from the Chamber also addressed some of the CEIP's design details and even issued some level of support for the concept of an incentive program for the ESPS -- should it be “properly designed.”
UARG, for example, notes that “any source of relief -- including the CEIP matching pool -- will be of great interest” to states that might struggle to meet their ESPS targets, but the group criticized the program's current design for a lack of flexibility.
The Chamber and other industry groups also backed the idea of a “properly designed and implemented” early action incentive program to ease compliance with the rule, should it be upheld, but argued the program should be less prescriptive regarding which technologies can receive credit.
“[I]t is imperative that any early action incentive program avoid unnecessary distinctions between the many [carbon dioxide] reducing technologies and sources of energy that are available to comply with the Clean Power Plan and instead allow market forces (and state-driven policy choices) to dictate the types of programs that should be used in each state to comply with the Clean Power Plan's emission reduction goals,” the trade associations write.
They add that an incentive program that picks “winners and losers” in the market and “would be inconsistent with EPA's stated goal of providing maximum flexibility to the states and realizing cost-effective GHG reductions from a diverse group of programs.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/citing-stay-procedural-defects-esps-opponents-seek-ceip-re-proposal
-
Court To Hear Obama Admin’s Appeal In Fracking Rule Case
Nov 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court has scheduled a January session to consider the Obama administration’s request to reinstate its regulation on hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
The Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in Denver, filed a notice Tuesday that oral arguments with lawyers for and against the rule will be Jan. 17, three days before President Obama leaves office.
The rule, published last year by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), sets federal-land fracking standards regarding well-casing integrity, transparency of the fracking fluids and storage of the waste fluids.
Judge Scott Skavdahl, an Obama-appointed judge in the District Court for Wyoming, overturnedthe rule in June. He agreed with industry groups and some western states that said a 2005 law explicitly prevents the BLM from regulating fracking, even on federal land.
The BLM appealed to the 10th Circuit Court, asking judges to reverse Skavdahl’s ruling, because it ignores long-standing precedent that gives the federal government wide authority over oil and natural gas drilling on federal land.
“The district court’s crabbed view of BLM’s authority is wholly unprecedented and manifestly incorrect,” federal lawyers wrote. “Rather than defer to BLM’s longstanding interpretation of its governing statutes, the district court substituted its preferred interpretation for that of the agency. That was legal error.”
The industry groups stood up for Skavdahl’s interpretation.
“Like all executive branch entities, BLM possesses only the power that Congress has delegated. BLM disregards this fundamental principle of constitutional government, asserting regulatory authority over hydraulic fracturing despite Congress having allocated that authority to a different executive agency, the Environmental Protection Agency,” attorneys for the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance wrote.
A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court will hear the case. Their ruling could be appealed to the full slate of judges on the court, and then the Supreme Court.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/305018-court-to-hear-obama-admins-appeal-in-fracking-rule-case
-
Oklahoma Agency Plans to Shut Disposal Wells After Earthquake
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sheela Tobben and Jessica Summers
Oklahoma's oil and gas regulator plans to shut some disposal wells and reduce the volume of others as its initial response to the Nov. 6 earthquake near the oil hub of Cushing.
“Other plans are being developed that will encompass larger areas” and more details are coming Nov. 8, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission said Nov. 7 in an e-mailed advisory.
The commission said the plan covered 700 square miles. It didn't say how many wells were affected. When a quake of similar magnitude hit the state in September, the agency ordered 37 wells shut in a 500-square-mile area. The commission in 2015 established a “volume reduction area” covering 11,000 square miles, or about one-sixth of the state.
Cushing is the delivery point for West Texas Intermediate crude futures. WTI for December delivery rose 82 cents to settle at $44.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
“It's definitely a long-term negative development if you are getting earthquakes of that magnitude at such an important site,” Bob Yawger, director of the futures division at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York, said by telephone. “It doesn't bode well for the future.”
Pipelines Operating
The Oklahoma agency reported earlier that all pipelines under its jurisdiction were operating again after shutting down as a precaution because of the temblor, centered less than 2 miles west of Cushing.
Magellan Midstream Partners LP, a pipeline operator, resumed normal operations at Cushing late Sunday after a controlled shutdown of its assets after the quake, Bruce Heine, a spokesman, said in e-mailed statements. Enbridge Inc.’s facility in Cushing wasn't affected, Michael Barnes, a spokesman, said by e-mail.
Magellan typically suspends operations to check the integrity of assets if an earthquake over a certain strength occurs, Heine said. Kinder Morgan Inc., another pipe operator, hasn't had any issues affecting its Cushing operations, Richard Wheatley, a Houston-based spokesman for the company, said in an e-mailed statement.
Other Tremors
Several producers, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, are facing lawsuits because of seismic activity allegedly linked to oilfield wastewater disposal in Oklahoma and other states. The OCC has been issuing restrictions for more than a year aimed at cutting down on the amount of wastewater injected into underground wells.
There are about 35,000 active wastewater disposal wells, though only a few dozen have been linked to quakes, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence report in May, citing the USGS. A 5.6-magnitude temblor struck Oklahoma in September, which tied a state record set in 2011. Following the earthquake at Cushing on Nov. 6, minor tremors occurred at Nicoma Park, east of Oklahoma City, and Fairview, in the western part of the state.
The region, previously not known for intense seismic activity, began having a significant number of earthquakes in 2009, the same year area oil companies began using fracking to shatter deep rock layers to extract oil and gas. Fracked wells produce large quantities of wastewater, which drilling companies inject into ultra-deep disposal wells.
With assistance from Sharon Cho, Alexander Kwiatkowski and Dan Murtaugh.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100132868&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100132868&jd=100132868
-
Why Oklahoma Can't Turn Off Its Earthquakes
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
The 5.0 magnitude earthquake that hit Cushing, Okla., late Nov. 6, is the latest and, in some ways, the most troubling in a series of temblors that has rocked the Sooner State over the past few years. Not only did it strike within a mile of what is arguably one of the country's most important strategic assets—Cushing is the largest crude oil trading hub in North America, with almost 600 million barrels of stored crude—but its occurrence raises questions over the state's ability to do anything about the significant rise in seismic activity, which has been linked to oil and gas activity.
While regulations limiting the underground disposal of wastewater have succeeded in reducing the overall frequency of earthquakes, they haven't been able to stop the really big ones from happening. With a recent flurry of quakes hitting closer to Cushing, that's raising questions about national security risks.
Last year, Oklahoma experienced more than 1,000 earthquakes measuring at least 3.0 in magnitude; that's up from fewer than two in 2008. The state is now the most seismically active in the continental U.S. Seismologists believe the quakes there are the result of wastewater injection wells used by the oil and gas industry.
Horizontal oil wells in Oklahoma can produce as many as nine or 10 barrels of salty, toxin-laced water for every barrel of oil, and much of that fluid is injected back underground into wastewater disposal wells. The fracking revolution resulted in an enormous increase in the disposal of wastewater underground in Oklahoma. From 2009 to 2014, disposal volumes shot up 81 percent, to more than 1 billion barrels a year. It is this wastewater, injected near faults, that many seismologists, including those at the U.S. Geological Survey, say has caused the spike in earthquakes.
After years of official skepticism over the relationship between fracking and earthquakes, Oklahoma's government finally acknowledged the link in 2015. That came as the industry was reeling from lower crude prices, and it was a big step, considering that oil and gas accounts for about a quarter of all jobs in the state. That summer, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state's oil and gas regulator, began imposing restrictions aimed at cutting the amount of wastewater disposed of underground. To date, the OCC has ordered some 700 disposal wells either to shut down or reduce their volumes. That's cut disposal rates by about 800,000 barrels a day, from a high of about 2.5 million in 2014.
With the added restrictions, Oklahoma has gone from averaging more than four earthquakes a day to around two per day. The reduction, in some ways, confirms the connection between wastewater disposal and earthquakes. “It's the closest thing we have to a smoking gun,” said Jeremy Boak, director of the Oklahoma Geological Survey. But it also shows the limited power of strict regulations in reducing the largest earthquakes.
The Cushing quake was the third quake with a magnitude of 5.0 or greater so far this year in Central, the 19th temblor over the past week. It hit just two months after the biggest quake in state history, a 5.8-magnitude one in Pawnee, about 25 miles south of Cushing.
That event has muted some of the enthusiasm around the OCC restrictions, said Dan McNamara, a research geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver. “For about six months, the story was that these restrictions were working, but then the 5.8 hit,” said McNamara. “The small events may be trending down, but the frequency of the largest ones is going up, and that is what's troubling about this latest cluster of activity, particularly around Cushing.“
Last year, McNamara co-authored a paper that studied a sequence of earthquakes around Cushing in 2014. His paper linked the quakes to the activity of four injection wells in the vicinity. It also uncovered a fault line directly beneath Cushing's enormous oil tanks that was previously unknown to geologists—the same fault that was activated on Sunday. The recent seismic activity, despite a significant reduction in disposal rates, is cause for concern, McNamara said. “It tells me that there is something else going on other than the direct injection of water underground.“
Even if Oklahoma were to stop injecting wastewater tomorrow, McNamara said, the chance of large quakes will remain elevated for years to come. The pressure that fracking wastewater has added to the complex network of fault lines running beneath Oklahoma isn't going away. “We're looking at many, many years of earthquakes as that energy dissipates through the system,” he said.
The Cushing quake knocked out power and damaged many of the small town's historic buildings, but no damage was reported to its oil and gas infrastructure. The oil facility resumed normal operations on Nov. 7.
Even so, might the latest temblors serve as a wake-up call to the industry that more must be done to prevent what could ultimately become a national catastrophe? “I don't think this changes anything,” said Kim Hatfield, vice chairman of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group of oil and gas producers. The industry still strongly opposes any moratorium on wastewater disposal, said Hatfield.
Although big fracking companies are exploring options on how to treat and recycle their wastewater, rather than inject it underground, the industry insists those options still aren't cost-effective and that a disposal moratorium would destroy the state's economy by shutting down oil production. “If you shut down wastewater disposal, there won't be anything left to regulate,” said Hatfield. “So that is an awfully expensive science project you'd have there.” It's also an awfully risky chance to take.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100132866&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100132866&jd=100132866
-
Energy Transfer to Keep Up Pace of Dakota Access Work
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
Energy Transfer Partners LP said it's not slowing construction on the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, dismissing as a mistake the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers statement that it would.
Work is complete on each side of Lake Oahe and the company expects to finish mobilizing equipment for tunneling under the lake in two weeks, spokeswoman Vicki Granado said in an e-mailed statement.
A statement from the Army Corps on Nov. 7 saying the company had agreed to slow down construction “was a mistake,” the Dallas-based company said.
Energy Transfer is awaiting an easement that would allow it to finish construction of the pipeline under the lake. Work on the $3.8 billion line has been stalled since September pending federal review of prior decisions to allow the project.
The 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois has been facing escalating opposition. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmentalists say the project will damage sites culturally significant to the tribe and pose a hazard where the pipeline crosses the river.
On Nov. 8, the North Dakota Public Service Commission voted to move forward with a formal complaint against the company for failing to obtain the commission's approval before proceeding with work “after unanticipated cultural sites were identified” along the route, the agency said in a statement. The advocacy staff recommended a minimum fine of $15,000, and the company has 20 days to respond.
Line Rerouting
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama said the Army Corps is examining rerouting the pipeline. The administration is determining whether the project can be completed in a way that “is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans,” he said.
“We are not aware that any consideration is being given to a reroute, and we remain confident we will receive our easement in a timely fashion,” Granado said.
Energy Transfer shares have fallen 14 percent since work has been stalled. The company is trading as if it'll “never see a penny” of earnings from its four projects including Dakota Access, said analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100132895&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100132895&jd=100132895
-
Trump Win Raises Question About UN Climate Deal
Nov 9, 2016 | AP ( In the New York Times)
MARRAKECH, Morocco — The election of a U.S. president who has called global warming a "hoax" raised questions Wednesday about America's involvement in the Paris Agreement on climate change — and the future of the deal itself.
As the sun rose over the Atlas mountains, news of Trump's victory was still sinking in at U.N. climate talks in Marrakech, Morocco, where delegates from almost 200 countries — including the U.S. — were meeting for the first time since the landmark deal entered force.
The first official reaction came from an alliance of small island nations who fear they will be washed away by rising seas. In a diplomatically worded statement, Maldives Energy Minister Thoriq Ibrahim, who chairs the alliance, congratulated Trump and said his administration will have to confront the challenge of climate change and the transition to cleaner energy.
"America has led this technological transformation and can continue to create jobs and opportunity in this area - something people everywhere will benefit from," Ibrahim said.
Environmental activists were devastated by the election result, with May Boeve, leader of the 350.org environmental group, calling it a "disaster."
"Trump will try and slam the brakes on climate action, which means we need to throw all of our weight on the accelerator," Boeve said. "In the United States, the climate movement will put everything on the line to protect the progress we've made and continue to push for bold action."
In contrast to Barack Obama, who made climate change a key policy area, Trump has called global warming a "hoax" on social media and pledged in May to "cancel" the Paris deal, which was adopted in the French capital last year.
More than 100 countries, including the U.S., have formally joined the agreement, which seeks to reduce emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases and help vulnerable countries adapt to rising seas, intensifying heat waves, the spreading of deserts and other climate changes.
The withdrawal process would take four years — an entire presidential term — under the terms of the agreement. However, Trump could also decide to simply ignore the Obama administration's Paris pledge to reduce U.S. emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. The pledges are self-determined, and there is no punishment for countries who miss their targets.
It's unclear what would happen to the deal if the U.S. dropped out, though U.S. negotiators and others said before the election they believed the rest of the world would go ahead because they see a transition to clean energy in their national interests.
"It seems like a most miserable U.S. election result for climate stewardship prospects," said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. "Can the world do climate stewardship without the U.S.? It has to."
The conservative American Energy Alliance welcomed Trump's victory, saying American people are tired of their interests taking a back seat to special interests in Washington.
"President-elect Trump's victory presents an opportunity reset the harmful energy policies of the last generation," said the group's president, Thomas Pyle. "He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and workers first."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/09/world/africa/ap-election-trump-climate-change.html
-
Six Reasons You Should Care About the Marrakech Climate Talks
Nov 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Officials from almost 200 countries are gathering in Marrakech, Morocco, this week for the first major summit since they agreed in December to curb greenhouse gas pollution and limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
The landmark deal struck in Paris entered into force Nov. 4, with more than half of the 197 countries now having ratified the pact, significantly faster than expected. Work now starts to ensure the world actually delivers the Paris goals, and the delegates in Marrakech are charged with fleshing out the details of the 13-page agreement. This year's talks may not be as high profile as the Paris summit but here are six things to look for.
Writing a Rulebook
Within the next two years, officials must draw up a rulebook for the Paris deal, to actually put the agreement into practice. This rulebook will set out guidelines on key issues such as climate-finance accounting, defining what constitutes a climate pledge (also known as Nationally Determined Contributions) and how the deal applies to existing and future carbon markets. These rules need to be in place by 2018—the next politically significant year for the negotiations when a global evaluation is planned—calculating any additional actions needed to meet the Paris goals.
Investors Searching for Clean Opportunities
The Paris deal sent a signal to businesses that governments are seeking to ramp up investment in renewable energy technologies and climate adaptation measures, such as sea walls and desalination plants. The climate action plans that countries have put forward can be used like a shopping catalog for investors and businesses that want to benefit from the low-carbon economy. The Paris Agreement has already created $23 trillion of investment opportunities in emerging markets, according to the International Finance Corp. It identified as much as $13 trillion in investment potential for green buildings in the East Asia and Pacific region and almost $1.5 trillion investment potential for transportation in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Investors now want to see how the Paris deal will be implemented, and that it's more than just words.
The World Is Still Heading for Catastrophic Warming
All the pledges on the table still aren't enough to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Countries need to find at least another 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide-equivalent to save or else we're heading for warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius, according to the United Nations. Countries have agreed to review their proposals every five years, and to boost ambitions where they can. The U.S. is expected to announce a new mid-century goal in Marrakech, providing another signal to investors that it's committed to curbing emissions.
After Decades of Delay, Talks Are Moving Too Fast
Nobody expected the Paris deal to enter into force so soon and this year's talks will actually seek to suspend some new negotiation strands. Since December, many countries moved quickly to ratification, reaching the threshold last month of 55 countries covering 55 percent of global emissions to make the deal legally binding. That triggered the creation of a new working group, known as CMA 1, which will be seeking to tie down rules about transparency. But now delegates will be seeking to put the brakes on CMA 1 until they've cleared other issues off the table.
This Year Will Be Another Record Scorcher
The past five years were the hottest half-decade on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization, and this year is virtually certain to go down as the third consecutive year to set a global heat record. The group is warning that the world has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius, making delegates’ task even harder.
Oceans Are Warming and Sea Ice Is Shrinking
Rising ocean temperatures and melting ice sheets are leading to higher sea levels. Average sea-surface temperatures in 2015 rose to a record, feeding into ocean expansions triggered by warming water, according to the WMO.
Melting ice caps also raise sea levels. Areas covered by Arctic sea ice from 2011 to 2015 were 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, the WMO reported. Sea levels rose by about 3 millimeters (0.12 inch) a year since 1993, almost double the rate seen since 1900, the WMO said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100132886&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100132886&jd=100132886
-
California Air District Sues EPA Over Denial Of SIP Offsets Program Rules
Nov 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California Bay Area air district officials are suing EPA over its rejection of the district's new source review (NSR) emissions offsets program, claiming the agency is "misreading" Clean Air Act requirements and creating "arbitrary" demands for additional offsets to allow permitting of industrial facility modifications.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Nov. 7 announced that it has scheduled a mediation conference for Nov. 18 in the lawsuit, Bay Area Air Quality Management District v. EPA, et al.
EPA in the Aug. 1 Federal Register finalized a "limited disapproval" of the Bay Area air district's Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2, which are included in the district's portion of the California state implementation plan (SIP) submitted to the agency in 2013. Issuance of the final rule triggered a 60-day clock for suits over the decision, and the Bay Area filed its case Sept. 29 with the 9th Circuit.
The Bay Area district spokesman faults EPA's decision and says the Clean Air Act "grants local permitting authorities the ability to design their own regulatory programs to achieve federal NSR program requirements. EPA's role is simply to determine whether the local authority meets federal requirements."
EPA justified the rejection of the offsets rules in its Register notice, saying that revisions to the area's emissions rules consist of "significant updates . . . governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act," the notice says.
Included in 11 specific rule disapprovals are several dealing with the district's "Offset Program Equivalence" demonstration requirements. For example, EPA says that one section of the district's rules allows existing "fully-offset" sources to generate emission reduction credits (ERCs) "based on the difference between the post-modification potential to emit and the pre-modification potential to emit."
However, emission reductions "intended to be used as offsets for new major sources or major modifications are only creditable if they are reductions of actual emissions, not reductions in the potential to emit of a source," EPA says.
'Fully-Offset' Sources
In addition, another part of the rule applying to major facility modifications fails to require "fully-offset" sources to calculate the emission increases from a proposed major modification based on the difference between the "postmodification" potential to emit and the "premodification" actual emissions, as required by the Clean Air Act, EPA says.
The Bay Area air district spokesman explains that under NSR permitting requirements, when a facility wants to modify their operations in a way that will increase air emissions, it must provide offsets to counterbalance the emissions increase. Facilities can also purchase ERCs from an emissions bank.
The district is "petitioning the court to overturn EPA's ruling that the [district's] existing offsets program must require additional offsets over and above what is already required for the same amount of emissions," the spokesman says. "The district believes that EPA is misreading what the Clean Air Act requires for local offset programs and is creating arbitrary requirements to require additional offsets which aren't necessary to achieve our clean air goals."
The practical effect in the district if EPA upholds its disapproval decision is that "facilities may have to provide offsets over and over again where they have already fully offset all of their emissions," a district staffer says. "That is, if a facility can emit up to a maximum of 100 tons per year (tpy) of a pollutant under worst-case conditions, the facility will have to provide 100 tpy at the time of permitting to ensure that all of its emissions are offset."
Under EPA's position, "the facility would continue to have to provide more and more offsets on top of that, even though all of its emissions are already offset," the source adds. "This will use up the universe of offsets available for other facilities that want to undertake projects, without providing any corresponding air quality benefit (because the facility has already offset everything it could possible emit)."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-air-district-sues-epa-over-denial-sip-offsets-program-rules
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested