Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/5/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) TQL Accepted Into ACC Responsible Care Partnership Program
Dec 5, 2016 | American Journal of Transportation
By AJOT
Total Quality Logistics announced today it has been accepted into the American Chemistry Council Responsible Care Partnership Program, and will soon begin the process to receive full certification. -
Will Trump Opt for an Insider or a Fresh Face?
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
As President-elect Donald Trump's team considers its options for U.S. EPA administrator, it's weighing the advantages of picking an agency expert versus a Beltway outsider, according to sources close to the transition. -
Rumored DOE Pick Cramer Heads to Trump Tower
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer, a possible choice for Energy secretary under a Trump administration, is heading to New York today to meet with the president-elect. -
McCarthy Sees Policy Continuity with Trump EPA but Observers Doubtful
Dec 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says she expects some policy continuity between the Obama EPA and President-elect Trump including a push for water infrastructure funding and working on oil and gas methane rules, but observers are doubtful and expect Trump to follow through on his campaign pledges to reduce EPA's scope. -
Activists Hail 'Historic Decision' Stopping Pipeline
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access pipeline opponents were elated yesterday as news of the Obama administration's refusal to grant a final permit made its way around the protesters' camp. -
EPA chief: Pipeline Rejections are Not a ‘Policy Signal’
Dec 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Monday that the Obama administration’s rejections of high-profile oil pipelines do not reflect an overall policy against similar projects. -
Enviros Move to Defend BLM Methane Rule
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups will not let the Obama administration's latest methane-slashing rule go down without a fight. -
EPA Made Changes to Fracking Study After White House Meeting
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's contentious assertion that hydraulic fracturing hasn't caused "widespread, systemic" problems with drinking water was added shortly after agency officials met with Obama White House officials to discuss "messaging," according to documents obtained by public radio reporters. -
U.S.-to-Mexico NatGas Pipeline Capacity to Nearly Double
Dec 5, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
U.S. pipeline capacity for natural gas exports to Mexico has not only rapidly expanded in recent years, but it is expected to nearly double over the next three, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). -
(ACC Mentioned) CSB Nominee has Strong Industry Ties
Dec 5, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Rachel A. Meidl was nominated by President Barack Obama last month to serve on the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). -
Trump Adviser Meets with Utility Cybersecurity Panel
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
With much of its cybersecurity strategy still a blank slate, the Trump transition team last week got its first look at the utility industry's point organization for cybersecurity defense at a closed meeting of senior officials from federal energy and security agencies. -
Freight Railroads Call for Regulatory Freeze, Reform
Dec 5, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Edward R. Hamberger
The freight railroad industry is calling on the U.S. Surface Transportation Board to suspend all major rulemaking efforts until the new administration is in place and has appointed and confirmed a full five-person board. -
Can Ivanka Trump and Al Gore Unite Against Climate Change?
Dec 5, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Brent Budowsky
News that Ivanka Trump wants to make the effort against climate change a major cause of hers, and joins Al Gore for a meeting to discuss one of the most important issues facing the earth, is one of the most interesting and important developments of the Donald Trump transition. -
Al Gore Has ‘Extremely Interesting’ Meeting with Trump
Dec 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Climate change activist and former vice president Al Gore had what he described as a “very productive” meeting with President-elect Donald Trump Monday. -
Extension of Cap and Trade Recommended to Hit 2030 GHG Goal
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
An extension of California's economywide cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions is needed to hit the state's ambitious target for cutting greenhouse gas pollution by 2030, a proposal from the state's air board said Friday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) TQL Accepted Into ACC Responsible Care Partnership Program
Dec 5, 2016 | American Journal of Transportation
By AJOT
Total Quality Logistics announced today it has been accepted into the American Chemistry Council Responsible Care Partnership Program, and will soon begin the process to receive full certification.
Responsible Care is the ACC’s comprehensive health, safety, security and environmental performance improvement initiative. Its mission is to promote continual environmental health, safety and sustainability in the chemical supply chain.
Responsible Care includes more than 100 partner companies, extending safe management of chemicals to leading transportation, storage and distribution companies in North America.
Over the next three years TQL will conduct a full audit and implement ACC standards to receive full membership and earn Responsible Care Management System certification.
“This partnership is important in ensuring we continue to provide world-class service,” said TQL president Kerry Byrne. “Going through this process will make us a better partner to our customers, giving them another level of assurance that their freight will be transported safely and responsibly.”
“We are pleased to welcome Total Quality Logistics to the American Chemistry Council Responsible Care Partner program,” said Greg Rhoads of the ACC. “ACC Responsible Care Partners have made a public commitment to strengthening the supply chain through continual improvement in environmental, health, safety and security performance. TQL joins with over 100 Responsible Care Partner companies in implementing Responsible Care into their chemical-related operations.”
The global Responsible Care initiative began in Canada in 1984 and has spread to more than 60 regional and national associations around the world. The ACC adopted Responsible Care in 1988.
Partner companies are committed to safety and have an employee safety record five times better than the average of the U.S. manufacturing sector and three times better than the chemistry sector.
In addition, Responsible Care companies have reduced hazardous releases to the air, land and water by 74 percent; since 1995, the number of distribution incidents among member companies has declined by 62 percent.
https://www.ajot.com/news/tql-accepted-into-acc-responsible-care-partnership-program
-
Will Trump Opt for an Insider or a Fresh Face?
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
As President-elect Donald Trump's team considers its options for U.S. EPA administrator, it's weighing the advantages of picking an agency expert versus a Beltway outsider, according to sources close to the transition.
Trump has already met with several prospects for EPA chief, including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and former Texas regulator Kathleen Hartnett White. But former George W. Bush administration EPA official Jeff Holmstead and his allies are also making a push for him to get the job, sources say.
Several less-known candidates are also still under consideration, including Donald van der Vaart, secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Carol Comer, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management under Gov. Mike Pence, the vice president-elect, is another name that's still circulating, said one source close to the transition. West Virginia Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had been in the mix but made it clear he wasn't interested in the job, that source said.
As Trump considers his selection for the prominent job, those close to him are weighing whether someone like Holmstead — who is intimately familiar with the agency — or an outsider with state expertise would be a better pick for accomplishing the administration's goals of drastically reshaping the agency. Trump previously said he'd like to abolish EPA entirely. Although he has since walked back from those comments, he and his allies have made it clear they plan to slash Obama administration programs and refocus the agency, which has long been loathed by many industries.
"Some people are weighing in at the highest levels saying you need a guy like Jeff Holmstead because he's a guy who knows the agency inside and out," said the source close to the transition. Others, the source said, are arguing that "he's too institutionally tied to the place" and "you need somebody coming in completely fresh from the outside."
Among the advisers said to have Trump's ear on energy issues are oil tycoon Harold Hamm; billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who is interested in renewable fuels policies; and Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp.
Icahn is one of a number of people who are "intrigued" by Holmstead's candidacy, said an energy lobbyist familiar with the transition. Holmstead hasn't yet been scheduled to meet with Trump and Pence at Trump Tower, but "he's definitely on the list," that person said.
The other source close to the transition said Holmstead has "some pretty powerful people reaching out on his behalf."
Pruitt and Hartnett White are both Beltway outsiders, which could boost their profiles in Trump's eyes. He has picked some former Bush administration officials for his Cabinet — including his Transportation Department selection, Elaine Chao — but EPA is one agency where some energy insiders predict Trump will want to send a strong message that big changes are on the way.
Pruitt has gained fame in the energy world for helping to lead the legal fight against the Obama administration's signature climate rule. Hartnett White is a Texas regulatory expert who has called for restraining "the imperial EPA."
Trump's roster for his EPA transition team offers an early indication that he intends to take a new approach at the agency. The names announced so far for the EPA transition team include prominent climate change skeptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Amy Oliver Cooke, a former talk show host who works at a Colorado free-market think tank and has advocated "irritating the extreme eco-left."
David Schnare, general counsel at the conservative Energy & Environment Legal Institute and a well-known critic of the Obama administration's environmental regulations, has been advising Ebell, according to the source close to the transition. Schnare has not been officially named to the transition team. He was previously an attorney in EPA's enforcement office.
Trump could be announcing his roster of top environmental and energy officials in the coming days. He said Friday that "almost all" of his Cabinet picks would be named this week.
Two Democratic senators — Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — "are both being seriously considered" to head the Energy Department, said the source close to the transition. Heitkamp met with Trump last week in New York. North Dakota Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer is also scheduled to meet with Trump today, and Hamm has said he has urged Trump to pick Cramer for DOE secretary.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046671
-
Rumored DOE Pick Cramer Heads to Trump Tower
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer, a possible choice for Energy secretary under a Trump administration, is heading to New York today to meet with the president-elect.
The congressman from North Dakota has for months been cited as one of Donald Trump's top picks to lead DOE, an agency that oversees sprawling national labs, the nuclear arsenal, and more than 13,000 employees and contractors.
Cramer, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, was among the early Capitol Hill backers of Trump and served as an energy adviser during his campaign.
Last week, oil tycoon Harold Hamm gave his blessing for Trump to tap Cramer to lead the agency, saying the congressman was more qualified and would "do a better job" than Hamm himself (E&E News PM, Dec. 1). Cramer had said earlier that Hamm, who also advises Trump, should have first dibs on the DOE post.
Other names being floated for Energy secretary include Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Trump has met with both Heitkamp and Cramer (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
Trump's transition team in recent days has declined to say whether Heitkamp or Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — another rumored candidate for a Trump administration job — are under consideration for specific posts (Greenwire, Dec. 2).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046665
-
McCarthy Sees Policy Continuity with Trump EPA but Observers Doubtful
Dec 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says she expects some policy continuity between the Obama EPA and President-elect Trump including a push for water infrastructure funding and working on oil and gas methane rules, but observers are doubtful and expect Trump to follow through on his campaign pledges to reduce EPA's scope.
Speaking at a Dec. 5 event in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, McCarthy said she believes the Trump team will be open to continuing development on rulemakings industry has opposed, such as an existing source performance standard (ESPS) rule for oil and gas extraction. EPA has finalized methane limits for future oil and gas operations and launched a data request to inform a possible ESPS for existing drilling.
Responding to an audience question on how she might preserve the ESPS effort, McCarthy said, “You explain it to them. You provide them information -- sit down with the transition team and explain what we're doing, and you talk about the many companies that are relying on us to provide a level playing field.”
The timing of the information collection request (ICR) means that it will be up to the Trump EPA to decide whether to use the data collected to craft first-time limits on the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from existing facilities. Trump during his campaign speeches criticized EPA regulations and vowed to help ease regulations on the energy sector.
At the event, McCarthy also drew comparisons between Trump's promises to bolster infrastructure development and President Obama's own push during his first term to fund a massive expansion in water infrastructure construction, suggesting that could also be another policy priority that continues under the next president.
“If this [Trump] administration, as they said, is interested in infrastructure investment, they recognize it as good for the economy and jobs, I do really hope that they will add water and wastewater infrastructure as opportunities to grow the economy plus deal with what we know is a core need of this country,” she said.
But a separate panel of speakers at the event all cast doubt on whether any rule still in development when Obama leaves office might survive, and downplayed prospects for policy continuity between the Obama and Trump EPA.
The speakers include the Bipartisan Policy Center's Jason Grumet; Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell's Policy Resolution Group; and former EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, now president of the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions, and they all predicted that Trump will embrace a broadly deregulatory agenda.
'Shouting Matches'
Perciasepe said the question is not whether the GOP will seek to repeal the Obama administration's climate rules, especially the Clean Power Plan setting GHG standards for existing power plants, but whether they will try to replace it with another climate policy -- which he said is the only way to avoid reducing any such effort to a partisan stalemate.
“I think that people will put on the table whether or not the Clean Air Act should have jurisdiction over greenhouse gases . . . but somebody's got to say 'here's how we're going to do this' as opposed to 'we're not going to do this and we'll call you later.' That's going to create an environment that doesn't lend itself to finding the vital center, or whatever you want to call it. It just aids and abets the shouting matches on the margins,” Perciasepe said.
Segal said legislators could seek to overhaul the Clean Air Act altogether, noting that the statute was intended to be reauthorized every 10 years but has not been amended since 1990.
“I think there is a pent-up desire to reform the Clean Air Act” in both parties, he said, although he did not address what specific reforms environmentalists might seek or how they could find common ground with the GOP.
Later in the panel, he raised the possibility that a revised air law could include a separate provision specifically regulating GHGs, similar to how the 1990 amendments treated ozone depleting substances separately from other pollutants. Grumet also noted that regulating GHGs under the air law “has been clumsy” but did not offer an alternative regime.
However, the panelists also noted Trump's unpredictability on policy, saying he could reverse course from his broad opposition to Obama-era climate rules once he takes office.
Trump “is unencumbered by the idea that what happens Tuesday has to influence what happens Thursday,” Grumet said.
McCarthy's Predictions
Asked to predict how the Trump administration will treat the new source performance standard for oil and gas facilities' methane releases -- which is under threat of reversal through the Congressional Review Act -- McCarthy expressed confidence in the rule's grounding.
“We'll see what they do, but I think we did our job really well on this one, [we] did the outreach we needed, not just with the industry but with states, and I think people, if they look at it, will see that it's a rule that should sustain,” she said.
Similarly, she defended the agency's decision to use an ICR to gather documentation for an eventual ESPS for the sector, which observers have seen as leaving the door open for the Trump EPA to halt development of the rule or weaken it dramatically from what the Obama administration would have proposed.
“If you look at our statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act, we indeed needed to know more about the industry and the existing units than we knew today.” She later added that starting work on the ESPS earlier would have left it open to legal challenge.
“Any shortcuts EPA takes will not succeed. We have to do . . . the grunt work, perhaps, that the agency has always has done, because we will be challenged,” she said.
McCarthy also denied reports that agency officials made changes to its draft report on impacts to drinking water supplies from hydraulic fracturing that softened its conclusions before release, leading to the study's finding of no “widespread, systemic” impacts on water. She said any changes to the report were made by agency scientists and not policy leaders. “I don't change science documents,” she said.
Environmentalists have cited those reports as support for their claims that EPA should revise the conclusion in its final report, but McCarthy said that “the scientists will respond to the questions that arose” from a Science Advisory Board review of the draft and that the agency is committed to releasing the final report “as soon as we can to provide the clarity that everyone's looking for.”
Proposed Pipelines
Finally, McCarthy defended the Army Corps of Engineers' recent decision to halt work on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) after major protests from tribes over potential impacts to drinking water supplies and sacred lands. She said despite the administration's earlier decision blocking the Keystone XL pipeline over climate impacts, the two moves to do not show a general opposition to pipeline construction. “They are two very distinct decisions, if you look at why they were made,” she said.
On DAPL, “Issues have been raised that are of great concern to many people, and it's appropriate that we use the current system to make sure that we're looking at all environmental impacts,” McCarthy continued.
She said that the Keystone decision was a matter of weighing a host of more unique climate concerns that most pipelines would not implicate. “The question that Keystone answered was a lot more complicated than 'is it an oil pipeline.'”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/mccarthy-sees-policy-continuity-trump-epa-observers-doubtful
-
Activists Hail 'Historic Decision' Stopping Pipeline
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access pipeline opponents were elated yesterday as news of the Obama administration's refusal to grant a final permit made its way around the protesters' camp.
In videos shared on social media, activists in North Dakota are seen cheering, singing and joining hands outside the tents and teepees many of them have lived in for months in opposition to the oil project. One tribal advocate joked on Facebook that a lot of babies will be born nine months from now.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led the effort to stop the pipeline, was perhaps the most relieved at the news of its delay.
"The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and all of Indian Country will be forever grateful to the Obama Administration for this historic decision," Chairman Dave Archambault II said in a statement, adding that protesters are eager to get back to their families for the winter.
The pipeline would cross within a half-mile of the tribe's reservation, across ancestral homelands that were once promised to the Sioux in a treaty. Opposition to the project has sparked a larger battle over tribal treaty rights across the nation.
In its long-awaited decision, the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would not grant the easement needed for the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River. Instead, the agency will undertake an in-depth environmental impact statement to consider risks and alternative routes (Energywire, Dec. 4).
That means the project is not dead, but it is significantly delayed.
Project backers Energy Transfer Partners LP and Sunoco Logistics Partners LP slammed the decision, arguing that it ignores multiple federal authorizations for the project and court decisions in the pipeline's favor.
"The White House's directive today to the Corps for further delay is just the latest in a series of overt and transparent political actions by an administration which has abandoned the rule of law in favor of currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency," the companies said in a statement.
Opponents promise to continue their campaign against the pipeline as the environmental review process moves forward.
"We are asking our supporters to keep up the pressure, because while President Obama has granted us a victory today, that victory isn't guaranteed in the next administration," the Indigenous Environmental Network's Dallas Goldtooth said in a statement. "More threats are likely in the year to come, and we cannot stop until this pipeline is completely and utterly defeated, and our water and climate are safe."
Industry groups and several Republican members of Congress have already called on President-elect Donald Trump to reverse the decision (E&E Daily, Dec. 5).
Inside the decision
The Army Corps' announcement follows a flurry of federal activity related to the pipeline in recent days.
On Friday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch reached out to local law enforcement to urge them to de-escalate tensions with protesters. She followed the call with a video message promising federal support for community policing and peaceful protest.
Meanwhile, the Army Corps' Omaha District commander was meeting for five hours with members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and representatives from Dakota Access LLC. They reviewed the tribe's concerns about the pipeline and discussed 30 operating terms that could reduce the risk of a pipeline spill or rupture. According to an agency memo, the meeting "did not produce any definitive mutual agreements."
By Saturday and yesterday, tensions on the ground began to lift as law enforcement officers struck a deal with a group of veterans opposed to the pipeline, agreeing to pull back from their position near the protesters' camp as long as protesters agreed not to advance toward the pipeline route. Officers had just finished their relocation when news of the Army Corps' announcement hit.
The easement decision is a milestone not just for tribes seeking greater control over development near their lands but also for the Army Corps, which has consistently defended its prior approvals of Dakota Access' water crossings.
Much of the disagreement over the agency's tribal consultation process has revolved around its practice of focusing on impacts only in the immediate surrounding area of a water crossing, rather than impacts down the length of a proposed pipeline.
A lawyer for the Standing Rock Sioux told a federal court earlier this year that the tribe only had the chance to weigh in on "a hole in the ground," not the pipeline itself (Energywire, Oct. 6).
But that litigation is ongoing, and the Army Corps is still backing its previous actions, including an environmental assessment that found no significant impact from water crossings.
In a detailed memo yesterday, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy, who oversees the Army Corps, wrote that the agency is not changing its position that it has followed relevant laws throughout the review process.
"I want to be clear that this decision does not alter the Army's position that the Corps' prior reviews and actions have comported with legal requirements," she said. "Rather, my decision acknowledges and addresses that a more robust analysis of alternatives can be done and should be done, under these circumstances, before an easement is granted for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross the Missouri River on Corps land."
Darcy cited the White House Council on Environmental Quality's guidance that agencies "should heighten agency attention to alternatives" in some cases "where environmental effects on tribal resources are at stake."
"This more [heightened] analysis, in my judgment, is appropriate in the circumstances present here," she wrote, directing the agency to do an environmental impact statement that includes "more rigorous exploration and evaluation of reasonable siting alternatives, and greater public and tribal participation and comments."
The review will include another look at an alternative route once proposed near Bismarck, as well as further discussion of oil spill risks and the impacts to tribal water, fishing and hunting rights.
How we got here
It's been a long road to the Army Corps of Engineers' decision yesterday to refuse to grant an easement for the Dakota Access pipeline.
The conflict began years ago, before the word "easement" was ever part of the discussion. The nearest tribal neighbor to the pipeline, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, has opposed its route for years. Though the tribe did not attend state regulators' meetings on the project, it made its grievances known to the project developer and the Army Corps.
The tribe's opposition grew this year as the corps granted Clean Water Act approvals for the pipeline to cross various rivers, wetlands and lakes along its route. That included Lake Oahe, a culturally significant section of the Missouri River.
The route would also cross ancestral homelands, part of Sioux territory under an 1800s treaty, plus several areas that could contain tribal artifacts or burial grounds.
Represented by Earthjustice, the tribe sued the Army Corps in July, arguing that the nationwide permitting system used to greenlight the water crossings was flawed and did not adequately incorporate tribal input.
The lawsuit galvanized tribes and environmentalists, who came from across the country to join the Sioux people in their opposition to the pipeline. The situation transformed from a battle against a single pipeline to a movement for greater tribal consultation and respect for treaty rights.
The Obama administration took notice, intervening in September to block pipeline work across the lake by withholding a real estate easement — just moments after a federal judge refused to freeze construction.
Since then, it's been a tense game of wait-and-see. As construction continued on other parts of the line in recent months, local law enforcement called for backup from several neighboring states to control protest activities.
Tensions between law enforcement and protesters have turned into violence on several occasions, and all sides have implored the Obama administration to issue a final decision on the easement.
Labor disappointment
Supporters of the pipeline project railed at the Obama administration for yesterday's decision, calling it "purely political."
"Blocking the final portion of construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline after it is 93 percent complete and fully reviewed is a short-sighted, gutless, and irresponsible decision," Terry O'Sullivan, head of the Laborers' International Union of North America, said in a statement.
According to O'Sullivan, more than 4,500 members of building-related unions have worked on Dakota Access.
"The skilled tradesmen from many communities along the pipeline's route already preparing for the coming economic boon that will accompany the construction phase of the project were dealt a serious blow by this decision," Bill Gerhard, president of the Iowa State Building & Construction Trades Council, said in a statement.
Leaders of many labor and industry groups vowed to fight for the pipeline under Trump, who has signaled support for the project.
But a reversal of the Army Corps' decision would have to be accompanied by a legal rationale that would stand up in court, as tribes and environmentalists have promised to challenge any such decision.
Pipeline prospects
For now, the ball is in the Army Corps' court.
The agency will begin preparing its environmental impact statement, including extensive public scoping and comment, as well as close coordination with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. That process is expected to take months.
ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christi Tezak noted that the next administration could swiftly grant the easement, or a federal court could rule in Dakota Access' favor.
"Either way, the outgoing Obama Administration has taken an action that appears to preclude Dakota Access starting work before President Obama leaves office on January 20, and constructs a hurdle to approving it that merely leaving the easement outstanding did not present," she wrote.
Lawyers for the company have said in court filings that if the pipeline does not go into service as scheduled in January 2017 — as it now assuredly cannot — the company could lose customer contracts and millions of dollars. A year of delays and related losses, including capital expenses, loan renewal fees, lost revenue and penalty payments, would cost the company $1.4 billion, the lawyers said (Energywire, Sept. 15).
The delay could also complicate financing for the pipeline. Energy Transfer cannot access the final $1.4 billion out of a $2.5 billion loan until it receives the easement from the Army Corps, Chief Financial Officer Tom Long said during a Nov. 10 conference call with analysts.
Peace on the ground
Back on the ground in North Dakota, protesters are still celebrating their victory today.
In a statement, Attorney General Lynch noted that the Justice Department "will continue to monitor the situation in North Dakota in the days ahead and we stand ready to provide resources to help all those who can play a constructive role in easing tensions."
"The safety of everyone in the area — law enforcement officers, residents and protesters alike — continues to be our foremost concern," she said.
Technically, today marks the deadline for protesters to comply with state and federal orders to vacate their main camp. However, both the Army Corps and local law enforcement have said they will not forcibly remove anyone.
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, who has led the law enforcement response to protests, said in a statement yesterday that authorities would simply continue to "enforce the law."
"I have stated from the beginning that the easement is a federal decision and local law enforcement does not have an opinion on it," he said. "Our role is to enforce the law and that is what we will continue to do."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046628
-
EPA chief: Pipeline Rejections are Not a ‘Policy Signal’
Dec 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Monday that the Obama administration’s rejections of high-profile oil pipelines do not reflect an overall policy against similar projects.
Gina McCarthy, who was nominated by President Obama and will leave the government with him Jan. 20, 2017, pushed back on the notion that the EPA or the White House objects to major oil pipelines as a whole.
Her comments came the morning after the Army Corps of Engineers blocked construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota by denying a federal permit to build the line under a lake.
“I don’t think this is a policy signal. I think this is just a signal that issues have been raised that are of great concern to many people, and it’s appropriate that we use the current system to make sure that we’re looking at all environmental impacts,” McCarthy said Monday at a Christian Science Monitor event, adding that impacts on American Indian tribes are also of concern.
“It should not send a signal that that type of concern is applicable to a broad range of infrastructure decisions that are going to be made across this country to meet our energy needs,” McCarthy continued. “Nobody is asking for us to sacrifice our ability to maintain a reliable and cost-effective energy supply for the United States.”
McCarthy’s comments were also in reference to Obama’s November 2015 decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
Both decisions have energized environmentalists under the “keep it in the ground” movement, which hopes to shut down fossil fuel production and infrastructure projects so that less oil, natural gas and coal will be produced and used.
She cautioned that the projects were very different and needed different approvals, part of the reason why they should not be read as a major policy statement.
“It’s very clear that the most recent decision is simply a recognition that there could be a more robust process and should be right now. That’s entirely within the scope of current law,” McCarthy said. “I don’t think it is sending an overall policy statement on infrastructure.”
The Army Corps had the main authority over Dakota Access’s easement, although the EPA and other agencies weighed in as well.
The EPA said in April it had some concerns with the Army Corps’s environmental review, saying it should be revised to better analyze the potential impacts of spills on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.
The agency also weighed in on the Keystone project before it was finished, including to warn the State Department that it had likely underestimated the greenhouse gas emissions the pipeline would cause.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/308737-epa-chief-pipeline-rejections-are-not-a-policy-signal
-
Enviros Move to Defend BLM Methane Rule
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups will not let the Obama administration's latest methane-slashing rule go down without a fight.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, the Environmental Defense Fund and an army of other groups on Friday entered the legal fray over the Bureau of Land Management's new methane rule.
Finalized last month, the plan to cut methane emissions from oil and gas development on public and tribal lands was promptly hit with challenges from industry groups and Western states. The challengers have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to freeze BLM's rule as the litigation plays out.
"Currently, the oil and gas industry releases methane into the sky, burns it off unused, and loses it through leaky infrastructure," Western Environmental Law Center attorney Laura King said in an email. "These industry norms create a public health liability, waste a publicly-owned resource, reduce royalty income for taxpayers, and exacerbate climate change."
WELC, Earthjustice and the Clean Air Task Force are representing many of the environmental groups in their request to join the case.
The groups want to make sure the rule stays intact for the long term, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Oil and gas operators routinely vent or burn off excess methane, and the gas can leak from well sites, compressor stations and pipelines.
BLM's rule would require operators to install equipment to monitor for leaks and to capture large amounts of gas instead of releasing it into the atmosphere (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
The rule is part of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan, which also features a U.S. EPA rule to cut methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. That rule is also under attack in the courtroom by industry and states, which say it is an expensive regulatory overreach.
Environmentalists say their involvement in both cases is all the more critical with the impending administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to roll back regulations on energy producers.
"The chances of a shift in agency policy are higher in a case like this one where the rule was adopted during one presidential administration but will be litigated by a new administration," they told the court Friday. "The Citizen Groups cannot rely on the agency to represent their interests, and should be allowed to intervene in order to protect their interests in conservation, environmental protection, and the health and safety of their members."
The other groups in the coalition are the Wyoming Outdoor Council, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, the Montana Environmental Information Center, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the San Juan Citizens Alliance, the Wilderness Society, the Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Wilderness Workshop.
The groups are seeking a seat at the table in time for a court hearing scheduled for Jan. 6, where BLM and its opponents will argue over whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction barring the rule from taking effect as scheduled on Jan. 17 (Energywire, Dec. 1).
The hearing will be before Judge Scott Skavdahl, the same Obama-appointed judge who froze and ultimately struck down BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule earlier this year.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046619
-
EPA Made Changes to Fracking Study After White House Meeting
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's contentious assertion that hydraulic fracturing hasn't caused "widespread, systemic" problems with drinking water was added shortly after agency officials met with Obama White House officials to discuss "messaging," according to documents obtained by public radio reporters.
Their report, aired on "Marketplace," said the executive summary and press release originally made a bland but contrary point — that scientists had found "potential vulnerabilities."
The story cites a draft of the executive summary from April 24, 2015, in which the phrase "widespread, systemic" did not appear. Instead, it said that fracturing activities "have contaminated drinking water resources." But it said the number of cases was low.
Ten days later, on May 4, 2015, the EPA team working on the study visited the White House along with top staffers from the Interior and Energy departments. They met with Dan Utech, Obama's top aide on energy and climate issues. The discussion focused on "messaging," according to minutes of a meeting held shortly after the White House session.
Eight days after that, according to the "Marketplace" story, the executive summary draft being passed around stated, "We did not find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts."
But the study wasn't released until June 4, 2015. And until the day before that, the press release still did not include the "widespread, systemic" line. Instead, the headline stated that the study found "Potential Vulnerabilities" for drinking water. The night before the release, EPA and White House press staffers traded emails about "topline" talking points.
The next morning, the released study included the assertion that "fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts."
At least one environmental group says the last-minute changes to the study betrayed people who trusted EPA and other regulators to investigate the dangers of oil and gas activity.
"These before-and-after documents vindicate the voices of affected landowners," said Hugh MacMillan, a senior researcher at the environmental group Food & Water Watch. "The administration owes it to them, and to the rest of the public, to be straight on where the science ends and where the policy considerations begin about fracking."
White House officials declined to comment on the public radio story, which was co-reported by "Marketplace" public radio and American Public Media's investigative unit, APM Reports.
E&E News has previously reported on the White House meetings with the EPA team drafting the study, based on White House visitor records and responses to a Freedom of Information Act request (Energywire, Sept. 21). But the drafts obtained by the public radio reporters were withheld or redacted by EPA officials.
Contamination becomes an addendum
The "widespread, systemic" finding was cheered by industry as a clean bill of health for a drilling practice under increasing scrutiny. Environmentalists seethed, saying the headline glossed over documented instances of contamination.
The lack of problems with fracturing became the lead headline of the news stories that followed. The examples of contamination were an addendum, when space allowed. Industry supporters sometimes stretched the line past the breaking point.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), for example, dressed down an Obama agency head that summer by asking, "Did you not care that the EPA found there was no groundwater problems with fracking?"
But EPA's science advisers homed in on the statement in a peer review process that began in the fall of 2015. Earlier this year, the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) issued a report saying the "widespread, systemic" language wasn't supported in the study.
The report said the language needs "clarification and additional explanation." But a dissent by four science advisers with industry ties said the language was "accurate" and "supportable with the facts EPA has reviewed."
The phrase "widespread, systemic" appears in four places in the 1,000-page report — twice in the executive summary and twice in the "synthesis" chapter. It also appears in the body of the press release announcing the study and in the second sentence of its headline.
Boom and bust for gas at the White House
Obama has lauded the shale gas drilling boom, which was made possible by advances in hydraulic fracturing, for helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In 2012, with oil and gas companies complaining about a haphazard regulatory approach to shale drilling, the administration tapped the brakes on several regulatory efforts.
His support has won him faint praise from industry and some measure of scorn from environmentalists. The kinder, gentler Obama approach has faded in the past year and a half as the administration has gotten increasingly tough on methane emissions from petroleum production.
At the time the fracturing study was released, the White House and administration officials at EPA were preparing to release the Clean Power Plan, an ambitious effort to cut greenhouse gases that was already under fierce political assault from Republicans and fossil fuel interests.
The study was requested in 2009 by congressional Democrats, who asked EPA to look into whether hydraulic fracturing harms drinking water.
The process was contentious from the beginning. Early on, drilling critics packed hearing halls for the "scoping" process, while environmental groups and industry lobbied to get their favored scientists on the peer review panel. The agency tangled with Halliburton Co. about what information the company should hand over, even issuing a subpoena at one point.
EPA officials have said they will "use the SAB's final comments and suggestions ... to revise and finalize the assessment," along with new studies and public comment. The final study is expected by the end of the year.
Click here for documents on White House involvement in the study.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046617
-
U.S.-to-Mexico NatGas Pipeline Capacity to Nearly Double
Dec 5, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
U.S. pipeline capacity for natural gas exports to Mexico has not only rapidly expanded in recent years, but it is expected to nearly double over the next three, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The cross-border pipeline expansion has been driven by Mexico's use of natural gas for power generation, declining domestic production and the lower cost of U.S. pipeline gas compared with liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports, EIA said in a “Today in Energy” brief on Thursday. United States-to-Mexico pipeline capacity is 7.3 Bcf/d and primarily serves the northeast and central parts of the country.
To get a better picture of the developing natural gas market in Mexico, including operational and in-process projects, as well as where the U.S./Mexico import and export points are, check outNGI’s 2017 Map of Emerging Mexico Natural Gas Pipeline Infrastructure.
Over the next three years, pipeline projects such as Oneok Partners LP's Roadrunner Phase II, Energy Transfer Partners LP's Comanche Trail and Trans-Pecos, and Nueva Era -- backed in part by Howard Energy Partners -- would add 3.5 Bcf/d to current capacity. Those projects would supply new gas-fired power plants in the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Sinaloa. By 2018, Kinder Morgan Inc.'s Mier-Monterrey and Spectra Energy Corp.'s Nueces-Brownsville projects are expected to add another 3.3 Bcf/d of exports to Northeast and Central Mexico.
U.S. pipeline exports have doubled since 2009 and are expected to keep growing this year, EIA said earlier this week. The United States exported 4.2 Bcf/d of natural gas through pipelines to Mexico in August. Through the first eight months of this year, the EIA said Mexican pipeline exports averaged 3.6 Bcf/d, or 85% higher than the five-year average from 2011-2015.
A separate analysis of EIA data by Ponderosa Advisors LLC shows that Mexican exports accounted for 4% of U.S. gas demand last year. That's compared to the 10-year average of 2% from 2006-2015.
The cross-border pipeline expansion has been matched by growth in Mexico's domestic pipeline network. The country is expanding capacity to accommodate higher imports from the United States under a five-year plan launched last year by its energy ministry, Secretaria de Energia.
U.S. pipeline exports have gradually displaced Mexico's LNG imports. The EIA said that after the 2.1 Bcf/d Los Ramones Phase I pipeline was completed in 2014, nearly all LNG imports at the Altamira terminal in Central Mexico have been displaced with gas from the Eagle Ford Shale. LNG imports at Altamira were 50% lower through October of this year than they were in 2015.
The completion of the 1.4 Bcf/d Los Ramones Phase II, which is being developed in part by Petroleos Mexicanos, is also expected to displace LNG imports at the Manzanillo terminal in Central Mexico, including Mexico City.
Mexico's evolving natural gas market was the topic of discussion during a webinar hosted by NGI in November. NGI also recently released a special report, "Inside Cenagas," detailing the growth of the country's natural gas infrastructure.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108623-us-to-mexico-natgas-pipeline-capacity-to-nearly-double
-
(ACC Mentioned) CSB Nominee has Strong Industry Ties
Dec 5, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Rachel A. Meidl was nominated by President Barack Obama last month to serve on the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Meidl is currently deputy associate administrator for policy and programs in the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration at the Department of Transportation, a position she has held for a year. From 2012 to 2015, she was director of regulatory affairs for the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry . . .
Remainder of article found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i48/CSB-nominee-strong-industry-ties.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Trump Adviser Meets with Utility Cybersecurity Panel
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
With much of its cybersecurity strategy still a blank slate, the Trump transition team last week got its first look at the utility industry's point organization for cybersecurity defense at a closed meeting of senior officials from federal energy and security agencies.
Thomas Pyle, a member of the Trump transition team, sat in Tuesday with members of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, an advisory group representing all sectors of the power industry that meets several times a year and is briefed on major threats, such as last year's cyberattack on utilities in Ukraine.
"It was extraordinarily valuable for him to see 30 CEOs and a number of administration officials working together on infrastructure protection," Scott Aaronson, managing director for cyber and infrastructure security at the Edison Electric Institute and ESCC secretary, said of Pyle's visit. "He got a chance to see the importance the industry puts into this issue, and that the partnership is working."
The meeting, in Washington, included a classified briefing that Pyle did not sit in on, Aaronson said, and unclassified updates he witnessed on cyberdefense tools and the sharing of high-level threat information between government and industry.
Cybersecurity did not get a lot of attention from either Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign, leaving industry officials and experts uncertain about the president-elect's priorities.
Trump said he plans to appoint a cyber review team to review threats to U.S. critical infrastructure, and he will "ask the Department of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America's vital infrastructure from cyberattacks and all other forms of attacks" (Energywire, Oct. 3).
The Trump appointees will find a full house of federal, state and industry cybersecurity programs like the ESCC up and running, and new policies waiting completion. Trump will have vacancies to fill and a chair to name for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has issued a series of complex cyber standards for the high-voltage power network.
The dissemination of high-level cyber intelligence from government to industry is still an issue for industry officials. Responsibilities for cyber intelligence, planning, defense and recovery are spread across industry groups, intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the Energy Department, the Department of Homeland Security, FERC and state leadership.
Grid defense against human and natural assaults is one of the areas where both parties in Congress seek action, although recent legislative initiatives would expand authority rather than concentrate it, suggesting that coordinating cybersecurity actions will present a major management challenge for the new administration.
Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, could not be reached for comment on last week's meeting. His organization is the lobbying arm of the Institute for Energy Research, which has sharply criticized the Obama administration's clean energy and climate programs.
In a 2015 research paper, the institute downplayed the most dire dangers to the nation's electric power network from potential large-scale cyberattacks and natural disasters.
FERC has issued regulations to protect power networks from destructive ground currents triggered by an eruption of solar energy that directly hits Earth. The institute said, "Thankfully, disruptive geomagnetic storms occur so infrequently that they do not constitute a major ongoing threat to the electrical grid.
"Armed harmful attacks are very infrequent," the institute noted. "Doomsday scenarios greatly exaggerate the magnitude of human threats, particularly from attacks that require sophisticated or military-grade technology. ...
"It is true that if multiple such attacks were carried out simultaneously at critical points in the grid, they could produce a blackout. However, there is no evidence that such an attack currently looms over the U.S. power grid," it said. "While attacks are theoretically possible, the likelihood of any individual event is typically low, and we should not over-prioritize catastrophic but improbable events."
The greatest emerging threat to the grid's reliability does not come from natural causes or human attacks, but from federal and state government policies that promote renewable power at the expense of fossil fuels, the institute said.
That is not the outlook of the ESCC, its leadership says. Aaronson said of Pyle's visit, "There was a lot of substantive discussion. We're fairly confident he walked away with a positive view."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046622
-
Freight Railroads Call for Regulatory Freeze, Reform
Dec 5, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Edward R. Hamberger
The freight railroad industry is calling on the U.S. Surface Transportation Board to suspend all major rulemaking efforts until the new administration is in place and has appointed and confirmed a full five-person board.
Such a pause is in line with Donald Trump’s call for a temporary moratorium on all new regulation and a full review of both proposed and existing rules, as well as the process in which rules are made.
The call for a freeze is also consistent with the same principles that led Henry Waxman and John Rockefeller, then-leaders of the House and Senate Commerce Committees, respectively, to call upon the Federal Communications Commission in 2008 to halt any complex and controversial items until the Obama administration took office.
This is most certainly as a result of Election Day results. But it is also in light of good common sense and the desire to help spur job creation - not hobble it - as would be the result if recent proposals at the STB were to be enacted.
It is especially true in the case of forced access, a mandate for railroads to use their private infrastructure and equipment for the benefit of competitors. This is a radical change in economic regulation.
The STB is the independent adjudicatory and economic-regulatory agency “charged by Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers,” according to its mission statement.
In reality, the agency has gone way off sides as it ponders far-reaching changes to the freight rail industry. The concern that the industry has is that the agency will attempt to ram through disastrous regulations at the sunset of the Obama administration.
But against a backdrop of a poorly performing economy and tepid economic growth, now is not the time for midnight regulations, let alone unfounded and unnecessary rules that sit upon flimsy justification.
With the new leadership at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and a new Congress at the other, a fully-staffed STB and administration have a real opportunity to put a stamp on the board and ensure that policies are sound and rooted in objective data.
The STB next year has the opportunity to protect a true free market and nurture the nation’s economy in which privately owned and maintained freight railroads prosper and help other industries succeed.
Once equipped with five board members, the agency can reject the oxymoronic notion that we can induce competition by saddling industry under the crushing weight of more regulations.
This call for regulatory reason aligns directly with the philosophy of the incoming administration. As part of its emerging policy goals, the Trump transition team is promising dramatic reform to regulations.
We broadly support this idea because the current system clearly is not working.
New rules should be empirically driven, supported by cost-benefit analysis and geared towards today’s innovation economy. Too often government makes rules in a vacuum and without an eye toward the future.
An assessment of the cumulative impact of proposed regulation on industry must be part of every rulemaking. Rules can become quickly outdated when reacting to the issue of the day, which can sometimes compel overreaction. We must make the process more transparent and collaborative, and we must reduce the estimated $2 trillion compliance cost and hold decision makers accountable.
But for now, it is time for a time out at the STB. Time for regulatory reason.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-r-hamberger/freight-railroads-call-fo_b_13051866.html
-
Can Ivanka Trump and Al Gore Unite Against Climate Change?
Dec 5, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Brent Budowsky
News that Ivanka Trump wants to make the effort against climate change a major cause of hers, and joins Al Gore for a meeting to discuss one of the most important issues facing the earth, is one of the most interesting and important developments of the Donald Trump transition.
Give Ivanka Trump credit for focusing on climate change and reaching out to the former vice president, and give Al Gore credit for all that he has done over the years to defend the Earth and extending his hand to Ivanka Trump to explore whether there is common ground between them.
Throughout presidencies, over many years, family members of presidents have made certain causes their own, and done much to make the world a better place by doing so.
It would be a wonderful step forward for humanity, and for a Donald Trump presidency, if Ivanka Trump and Gore can join together with environmental and religious leaders who are passionately committed to this cause.
Over the past 30 years, Gore has been a statesman and leader of the first order in the fight against climate change. The Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded was well-earned for his leadership when he was a senator, when he was vice president, and after he left office to devote his life to this great cause he has long championed.
Religious leaders across the nation and the world, representing diverse denominations of many faiths, have taken up the cause. Pope Francis has made the work to combat climate change a defining cause of his papacy — something he has spoken and written about very often and at great length.
President Obama has made climate change a priority of his presidency. Secretary of State John Kerry has brought his leadership role on climate change to his current position at Foggy Bottom, and was instrumental in achieving the Paris Accords agreement that is only beginning to have the major impact it promises.
For Ivanka Trump to make climate change a major priority of hers is good news for the world, and for her to reach out to Gore is a sign that her commitment to the issue is serious and important. It would be great news for the Earth if her work leads to new action and initiatives.
It is much too early to determine the depth and passion of Ivanka Trump's commitment to the issue, but she is an exceptionally talented woman who has a great deal to offer if her action on climate change becomes a long-term project and leads to results, which I very much hope it does.
With all of the controversies and changes that come with the election of Donald Trump as president, climate change will be a very dramatic wild card.
Does Ivanka Trump's interest in the cause suggest that a Trump presidency could bring a big surprise on environmental and climate issues? I have my doubts, but if we have learned one thing from the Trump candidacy, one never knows what will happen next and a major move to combat climate change is certainly possible.
Let's keep an open mind about the importance of Ivanka Trump's move to take a prominent role on climate change. It is a very good sign that she is reaching out to Gore, and I applaud both her and Gore for meeting to seek common ground on so momentous and important issue as saving the earth from the ravages of pollution.
The effort to combat climate change has always been bipartisan, involving many leaders from both parties; ecumenical, uniting many leaders of different faiths; and multilateral, bringing together important players from nations across the globe.
The possibility of cooperation and common purpose between Ivanka Trump and Al Gore has certainly gotten the new week off to a fascinating start.
Let's see what comes of it, keeping an open mind and hoping for the best.
Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bill Alexander (D-Ark.). He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/308770-can-ivanka-trump-and-al-gore-unite-against-climate
-
Al Gore Has ‘Extremely Interesting’ Meeting with Trump
Dec 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Climate change activist and former vice president Al Gore had what he described as a “very productive” meeting with President-elect Donald Trump Monday.
Aides for Trump’s transition team said earlier Monday that the president-elect did not plan to meet with Gore, who went to Trump Tower in New York City to meet with Trump’s daughter Ivanka about climate change.
But Gore told pool reporters in the Trump Tower lobby that the “bulk of the time” he spent with the Trumps was with the president-elect.
Donald Trump is an avowed climate change skeptic and has repeatedly said that global warming is a hoax. He tweeted once that the Chinese created the hoax to make United States manufacturing non-competitive.
“I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect,” Gore told reporters. It was a sincere search for areas of common ground.”
Gore has made climate his top priority since losing the 2000 presidential election.
He created and starred in the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which framed the climate issue as a coming catastrophe, and has pushed for dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. He also campaigned with Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, with climate as his focus.
Gore wrapped up his brief statement to the press Monday saying that he found the meeting to be an “extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I'm just going to leave it at that.”
Ivanka Trump reportedly wants to make fighting climate change a priority in her time as first daughter.
Donald Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s entire aggressive climate change agenda, including the Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
He’s also promised to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement within his first 100 days in office.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/308788-al-gore-has-extremely-interesting-meeting-with-trump
-
Extension of Cap and Trade Recommended to Hit 2030 GHG Goal
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
An extension of California's economywide cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions is needed to hit the state's ambitious target for cutting greenhouse gas pollution by 2030, a proposal from the state's air board said Friday.
The California Air Resources Board's "2030 Target Scoping Plan" recommended using cap and trade as the main mechanism to shrink greenhouse gas emissions at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, what Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) office called "the most ambitious target in North America."
The 2030 goal was part of S.B. 32, passed earlier this year. The planning draft also advised looking at other options that include a carbon tax, or direct rules like emissions standards for industrial sources, refineries and the rest of the oil and gas sector. The agency's analysis favored the existing market-based program, however, saying that cap and trade "provides more certainty that the state will meet the 2030 goals even if other measures fall short."
"Now more than ever, the nation — and the world — are looking to California for leadership on climate change and air quality. Denial is not an option. We must plan, invest and transform," ARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said in a statement. "This draft plan builds on California's decade-long success in transforming the state's economy. It sets in place a public process to develop the policies that will create continued opportunities for innovation and investment, benefit disadvantaged communities and ensure California continues to lead the fight against the global threat of climate change."
It takes place as the Legislature also could take a look at cap and trade. Democrats in the state in the November election won a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers. Many expect that with that advantage, Brown and other supporters of the market-based auction system will look to extend it and enshrine it as law through the Legislature. The California Chamber of Commerce and others have sued to stop cap and trade, saying the auctions are a tax requiring a two-thirds vote (see related story).
ARB originally approved cap and trade as a mechanism to meet the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2020.
The target scoping plan laid out the magnitude of changes required to hit the 2030 target. It "will require contributions from all sectors of the economy," including enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero-emission vehicle technologies; investment in renewable energy; greater use of low-carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants including methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases; and "an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands," according to the plan.
"It reinforces that this 2030 target, the 40 percent reduction, is a very ambitious target," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. "It's going to be much more challenging to meet it, much more challenging than the 2020 target."
Hitting the 2030 number "is going to require decarbonizing a large chunk of our economy," Magavern said. "We're going to have to accomplish a large part of the move off of fossil fuels that will ultimately be necessary. We're going to have to get pretty far down that road towards weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels."
Additionally, it will be expensive, he said. Many measures recommended in the plan, such as accelerating the retirement of traditional, higher-polluting vehicles, building infrastructure to divert organics from landfills and funding public transit "will call for substantial investment from public funds," he said.
"The plan doesn't really say where all that money is going to come from," Magavern said.
Cap and trade, which auctions pollution permits to businesses with the highest carbon emissions, has so far generated $3.4 billion in state revenues, according to ARB. The revenue has funded development of a high-speed rail line, affordable housing near transit, programs to get people into cleaner cars, and other efforts.
However, while cap and trade has raised a significant amount of money, Magavern said, "It's not enough to meet all the needs that are in this plan."
While some critics will argue that's too costly, Magavern said, S.B. 32 made the greenhouse gas emissions cut target the law. And businesses in general would prefer reaching the goal through funding incentives to cut carbon versus through mandatory regulations.
The proposal argues that extending the cap-and-trade program post-2020 would allow the state to preserve the links it has with other carbon-trading markets. California and Quebec hold joint auctions for carbon allowances. The program is understood by the regulated community. And, the blueprint said, the auctions have raised the $3.4 billion in revenues that fund climate programs.
"Investments are providing a multitude of benefits to disadvantaged communities including increased affordable housing opportunities, reduced transit and transportation costs, access to cleaner vehicles, improved mobility options and air quality, job creation, energy and water savings, and greener and more vibrant communities," it said.
The plan also looked further out. It said that "we need momentum to propel us to the 2050 statewide GHG target" of 80 percent below 1990 levels. "In developing the 2030 Target Scoping Plan, we are considering what policies are needed for the mid-term and long-term, knowing that some policies for the long-term must begin implementation now," it said.
Brown lauded the blueprint.
"This plan lays out a road map for California — and the rest of the world — to achieve climate goals that were inconceivable only a decade ago," he said in a statement. "There are steep hills ahead, but we'll scale them by continuing to take a series of bold actions, including extending California's Cap-and-Trade Program."
ARB will hold a workshop this month on the proposal and also is taking comments on it. The agency plans to release another update to this plan in January.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/05/stories/1060046633
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested