Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/23/2016
-
Chemical Sector Details Concerns on EPA Data Needs for New Chemicals
Dec 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical sector officials are detailing early concerns on the data needs that EPA officials recently said they have for reviews of new chemicals mandated under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), noting that some of the needs are causing massive delays for assessing pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) for new substances. -
Green Group Updates List of 'Very Toxic' Compounds
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Nearly 300 highly hazardous pesticides, or HHPs, are regularly sprayed across industrialized and developing nations alike, a prominent advocacy group announced this week. -
In 2016, Courtroom Drama Centers on Obama Regs
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The 2016 oil and gas legal landscape was defined by sprawling administrative battles with all sides scrambling for a piece of the action. -
Trump’s Top Regulatory Adviser Juggles Myriad Energy Industry Conflicts of Interest
Dec 23, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
President-elect Donald Trump has appointedbillionaire investor Carl Icahn as his special adviser on regulatory reform. -
EPA Hands Regulatory Playbook to Trump Team
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA has given the Trump team a report detailing the status of major Obama administration policies, which could become a playbook for the incoming administration vowing to scrap many of those rules. -
A Year of Aggressive Methane Regs Now in the Crosshairs
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The final year of the Obama administration marked a sharp shift by U.S. EPA and the Interior Department to more strictly regulate methane emissions in the United States. -
Lake Charles Methanol Secures DOE Backing for World's First Carbon Capture, Petcoke Facility
Dec 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A first-of-its-kind methanol production facility proposed for Lake Charles, LA, able to capture carbon that would be used to enhance oilfield production in Texas, has been conditionally guaranteed up to $2 billion in federal loans to advance the novel project, the Department of Energy said Wednesday. -
Report Finds Shale Development Improves Local Economies
Dec 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Researchers with the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) report finding the economic benefits to local communities for allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking), on average, outweigh any negative health and social impacts from the practice. -
EPA Fracking Report Deliberately Ignores Key Studies to Embrace Inconclusive Results
Dec 23, 2016 | Forbes
By Cory L. Andrews
“A blessing” is the description Franklin Bess used to convey his feelings toward the oil and natural gas industry, as long as the drilling is American-based. -
The Renewables Industry Must Reject Existing Structure of Corporate Influence in Politics
Dec 23, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rachel Goldstein
Corporate money in politics influences energy policy and can stifle renewable growth and climate solutions. It is time the renewable energy industry address this problem. -
Unplugged Wells Gush as Texas Scrambles to Plug 'Time Bombs'
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
West Texas is shot through with old oil wells, some drilled more than a century ago. Once abandoned, fluids can seep to the surface and leak into local groundwater, and, in rare cases, the ground can sink or collapse. -
Final Safety Rules Face Uncertain Future Under Trump
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Oil pipeline operators will soon be required to take a closer look at the safety of their facilities, as federal regulators are scheduled to issue stricter safety measures this month. -
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Reinstates, Remands EPA 'Major' Boiler Air Toxics Standards
Dec 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is granting requests from EPA and environmentalists to reinstate air toxics limits for large “major source” industrial, commercial and institutional boilers that the court vacated in July, remanding the limits to the agency so that it can rework them to address their legal flaws. -
(ACC Mentioned) Commenters at Odds Over EPA's Denial of RCRA Corrosive Dust Petition
Dec 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A group representing federal environmental employees is accusing EPA of misrepresenting data in its decision to tentatively deny the group's petition seeking stricter federal hazardous waste law listing criteria for corrosive dust, an argument that contrasts with industry parties' conclusion that the agency's denial is "well-founded." -
The Year in Climate Change
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Erika Bolstad
It was just one year ago, and from the White House on down, everyone who worked to make the Paris climate agreement a success was dizzy from victory laps. -
Conservative Think Tank: Swap Corporate Tax for Carbon Fee
Dec 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A conservative think tank says lawmakers should consider ending taxes on corporations and instead institute a fee on carbon dioxide emissions.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Chemical Sector Details Concerns on EPA Data Needs for New Chemicals
Dec 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical sector officials are detailing early concerns on the data needs that EPA officials recently said they have for reviews of new chemicals mandated under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), noting that some of the needs are causing massive delays for assessing pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) for new substances.
“What we're seeing for new chemicals is we have no idea what EPA will ask for” if the agency determines that it needs additional data, one industry source says. This is a major concern for chemical producers because having to submit extra data often results in lengthy delays that leave “no clear path” or time frame for a new chemical undergoing review and getting the affirmation of safety that will allow it to move to the market, the source says.
Many industry officials opposed the idea of the revised TSCA adopting a minimum data set mandate like that in the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) law. The updated TSCA's approach differs from REACH by not requiring a minimum data set but instead expanding EPA’s authority under section 4 to compel industry to do new testing if the agency finds that additional data is needed.
Section 4 of the reformed law, which governs testing and generation of new data, gives EPA expanded authority to order testing for new and existing chemicals under sections 5 and 6, respectively. But it prohibits the creation of a 'minimum information requirement' for prioritizing chemicals.
“That is a very important provision that should be applied to any and all testing by the Agency regardless of which authority it uses,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a June 7 statement of legislative intent on the reform law.
The current structure of the section 5 new chemical review program is more unpredictable because it is unclear from the outset whether EPA will need additional data to make an affirmative determination under the new law, and if so, what sort of data the agency will need, according to the industry source.
“The challenge is the unpredictability of what EPA is going to ask for,” the source says, acknowledging that having a minimum data set provides more predictability, adding, “it is a significant barrier but it is a predictable one.”
PMNs -- which were in existence prior to the update to TSCA -- generally are notifications of new substances that industry submit to EPA under TSCA section 5. The program was the most immediately affected by the reform law, because the agency already had a number of PMNs in the queue for which it opted to reset the clock, and typically receives about 1,000 new PMNs each year.
TSCA Provisions
The new TSCA provisions require EPA to make affirmative findings on new substances' safety prior to their commercial use; to address not only the conditions of use outlined in the PMN but also those that are "reasonably" foreseeable; and to ensure protection of susceptible subpopulations.
Additionally, the law includes a first-time mandate that EPA flag chemicals where "insufficient information" hinders its ability to determine risk, and issue a section 5(e) order for those chemicals to develop new information, which has resulted in greater use of 5(e) orders, at least so far in the agency’s implementation.
Under section 5 of the original TSCA, EPA did not have to issue findings on the safety of new chemicals entering the marketplace, although it had the authority to do so.
Instead, a company could under the prior TSCA begin manufacturing and sales of a new chemical after 90 days barring an EPA finding that the chemical "may present an unreasonable risk," but the agency was not required to make an affirmative finding of safety for a substance to be used in commerce. so the agency can review whether they will or may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
Industry has raised some concerns about the backlog resulting from the changes to the law, and EPA officials during a Dec. 14 meeting outlined the agency’s approach and the challenges it faces implementing revised section 5.
For example, Greg Schweer, chief of the new chemicals management branch within EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT), highlighted the need for industry to provide more robust PMN submissions.
Schweer noted that in the absence of adequate data, EPA likely will make a "worst case assumption" that often results in a finding that a chemical will or may present an unreasonable risk.
He highlighted a list of data industry could opt to provide up front to streamline reviews, including measured values for chemical property information; a description of the analytical methods used to generate data; detailed information on worker activities that might yield exposure potential, or affect the frequency and duration of the exposures; gloves and other protective clothing used by workers; and other information.
Endpoints Focus
Stakeholders are also raising concerns about EPA's move to more closely examine certain lung toxicity endpoints, which they say appears to be emerging as a priority for toxics officials and which EPA staff briefly discussed during the meeting.
The endpoints include cationic binding and lung surfactancy, which disrupt the gas exchange that occurs in the lungs; waterproofing, in which fluorinate can negatively impact the gas exchange; and lung overload, in which particles gather in the lungs and can cause inflammation.
OPPT’s Maria Doa said at the meeting the agency is currently conducting a literature review for the endpoints and hopes to "identify some quantitative benchmarks or risk reduction rules of thumb" for those effects, particularly for worker exposures.
In an interview with Inside EPA on Dec. 22, exiting EPA toxics chief Jim Jones said EPA is working closely with other federal agencies on the issue, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration. “I’m reasonably confident that they’ll have the generic issue figured out in the next six months” or so, Jones said.
But the industry source says that while the concerns are not new, EPA seems to have determined that those endpoints may be a priority for PMN reviews.
“One of the things I would hope is that EPA addresses these more broadly” over all TSCA programs, “not just holding PNM submitters” to a higher standard, that source says, pointing out that the reform law gave EPA new section 4 test authority that it could use to gather information “on a range of substances in commerce already.”
A second industry source says, “EPA’s plans for reducing delays will have to be judged by results, but their increased use of use restrictions via significant new use rules and their focus on new endpoints do create issues.” That source adds, even if EPA relies mostly on section 5(e) orders, the “fact that they have to make a safety finding makes ‘we need more data' the path of least resistance.”
One animal rights advocate says the endpoint issue “initially will result in a lot more” whole animal testing, but that EPA has not under previous TSCA had much opportunity to “reality check” its modeling given the obstacles for getting new data before the new law was passed.
“There will be some adjustments, but we fully expect EPA to use the new information [from new testing] to improve modeling,” that source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-sector-details-concerns-epa-data-needs-new-chemicals
-
Green Group Updates List of 'Very Toxic' Compounds
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Nearly 300 highly hazardous pesticides, or HHPs, are regularly sprayed across industrialized and developing nations alike, a prominent advocacy group announced this week.
The Pesticide Action Network unveiled an update to its 2009 catalog of acutely toxic agrochemicals, adding compounds to the list and promoting what it calls "agroecology" as a means of eliminating these chemicals in food production.
"Decades of experience has shown that, despite numerous 'safe use' programs, the safe use of these chemicals is simply not possible," said Susan Haffman of PAN's Germany wing in a statement. "A transition away from HHPs is critical to protect human health and for environmental safety."
PAN said the 297 pesticides it selected are those "very toxic to humans, those that cause cancer or interfere with the hormone system, and those that have severe negative effects on the environment."
PAN cited health impacts posed to farmworkers, agricultural communities, wildlife and consumers.
Among the compounds it added to the list are pendimethalin, which is persistent and bioaccumulative, and triflumizole, which PAN deems a "probable reproductive toxin."
Pendimethalin is manufactured by German chemical giant BASF SE, while triflumizole is made by Chemtura Corp.
PAN also struck the pesticide imazethapyr from its list, citing new studies that show that the compound is not highly toxic to bees.
The total list also includes the popular weed-control compound glyphosate, often marketed as Monsanto Co.'s Roundup; and naled, a compound widely used in this year's campaign to eliminate Zika-carrying mosquitoes in Florida (Greenwire, Sept. 19).
"The hazards of HHPs are revealed by the health harms suffered by plantation workers and farm communities," said Sarojini Rengam of PAN's Asia-Pacific chapter in a statement. "Unless HHPs are phased out, the reality of field work in much of the world will continue to expose communities, especially farmworkers, to these extremely hazardous pesticides."
An alternative approach
PAN, along with other groups, has actively campaigned to ban neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been linked to the collapse of bee colonies.
"According to a recent UN report, more than 70 of the 100 crops that provide 90 percent of the world's food rely on bees for pollination," said Judy Hatcher of the group's North America branch in a statement. "The alarming collapse of bee populations in large parts of the world can in part be attributed to their exposure to HHPs. These chemicals must be phased out to protect key species, communities and the environment."
Instead of actively promoting the spraying of such toxins, farm groups and governments should instead focus on agronomy that restores soil, improves ecosystem health, safeguards communities and protects water, PAN asserted.
Javier Souza, regional coordinator of PAN Latin America, said in a statement that "farmers using agroecological approaches and practices have shown that it is possible to produce foods such as vegetables, pineapples, wheat, corn and coffee without using these highly hazardous pesticides."
PAN said it hopes its updated list of toxins will spur a transition toward toxin-free farming.
CropLife America, a prominent pesticide trade group, was unable to respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047678
-
In 2016, Courtroom Drama Centers on Obama Regs
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The 2016 oil and gas legal landscape was defined by sprawling administrative battles with all sides scrambling for a piece of the action.
As litigation over the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule crescendoed, other federal actions set the stage for new courtroom challenges. From cracking down on methane emissions to moving forward with controversial lease sales, the administration kept busy, and industry and environmental lawyers took notice.
The year saw the launch of two dueling lawsuits over how the government leases public lands for oil and gas development. Spoiler: Both sides are unhappy about the process.
Meanwhile, protection of places with special importance to the environmental community or native tribes remained a hot-button issue in many courtrooms — most significantly in the bare-knuckle fight over the Dakota Access pipeline.
An eyebrow-raising issue in early 2016 was the surprise verdict in the long-running litigation over drinking water contamination in Dimock, Pa. A jury found Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. responsible for two families' fouled water, a decision the company is now challenging.
Another vintage fracking issue — local control — dominated the dockets in previous years but slowed significantly in 2016. Still, the issue cropped up in several cases and remains pending in at least one federal appellate court.
And with the new administration comes a large dose of unpredictability for all types of oil and gas litigation. Industry lawyers are still not sure quite what to expect from President-elect Donald Trump, so they plan to stay guarded as his term kicks off.
One thing is certain: Environmental lawyers will be busy. With the new administration showing favor to industry, experts expect more environmental challenges to federal actions, with industry teaming up more often with government agencies.
"Contributions to environmental groups have gone up substantially since the election, and I would expect that litigation, particularly against government agencies and government decisions, would increase starting next year after the Trump admin takes over," said Arnold & Porter attorney Matthew Douglas, who tracks oil and gas litigation nationwide. "I would expect to see a lot more than we've seen over the past eight years."
Rules, rules, rules
By far the most significant legal development in the oil and gas world this year was a federal court's June ruling that Interior's Bureau of Land Management lacks authority over fracking.
The decision came more than a year after industry groups, four Western states and one American Indian tribe sued over BLM's fracking rule, calling it a regulatory overreach. The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming agreed, adopting a highly disputed interpretation of federal laws that purportedly remove fracking from Interior's jurisdiction.
Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman, who is helping to appeal the decision at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, called the lower court's ruling a mistake with potentially sweeping impacts.
"This court's decision doesn't just eliminate the fracking rule," he said. "If you follow this court's reasoning, BLM can't manage most of what it currently manages with regard to oil and gas development on public lands. The decision disregards the intent of Congress and a century of case law."
Douglas agreed that the scope of Judge Scott Skavdahl's decision came as a bit of a surprise.
"The way he focused it on the lack of BLM having any authority over the day-to-day drilling operations that relate to fracking was broader than I anticipated," he said.
But, he added, the agency was taking a "giant leap" into uncharted waters, so unpredictable legal outcomes may come with the territory.
The ruling was a major victory for states and industry groups that have opposed the rule since its inception and was a relief to oil and gas companies downtrodden by the oil price slump. Indeed, at an energy law conference in July, the fracking rule decision served as a rare bright spot in despairing conversations about depressed markets (Energywire, July 25).
But the fracking rule wasn't the only regulatory update the Obama administration had planned for the oil and gas industry.
"We're seeing the completion of several years of reform efforts by the current administration," Freeman said.
Next on the administration's agenda was a crackdown on methane emissions from the industry. Tightened regulations came from both BLM and U.S. EPA this year, and both were followed by lawsuits from states and industry groups.
Mark Barron, a BakerHostetler attorney representing industry groups in the fracking case, said the challenges are all a response to "extensive regulatory overreach," something industry hopes to see less of under the next administration.
"People are predicting that they're actually going to get back to the business of developing oil and gas," he said.
The regulatory lawsuits are set to continue well into next year, and it's unclear how or whether the new administration plans to defend the rules (Energywire, Nov. 8).
To lease or not to lease?
Another set of high-stakes litigation from 2016 centers on the federal government's leasing practices for oil and gas on public lands.
In August, the influential industry group Western Energy Alliance sued the Obama administration, alleging it violated the Mineral Leasing Act by bowing to environmental pressure and failing to hold quarterly lease sales. Green groups are pushing for a seat in the courtroom for the lawsuit.
Environmentalists were also ready with their own challenge to federal leasing. Just two weeks after the industry lawsuit, Santa Fe, N.M.-based WildEarth Guardians, which spearheaded the "keep it in the ground" movement, filed a sweeping challenge to leasing practices.
WildEarth Guardians, joined by Physicians for Social Responsibility, says BLM has ignored the climate impacts of hundreds of thousands of acres of leases since early 2015. The groups slammed the agency's leasing practices as both "illegal" and "immoral."
The lawsuit is an ambitious one. It asks a federal district court to freeze all action on hundreds of oil and gas leases until BLM performs an in-depth analysis of climate impacts from development on public lands (Energywire, Aug. 26).
Barron, the industry lawyer, said a win for environmentalists in the case would have far-reaching impacts.
"That is the most important environmental case in the country," he said. "It deals with boilerplate language that every federal agency uses for every federal action."
If BLM loses the case, he said, every resource management plan, master development plan, unit approval and flaring sundry — not to mention approvals for other types of energy development — would be subject to a new scrutiny.
"If it's inadequate in those leases, it would be an easy extension for them to then go ahead and challenge essentially every federal approval of any kind — oil and gas to wind to solar to any commercial use of public lands anywhere on the basis that the climate change [analysis] is inadequate," he said.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific, a narrower leasing battle is playing out. There, environmental groups and the state of California want Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to halt offshore oil and gas leasing and instead perform an environmental impact statement for fracking in the ocean.
The Pacific fracking battle began years ago and is in its second round of litigation. After environmental groups sued in 2014 and 2015 over inadequate environmental review, the administration briefly halted new permitting and performed an environmental analysis. That analysis found various impacts from offshore development but concluded that fracking would have no significant impact.
Now, those findings are under attack by the same environmental groups that launched the first legal attack: the Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Center. Earlier this week, California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D), who is heading to the Senate next year, joined the battle (Energywire, Dec. 20).
Special places
Finally, much of the year's litigation focused on site-specific battles, in which advocates pushed for more protection in areas they consider too special to drill.
The most high-profile case, of course, was the Dakota Access pipeline, which would cross a half-mile from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota. The massive pushback on the pipeline stemmed from general dissatisfaction over the government's treatment of tribes, as well as the more immediate concern that the project would disturb tribal burial grounds and potentially pollute the Missouri River.
Courtroom gymnastics were a key element of the movement against the pipeline, but the major action was on the ground in North Dakota and in the halls of the three federal agencies handling the issue: Interior, Justice and the Army.
Though the Obama administration announced early this month that it would not grant the final easement needed to complete the oil pipeline, the fight is far from over, as the Trump administration has voiced support for the project.
Other battles over development in special places have garnered fewer headlines but just as much local conflict.
In Montana, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell made waves when she decided to cancel a long-contested oil and gas lease in an area considered sacred to the Blackfeet Nation. Interior has also canceled leases this year in the Wyoming Range and Colorado's Thompson Divide, and has significantly scaled back plans for development on Colorado's Roan Plateau.
Freeman, the Earthjustice lawyer, said the cancellations are part of an Obama administration effort to rethink various drilling plans.
"What it's tried to do over the last eight years is take a more balanced approach to oil and gas development and recognize that even if they want to proceed with oil and gas on public lands, there are areas where it's just not appropriate," he said.
He's keeping his fingers crossed that Trump's team will take note of the opposition that followed leasing plans in those areas.
"We hope that the new administration will learn from some of the lessons from the Roan and the Thompson Divide and other cases like that," he said.
Industry lawyers, on the other hand, are worried the lease cancellations set a negative precedent that has emboldened environmental groups.
Barron argued that such cancellations make drillers reluctant to work on federal lands in the first place, and Kathleen Sgamma, head of Western Energy Alliance, argued that lease cancellations violate the property rights of the companies that obtained the leases fairly.
The lease cancellation in Montana is now under review in federal court.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047646
-
Trump’s Top Regulatory Adviser Juggles Myriad Energy Industry Conflicts of Interest
Dec 23, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
President-elect Donald Trump has appointedbillionaire investor Carl Icahn as his special adviser on regulatory reform.
“His help on the strangling regulations that our country is faced with will be invaluable,” Trump said of the appointment.
This official appointment follows nearly two months of Icahn assisting with the President-elect’s transition. Most notably, Icahn sat in on vetting sessions for the Environmental Protection Agency administrator – the job going to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, pending Senate confirmation. Icahn has said Pruitt is the person to “do the job.”
In fact, Pruitt’s appointment is potentially beneficial to Icahn’s investments. Icahn’s network is believed to be worth about $16.5 billion, with significant investments in industries such as energy, automobiles, food and food packaging, and gaming. He will come to the White House not only with a long history of fighting regulations in order to protect his own enormous wealth, but also with serious conflicts of interest.
Icahn has thrown a lot of his fortune into the oil and gas industry. Below are just three of the polluting corporations in which Icahn currently or previously has had substantial investments. If Trump stays true to his promises to roll back public health protections governing the fossil fuel industry, these companies may see profits surge.
CVR Energy
The day after Pruitt was nominated to lead the EPA, CVR Energy’s stock – of which Icahn is a majority owner – rose 17 percent. Icahn was said to have played a major role in picking Pruitt.
“As you can imagine, Wall Street is going to act very favorably when the person with a controlling stake in your company gets to play a large role in naming the person that will regulate your business,” Fox Business wrote in response to the surge in the company’s share price.
Cheniere Energy
As this natural gas fracking company’s largest shareholder, Icahn holds a 13.8 percent stake.
The company battled the EPA in 2014 over a delay in starting construction on a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Corpus Christi, Texas until an environmental review was conducted. Last year, Cheniere opened the first liquefied natural gas export terminal on American soil and it seeks to expand in the coming years.
Chesapeake Energy
In 2010, Icahn purchased a 9.4 percent stake in the Oklahoma-based fracking company. Recently, Icahn sold off his stake in the company. But Pruitt received major financial support from Chesapeake and other natural gas, coal and oil companies in his unopposed 2014 re-election bid for Oklahoma Attorney General.
In response to a number of Clean Water Act violations in 2013, a Chesapeake subsidiary was fined a record $9.7 million by the EPA. Governmental pressure on Chesapeake has also veered toward its business practices – resulting in Justice Department charges against its former, late CEO, Aubrey McClendon.
It is still speculation that Icahn’s business dealings will affect the way he advises Trump. But, alarmingly, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday: “The position isn’t an official government job; Icahn won’t get paid and won’t have to give up his current business dealings.”
This is great news for Icahn. But, depending on what regulations he pushes the incoming president to overhaul, it could spell trouble for safe drinking water and clean air. EWG will be watching.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2016/12/trump-s-top-regulatory-adviser-juggles-myriad-energy-industry-conflicts
-
EPA Hands Regulatory Playbook to Trump Team
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA has given the Trump team a report detailing the status of major Obama administration policies, which could become a playbook for the incoming administration vowing to scrap many of those rules.
The 76-page document offers a straightforward summary of major EPA rules that have recently been finalized or are in the pipeline, in addition to charts of key staffers and offices and details about congressional committees with jurisdiction over the agency.
The document appears to have been prepared on Nov. 10, two days after Donald Trump clinched the presidential election. It was released to E&E News this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
EPA's handbook offers a starting point for the Trump transition team led by Myron Ebell, an outspoken critic of climate science and many Obama environmental rules. He and the other members of the Trump EPA landing team are hustling to prepare a policy agenda for the incoming administration, which has promised to restructure the agency.
Trump's pick to lead EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), has been a leader in fighting some of the Obama EPA's signature policies in court — including the Clean Power Plan Rule to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions and the Clean Water Rule aimed at defining which waters are subject to Clean Water Act protections.
Those and other major rules are expected to be on the chopping block when the Trump administration takes over.
EPA's document also summarized some of the major rules that are still pending, all of which are likely to get a close look from the incoming Trump team.
Scott Segal, an industry lobbyist at Bracewell LLP, said today that "not all rules are created equal" when it comes to unraveling them.
"Some rules are purely at the discretion of the EPA based on political priorities of the agency," he said. "Some rules are required either by statute or by settlement agreement. ... It's obviously far easier to eliminate rules that are based purely on EPA discretion."
Segal called the transition document a "helpful summary," but added, "It's safe to say that those who follow the EPA closely would have known the contents of a document like this well prior to November. It's not the keys to the kingdom."
The EPA transition document appears to be standard fare during a presidential transition.
Bob Sussman, who helped lead the Obama EPA transition team in 2008, said his team received something similar from the outgoing George W. Bush administration. The EPA team at the time received additional information from agency staffers in response to their requests.
At other agencies, requests from the Trump transition team have raised hackles. At the Energy Department, for example, queries about which staffers have worked on climate initiatives have sparked concerns among career employees.
The New York Times reported yesterday that a Trump transition team request to the State Department has similarly spooked employees. The team asked State employees to submit details about programs and positions that promote gender equality, rousing fears that the incoming administration could roll back some of those programs, the paper reported (see related story).
Some EPA staffers are wary of how the incoming administration will deal with their agency (which Trump has previously advocated dismantling) and their work. Employees became even more nervous after seeing the DOE questions targeting those who worked on climate issues (Greenwire, Dec. 12).
The Trump team has since sought distance from the DOE memo. A transition official was quoted saying the DOE questions were not "standard protocol" and that the "person who sent it has been properly counseled" (E&E News PM, Dec. 14).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047674
-
A Year of Aggressive Methane Regs Now in the Crosshairs
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The final year of the Obama administration marked a sharp shift by U.S. EPA and the Interior Department to more strictly regulate methane emissions in the United States.
EPA set its sights on limiting emissions of the potent greenhouse gas from sources from the oil and gas industry to municipal landfills, as a growing body of research highlighted the significant role methane plays in warming the planet. Now industry and environmental groups are looking ahead to see whether the new focus on methane will remain in effect under the Trump administration.
Environmentalists say they are certain efforts to control methane will come under attack if Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) is confirmed as the next administrator of EPA.
"The current nominee for EPA administrator has distinguished himself as acutely anti-environmental regulation, and during his time as Oklahoma attorney general curried favor with the worst of the worst of the oil and gas industry," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of climate and energy at the Environmental Defense Fund.
"If personality dictates policy, you have to expect the worst from an incoming administration," he said.
Methane is 25 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 and is the second-largest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide, making up 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2014, according to EPA.
The agency has zeroed in on methane emissions for the oil and gas industry over the past year, though the groundwork for the change in focus began months earlier. In January 2015, after EPA released a draft inventory finding that methane emissions were "substantially higher than previously understood," the administration announced it would cut emissions from the oil and gas sector 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
"The bottom line is — the data confirm that we can and must do more on methane," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said at the time.
Just a few months later, EPA finalized its rule regulating methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas sources (Climatewire, May 13).
The agency is still in the process of collecting information to regulate existing sources, according to EPA. The agency had previously set a target of completing a final rule by the end of 2017, though that has now been thrown into uncertainty.
Injunction hearing Jan. 6
In November, Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a final rule to limit the venting and flaring of methane across about 100,000 oil and gas wells on federal and tribal lands. The rule, which is an update on decades-old regulations and took the agency five years to finish, could prevent 175,000 to 180,000 tons of methane emissions per year, roughly equivalent to about 4.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to BLM.
Two industry groups, the Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), immediately sued, calling the rule "a vast overreach" of Interior's regulatory authority (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
Last month, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota also filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Wyoming, asking the court to set aside the rule on the grounds that regulating methane falls outside BLM's authority (Energywire, Nov. 22).
California and New Mexico requested to join the case on the side of the agency and environmental groups. A hearing is 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).
Oil and gas were not the only targets for greater methane control. For the first time in two decades, EPA updated emission standards for solid waste landfills, lowering the emissions threshold at which the facilities had to implement emission controls (Greenwire, July 15).
The oil and gas industry has charged that federally mandated controls on methane represent an unnecessary burden to their operations. The Obama administration maintains that the regulation has broad benefits.
"This happens to be a rule that isn't just cost-effective but makes money. It lowers the cost of electricity," McCarthy said earlier this month.
Fights in Congress, the states
With Republicans now controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, a few options abound for undoing the Obama-era methane rules.
One is for Congress to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a 20-year-old law that allows lawmakers to override regulations they oppose. Some groups like IPAA have said they would support using the mechanism to roll back what they describe as "overreaching methane regulations."
That avenue might run into complications, though. A recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that rules published in the Federal Register on or after June 13 would not be eligible to be rolled back. EPA's methane rule for new and modified sources was published June 3 (Greenwire, Dec. 21). The final date has yet to be determined by Congress.
BLM's methane regulation, on the other hand, will likely be subject to rollback under the CRA. Furthermore, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Interior Department, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), has come out strongly against the agency's methane regulations, saying the rule "does nothing to further protect our resources."
"Instead, the BLM has issued a duplicative and unnecessary rule against responsible oil and gas development in Montana and on sovereign tribal lands," he said.
For those who want to see methane controls continue, attention is shifting to legal battles in the courts and an increasing emphasis on more local emission regulations.
"I think state action and state advocacy will be critically important. We have states like Colorado saying it can be done and it's good for our state," said Lena Moffitt, director of the Beyond Dirty Fuels project for the Sierra Club.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047649
-
Lake Charles Methanol Secures DOE Backing for World's First Carbon Capture, Petcoke Facility
Dec 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A first-of-its-kind methanol production facility proposed for Lake Charles, LA, able to capture carbon that would be used to enhance oilfield production in Texas, has been conditionally guaranteed up to $2 billion in federal loans to advance the novel project, the Department of Energy said Wednesday.
The conditional loan commitment to Lake Charles Methanol LLC would allow the facility to capture carbon, which in turn would be deployed in Texas for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. The Leucadia Energy LLC unit overall expects to spend $3.8 billion for infrastructure investment.
DOE's support would represent the first loan guarantee under its Advanced Fossil Energy Project solicitation issued by the Loan Programs Office (LPO).
"This conditional commitment represents a major milestone in the department's efforts to scale up carbon capture utilization and sequestration and continue American leadership in advanced fossil energy technologies," said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. The LPO "has received more than 70 applications to its current solicitations for almost $50 billion in loans and loan guarantees, which can allow projects to leverage additional private dollars for major infrastructure projects that will create thousands of good-paying American jobs and generate cleaner energy in the future."
If constructed, the project would not only capture carbon but also be the first to manufacture industrial products from petroleum coke (petcoke) using gasification in the United States. Petcoke is a byproduct from oil refining.
The proposed plant would produce methanol, hydrogen and other industrial gases and chemical products. The CO2 captured from the petcoke gasification plant would be compressed for commercial pipeline transport and piped to oilfields in Texas for EOR, resulting in sequestration of an estimated 4.2 million metric tons/year of CO2. By using petcoke as the feedstock and employing carbon capture at the project, the proposed project is expected to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that otherwise would be released.
Leucadia launched initial plans for the facility in 2012, initially only for petcoke production, but it was put on hold in 2014. The conditional loan approval now moves the project forward. When the proposal was unveiled four years ago, Leucadia said it had secured commercial offtake contracts with BP Products North America Inc. for the methanol and with Air Products and Chemicals Inc. for other industrial gases. Denbury Onshore LLC, a unit of one of the biggest EOR operators in the country, also contracted to purchase all of the captured CO2, which would be transported via the 320-mile Green Pipeline for use in EOR operations in Texas.
According to DOE, the project should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 36% versus "typical" methanol facilities. Overall, the project is designed to capture more than three-quarters (77%) of all CO2 that would be produced by the facility.
Lake Charles Methanol expects the project to create 1,000 construction jobs and 200 permanent jobs for Louisiana. It also would support around 300 jobs in Texas for EOR activities.
"DOE’s decision to issue a conditional commitment of up to $2 billion to Lake Charles Methanol proves that Louisiana is a great place to do business and that Louisiana has a promising future in clean energy projects," Gov. John Bel Edwards said. "This project demonstrates how government and private enterprise can work together to support energy technologies that improve the environment while creating new jobs and economic development."
Several methanol projects are in the works across the United States as the petrochemical industry takes advantage of low natural gas prices and surging production. Many of the big petrochemical newbuilds and expansions are along the Gulf Coast, with Syngas Energy Holdings LLC last year announcing it would build a methanol plant in St. James Parish, LA, while G2X Energy Inc. is eyeing a site in Lake Charles. Castleton Commodities Internationalin late 2014 said it planned to spend $1.2 billion to develop a methanol manufacturing plant in Plaquemines Parish, LA, while Yuhuang Chemical Inc. also in 2014 said it would commit $2.85 billion for a methanol complex in St. James Parish.
Methanol projects also planned in other parts of the country, including one by US Methanol Corp. for West Virginia, and two planned at Port of Tacoma, WA, by Northwest Innovation Works.
DOE plans to monitor Lake Charles Methanol's development and "work to reach final agreement before closing the loan guarantee." The LPO supports a diverse portfolio of more than $30 billion in loans, loan guarantees and commitments, supporting more than 30 closed and committed projects. Among the projects LPO said it has supported are one of the world’s largest wind farms; several of the world's largest solar generation and thermal energy storage systems; and more than a dozen new or retooled auto manufacturing plants across the country.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108838-lake-charles-methanol-secures-doe-backing-for-worlds-first-carbon-capture-petcoke-facility
-
Report Finds Shale Development Improves Local Economies
Dec 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Researchers with the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) report finding the economic benefits to local communities for allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking), on average, outweigh any negative health and social impacts from the practice.
In a 119-page report, "The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing," released Thursday, four researchers for EPIC examined nine shale plays across the United States: the Bakken, Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville, Marcellus, Woodford-Anadarko and Woodford-Arkoma shales and the Permian Basin.
Through development of a "willingness-to-pay" (WTP) metric, the researchers found that shale development adds an average welfare gain of $1,300-1,900 per household per year, totaling approximately $64 billion for all of the aforementioned shale areas studied combined. The increase takes into account increased income and local activity.
While conceding "there is evidence of deterioration in the quality of life or total amenities" to local communities from fracking, the WTP metric shows the average household pays $1,000-1,600 per year for the practice. The declines take the form of quality of life issues such as increased truck traffic, criminal activity, noise and air pollution and the perceived negative health effects.
"Our estimates are based on the knowledge that communities currently have," said lead researcher Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and the director of EPIC. "So, for example, if new information emerges that indicates that there are larger negative, local health effects than is currently believed, this would likely lead to declines in housing prices and the overall welfare impacts.
"But based on what is currently known, the average community that has allowed fracking has enjoyed substantial net benefits."
The report found that counties with a high level of fracking activity saw a 4.4-6.9% increase in total income, driven primarily by increases in wages and other factors such as royalty payments to local land owners. Employment also increased 3.6-5.4% and salaries went up 7.6-13%. Additionally, local governments saw an average increase in revenues (15.5%) that more than offset an average increase in expenditures (12.9%).
EPIC also found that housing prices increased 5.7% and housing rental rates went up 2.7% in local communities after shale development began. The largest housing price gains were observed in the Bakken and Marcellus shales, where house prices increased 23% and 9%, respectively.
Conversely, the report found the largest detriment to local communities was an increase in crime, despite an average 20% increase in local government funding to public safety.
"There appears to be a good deal of heterogeneity in the estimates across the nine shale regions in our sample," said Alexander Bartik, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and co-author of the report. "These differences reflect both variation in how large fracking activity is relative to the local economy, as well as differences in local housing markets. In future research, we're working on understanding this heterogeneity better."
Janet Currie, economics professor at Princeton University and another co-author, added that local communities that banned fracking may, on average, see fewer economic benefits.
"The heterogeneity in effects lends support to the idea that local communities should have a voice in decision making about fracking," Currie said. "It will also be important to think about whether it is possible to compensate individual people in local communities who experience the costs of fracking without participating in the benefits."
The report also found that counties with high fracking potential produce an additional $400 million worth of oil and natural gas each year three years after the discovery, compared to other counties in the same shale play. Placed into context, that means the most productive counties saw a per capita increase in production of about $19,000.
Christopher Knittel, another economics professor at MIT and the fourth co-author of the report, said the study "makes it clear that on net there are benefits to local economies, which we believe is useful information for leaders in the United States and abroad who are deciding whether to allow fracking in their communities."
Last month, a separate study commissioned by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania found that local communities in Pennsylvania devoted much of the impact revenue from Act 13, the state's omnibus Marcellus Shale law, to public safety and infrastructure.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108839-report-finds-shale-development-improves-local-economies
-
EPA Fracking Report Deliberately Ignores Key Studies to Embrace Inconclusive Results
Dec 23, 2016 | Forbes
By Cory L. Andrews
“A blessing” is the description Franklin Bess used to convey his feelings toward the oil and natural gas industry, as long as the drilling is American-based. He and his wife, Katie Bess, are the proud owners of The Williamson Ranch in west Texas, land that has been in Katie’s family for five generations.
In an interview with Ezra Levant, a Canadian broadcaster and “ethical oil” advocate, the Bess family expressed relief in April 2015 when an oil-and-gas exploration and production company bought their expiring lease with Tall City Exploration. This sale has provided the income necessary to allow the Bess family to maintain the ranching life—a rarity today—and pass their land on to future generations.
Many ranching families near Big Spring, Texas have similar stories, and they have the Permian Basin shale that lies beneath their town, and the use of such extraction techniques as hydraulic fracturing, to thank for their livelihoods. Unfortunately, environmental activists, with the help of the federal government, have generated a narrative that paints hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” as a destructive and offensive process.
Environmentalists responded to the increased use of fracking, as well as technological modifications such as horizontal fracking, with an assortment of demonization tactics. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) further fueled the anti-fracking frenzy five years ago, a frenzy which, to this day, EPA cannot justify through scientific evidence. After five years of studies and supposed collaboration with “states, tribes, industry, non-governmental organizations, the scientific community, and the public,” the agency claims that it has used “all data and information available” to finally conclude and release its report on the impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities on drinking water.
Washington Legal Foundation filed formal comments in August 2015, requesting EPA to make its findings in the final version of the draft report more explicit, hoping an accurate portrayal of fracking in a government study would help calm the unwarranted fears created by fracking opponents. Unfortunately, the agency has continued to cling to inconclusive studies so that it can issue a final report littered with conjectures.
While the 666-page report outlines the conceivable impacts fracking could have on drinking water sources, a careful reading reveals that the agency failed to find evidence of an actual threat in any of its case study locations.
Environmentalists, like Briana Mordick who served as a technical advisor to the EPA study on behalf of the environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, are not willing to accept that their anti-fracking crusade lacks any evidentiary support. They claim the oil industry created a blockade, preventing EPA scientists from gathering necessary data at oil drilling sites. But companies did, in fact, offer their drilling sites to the scientists.
Erik Milito, upstream director at the American Petroleum Institute, told the Houston Chronicle that Chesapeake Energy, along with other companies, made drilling sites available to EPA, but the agency did not take up these offers. EPA avoided using available sites from a cooperative industry, and also abandoned other avenues of study that left state agencies to pick up the slack.
For instance, consider what happened in Pavillion, Wyoming. EPA announced in 2011 that fracking was likely causing groundwater problems there. The agency initiated a study, for which it drilled two test wells at the site. After the agency’s draft study on the groundwater was roundly criticized by state environmental regulators and even other federal agencies, EPA declined to release a final report and abandoned the investigation. It handed the investigation over to Wyoming officials, effectively coercing the state to do the work of the federal government.
Results from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) two-year study indicate that hydraulic fracturing has not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources. Ironically, the state DEQ did identify what was causing the reportedly foul smell in the EPA test wells: EPA’s faulty drilling of the wells clogged the drain screens, and the standing water became contaminated with bacteria.
What is EPA’s opinion of the report it essentially forced the state to complete? Last month, the Associated Press reported EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones as saying that the agency was reviewing Wyoming’s conclusions. But in the end, the agency chose not to use those conclusions in its final hydraulic fracturing report.
Also absent from EPA’s report is a three-year-long investigation of fracking’s effects on drinking water in the Marcellus Shale by the University of Cincinnati, completed in June 2015. As discussed in a WLF Legal Pulse post earlier this year, the study rejected a link between fracking and groundwater pollution.
Yet another study that didn’t make the EPA report comes from a team of researchers at Duke University. Their extensive study on the impact of fracking fluids on water sources was headed by Avner Vengosh, Professor of Geochemistry and Water Quality, and was published on October 14, 2016 in the peer-reviewed journal Science of the Total Environment.
The results of the Duke team’s study should further put fracking fears at ease, as Professor Vengosh said the team found that most of the wastewater from hydraulically fractured wells consisted of naturally occurring brines, not man-made fracking fluids.
EPA apparently views Professor Vengosh as a highly regarded, credible source. The agency’s final report cites 17 Vengosh studies or articles. However, EPA left his Duke study out of the report entirely, instead referencing Vengosh’s prior work, which was more supportive of the anti-fracking narrative.
Fracking fear is centered on the potential harm wastewater could cause if improperly disposed, due to the chemicals used. The Duke study tested fracking wastewater from unconventional oil and gas wells in six basins nationwide, touching seven different states. Professor Vengosh and his team at Duke found that the chemicals used in fracking fluids only account for between four and eight percent of the wastewater being generated over the active lifetime of fracked wells in the United States.
This means that at least 92 percent of the fracking wastewater is made up of naturally occurring brines, and with proper treatment, Professor Vengosh believes this wastewater could be reused, especially in the arid western states. The brines of fracking fluid used in western states have salinity similar to sea water, and they could be treated and utilized for agricultural irrigation in areas with limited freshwater. But the key takeaway from the Duke study, Professor Vengosh explained, is that “the probability of having environmental impacts from the man-made chemicals in fracking fluids is low, unless a direct spill of the chemicals occurs before the actual fracking.”
Chemicals used in the fracking process have many purposes that ensure the fracturing job is effective and efficient. They perform functions such as limiting the growth of bacteria and preventing corrosion of the well casing. But the exact mixture of chemicals used in the fracking process is the intellectual property of resource extraction companies—their proprietary trade secrets.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) enacted rules in March 2015, creating redundant regulations for the energy industry. These rules only impact wells on federally owned land, but that still accounts for almost one-fourth of the oil and gas operations in the country. BLM’s well-construction and safe-disposal standards mirror most state standards, but they also pile on regulations proposed in a bill introduced in Congress, but never acted on, called the FRAC Act, which require drillers on federal land to reveal the chemicals they use.
Media stories on EPA’s report have spun it as concluding that no definitive evidence proves that hydraulic fracturing does not threaten drinking water supplies. As explained above, that conclusion is deeply suspect. It’s important, however, to also view EPA’s conclusion in a different light: no proof exists that fracking pollutes the water supply. That is the conclusion that policy makers should embrace, especially if considered alongside the studies that EPA’s report ignored—those from Wyoming’s DEQ and Duke University. Such studies should provide assurance to the 115th Congress and new leadership of relevant federal agencies that state regulation effectively balances environmental protection and the goal of energy independence.
Striking such an essential balance will allow more ranching families and other landowners to enjoy the benefits of the valuable deposits that lie beneath their property, just as Franklin and Katie Bess have.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2016/12/23/epa-fracking-report-deliberately-ignores-key-studies-to-embrace-inconclusive-results/#104353dc7f9e
-
The Renewables Industry Must Reject Existing Structure of Corporate Influence in Politics
Dec 23, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rachel Goldstein
Corporate money in politics influences energy policy and can stifle renewable growth and climate solutions. It is time the renewable energy industry address this problem. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision means that efforts to displace the fossil fuel industry with renewable energy face an uphill battle.
As renewable energy growth and development continues, clean energy advocates must think about how such influences implicitly play into the Unites States' ability to grow a nascent yet burgeoning infrastructure sector.
As a politically diverse democracy – one that requires laws be ratified through the legislature and make their ways through partisan gridlock – it is uniquely difficult for the United States to commit to global efforts needed for drastic action and coordinated decision-making in the face of climate change.
Structurally, the current state of the U.S. political system is also destined to help the country fall short of its climate commitments; the dominance of corporate interests in politics does not allow for the bold actions needed to steer the world from climate disruption.
Although the renewables sector looks to businesses and corporate entities for partnership as more companies purchase wind and solar energy, and there have been great successes in the industry in the past few years, renewables are not ramping up nearly as fast as they must to effectively battle climate change. Policies set up the architecture to maintain a status quo in the energy market, which discourages innovations that exist precisely with the intent of disrupting business-as-usual, as renewable energy does for fossil fuels. Oversteps of corporate power, specifically in the energy world, have set a precedent of hindering the growth and development of renewable energy.
Right now, Ohio is undergoing legislative processes over whether or not to extend the state’s current RPS freeze, which since 2014 has hindered renewable energy development in the state, and which even Republican Gov. John Kasich has said is “unacceptable.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies and utility interests such as ExxonMobil and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have aggressively used 2016 campaign contributions to influence Ohio’s legislators, driving “renewed attacks on clean energy policies” in Ohio. These actions, while legal, are indicative of the harm that money in politics can do to growing the clean energy economy.
MONEY TALKS
Corporate influence in politics is exemplified with the 2009 Citizens United ruling, which, despite 78 percent opposition from Americans, allows for a pipeline of unlimited spending to political campaigns. This has struck a nerve with many Americans, with social movements calling for politics that are not beholden to special interests. From pressuring city governments to allow corporate tax breaks to yielding big election spending, Citizens United has driven momentum and outrage among the public.
Yet, fossil fuel companies win big when they take advantage of Citizens United, which opened a flood of lobbying money from coal, oil, and gas companies and campaign finance contributions that in turn disrupts climate and energy action. In 2011 and 2012, fossil fuel companies saw a 10,000 percent return on their investment in campaign spending and lobbying efforts through federal subsidies. The Keystone XL Pipeline, hailed as top priority for the fossil fuel industry, yet creating no significant amount of jobs or economic incentives for the United States, was a clear example of oil and gas interests at work. In fact, in 2014, U.S. House members who voted in favor of Keystone XL took a combined $13 million from fossil fuel interests, compared to $800,000 of oil and gas contributions received by elected officials voting against the pipeline.
But while grassroots environmental advocates have been making these connections in their campaigns, renewable energy industries have not been as active on this issue. Introducing a robust renewable energy sector is already challenging, involving disagreements over RPS bills, misinformation about energy subsidy allocation, and uncertain policy that can lead to instability and difficulty in growth. Though renewables should inherently have equal opportunities to compete in the market and corporate lobbying sphere, the reality is that fossil fuel interests have the money to competitively participate in this system, while renewable interests don’t. The bottom line is that with an uneven playing field, effectively battling climate change while democracy is hijacked by corporate special interests is not possible.
TO GROW RENEWABLE ENERGY, WE MUST RENEW THE SYSTEM
In a political landscape tainted by the impacts of court decisions like Citizens United, renewable energy is never going to come out on top. The goal for renewable energy industries should be to invest in a system that is democratic and educates, setting the stage for a new era of responsible business development. Renewable energy advocates and industry leaders must not brush aside their underlying mission of battling climate change. In reaching their objectives, they must set a new tone for influencing policy by supporting efforts to restrict corporate influence and adopting more collaborative approaches to project development than energy companies of the past.
At the heart of the climate fight and efforts to switch to renewable technologies is a love of humanity, an understanding of inequity and disenfranchisement of those least responsible for and most vulnerable to climate crises, and the desire to build a better energy system that works for all of us. It’s both unrealistic and disingenuous to suggest that a green, clean energy revolution for the planet can occur without dismantling the structures that allow corporate interests to pollute democracy in the first place. Climate change is dangerous precisely because it allows the money and power of a few to change the realities of many. To be part of the solution, the renewable energy sector has to work to change the game.
Goldstein is a fellow with the Clean Energy Leadership Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/311629-the-renewables-industry-must-reject-existing-structure
-
Unplugged Wells Gush as Texas Scrambles to Plug 'Time Bombs'
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
West Texas is shot through with old oil wells, some drilled more than a century ago. Once abandoned, fluids can seep to the surface and leak into local groundwater, and, in rare cases, the ground can sink or collapse.
"If this stuff was even close to Austin, hell, it'd be national news," said Ty Edwards, assistant general manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District. In Pecos, abandoned wells have spewed brackish water for more than 10 years, and the state has no plans to plug them. Locals have called the resulting body of water "Boehmer Lake." No one swims in it; the water is three times saltier than the Gulf of Mexico.
Texas has more than 300,000 active oil and gas wells, and, according to a 1990 study, more than 1.5 million oil and gas holes, including test wells, service wells and drills that came up dry.
While companies are required to plug holes once finished, some break the law, and other holes pre-date current regulation.
Now, following the recent oil market slide after years of increased drilling, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma face a surge in abandoned drill sites and insufficient manpower and funds to close them.
Ronald Green, a hydrologist at the Southwest Research Institute, calls these wells "ticking time bombs" for aquifer and water supply pollution. Oil and toxic minerals can migrate underground, polluting surrounding groundwater when wells go unplugged.
"There is about to be a tsunami of abandoned wells," said Kerry Knorpp, an Amarillo, Texas, oil and gas attorney who worked on a now-inactive state committee that monitored oil and gas cleanup efforts and advised the Texas Railroad Commission. "Wells were drilled at $110 oil that you would have never completed otherwise".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047671
-
Final Safety Rules Face Uncertain Future Under Trump
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Oil pipeline operators will soon be required to take a closer look at the safety of their facilities, as federal regulators are scheduled to issue stricter safety measures this month.
The Department of Transportation is rolling out a long-delayed proposal for the nation's sprawling network of oil pipelines. The proposal, aimed at preventing increasingly frequent accidents, calls for tougher inspection and repair criteria, leak detection systems on more lines, and other measures to cut risk.
The new safety rule has encountered resistance from industry, which says it would cost companies $600 million a year and almost $5 billion over the next decade. The government's estimation, however, is $22.5 million annually.
Advocates say the rule is important, especially to rural areas that current regulations don't cover. But they also worry the last effort by President Obama's administration might by scuttled by the incoming President Trump.
Final adoption is expected in late December, according to the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047644
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Reinstates, Remands EPA 'Major' Boiler Air Toxics Standards
Dec 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is granting requests from EPA and environmentalists to reinstate air toxics limits for large “major source” industrial, commercial and institutional boilers that the court vacated in July, remanding the limits to the agency so that it can rework them to address their legal flaws.
The decision means that the incoming Trump EPA will have the chance on remand to try to weaken the limits in line with the president-elect's preference for deregulation. However, the decision also makes clear that EPA must follow the court's order with respect to the methodology on setting the limits, which could prevent any major weakening of the limits.
In a series of Dec. 23 orders, the court not only granted the remand but also rejected environmentalists' request for rehearing en banc by the full D.C. Circuit of the July 29 ruling by a three-judge panel that largely upheld the agency's boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and related rules for incineration units. The 18 numeric boiler air limits that the court vacated in the original ruling were the only major part of the rulemaking that the court had scrapped.
The court in a separate per curiam order also without explanation left in place another July 29 ruling in a related case concerning air toxics limits for smaller “area source” boilers, in American Chemistry Council v. EPA. Environmentalists unsuccessfully petitioned the court to rehear the area source boiler rules because they say EPA failed to justify its decision to impose “work practice” standards instead of tougher numeric emissions limits.
In the major source boiler suit, U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, the July opinion vacated the numeric emissions limits for various “subcategories,” or different types, of boilers covered by the rule after the court found legal flaws with the limits.
EPA and environmentalists in their petitions for rehearing then argued that the court's ruling would be harmful because it removed entirely emissions limits for not being strict enough -- in effect allowing more pollution, not less.
In its Dec. 23 per curiam panel rehearing opinion of the major boiler MACT standard, the court agrees, saying, “Vacating the standards at issue here would unnecessarily remove many limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from boilers and allow greater emissions of those pollutants until EPA completes another rulemaking and implements replacement standards.”
MACT 'Floors'
The court's July opinion accepted environmentalists' arguments that certain MACT “floors,” or minimum emissions limits, were also incorrectly calculated because EPA arbitrarily excluded some of the best performing boilers from calculation of the limits.
In its new per curiam decision in U.S. Sugar, the court says, “In light of our precedent and the parties’ agreement that this case presents one of the circumstances in which remand without vacatur makes the most sense, we remand without vacating the numeric MACT standards set in the Major Boilers Rule for new and existing sources in each of the eighteen subcategories.”
Further, on remand “EPA is to identify those standards for which the MACT floor would have differed if the EPA had included all best-performing sources in each subcategory in its MACT-floor analysis. The EPA must then revise those standards consistent with our July 29, 2016, opinion in this case.”
Industry groups that originally sued EPA over the standards in briefing had also favored remand without vacatur, because vacatur of the standards produced more regulatory uncertainty. They pushed for a swift resolution of the remand, but the court notes that no party asked for a hard deadline and therefore none is granted.
“Although the Industry Petitioners stress the importance of the EPA expeditiously completing the rulemaking, we have not been asked to impose a deadline by which the EPA must act. Even so, we expect the EPA to complete this rulemaking promptly,” the court's decision says.
But the court denied a petition by environmentalists for en banc rehearing of the case, which had contested the court's acceptance of EPA's use of the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL), a statistical tool common to several agency air rules, which environmental groups say is not a true “average” as required by the Clean Air Act.
MACT floors are calculated using the average emissions of the best-performing 12 percent of units in a given category. But the UPL is not an average and results in weaker emissions limits, environmentalists claim.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-reinstates-remands-epa-major-boiler-air-toxics-standards
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commenters at Odds Over EPA's Denial of RCRA Corrosive Dust Petition
Dec 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A group representing federal environmental employees is accusing EPA of misrepresenting data in its decision to tentatively deny the group's petition seeking stricter federal hazardous waste law listing criteria for corrosive dust, an argument that contrasts with industry parties' conclusion that the agency's denial is "well-founded."
The separate comments from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which supports federal environmental employees and often represents whistleblowers, and from various industry parties were filed with EPA earlier this month on its tentative denial of PEER's petition seeking to set stricter federal hazardous waste law listing criteria for corrosive dust. PEER's petition drew from fears that first responders to the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks in 2001 suffered adverse health impacts due to corrosive dust emitted into the air.
"EPA misrepresented data and utilized other data of questionable accuracy in their Tentative Denial," PEER says in Dec. 7 comments to EPA on the petition denial.
In contrast, the RCRA Corrective Action Project (RCAP) -- which represents a group of Fortune 50 companies -- concludes in Dec. 7 comments to EPA that the agency's analysis of the petition and subsequent denial are "well founded and technically accurate." In addition, RCAP and other industry parties argue that granting the petition would trigger the relabeling of a significant amount of material as hazardous, overwhelming the country's hazardous waste disposal infrastructure.
EPA took public comment until Dec. 7 on its April 11 decision to tentatively deny PEER's petition, finding that the petitioner failed to show that strengthening the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) corrosive dust limits is warranted. At the request of PEER, EPA in June granted a six-month extension to the public comment period, but recently denied the group's request to extend the period even further.
At issue is PEER's 2011 petition to EPA to revise a RCRA rule the group says is 10 times less stringent than the presumed safe levels set for alkaline corrosives by other international bodies. The group says the too-lenient pH levels for corrosivity were noticed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, WTC attacks when first responders suffered severe, permanent and in some instances fatal effects which PEER alleges were due to exposure to corrosive dust.
The group asked EPA to revise the regulatory value for defining waste as corrosive, moving it from a pH of 12.5 to 11.5, and sought to broaden the scope of the RCRA corrosivity definition to include nonaqueous wastes in addition to aqueous wastes.
But EPA in the tentative denial said WTC injuries could not be attributed to any one property of the dust, and none of the research on the exposed population identified the type of tissue damage that could be linked to corrosivity. EPA, however, in soliciting public comment asked for additional data on possible impacts from the current corrosivity rule.
PEER's Comments
In a 127-page set of comments, PEER pushes for EPA to reverse its denial, contending that the agency failed to fully address the facts and issues raised in the petition, as well as misrepresented data. First, PEER disputes EPA's assertion that the RCRA corrosivity characteristic regulation "is somehow uniquely exempt from the United Nations [(UN)] Basel Convention treaty and the UN Globally Harmonized System." The United States has adopted these international standards, which mandate a presumptive standard of pH of 11.5 and higher for alkaline corrosive substances, it says.
Further, the group argues EPA falsely claimed that the agency's corrosivity characteristic regulation should remain less protective than the international requirements because EPA argued the former "is not rebuttable and exceptions cannot be made." But PEER says "in fact there are numerous existing and potential exceptions." Therefore, EPA's refusal to match the corrosive regulation to the international standards "is based on false premises."
PEER also contends that EPA incorrectly claimed that the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) used its own standards for protecting workers responding to the WTC attack when OSHA in fact relied on EPA's corrosivity standard.
The group also takes issue with EPA's rejection of the petition's request to expand the definition of the corrosivity characteristic "to include corrosive solids, non-aqueous liquids, compressed gases and any other physical forms of corrosives." EPA's decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the group alleges, "as interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts, which require agencies to consider and respond to issues of facts raised by outside parties in rulemaking proceedings before an agency."
The petition challenged EPA's claim that studies from 1978 and 1980 support a pH of 12.5 to protect the skin from corrosion, arguing there was clear evidence EPA falsified those results. And PEER now charges EPA ignored this challenge in its tentative denial decision. The APA requires EPA to respond to the petition's fraud allegations, PEER says.
In its conclusion, PEER argues that EPA through the tentative denial "violated numerous White House, Office of Program Management (OPM) and EPA orders, directives and guidance on conflicts of interest, scientific integrity, objectivity, proper review procedures and EPA procedures for risk assessments and other scientific and technical evaluations."
Industry's Arguments
But industry groups are backing EPA's denial and argue the relief sought by PEER is misdirected and actually would not solve the issue the group is trying to address. Further, they say a decision in favor of PEER would shift a large amount of solid waste into the hazardous waste category, overwhelming the country's hazardous waste landfill capacity.
"Amending the RCRA corrosivity standard as requested by the petitioners would not address the hazards cited in the petition or improve protection of workers and emergency response personnel," a coalition of industry groups says in Dec. 7 comments. The coalition is comprised of the American Chemistry Council, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and a host of other industry groups.
The coalition agrees with EPA that the petitioner did not provide anything demonstrating that injuries to people were related to improper waste management. Altering the RCRA standard would not trigger changes to OSHA protections for emergency response personnel and other workers, it says.
"Risks from materials, solid and liquid, with pH of 11.5 or 12.5 or higher, already are effectively managed and addressed through existing worker protection programs," the coalition explains. The petition request would only lead to "substantial management burdens and economic costs without offering any practical improvements in worker safety."
In addition, the change requested by PEER could newly impose RCRA hazardous waste requirements on a large quantity of materials without showing justification for improved worker, public and environmental safety, the coalition says. Such an amendment "would result in classifying as 'hazardous' millions of tons more material than could be accommodated in currently available [RCRA] Subtitle C landfills," the comments say.
"And while it would consume the nation's entire hazardous waste landfill capacity in a matter of months, the action sought by the petitioners would not redress the concern motivating their request: protecting emergency response personnel from potentially caustic dust particles."
RCAP echoes the argument that landfill capacity would be overwhelmed, and adds that a lowered pH level of 11.5 would lead to requirements of additional treatment for 95 percent of metal and inorganic containing waste that is stabilized to comply with Land Disposal Restrictions. Such additional treatment "would potentially result in violent heat-producing reactions, posing safety concerns, and . . . require pH reduction that would cause the waste to fail [Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure] testing," it says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/commenters-odds-over-epas-denial-rcra-corrosive-dust-petition
-
Dec 23, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Erika Bolstad
It was just one year ago, and from the White House on down, everyone who worked to make the Paris climate agreement a success was dizzy from victory laps.
"Together, we've shown what's possible when the world stands as one," said President Obama, lauded at the time for cementing his legacy on climate issues. A commitment to reduced emissions will be an "economic bonanza," pledged Secretary of State John Kerry. "We're not slowing down in the year ahead," promised U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
"This was a year, from December of last year through the beginning of November, where the pace of action, the pace of consensus of world cooperation on climate change, was just building," said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Oh, what a difference a year makes.
In one year's time, the Earth saw the hottest global temperatures in modern record-keeping. The Supreme Court stayed the Obama administration's signature climate achievement, the EPA-overseen Clean Power Plan. High temperatures led to the largest die-off of corals ever recorded on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. In the Arctic, sea-ice cover was tied with 2007 for the second-lowest amount ever. In the Antarctic, research emerged showing that the continent's ice sheets are breaking from the inside out as ocean temperatures rise, raising concerns that as more ice melt enters the oceans, cities worldwide face an accelerated, unforeseen timetable to address sea-level rise (see related story).
And in perhaps the most significant climate development of all, U.S. voters elected a president who said on the campaign trail not only that he would pull the country out of the Paris deal as rapidly as the first day in office, but also that the Obama administration had focused on climate at the expense of the threat of "nuclear global warming."
Donald Trump's words in late 2015, in an interview about the Paris deal with Steve Bannon, the right-wing media master who will be the president-elect's chief political strategist, might have been most prophetic of all.
"We are fools," Trump told Bannon.
Nonetheless, there's much that an election can't reverse, including market forces and the country's innovation capacity, say Doniger and others who monitor energy and climate issues.
State and local governments continue to make investments in clean energy policies as well as building codes and land-use planning that lower emissions and hedge against the risk of hazards such as extreme weather fueled by global warming. The cost of renewable energy continues to go down, and the electric system continues to move away from coal and carbon-intensive sources of fuel.
"It's true, obviously, that the election surprise changes what our federal government will be likely to do," Doniger said. "But I think the surge in global commitment to act in all of the big countries, and below Washington, in the states and the cities, there's another surge in commitment to act. These trends are not going to be stanched by the Trump administration."
A Trump administration also gave environmental and climate advocacy groups a rallying cause. In just one week after the Nov. 8 election, the Sierra Club added 7,500 monthly donors. That was more than the environmental advocacy organization had added in all the rest of 2016.
"This year, there's a mix of hope and concern," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There's some trends that give you hope things are moving in the right direction, and there's others, including some of the political dynamics, that give you grounds for concern.
"But it doesn't mean you give up. You have to keep making the case that the decarbonization of the global economy is in the long-term interest of the U.S., of business, of security."
People in the business community are also making a case for maintaining funding for research at the national energy laboratories and in other areas, both Meyer and Doniger said.
"This has economic consequences, competitiveness consequences," Meyer said. "It translates into markets and jobs for American companies and workers."
As the year comes to a close and a new presidential administration began to take shape, E&E News reporters looked at some of most memorable events in the world of climate change.
Will Trump's team 'put the torch' to the Paris Agreement?
The Obama administration spent much of 2016 laying the groundwork for implementation of the Paris Agreement. The deal took effect early after 55 countries — totaling 55 percent of the world's emissions — signed it by October.
Obama and officials at the State Department and other agencies were instrumental in ushering it across the finish line. They also helped nail down a long-sought amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer limiting heat-trapping coolants and refrigerants, and another deal curbing aviation emissions.
"The message of Paris is that the time is now to undertake a permanent transition to a new and low-carbon energy future for the world," Kerry told a military audience at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., in January. "And I can tell you, from the evidence that I see, this message is being heard and integrated into policies by prime ministers, governors, mayors all around the world — by energy corporations and investors, by innovators and entrepreneurs, and by consumers and civil society."
But Trump's election threw those developments into doubt, as his transition team began looking for ways to make good on campaign promises to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement and further involvement with the United Nations. The president-elect also picked Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson to lead the State Department, a signal that energy interests would take priority in diplomatic considerations.
"Obviously we're going to need to see how it plays out," said Todd Stern, the former U.S. special envoy for climate change who helped land the Paris Agreement last year. He noted that Tillerson praised the Paris accord as Exxon's CEO.
"I know that there will be people inside the administration who would be happy to put the torch to any U.S. participation in Paris, but I'm not going to make any assumptions about what the final decision's going to be," he said.
Meanwhile, conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere say they would like to see a willingness to withdraw from Paris as a litmus test of sorts for any member of the incoming Trump administration (see related story).
Clean Power Plan and other regs on the chopping block
Trump also has vowed to kill the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.
The rule, which is the foundation of U.S. global commitments to curb climate change, saw a tumultuous year. Twenty-seven states oppose the regulation and are challenging it in court. Yet after EPA released its final rule in August 2015, even reluctant states began discussions about how to comply.
Most states were looking at using an emissions trading system to meet their specific carbon standards even as they worked to limit costs to consumers. With carbon trading, a power company that doesn't shift away from coal enough to meet federal requirements could buy credits from a utility that invested more in green power. Overall emissions would still decline.
But then in February, the Supreme Court in a surprise decision froze implementation of the Clean Power Plan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will determine this winter whether EPA exceeded its authority in writing the rule. The losing side is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump is likely to initiate a rulemaking process to rescind the Clean Power Plan. His pick for a vacancy on the Supreme Court could also be the deciding vote on whether it should stand.
"I know there is a lot of anxiety these days, but I am very hopeful for a few reasons," McCarthy, the EPA administrator, said in a speech last month at the National Press Club in Washington. "We have done our job, and the environmental enterprise is more inclusive and more effective than ever. We've energized the American people, who will demand not only clean air and clean water for their children, they will demand a stable planet."
Environmental advocates insist that Trump and Republicans in Congress will not be able to reverse the overall trajectory toward lower-carbon power as natural gas has stayed inexpensive and renewables get cheaper. In a blog post this week, EPA air chief Janet McCabe noted that carbon emissions from electricity in 2015 were already nearly 25 percent below 2005 levels. The Clean Power Plan aimed to achieve a 32 percent reduction by 2030.
"I know we have a heck of a fight ahead of us, because they will be trying to unravel many policies," Doniger said. "But those policies are actually quite difficult to unravel. We'll be using every tool there is, including the court of public opinion and on the Hill, to block those efforts."
Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior, which manages millions of acres of public lands onshore and offshore, bolstered climate in many of the agency's policy actions in 2016.
The department finalized a rule that limits the release and burning of natural gas, of which the potent greenhouse gas methane is the primary component. The agency said the Bureau of Land Management rule, which cuts methane waste from oil wells on public and tribal lands, could reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by as much as 35 percent.
EPA also issued final rules regulating methane emissions in the oil and gas sector and municipal landfills. Both were part of the Obama administration's long-term goal to help the United States reduce methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025 (see related story).
The agency also finalized new renewable fuel volumes under the renewable fuel standard, increasing the total volume for 2017 to 19.28 billion gallons (Greenwire, Nov. 23).
The Interior Department this year also announced it would freeze coal new coal leases for three years while it conducts a programmatic review of the federal coal program, the first since the 1980s. The review is likely to be scrapped under the Trump administration.
Exxon faced scrutiny, SEC considered disclosure and EVs were on the rise
On the industry side, things were rocky this year. Coal began 2016 with plunging production, idled furnaces and a spate of bankruptcies. But it ended the year with mining on the rise, coal plants humming and an ally headed to the White House (see related story).
That said, coal's biggest companies were — or remain — bankrupt, and other fossil fuel-based energy companies faced additional shareholder scrutiny and a shifting market.
Stockholders filed the most resolutions on climate change in U.S. history. Tesla Motors Inc. provided a blueprint to upend the utility business, merging with SolarCity Corp. And class-action lawsuits, and state and federal investigations of whether Exxon lied about its knowledge of climate science, dogged the oil giant (see related story).
Those allegations against Exxon began last November, after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) launched his probe into the firm. Resolution is nowhere in sight.
The past year also saw top bank watchdogs perk up to the financial risks of climate change and policies to address it.
"Once climate change becomes a clear and present danger to financial stability, it may already be too late to stabilize the atmosphere," Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England, said in a speech in Berlin.
The Securities and Exchange Commission toyed with the idea of requiring companies to disclose climate risks. Such a rule now seems far-fetched, although the Group of 20, a bloc of nations with industrialized and developing economies, is finalizing a series of similar voluntary rules.
In the transportation sector, greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise to record highs despite increases in vehicle fuel efficiency and incentives for non-polluting vehicles.
Amid low gas prices and a growing economy, Americans will likely have driven more miles than ever before this year, following a record-setting 2015. That pushed transportation to the No. 1 source for greenhouse gas emissions in the country, above power production, in February, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The primary government policy to keep those emissions in check — the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA's corporate average fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards — saw its power eroded by the low gas prices. Americans are buying SUVs and trucks in record numbers and at a larger share than the agencies had expected. A technical analysis released by EPA over the summer revised projections of average fleetwide fuel economy in 2025 downward from 54.5 mpg to just above 50 mpg.
Automakers continue to meet and exceed the standards with better technology. Trump and congressional Republicans have vowed to review the rules.
Sales of zero-emission vehicles have increased but remain largely below expectations, eliciting cheers when they reached just 1 percent of national new car sales. But the options have expanded, reaching more than two dozen models on the U.S. market this year. All major automakers have said they will increase their plug-in vehicle offerings. General Motors Co. and Tesla Motors revealed more affordable long-range electric vehicles that cost about $30,000 and have a range of more than 200 miles on a single charge.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/23/stories/1060047655
-
Conservative Think Tank: Swap Corporate Tax for Carbon Fee
Dec 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A conservative think tank says lawmakers should consider ending taxes on corporations and instead institute a fee on carbon dioxide emissions.
A report from the R Street Institute, released Friday, said a fee on carbon could fill the revenue gap left by ending the federal tax on corporations.
Citing the Congressional Budget Office, the study said ending the tax on corporations would cost $300 billion a year, based on 2016 figures. More than $167.2 billion of that would be made up through other forms of tax reform and higher income from workers and investors, and the group said a $25 per ton fee on carbon pollution could be used to fill in the remaining gap in revenue.
The group, which has long advocated for a carbon tax, suggested instituting the fee while also stripping away regulations on the energy sector and stopping renewable energy subsidies.
“Axing federal policies designed to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector as a whole would eliminate billions of dollars in compliance costs for industry and shrink the federal government’s rulemaking and enforcement capabilities," the study’s authors wrote.
"By setting the benchmark that lower taxes are wise policy and that specific policy outcomes can be achieved while simultaneously shrinking the government’s footprint, this proposal could serve as a model for policies that reduce the size of government broadly."
Prospects for a carbon tax are dim. Republicans on Capitol Hill are on the record opposing such a measure, and President-elect Donald Trump has said he’s against a tax on carbon, as well.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311666-conservative-think-tank-swap-corporate-tax-for-carbon-fee
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested