Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/24/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Specialty Chemicals Markets End Fourth Quarter on Good Note
Jan 24, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that US specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3% in December. This follows an upwardly revised 0.5% gain in November. Volumes have generally been moving up since May. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Starts New Year With Strong Gain
Jan 24, 2017 | Yahoo News
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), started the year on a strong note, posting a monthly gain of 0.4 percent in January. -
Committee Narrowly OKs Tillerson for Secretary of State
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Benjamin Hulac
A key Senate committee voted along party lines yesterday to endorse former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of State, paving the way for easy approval by the full Senate. -
TSCA Amendments Promise New Chemical Regulation in 2017
Jan 24, 2017 | Lexology
By Todd D. Kantorczyk
In 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the "Act"), which fundamentally changes certain aspects of the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), a statute that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") broad authority to impose restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of any chemical substance currently or proposed to be placed in commerce. -
Waste: DOD Backs GAO Call to Estimate Emerging Contaminant Costs
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Defense Department (DOD) is agreeing to follow recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to start reporting to Congress on the estimated cost of cleaning up emerging contaminants, particularly perfluorinated chemicals, at its closed bases -- something military officials say could reach into the billions of dollars. -
Kids’ Health at Risk Under Trump’s EPA
Jan 24, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis and Olga Naidenko Ph.D.
Last week's confirmation hearing for President Trump's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency underscored the agency's foremost responsibility: protecting the health of America's children. -
Even before Formal Death Knell, Clean Power Plan is History
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Clean Power Plan, as the world knows it, is dead. -
Trump Orders Advance of Keystone XL, Dakota Access
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump signed executive orders today aimed at restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, keeping a campaign promise and throwing down the gauntlet to environmentalists opposed to the projects. -
Trump Advances Keystone, Dakota Access Pipelines
Jan 24, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump on Tuesday signed orders to advance construction of the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. -
Columbia Gas Transmission Seeks Interest in Another Marcellus/Utica Pipeline
Jan 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
Columbia Gas Transmission (TCO) is holding a non-binding open season to solicit interest in its Buckeye XPress Project, which would provide firm transportation service from Marcellus and Utica shale production areas in Ohio, Southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia to TCO's IPP Pool and its existing Leach, KY, interconnection with Columbia Gulf Transmission. -
Fla. Project Called Next Standing Rock
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The quiet town of Live Oak, Fla., may be home to the next Standing Rock-like protest. -
Foes Seek to Delay Methane Rule Litigation
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Foes of the Obama administration's rule limiting methane from new oil and gas operations have asked a federal court for a delay in the litigation. -
LNG Backers Still Optimistic After Trump Kills Trade Pact
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
President Trump scrapped the Obama administration's work on a Pacific trade deal yesterday in a widely anticipated step that will keep the natural gas industry dependent on sympathetic treatment at the Department of Energy in order to keep exports flowing. -
Clean Energy Left Out of New White House Energy Plan
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Clean energy will have a decidedly lower profile in the Trump administration if its new "America First Energy Plan" is any indication. -
Majority of Americans Want U.S. Focus to be on Alternative Energy
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Maxine Joselow
Approximately 65 percent of Americans prioritize the development of alternative energy sources compared with 27 percent who would put greater emphasis on expanding U.S. fossil fuel production, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center. -
Rail Executives Feared Terrorists Would Disrupt 'Virtual Pipeline'
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Terrorists and "environmental extremists" fed rail executives' fears over trains carrying millions of gallons of flammable crude oil, according to confidential filings in 2014. -
Al Gore was Scheduled to Host Canceled CDC Climate Summit
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Scott Waldman
Former Vice President Al Gore was scheduled to headline a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention climate change summit that was canceled without explanation after President Trump's election.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Specialty Chemicals Markets End Fourth Quarter on Good Note
Jan 24, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that US specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3% in December. This follows an upwardly revised 0.5% gain in November. Volumes have generally been moving up since May.
All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments we monitor, 17 expanded in December, 10 markets experienced decline and one was flat. During December, large gains (1.0% and over) were noted only in oilfield chemicals.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was stable on a year-over-year (Y/Y) 3MMA basis. The index stood at 105.4% of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 3.30 MMt. The downturn in the oil and gas sector affected headline volumes and weakness spread to other segments. Year-earlier comparisons were negative since second quarter 2015 but are now stable. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among nineteen market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/news/2017/01/acc-us-specialty-chemicals-markets-end-fourth-quarter-on-good-note
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Starts New Year With Strong Gain
Jan 24, 2017 | Yahoo News
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), started the year on a strong note, posting a monthly gain of 0.4 percent in January. This follows a 0.3 percent gain in December, November and October. All data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Accounting for adjustments, the CAB was up 4.6 percent over this time last year. On an unadjusted basis the CAB climbed 0.3 percent in January, following a 0.5 percent gain in December.
The Chemical Activity Barometer has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
In January all of the four core categories for the CAB improved and the diffusion index was stable at 65 percent. Production-related indicators were positive, with the housing report indicating accelerating activity and trends in construction-related resins, pigments and related performance chemistry generally improved. Other indicators, including equity prices, product prices, and inventory were also positive.
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy's business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1912, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to fourteen months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2012 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production Index.
The CAB comprises indicators relating to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders). Each month, ACC provides a barometer number, which reflects activity data for the current month, as well as a three-month moving average. The CAB was developed by the economics department at the American Chemistry Council.
21 February 2017
9:00 a.m. Eastern Time" class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)--sm Mt(0.8em)--sm" data-type="text" data-reactid="20" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The next CAB is currently planned for:
21 February 2017
9:00 a.m. Eastern Timehttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/chemical-activity-barometer-starts-strong-140700086.html
-
Committee Narrowly OKs Tillerson for Secretary of State
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Benjamin Hulac
A key Senate committee voted along party lines yesterday to endorse former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of State, paving the way for easy approval by the full Senate.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 11-10 to back President Trump's top diplomatic pick. The green light came after Tillerson's sharpest GOP critic, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, announced he would support the nomination despite lingering concerns, especially about Tillerson's reluctance to condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"The president deserves the chance to succeed and therefore should be given significant deference in choosing Cabinet positions," Rubio said yesterday before casting his vote.
He expressed a continued "fundamental concern" about whether Tillerson would "pursue a foreign policy of dealmaking at the expense of traditional alliances and at the expense of human rights and democracy."
Rubio's commitment followed a joint announcement by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to back Tillerson on the floor, essentially cinching the nomination for him.
But while several Democrats emerged from office meetings with the veteran oilman early this month saying they were reassured by some of his positions — like his belief in man-made climate change — none supported Tillerson in committee.
Many noted that even though Tillerson parts ways with Trump in saying that human-caused emissions at least play a role in driving warming, his refusal to discuss Exxon Mobil's role in obscuring climate research and his caution on U.S. leadership on global climate engagement helped fuel Democratic opposition to his confirmation.
"Mr. Tillerson provide[d] insufficient reassurance that the United States would meet its commitment to the Paris climate accord," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement before the vote. "He also refused to embrace the scientific view that climate change is now overwhelmingly driven by the burning of fossil fuels and failed to answer legitimate questions about Exxon's support for climate denial groups during his tenure."
Corker suggests U.S. could stay in Paris deal
Tillerson received scant credit for telling the committee during his Jan. 11 hearing that the United States should keep a "seat at the table" when it comes to global climate deals.
Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) held out Tillerson's more moderate view on warming and his background as an engineer as possible reasons Democrats would back him earlier in the process. Yesterday, he expressed disappointment that Democrats seemed to be using the confirmation as a "proxy vote" for Trump.
Corker argued that Tillerson and not Trump would set the administration's policy. While Trump has repeatedly promised to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement, for example, Corker seemed to predict that the president's foreign policy team would not rush to undo the deal.
"If you look at the Paris Agreement, I'm not trying to be pejorative here, but there are no requirements whatsoever on our country for the next four years," Corker said. "None."
He said he did not expect an executive agreement or action soon calling for a withdrawal.
"It really doesn't make sense to just step out there and do something different," he said. "It probably makes sense to develop your own policies in that regard and see how it coincided with what was agreed to in the Paris Agreement."
The Paris deal does call on countries to reconsider their 2015 commitments, starting with a "facilitate dialogue" at a summit in Poland at the end of next year, with a view toward tightening those commitments by 2020. The Trump team could loosen the Obama-era commitment instead, which calls for a 26 to 28 percent greenhouse gas emissions cut below 2005 levels by 2025.
Not all conservatives are as sanguine about Trump abandoning his campaign pledge to scrap Paris as Corker seems to be.
Divided over Exxon conflicts
Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute told E&E News yesterday that he had received positive feedback for his think tank's suggestion that the administration should pull out of the underlying U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change altogether. Still, he said, the Trump team seemed to have rejected suggestions that it submit the Paris deal to the Senate for ratification, where it would likely die.
He called Tillerson "a bit of an enigma" on climate change.
"But Trump has proven pretty maverick, and my suspension is that he'll make decisions and tell them what we're going to do," said Sterling. He called Paris withdrawal a "fait accompli."
But Democrats on the committee predicted that the Trump administration would meet with substantial public resistance if it tries to withdraw from the deal.
"If you think the political activism was intense this weekend, wait till you see what happens if the administration tries to back away from a climate deal that the U.S. led," said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), referring to the Women's March on Washington and similar events in cities around the world.
In a brief interview with E&E News, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said he doesn't know enough about Tillerson and joint business agreements between Exxon and state-run oil companies overseas.
"When Exxon diverted their royalty payments into the personal bank account of President — or dictator for life — Obiang, rather than giving it to the government of Equatorial Guinea, that is a moral issue," Merkley said, referring to Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the country's president, who has been in power since 1979. "It is a strategy that props up a dictator at the expense of how those resources could be spent on behalf of that nation."
Obiang and members of his family have long faced investigations of money laundering, and Exxon's activity in the coastal African nation has raised questions of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.
He called Tillerson's climate change comments "adjusted talking points" to acknowledge that climate change is real but said they encourage little action.
"He has no sense of, or understanding of, this issue, and that alone is disqualifying," Merkley added.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said he is not concerned that Tillerson could feel torn between his old company and the American public.
"No, absolutely not. The man's an American; he's resigned from Exxon, and he's committed to do the job that he was designated to do here," Risch said. "There's gonna be thousands, tens of thousands of people looking over his shoulder, including all of you, including us, and I'm not concerned about that at all."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048858
-
TSCA Amendments Promise New Chemical Regulation in 2017
Jan 24, 2017 | Lexology
By Todd D. Kantorczyk
In 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the "Act"), which fundamentally changes certain aspects of the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), a statute that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") broad authority to impose restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of any chemical substance currently or proposed to be placed in commerce. In accordance with the Act, EPA recently proposed the following three rules, which are designed to promote more frequent, timely and systematic review and regulation of new and existing chemical substances and must be finalized by June 22, 2017.The Risk Evaluation Rule: this rule will establish the process by which EPA will determine whether an existing chemical substance "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;"The Prioritization Rule: this rule will allow EPA to divide the universe of existing chemicals into "high priority" substances that must undergo a risk evaluation to determine whether the substance may pose unreasonable risks, and "low priority" substances for which a risk evaluation is currently unwarranted; andThe Inventory Reset Rule: this will require manufacturers and importers to confirm by December 17, 2017, which chemicals currently on the TSCA chemical inventory remain active in commerce, even if they previously fulfilled their TSCA data reporting obligations.
In addition, at the end of 2016, EPA published a list of ten chemical substances that will undergo the first risk evaluations under the Act. EPA is required to publish the scopes of the risk evaluations for these substances in March 2017. Finally, EPA will continue in 2017 to pursue TSCA rules for existing chemicals that were already in progress at the time the Act was enacted. For example, in December 2016 and January 2017 EPA proposed to ban the use of trichloroethylene ("TCE") in aerosol degreasing, vapor degreasing and spot cleaning at dry cleaning facilities. In sum, it appears that EPA will be very active in 2017 with respect to chemical regulation under TSCA.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9c698bf-dddc-4c94-b772-6970f2265a43
-
Waste: DOD Backs GAO Call to Estimate Emerging Contaminant Costs
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Defense Department (DOD) is agreeing to follow recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to start reporting to Congress on the estimated cost of cleaning up emerging contaminants, particularly perfluorinated chemicals, at its closed bases -- something military officials say could reach into the billions of dollars.
In the latest in a series of reports over many years on the cleanup and transfer of DOD’s Base Closure & Realignment Act (BRAC) sites, GAO says that DOD has improved its reporting to Congress of environmental costs at BRAC sites, but it has not reported to Congress that the estimated cost of emerging contaminants cleanup will significantly increase total BRAC cleanup costs.
GAO says these costs primarily relate to the perfluronated chemicals perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- persistent chemicals known for their non-stick qualities and used in a wide variety of consumer and military products. They have been linked to adverse health effects, such as particular cancers.
Part of the uncertainty about DOD's costs stems from EPA's failure so far to set drinking water cleanup standards though an official said late last year the agency now has enough data to make a determination on whether it should regulate PFOA and PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act, though the official added he could not predict the outcome of the decisions, which would be made by the Trump administration.
The report also identified challenges in the cleanup and transfer process, and recommended that military services develop a method or form a repository to record and share lessons learned about how various bases have successfully addressed regulatory and cleanup challenges. In response, DOD says it “will develop a process to record and share lessons learned about how various locations have successfully addressed cleanup challenges.”
GAO released the report, titled “DOD Has Improved Environmental Cleanup Reporting But Should Obtain And Share More Information,” Jan. 19.
Cleanup costs have historically slowed transfer and reuse of BRAC property. As of the end of fiscal year 2015, DOD estimated in a report to Congress that it will need approximately $3.4 billion to complete cleanup of BRAC bases, and that it so far has spent $11.5 billion on those cleanups, the report says.
But in that FY15 report to Congress, DOD did not give notice to Congress that environmental cleanup costs at BRAC sites will “significantly increase due to the high cost of remediating emerging contaminants,” mainly PFOA and PFOS, the report says.
While DOD has not determined the total cost of remediating emerging contaminants at BRAC sites, “service BRAC officials indicated to GAO that the cost of cleaning up perfluorinated compounds -- specifically PFOS and PFOA -- from installations closed under BRAC will likely be significant."
For example, the Air Force has programmed $100 million over the next five years to investigate and remediate emerging contaminants, Air Force BRAC officials told GAO. In addition, Navy BRAC officials told GAO that the cleanup of PFOA and PFOS at active and closed bases could increase cleanup costs into the billions of dollars. Army officials also noted that PFOA and PFOS are expected to greatly affect cleanup costs.
The military used firefighting foam containing PFOA and PFOS, contaminating training sites across the country. At the end of FY14, DOD had identified 664 fire or crash testing sites where the firefighting foam may have been used, although that list was not complete, according to a DOD spokesman at the time. In recent years, the chemicals have shown up in drinking water sources in some locations around military bases, with communities and local congress members pressuring the military to address them.
EPA in May 2016 established lifetime health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, establishing a 70 parts per trillion limit for the combined concentration in drinking water of the two chemicals. While the levels are not enforceable, DOD officials have said that they want to ensure drinking water supplied to residents are below those levels, the report says.
“Without DOD notifying Congress about this expected cost increase and providing the best estimate of costs for the cleanup of perfluorinated compounds and other emerging contaminants to the extent known, Congress will lack total visibility over this potentially significant BRAC environmental cleanup effort and will not have necessary information to make more-informed funding decisions,” GAO says.
DOD officials concede that they have not offered Congress a full picture of total cleanup costs, saying that is because the military is working to identify locations where PFOA or PFOS was released, the report says.
In its response to GAO’s recommendations, DOD says it will include in its FY17 environmental programs report to Congress a note that cleanup costs will increase due to emerging contaminants, particularly PFOA and PFOS, and will provide a best estimate of those costs.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Kids’ Health at Risk Under Trump’s EPA
Jan 24, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis and Olga Naidenko Ph.D.
Last week's confirmation hearing for President Trump's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency underscored the agency's foremost responsibility: protecting the health of America's children.
Senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee grilled Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on issues crucial to that duty, including children's exposure to toxic air pollution, mercury and lead. Neither Pruitt's record nor his answers to the committee's questions were encouraging.
Toxic air pollution
Pruitt helped lead the charge of a number of state attorneys general who worked to block President Obama’s landmark coal plant rule. The rule requires plants to install new technologies to reduce emissions of mercury and other air pollutants.
Air pollution harms the heart, lungs and the brain, and can trigger asthma attacks in children. Mercury, primarily released into the air by coal-fired power plants, is a potent neurotoxin that can harm babies’ brains and nervous systems even when they are still in the womb. Nearly 10 percent of all American children suffer from asthma, more than twice as many as in 1980, and the number continues to rise.
During the hearing, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey asked Pruitt if he knew how many children in Oklahoma suffered from asthma. Pruitt did not, so Booker told him.
“More than 111,000 children in Oklahoma,” Booker said. “More than one in 10 [of all Oklahoma children] have asthma, one of the highest rates in the U.S.A.”
The drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., where up to 12,000 children have been exposed to lead, has brought the problem of lead contamination into sharp focus nationwide. Lead can cause permanent brain damage in children and has been connected to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.
During the primaries and general election, every candidate, including Trump, addressed the lead issue, so it was a no-brainer that it would come up at the hearing. But Pruitt hadn't bothered to learn the most basic fact about lead contamination.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland asked Pruitt: “Do you believe there is any safe level of lead that can be taken in to the human body, particularly [for] a young person?”
“Senator,” Pruitt replied, “that is something that I have not reviewed, nor know about.”
The answer is clear. Doctors and public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agree without dispute that there is no safe level of lead exposure for children.
Rising rates of asthma are mirrored by other childhood diseases, which a growing and robust body of scientific research indicates are caused, at least in part, by exposure to toxic pollutants.
In the last five years, Pruitt has either led or signed on to 14 lawsuits against the EPA to roll back Obama administration regulations to reduce air and water pollution, and protect children from harmful chemicals.
History shows that initiatives like those of the Obama administration make a difference. Whenever the federal government has taken decisive action on behalf of children’s environmental health, it has brought significant and lasting positive change. In the mid-1970s, the government began to phase out lead in paint and gasoline, and lead levels in kids' blood dropped dramatically.
During last week's hearing, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York described contamination in her state from DuPont's PFOA and Monsanto's PCBs, both of which have been phased out but linger in water supplies nationwide. She pleaded with Pruitt to put children’s health ahead of polluters’ interests.
“I need you to be vigilant because lives are at stake,” Gillibrand said. “I need you to feel it as if your children sitting behind you are in the emergency room. The contaminants are real, they are pervasive and they are destroying lives.”
For our part, be assured that EWG will remain vigilant under the new administration. If policies or actions by the EPA or other agencies threaten children's health, together we will respond swiftly and loudly.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/01/kids-health-risk-under-trump-s-epa
-
Even before Formal Death Knell, Clean Power Plan is History
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Clean Power Plan, as the world knows it, is dead.
The Trump administration has vowed to reverse the U.S. EPA regulation meant to drive down carbon emissions from power plants. And although environmental advocates will fight that decision in the courts, the battle could rage on for years.
During that time, many states may pursue their own climate strategies. But they won't be planning for the standards laid out by the Obama administration.
Travis Kavulla, a conservative Montana regulator who last year was president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, posits that no state electric regulator is assuming the rule will move forward.
Bill Becker, head of the national association for state air agencies, acknowledged most states are in "stand-down mode."
Trump's opposition to the Clean Power Plan is no secret — and the White House in its first hours Friday posted plans to undo Obama's "harmful" climate policies. When that will officially happen is still unclear. But officials say the fact that so few states are even still holding discussions about the federal carbon-cutting plans underscores what shaky legal ground on which the regulation currently stands.
To be sure, not every state has abandoned the Clean Power Plan.
Minnesota's air officials just scheduled a stakeholder meeting for next month to explain where challenges to the regulation stand. In a plan for continuing its cap-and-trade system, California put out a report yesterday assuming the Clean Power Plan takes effect (Climatewire, Jan. 23).
At a minimum, "there's going to be continued uncertainty for a significant period of time one way or another," said Tom Lorenzen, a Crowell & Moring attorney opposing the rule on behalf of electric cooperatives.
"There's no quick and easy way of getting rid of this rule," Lorenzen said. "I think most assume that what we have on the books right now is not going to move forward."
Yet while Clean Power Plan supporters will cheerlead for its success, odds are against states continuing to plan based on the specifics of a rule that is highly unlikely to take effect with its original terms and timelines.
'The grid is still decarbonizing'
Most states had already put planning conversations on ice after the U.S. Supreme Court in February ordered EPA not to implement the Clean Power Plan while lower court judges reviewed challenges to the regulation. States supporting climate action promised to press forward, although their official talks also lost momentum. A few have continued, although they mostly acknowledge the obstacles ahead.
The vast majority of officials and electric companies are turning their thoughts away from the federal standards and toward state and regional concerns.
In Montana, for example, the focus is on whether one of the biggest coal plants in the West, Colstrip, will shut down. The plant serves a handful of states, and owners and policymakers based in much less conservative Washington and Oregon could ultimately decide how long the plant runs (Climatewire, Jan. 20).
Some of Kavulla's work relies on estimating what costs utilities might see from future carbon regulation, which becomes trickier now. He pointed to a recent ruling related to how much small-scale wind power producers could charge for electricity. His commission decided to adjust how it makes those decisions to account for "a new presidential administration, which is hostile to carbon dioxide emissions regulation and which may find it relatively easier to delay emission regulation but perhaps more difficult to prevent carbon dioxide from being regulable altogether."
In other words, Trump may oppose and stall carbon standards, but he likely won't be able to stop them forever.
Kelly Speakes-Backman, a former Maryland regulator who now works at the Alliance to Save Energy, noted shortly after the election that regulators say they must plan 10, 15 or 20 years in advance, past the current administration.
"I was really interested and encouraged by how many commissioners of varying states kept saying this doesn't change the market fundamentals," Speakes-Backman said. "It doesn't change the fact that the grid is still decarbonizing."
In Minnesota, environmental regulators are hopeful "there's still some role for federal leadership" under the section of the Clean Air Act used to write the rule, said Frank Kohlasch, an air assessments section manager at the state's Pollution Control Agency.
Kohlasch understands the overall outlook under the rule might not be good. But he said he thinks states are waiting to see a decision on the rule from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That in turn could inform how the Trump administration chooses to attack.
Even if Minnesota stops official Clean Power Plan work, Kohlasch said his agency may keep using the same stakeholder group to look at ways to cut carbon. He added that through the regulation, Minnesota has developed regional conversations among environment and energy officials. He acknowledged the rule's deadlines added some urgency to the talks and without it other states likely will not work as much on carbon reductions. But he said he believes trends toward natural gas, renewable power and energy savings will continue regardless.
A shift to regional solutions
Sandy Bahr, who works for the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club in Arizona, said her group is still asking the state, which is challenging the rule in court, to move forward.
"It is not dead — at least not yet," Bahr said in an email. "The courts have not ruled on it, and the rule is still there. I do think they are acting as if it is dead, but Trump is not emperor. He cannot just eliminate it unilaterally."
Timothy Franquist, air quality division director for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, said his agency is still "waiting to hear an official word, one way or another."
Franquist said that would mean a clear executive order from the president or a court ruling. An executive order would not be enough to unwind the rule, although Franquist said it would be a "strong statement."
Arizona's DEQ has been in a "holding pattern" since the Supreme Court stay, Franquist said, having a public meeting in August and private stakeholder discussion in October, before the election. The agency's main concern has been to avoid any federal plan that might be imposed on Arizona if the Clean Power Plan moved forward and the state wasn't prepared, he said.
Becker said under the Clean Power Plan "there has been struck a comfort level among many states and between stakeholders with regards to how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"I think there are states who feel far more comfortable engaging in regional solutions than they ever were before the Clean Power Plan was developed," he said.
Becker's group, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, last year put together a menu of options for states looking at carbon cuts. He said dozens of industries approached his office, urging the association to put them in the report.
"These were programs those industries were working on already, but now they saw a home for those programs," Becker said. "The Clean Power Plan was probably a fuse that really set things off."
It's still unclear how the Trump administration will go after the Clean Power Plan. As Kohlasch noted, that may depend on what the courts decide.
There's also a possibility that the Justice Department signals to the D.C. Circuit that it plans to change the rule before the judges put out an opinion.
Lorenzen identified three ways Trump's team could try to eliminate the rule. The new EPA could revisit its interpretation of the law and argue that the agency was mistaken and cannot regulate carbon from power plants under the section of statute it used. Federal officials also could narrow the regulation to focus on only what power plants could achieve through efficiency improvements (Climatewire, Jan. 23).
Or they could try to rescind a legal finding that EPA must address CO2 levels, which he said "would be a very heavy lift."
"We're probably talking a minimum of a year," Lorenzen said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048857
-
Trump Orders Advance of Keystone XL, Dakota Access
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump signed executive orders today aimed at restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, keeping a campaign promise and throwing down the gauntlet to environmentalists opposed to the projects.
Trump's order invites TransCanada Corp. to resubmit an application for its Keystone XL project and directs the State Department to fast-track its review of the pipeline that would link Canada's oil sands region with U.S. refineries.
"This is with regard to the construction of the Keystone pipeline, something that's been in dispute, and it's subject to a renegotiation of terms by us," Trump said as he signed the order. "We're going to renegotiate some of the terms, and if we like, we'll see if we can get that pipeline built. A lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs, great construction jobs."
TransCanada has made clear its intention to revive KXL that was rejected by President Obama. The pipeline would stretch from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Illinois and Texas and a distribution center in Oklahoma.
While not explaining what "renegotiation of terms" means, Trump said last year the U.S. should receive a portion of any profits TransCanada makes from the pipeline in exchange for utilizing eminent domain that the company needs to ensure the project's completion. "Let's take a piece of the action for you folks — lower your taxes a little bit more," he said in a speech unveiling his energy platform last May (E&E News PM, Sept. 26, 2016).
Upon signing the order, Trump added, "again, subject to terms and conditions to be negotiated by us."
Trump then signed a second order directing all federal agencies, notably the Army Corps of Engineers, to expedite the review and approval of an outstanding easement needed by developers of the Dakota Access pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners LP's $3.78 billion project stalled after failing to secure a critical approval from the corps for construction to advance near a Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The 1,172-mile oil pipeline sparked nationwide protests after the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe voiced concerns about the potential for spills and leaks.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), an early backer of the project and an energy adviser to Trump's campaign, released the language of the orders.
The president also signed a third order requiring companies building pipelines in the United States to use domestic material.
"This is construction of pipelines in this country, we are and I am very insistent that if we're going to build pipelines in the Unites States, the pipes should be made in the United States," Trump said upon signing the third executive order. "So unless there's difficulty with that because companies are going to have to sort of gear up, much pipeline is bought from other countries.
"From now on, we're going to start making pipeline in the United States," he continued. "We build it in the United States, we build the pipelines, we want to build the pipe. Going to put a lot of workers, a lot of steelworkers back to work."
Reactions
Trump's move was hailed by the business community and Republicans, but criticized by Democrats, environmental groups and tribes who vowed to fight the pipelines both on the ground and in the courtroom.
Today's orders followed Trump's yesterday with unions eager to see the pipelines proceed.
According to the White House, Trump met with Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building and Construction Trades Department; Terry O'Sullivan, president of Laborers' International Union of North America; Mark Coles of Ironworkers Local 5; and two members of the Sheet Metal Workers' union.
Republicans angered over Obama's rejection of the Keystone pipeline and decision to intervene in the Dakota Access project see the orders as a harbinger of new jobs.
"For years the previous Administration inexplicably robbed this country of tens of thousands of new jobs and a chance to become less dependent on unstable sources of energy," Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a statement. "An 'all of the above' energy strategy includes moving these projects forward, and this decision is long overdue."
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told reporters during an interview on Capitol Hill that it appears the executive order provides an expedited review process for the Dakota Access pipeline, but stopped short of clarifying whether there was a role for Congress. "We'll see if there's a role for the Senate, but right now, it looks like it's going to be an administration-driven process," he said.
Democrats and groups like the Sierra Club shot back with warnings of a growing resistance and saying the oil production and transportation would only worsen the effects of climate change.
"He's building a wall of resistance uniting Americans against his reckless agenda," tweeted Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.
Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said the pipelines are "not in our national interest," and threaten to roll back the United States' progress in clean energy.
"Encouraging the production of this oil, which includes Canadian tar sands — one of the dirtiest fuels in the world — is a huge step backward," Schatz said in a statement. "Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and we need to be moving forward with policies to support clean energy."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) railed against the president and his nominees for putting "Big Oil" first, and said the Obama administration was right to reject the projects.
Other opponents vowed legal action.
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told E&E News the tribe would immediately challenge an easement for the pipeline once formally issued by the Department of the Army.
"The previous administration correctly found that the process violated tribal treaties and that a further analysis of route alternatives needed to be conducted," he said. "This administration arbitrarily reversed that before they even have a new secretary of the Army in office. They're breaking the law, and we're going to take them to court."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048897
-
Trump Advances Keystone, Dakota Access Pipelines
Jan 24, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump on Tuesday signed orders to advance construction of the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
The orders do not grant the final permits needed for the oil pipelines but will move both projects toward approval, a person familiar with the action said.
The Trump administration began to inform lawmakers starting late Monday that the orders were coming.
The orders fulfill Trump's campaign promise to approve both pipelines, which have staunch support from the oil industry and the GOP but are strongly opposed by Democrats and environmentalists.
The White House did not provide more details.
“It certainly confirms his commitment both to the rule of law and to job creation and energy security, which is pretty critical,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a close Trump ally whose state would contain segments of both pipelines.
Cramer called it a “pretty significant differentiation between the previous administration and this one.”
Former President Obama rejected Keystone in November 2015, citing the need to show international leadership on climate change.
If fully built by developer TransCanada Corp., Keystone would run from Alberta, Canada, which contains a bulk of that nation's oil sands, to the Gulf Coast in Texas, bringing heavy oil sands petroleum to refineries.
Last month, the Obama administration ordered a comprehensive environmental impact statement to be conducted on the Dakota Access pipeline before any decision could be made on building its final section below Lake Oahe in North Dakota.
The pipeline has been the subject of international protests that have fired up environmentalists and indigenous rights activists.
They say that the pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and further development of oil infrastructure threatens the climate.
The two projects require different approvals. Keystone needs a presidential permit to build across the Canadian border, while Dakota Access, developed by Energy Transfer Partners, needs an Army Corps of Engineers easement to build under Lake Oahe.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer, asked Monday about plans to approve Keystone and Dakota Access, said he was “not going to get in front of the president’s executive actions.”
But he went on to say that the projects are “areas where we can increase jobs, increase economic growth and tap into America’s energy supply more.”
The planned orders were first reported Tuesday by Bloomberg.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/315819-trump-to-advance-keystone-dakota-access-pipelines-report
-
Columbia Gas Transmission Seeks Interest in Another Marcellus/Utica Pipeline
Jan 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
Columbia Gas Transmission (TCO) is holding a non-binding open season to solicit interest in its Buckeye XPress Project, which would provide firm transportation service from Marcellus and Utica shale production areas in Ohio, Southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia to TCO's IPP Pool and its existing Leach, KY, interconnection with Columbia Gulf Transmission.
"The project's estimated capacity is 700,000 Dth/d, but may be able to accommodate more volumes based on certain receipt point combinations and market support," the company said.
Shippers who execute binding precedent agreements for minimum capacity of 300,000 Dth/d and a minimum term of 20 years will receive anchor shipper status. Minimum required contract term is 15 years.
The open season will end at 5 p.m. CST Feb. 16. Interested parties should contact Joshua Gibbon at (832) 320-5647 or Joshua_gibbon@transcanada.com. Open season documentsare available on CGT's electronic bulletin board.
Buckeye XPress would offer primary receipts from west of the Oak Grove processing plant in Marshall County, WV, to the Seneca processing plant in Noble County, OH, and from the Sherwood processing plant in Doddridge County, WV, north to Oak Grove; from Oak Grove north and east to the Majorsville processing plant in Marshall County; and receipts along TCO's lines 1983 and 1570 between its Waynesburg compressor station and Smithfield compressor station, including A06 receipts.
The project offers primary firm deliveries to TCO Pool and Leach, with conforming capacity bids allocated on a 2.5 Dth (TCO Pool) to 1 Dth (Leach) ratio. TCO said it may also consider other mutually agreeable delivery locations.
Other TCO projects designed to move Marcellus and Utica shale gas to higher-priced markets include Leach Xpress, which would allow for transport of 1.5 million Dth/d of firm transportation service to natural gas customers served by the TCO pipeline system in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio [CP15-514], and the Rayne Xpress Expansion, which would add compression in Kentucky to provide about 621,000 Dth/d of firm transportation on the Columbia Gulf Transmission system [CP15-539]. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorized both Leach and Rayne for construction and operation last week.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109156-columbia-gas-transmission-seeks-interest-in-another-marcellusutica-pipeline
-
Fla. Project Called Next Standing Rock
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The quiet town of Live Oak, Fla., may be home to the next Standing Rock-like protest.
The 515-mile Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline is in the process of being laid under the Suwannee River. The $3.2 billion pipeline would carry 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily from Alabama and Georgia to power plants in Florida.
Like Oak, with a population of fewer that 7,000, has seen a sizable protest in recent weeks to the project. Last week, nonviolent actions temporarily halted construction and caused eight arrests.
"This is our land and our water, not theirs," said John Quarterman, president of the WWALS Watershed Coalition, which advocates for the conservation of five rivers in Georgia and Florida, including the Suwannee. "We can't just sit here and let them come through here. We have to do something about it."
Protestors say that drilling has caused sinkholes at several sites, while the companies behind the project — including Spectra Energy Corp., NextEra Energy Resources LLC and Duke Energy Corp. — insist that safety measures are in place and the environmental threat is minimal.
The pipeline would cause a smaller construction footprint than railroads, highways and water mains, according to the companies.
The project would not cross the land of Florida's indigenous tribes, but tribal members are still concerned.
"You just weep. You bleed and feel pain and you cry, you can't really do anything because of all the big machines, like an army coming through destroying your people," said Bobby Billie, a sixth-generation Seminole Native American.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048871
-
Foes Seek to Delay Methane Rule Litigation
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Foes of the Obama administration's rule limiting methane from new oil and gas operations have asked a federal court for a delay in the litigation.
According to the state and industry challengers, a delay would give President Trump time to decide what to do with the new standards, which cover new and modified sources of emissions in the industry.
Published in June, U.S. EPA's Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards require oil and gas companies to check and repair for leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide.
More than a dozen states and several oil and gas trade organizations filed lawsuits over the summer challenging the standards.
Trump has pledged to dismantle a host of environmental regulations, but it's unclear yet what specific steps his administration may take to get rid of the methane rules.
In their motion yesterday evening, challengers asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a 45-day extension of the Feb. 3 deadline for parties to file a briefing schedule.
The new deadline would allow the new administration "to provide meaningful input," they said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048867
-
LNG Backers Still Optimistic After Trump Kills Trade Pact
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
President Trump scrapped the Obama administration's work on a Pacific trade deal yesterday in a widely anticipated step that will keep the natural gas industry dependent on sympathetic treatment at the Department of Energy in order to keep exports flowing.
The negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was finalized in February 2016, was viewed as a key trade accomplishment of the Obama administration. But in the face of significant opposition, it was never presented to the Senate for ratification, leaving the TPP in purgatory as both major party candidates for president pledged to end the deal.
On his first full workday in office, Trump did so, ending the prospect of smoother trade between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries of a host of goods, including natural gas as well as agricultural products, autos, and energy products like solar cells and turbine parts.
During negotiations on the deal, natural gas exports were used as a carrot to draw Japanese support despite reservations over how it could affect the country's rice, beef and auto industries. Japan is the world's top importer of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and became even more dependent on the commodity following the massive 2011 earthquake that led to a shutdown of more than 50 nuclear reactors there (Energywire, Nov. 10, 2015).
Under current law, countries that have free-trade agreements with the United States are entitled to unfettered access to U.S. natural gas exports, while those that lack such a treaty can buy the commodity only from companies that have secured a special non-free-trade agreement export permit from DOE. South Korea, the world's second-largest buyer of LNG, has a bilateral trade agreement giving it by rights access to U.S. shippers, while China and India, often viewed as the most important future markets for the commodity, are not involved in the trade deal.
Koji Hoshi, an official with the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC), yesterday downplayed the significance of Trump's withdrawal from the TPP, saying that a colleague had met with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Trump's pick to lead DOE, and reported that he "was very positive [toward] exporting LNG."
Hoshi also pointed to other positive signs for Japanese LNG buyers, including assurances from outgoing DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz that the agency could act on LNG export applications within 30 days, as signals that DOE could be relied on to quickly approve LNG export proposals. But he acknowledged that efforts to push a time clock on DOE legislatively failed just before the new year, along with other provisions in a broader energy bill (E&E News PM, Dec. 6, 2016).
A measure that would have given DOE a deadline to act on LNG export applications was the top lobbying priority last year of the Center for LNG (CLNG). The industry advocacy group, housed within the Natural Gas Supply Association, sought such a provision to bring predictability to the long, capital-intensive process of developing LNG export facilities.
"There continues to be language, indications from the White House that the scrapping of TPP doesn't mean there isn't an interest in doing trade with these countries, so the issue then becomes with the specific countries," said Charlie Riedl, who heads CLNG, yesterday.
"Our first 100 days with the Trump administration will be to get in and provide that education about the economic and job-creation impacts that an LNG facility can bring to the United States," he added.
Riedl pointed to a comment Perry made in his confirmation hearing last week in which he said LNG is among the Trump administration's "all of the above" energy priorities.
Increasing LNG exports could also drive up domestic natural gas prices, which would help coal compete for market share in the domestic power industry. That could help Trump fulfill campaign obligations to boost the struggling coal industry, which many observers say is hard to do when natural gas offers a cheap and relatively clean alternative.
A study carried out for DOE last year concluded that growing LNG exports would be "marginally positive" for the U.S. economy by slightly expanding gross domestic product, while bringing economic trade-offs from an increase in domestic natural gas prices for consumers (Energywire, Jan. 5, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048852
-
Clean Energy Left Out of New White House Energy Plan
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Clean energy will have a decidedly lower profile in the Trump administration if its new "America First Energy Plan" is any indication.
The seven-paragraph document published Friday vowed to "embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans." It made no mention of wind, solar or other low-carbon energy sources.
But renewable energy industry officials and independent experts say they aren't worried. In fact, they argue that evidence from government and independent sources suggests the U.S. clean energy market will maintain a strong growth trajectory over the next four years as demand from both utilities and private-sector consumers is expected to remain high.
Moreover, they say, the Trump administration's pledge to pursue energy policies that create American jobs is consistent with the clean energy sector, which today employs more than a half-million U.S. workers in solar, wind and hydropower alone.
"If you look at why the renewable energy sector has been growing dramatically over the last several years, the central drivers remain unchanged," Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said yesterday.
"Those drivers are greater cost effectiveness — both through economies of scale and technological improvements — along with ambitious state programs [to increase clean energy deployment] and strong consumer demand, which shows every sign of continuing to grow."
The energy plan was top among six new White House policy position statements that also included foreign policy, economic growth, military readiness, law enforcement and trade. It promises to eliminate "harmful and unnecessary policies" such as the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan and pledges to be "committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving America's coal industry, which has been hurting for too long."
Absent from the plan along with renewable energy was energy efficiency or technologies such as battery storage, even though these sectors, broadly categorized as "clean energy," accounted for a substantial share of all energy sector spending over the last eight years. In 2016, renewables accounted for more than half of the roughly 24,000 megawatts of new capacity added to the grid, according to recent findings from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (Climatewire, Jan. 11).
Those absences struck some observers as a betrayal of Trump's previous statements on energy policy.
"Why did President Trump just remove homegrown #solar and wind power from his plans for energy independence?" Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the pro-renewables Energy and Policy Institute, tweeted Friday.
In a linked statement, Anderson noted that previous iterations of a Trump energy policy, including campaign statements, featured support for wind, solar and other renewables as part of a new domestic energy policy.
In an online op-ed for PV Magazine, solar-sector journalist Frank Andorka said the new policy document signaled "a dramatic and stunning reversal of U.S. energy policy from the past eight years."
Other observers cautioned against reading too much into a first draft of what is likely to be a more substantive energy policy after Trump's senior leadership team, including Energy secretary-nominee Rick Perry, takes office.
One executive of a major national nonprofit dedicated to promoting energy diversification, including renewables and other clean technologies, described the document as "jarring" in its tone, but stressed the organization would wait until the Trump administration has settled in before forming a position.
"It's a bold redirect, and it's not just on energy," the executive said. "The question is whether the statements will match up with actions, and there's a process that needs to unfold there. But in terms of growing the renewable energy sector overall, the market is what the market is. They really can't change that."
Leaders of the nation's two largest clean energy sectors — the wind and solar power industries — also expressed confidence that they would weather the shift in political winds in Washington.
"The new administration's America First energy plan emphasizes low-cost, homegrown energy — qualities that wind power brings to the U.S. energy mix," Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement.
Dan Whitten, vice president of communications for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in an email that the organization remains "confident in the success of solar in the next four years and thereafter, thanks to the jobs, affordable energy and innovation that solar brings our country."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048838
-
Majority of Americans Want U.S. Focus to be on Alternative Energy
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Maxine Joselow
Approximately 65 percent of Americans prioritize the development of alternative energy sources compared with 27 percent who would put greater emphasis on expanding U.S. fossil fuel production, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center.
This marks a slight uptick in preference for alternative energy since December 2014. At that time, the Pew Research Center found that 60 percent of Americans stressed developing alternative energy over developing fossil fuel sources.
The study demonstrates increased popular support for alternative energy at a time when President Trump is pledging to boost production from fossil fuel energy sources like coal.
Trump's incoming administration was quick to post an energy policy summary on the White House website that calls for "reviving America's coal industry, which has been hurting for too long" (Greenwire, Jan. 20).
"There's a perception that we're about to make major changes in energy policy," said Cary Funk, associate director of research on science and society at the Pew Research Center. "So I think these data are particularly important in terms of giving a portrait of where the public sits."
The study also shows that energy priorities remain divided along party lines. Democrats are still far more likely than Republicans to believe that developing alternative energy sources like wind and solar should take precedence over expanding production of coal, oil and natural gas.
Specifically, 81 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents prefer developing alternative energy. Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are more split: 45 percent favor developing alternative energy, while 44 percent favor developing fossil fuel sources.
A further ideological divide persists within the GOP. About 65 percent of moderate and liberal Republicans give priority to developing alternative energy, compared with just 33 percent of conservative Republicans.
These political differences over energy priorities are in keeping with polarized views on other environmental issues, most notably climate change. The Pew Research Center previously found that 88 percent of liberal Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents say climate change is a major threat to the well-being of the United States, compared with just 12 percent of conservative Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
"We often see deep political divides over climate and energy issues," Funk said. "But you do sometimes see more common ground."
Age also emerged as a factor influencing energy priorities. Among Americans ages 18 to 49, 73 percent stress developing alternative energy and 22 percent stress developing fossil fuels. Americans older than 50 are less unified, with 55 percent emphasizing alternative energy and 34 percent emphasizing fossil fuels.
"I get asked a lot whether or not younger adults are particularly concerned about climate change or think differently about energy issues," Funk said. "Here, we see that older adults tend to give higher priority for fossil fuels, but a majority of all groups would put the priority on alternative energy source development."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048840
-
Rail Executives Feared Terrorists Would Disrupt 'Virtual Pipeline'
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Terrorists and "environmental extremists" fed rail executives' fears over trains carrying millions of gallons of flammable crude oil, according to confidential filings in 2014.
The documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, offer an unvarnished look at the anxieties surrounding the rail industry's role as a "virtual pipeline" for hauling crude out of North Dakota during the heyday of the shale drilling boom.
"It is not just environmental extremists who pose a threat to the transportation of crude oil by rail. Foreign terrorists are also a risk," said the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, two leading freight rail trade organizations, in Aug. 29 comments to the Federal Railroad Administration marked "confidential."
The warnings came in response to a May 2014 federal emergency order requiring railroads to share data about oil train routes and volumes with state emergency response commissions (Energywire, May 8, 2014). Since then, the Department of Transportation has proposed expanding the temporary order to include information about trains carrying any hazardous material in bulk, not just crude from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play.
In their comments, the AAR and the ASLRRA claimed the order ran "antithetical" to safety and business concerns, noting that any information provided to state agencies risked seeing wider exposure via freedom of information requests.
"Making crude oil routing information publicly available is completely inconsistent with the assessment of the FBI and the [Transportation Security Administration] that crude oil trains might be targets," the groups said, attaching two government documents marked "for official use only" to their comments. "A person aspiring to commit harm needs an opportunity to execute. Providing more specific information than the person would otherwise have on crude oil routes would help provide that opportunity."
Environmentalists and many local leaders have countered that the public's right to know should trump security concerns about hazardous shipments. A series of oil train derailments and fires dating back to 2013 set off widespread worry that small towns were being kept uninformed about the potential dangers posed by rail lines running through them. A July 6, 2013, oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killed 47 people and underscored the risk to other North American communities along crude delivery routes.
AAR spokeswoman Kristin Clarkson said last week that the group stands by its position that the publication of "sensitive information on critical infrastructure and railroad operations substantially and needlessly exposes railroads to security and public safety risks."
She pointed out in an email that major railroads have for decades shared data on hazmat transport with emergency management officials and first responders. Clarkson also mentioned the industry's development of the "AskRail" mobile app, which is designed to make it easier for firefighters to quickly obtain data on the contents of rail cars in the event of an incident.
Before the May 2014 emergency order, such information was shared with first responders only upon request. The order required railroads to disclose more detailed data on movements of Bakken crude trains to state homeland security authorities, who were in turn expected to pass it along to local officials.
Al-Qaida — and enviros?
The rail industry groups cited two government advisories in their comments to the FRA — onefrom the FBI assessing the threat from green groups, and another from the TSA describing overseas plots to attach magnetic improvised explosive devices, or "sticky bombs," to the sides of freight rail cars.
The FBI's assessment, dated July 18, 2014, concluded that "increased use of railways to transport crude oil may lead to acts of environmental extremism." The intelligence document was prepared on the heels of a series of fiery oil train derailments, including one in Lynchburg, Va., in April, and a Dec. 30, 2013, crash and explosion in Casselton, N.D. Neither incident brought any casualties, but they galvanized environmental groups into staging protests and demanding tougher tank car standards.
The FBI's Counterterrorism Division claimed that green groups would be more likely to seek to "delay or disrupt" rail traffic rather than "directly sabotage" a rail line and cause a fuel spill. The agency's advisory also listed several "possible indicators" of criminal actions to expect from such "extremists," including "cyber attacks or attempted cyber attacks against businesses associated with the oil industry" or "the use of social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook to track routes or share targeted rails or facilities."
The TSA document, meanwhile, described a foiled plot to blow up freight rail cars via magnetic "sticky bombs" in India. The goal of Indian Mujahideen co-founder Yasin Bhatkal was believed to be to turn "freight trains to giant firestorms," the TSA noted, citing Indian press reports. Bhatkal, who had been captured by the time the March 31 TSA intelligence note was published, has since been sentenced to death for his involvement in other deadly bombings.
The TSA said that "although extremist media outlets provide an extensive amount of information on producing magnetic IEDs inexpensively, TSA-[Office of Intelligence and Analysis] is not aware of any plots involving the use of these devices within the Homeland."
In an emailed response to questions last week, TSA spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency is still unaware of any attempts to place magnetic IEDs on crude oil trains or other tank cars in the U.S. She nevertheless encouraged railroads to closely inspect rail cars moving hazardous materials, as laid out in federal regulations.
"TSA has and continues to assess the threats, vulnerabilities and potential consequences of a myriad of surface transportation operations, including the rail transportation of flammable liquids and other hazardous materials," she said, adding that "these assessments are security sensitive and are shared only with those persons with a need to know."
Despite the lack of specific plots in North America, the AAR and ASLRRA noted in their comments that two publications shared by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula included general threats against oil trains. "Furthermore, information from Osama Bin Laden's compound indicates that Al-Qaeda has contemplated attacks on trains," the groups said.
Fred Millar, a hazardous materials consultant who has worked with environmentalist organizations such as Friends of the Earth, said the "security threat is quite real" for freight railroads. But he criticized what he called the "dangerous" juxtaposition of al-Qaida and environmentalist threats in the rail groups' comments.
"This is conflating actual terrorism with very low-level kinds of nonviolent political activity, like blocking the train tracks," he said.
Millar has pushed for railroads to consider rerouting hazardous trains away from urban areas where they can pose a bigger threat to public safety. While railroads already weigh population density when selecting routes for certain high-hazard contents, in practice, oil trains, ethanol trains and specialized tank cars containing poisonous gases such as chlorine and ammonia pass through cities every day.
"If [terrorists] were to show that they can successfully attack a crude oil train as it is lumbering through a major city, that is going to be a huge blow to the fossil fuel industry in their ability to just ship this stuff wherever they feel like it," Millar said, noting that tougher regulations on oil train routing would likely soon follow.
Asked whether there were legitimate security reasons to keep such threat discussions behind closed doors, Millar dismissed the argument that they could be "giving terrorists ideas." He likened hazmat trains, which by law must be clearly labeled as they move throughout the U.S., to "elephants tiptoeing through the tulips."
"Who would think that the American citizens, who have to make the decisions about this, should be kept in the dark about the risk?" he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048837
-
Al Gore was Scheduled to Host Canceled CDC Climate Summit
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Scott Waldman
Former Vice President Al Gore was scheduled to headline a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention climate change summit that was canceled without explanation after President Trump's election.
Former agency leaders and others close to the CDC accused the agency of pre-emptively canceling the event because the issue would be considered politically unpopular under Trump, who rejects basic climate science.
Gore had already been booked as a keynote speaker for the CDC's Climate and Health Summit, which was slated for Atlanta in February. His role would have positioned a prominent Trump critic at the agency headquarters at a time when the Trump administration has targeted climate research.
E&E News first broke the news of the cancellation yesterday. The CDC has avoided responding directly to reporters' questions about the cancellation and only forwarded an email sent to attendees announcing the cancellation (Climatewire, Jan. 23).
The summit had been planned for more than six months. Dozens of research papers had been submitted and hundreds of people had registered. Topics to be explored included water- and food-borne diseases, as well as toxic algal blooms and disaster preparedness.
Other planned speakers included Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, who acknowledged that the event was canceled because CDC officials were concerned about Trump's hostile attitude toward the study of climate change.
Yesterday, Benjamin said the decision to cancel was a "strategic retreat" on behalf of the CDC. He said the agency would not have escaped retribution from the Trump administration if it hosted Gore at its headquarters.
"CDC should absolutely be in this space, they should have a climate and health program, they should do whatever they can to protect the American people," he said. "Having said that, you have to work in the politics of the environment that you're in. You never change your values, but sometimes strategic timing is everything."
Benjamin said his organization would like to host the summit later this year at its annual conference, which will be held in November in Atlanta and will have more than 10,000 attendees.
Earlier this month, Gore released "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power," the follow-up to his 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth," which helped bring climate science to a wide audience. Gore, who criticized Trump on the campaign trail, met with him in December at Trump Tower to talk about climate issues and said they had a "sincere search for areas of common ground" that would be continued. However, the administration has not given any outward signals that it will address climate change.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/24/stories/1060048842
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested