Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/3/2017
-
What Congress Needs to Know Before Fast-Tracking the Nomination of This EPA Pick
Feb 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elgie Holstein
If there wasn’t so much at stake, it might have been amusing to watch the majority members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at work on Thursday. -
E&E News' Bogardus Talks Senate Drama on Pruitt Nomination
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
There's drama this week in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as Republicans push a vote on President Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA, despite a boycott by Democrats. When will the full Senate consider Scott Pruitt's nomination, and will questions surrounding his confirmation follow Pruitt to EPA? On today's The Cutting Edge, E&E News reporter Kevin Bogardus unpacks this week's events and discusses Pruitt's potential first moves as administrator. -
EPA Proposes Three New Chemical Rules
Feb 3, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
According to a report, the EPA has proposed three new rules that will create a new process of prioritizing and evaluating chemicals under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Issues Report to Congress on Implementing Amended TSCA Provisions, President Trump Issues Memo and Order on Reducing Federal Regulations
Feb 3, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its initial report to Congress on its capacity to implement certain provisions of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Wastewater Plant Upgrade Fixes Fish Feminisation Problem
Feb 3, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Terri Coles
Upgrading a wastewater treatment plant along the Grand River in Ontario, Canada, has led to the full recovery of its male fish population due to reduced levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the water, scientists have found. -
Brexit Solution Must Prevent 'Divergence' Between UK Regions
Feb 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK government needs to work with the administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to agree a harmonised approach to chemicals policy to avoid negative impacts to competitiveness and industry following Brexit, industry bodies say. -
Echa Publishes Statistics on SVHC Authorisation Applications
Feb 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published statistics on received applications for authorisation for uses of substances included in Annex XIV of REACH – the authorisation list. -
How Gorsuch Could Mean Change for U.S. Energy Sector
Feb 1, 2017 | Forbes (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ken Silverstein
Change is in the offing in Washington, especially energy and environmental policies -- and potentially with a new U.S. Supreme Court nominee who may try to nullify existing rulings. -
Westerners Fear GOP's 'Morally Outrageous' BLM Rule Rollback
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
As Congress prepares to strike down an Obama administration rule limiting natural gas releases on public lands, Western communities banking on federal protections against methane venting and flaring are concerned the regulation they fought for years to implement will soon disappear into thin air. -
House Votes to Overturn Obama Drilling Rule
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House on Friday passed a resolution to reverse a pollution rule for oil and natural gas drillers that was put in place by the Obama administration. -
Senate Votes to Repeal Transparency Rule for Oil Companies
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate voted strictly along party lines Friday morning to repeal a regulation requiring disclosures for the payments that energy companies make to foreign governments. -
House Scraps Methane Standards After Senate Kills SEC Rule
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell and Dylan Brown
The House today voted to scrap a Bureau of Land Management rule that seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands. -
Trump Wants to Reduce Waste and Grow Jobs? Good, These Methane Policies Do Just That.
Feb 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dan Grossman
Today, lawmakers are using the Congressional Review Act to dismantle common-sense energy policies that can save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars and prevent massive amounts of energy resources from being needlessly wasted. -
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Power Plants Decrease
Feb 3, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. have decreased significantly in the past decade, thanks to environmental regulations on coal-fired power plants and a rise in natural gas an energy source. -
FERC Delegation Order Reaffirms Staff Powers But Quiet on Pipelines
Feb 3, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC’s order today granting additional authorities to its senior staff covered uncontroversial processes around electric and natural gas rate filings, granting some time extensions and the power to approve uncontested settlements. -
East Coast, South Ponder Fracking in Their States
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
As the oil industry recovers from a two-year price bust, a handful of East Coast states are grappling with how to regulate shale drilling, in case it spreads into their territory. -
Release the Chokehold on America's Energy Sector
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Williams
President Trump and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly vowed to bolster America's global economic competitiveness. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives made good on that promise. -
Cyber Primer Envisions Critical Role for Utility Regulators
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Miles Keogh thinks regulators should take a page from particle physics to boost security at electric utilities across the United States. -
Spate of Approvals Imperils Crude Shipped by Rail
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
The future of crude shipped by rail remains uncertain following the Canadian and U.S. governments' recent approvals of oil pipelines. -
Oil Train Numbers Drop Along with Oil Prices
Feb 3, 2017 | Prairie Business
By Don Davis
A third as many trains haul North Dakota crude oil across Minnesota as two years ago. -
CEI Presses Trump EPA to Stop Counting Some 'Co-Benefits' of Air Rules
Feb 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is pressing the Trump administration to drop the Obama-era practice of justifying major air rules by counting all the "co-benefits" of reducing pollutants not specifically targeted by the rules -- and is also suggesting that a stricter adherence to Clean Air Act deadlines would avoid excessively strict EPA rules. -
Eliminate Regulations that Don’t Actually Help the Environment
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By James Broughel
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to roll back two regulations finalized in the waning days of the Obama administration.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
What Congress Needs to Know Before Fast-Tracking the Nomination of This EPA Pick
Feb 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elgie Holstein
If there wasn’t so much at stake, it might have been amusing to watch the majority members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at work on Thursday.
They were forced to suspend the committee’s own rules to advance the nomination of Scott Pruitt to become the next administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Their unusual action was prompted when, for the second day in a row, Democratic members of the committee boycotted the meeting to protest the chairman’s plan to move the nomination forward, even though Pruitt hadn’t provided important information about his ties to big energy interests and other key issues.
Pruitt supporters are determined to get the full Senate to confirm their nominee at any cost, a man who has sued the EPA 14 times to stop fundamental clean air, climate and public health protections. But before rushing this nominee into office there are some things lawmakers need to know.
A chilling environmental record
As the attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt has chosen to fight for oil companies and other big polluters over protecting the people of his state.
For that, and for other reasons that have emerged over the last couple of weeks, he may well be the most ill-suited senior presidential nominee in years.
Pruitt has dodged questions about some of the most critical environmental challenges facing our nation today, challenges such as mercury pollution and climate change which the EPA has a mandate to tackle.
In a hearing before the committee last week, he refused to promise his future support for existing EPA safeguards on mercury pollution and air toxics from power plants – while stopping well short of promising to continue the agency’s efforts to limit dangerous carbon pollution.
Of course, we already know where he stands on one of the most important of those – the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt helped lead a group of states that challenged the plan in court, where it faces a potential fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
With last year recorded as the third consecutive hottest year on record, was that obstructive action by Pruitt the kind of leadership the country needs on climate change?
Pruitt’s answers to committee members raised additional troubling questions about his acceptance of campaign money from big polluters whose views he championed with his multiple lawsuits against the EPA. His refusal to recuse himself permanently from conflicts of interest raised by his filing of those suits was another troubling issue.
As one senator put it, if Pruitt is confirmed as EPA administrator without first recusing himself on the matters raised in his lawsuits – a number of which are still pending – he could end up being “plaintiff, defendant, judge and jury” on those cases.
But here we are, watching lawmakers with a majority power and an evident disregard for protecting some of the nation’s core environmental protections, bend the rules to put an unfit nominee in charge of the EPA – the agency Americans trust and rely on to protect their water, air and children’s health.
They are doing the American people, who deserve better than Scott Pruitt, a monumental disservice.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/02/03/what-congress-needs-know-fast-tracking-nomination-epa-pick
-
E&E News' Bogardus Talks Senate Drama on Pruitt Nomination
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
There's drama this week in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as Republicans push a vote on President Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA, despite a boycott by Democrats. When will the full Senate consider Scott Pruitt's nomination, and will questions surrounding his confirmation follow Pruitt to EPA? On today's The Cutting Edge, E&E News reporter Kevin Bogardus unpacks this week's events and discusses Pruitt's potential first moves as administrator.
Transcript found at: http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2198/transcript
-
EPA Proposes Three New Chemical Rules
Feb 3, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
According to a report, the EPA has proposed three new rules that will create a new process of prioritizing and evaluating chemicals under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The new law requires the agency to evaluate chemicals grandfathered into the TSCA.
“When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered in thousands of unevaluated chemicals that were in commerce at the time,” EPA’s press release reads. “The old law failed to provide EPA with the tools to evaluate chemicals and to require companies to generate and provide data on chemicals they produced.”
The new rules are composed of an inventory rule, a prioritization rule, and a risk evaluation rule. The inventory rule would require manufacturers and importers to notify EPA and the public of the number of substances in the EPA’s inventory that are still being produced. The prioritization rule would establish how the agency will prioritize chemicals for evaluation, and the evaluation rule will establish a process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents a risk of injury.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/02/03/epa-proposes-three-new-chemical-rules.aspx?admgarea=news
-
Feb 3, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its initial report to Congress on its capacity to implement certain provisions of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The report, prepared by EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) for the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Committees on Environment and Public Works, and Appropriations of the U.S. Senate, was directed to be provided within six months of enactment under Section 26(m)(1) of amended TSCA. In the report, EPA states that it anticipates “ramping up from 10 risk evaluations in FY2017 to 15 in FY2018, reaching 20 by the end of FY2019,” which is necessary “to accomplish an ongoing pace of at least 20 EPA-initiated risk evaluations underway” by the end of calendar year (CY) 2019. EPA also provides a table on page five, Table 1: TSCA Risk Evaluations, Numbers Underway and Resources Estimates, which presents estimates for its annual costs, calculated by dividing the average lifecycle costs of the actions by the number of years the statute provides for the agency to complete those actions, and then multiplying the result by the numbers of actions required/anticipated to be underway each year. The total annual costs range from $12.3 million for FY2017 to $35.8 million for FY2021. The report refers to the rule to implement the fee collection provisions, stating it is “currently under development,” but does not provide any more details on when it will be issued.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies in the Federal Register which directs federal agencies to “support the expansion of manufacturing in the United States through expedited reviews of and approvals for proposals to construct or expand manufacturing facilities and through reductions in regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturing.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8667. The memo will require the Secretary of the Department of Commerce (DOC) to conduct outreach to stakeholders concerning the impact of federal regulations on domestic manufacturing and to solicit comments for 60 days concerning “Federal actions to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers.” DOC is also instructed to coordinate this process with the Secretaries of EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA), among others, and within 60 days after the process is completed, to submit a report setting forth a plan to streamline federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and “to reduce regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturers,” identifying “priority actions as well as recommended deadlines for completing actions.”
Also on January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs casually referred to as the “one in, two out” order which states that when executive departments and agencies “publicly propos[e] for notice and comment or otherwise promulgat[e] a new regulation, [they] shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.” The order also states that no incremental costs can be accrued for any new regulations unless required by law or advised in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For any costs that are accrued, it is directed for them to be “offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” In the order, the OMB Director is tasked with providing guidance on implementation, as well as identifying the total amount of costs allowed for each agency “in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for the next fiscal year.” The regulations exempt from this order are: regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function; regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel; and other categories exempted by the OMB Director.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-report-to-congress-implementing-amended-tsca-provisions-president-trump
-
Wastewater Plant Upgrade Fixes Fish Feminisation Problem
Feb 3, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Terri Coles
Upgrading a wastewater treatment plant along the Grand River in Ontario, Canada, has led to the full recovery of its male fish population due to reduced levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the water, scientists have found.
At one point the rate of intersex changes – male fish developing female characteristics, such as producing eggs – in the Grand River was the world’s highest, says Mark Servosfrom the University of Waterloo, whose team has been monitoring male rainbow darter fish in the river since 2007. Intersex fish are the result of exposure to hormones or endocrine disrupting chemicals in the water, which sometimes get there as contaminants from wastewater and other industrial processes.
In 2012, the local authorities in Waterloo upgraded the Kitchener Water Treatment Plant, one of two major wastewater treatment plants located along the Grand River, making changes to the aeration tank in which sludge is treated to encourage the growth of nitrifying bacteria. The main motivation for doing this was to reduce the amount of ammonia produced in the treatment process, but Servos and his colleagues analysed the river water near the plant and observed the microorganisms used to remove ammonia also reduced the levels of endocrine disruptors in the water.
They showed that, as their levels dropped, there was a 70% decline in intersex fish in the river within a year, with rates going from as much as 100% intersex in some areas down to 29%. Within three years of the upgrades, the fish population had made a full recovery, with rates of intersex fish below 10%.
Deborah Roberts, an engineer who works on microbial decontamination systems at the University of British Columbia, Canada, tells Chemistry World Servos’ work is an ‘important contribution’ to the field. ‘I am not aware of another study that has documented this finding,’ she says.
Servos says he and his team are now looking at other characteristics in the fish that may be influenced by wastewater, including behaviour, gene expression and steroid hormone production.
‘We need to look at other endpoints as well to ensure that wastewater does not have long term effect that could be minimised or eliminated in the future,’ he explains. ‘Further research is needed to determine to what level of treatment we need to go to ensure protection and sustainability of our ecosystems and water resources.’
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/wastewater-plant-upgrade-fixes-fish-feminisation-problem/2500357.article
-
Brexit Solution Must Prevent 'Divergence' Between UK Regions
Feb 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK government needs to work with the administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to agree a harmonised approach to chemicals policy to avoid negative impacts to competitiveness and industry following Brexit, industry bodies say.
Certain areas of the central UK government – together with legislative authority – have been transferred to the devolved administrations of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly.
TechUK, for example, has "strongly urged" that there are no divergences in policy between the four governments for chemicals regulations governing products. Its written comments, and those of other organisations, have been submitted to an inquiry into the future of the UK's chemical regulations by a House of Commons committee.
While most trade bodies say they are keen for the UK to stay in EU REACH, or to have as close a system as possible, they want to reduce 'the burden' of EU chemicals regulation. "REACH is a complex Regulation, which has in the past been criticised by industry for being overly burdensome and bureaucratic," TechUK says.
And under the devolved administration, it says, "policy divergences between different countries and different trading blocs have the potential of increasing bureaucracy, creating duplication and undermining trading relationships."
The Chemical Industries Association (CIA), which represents chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers, says any future proposals for a chemicals regime in the UK "should be based on justified risk-based science whilst preventing any additional financial burden and bureaucracy for UK businesses".
Cooperative approach
These divergences would be a particular problem if, for example, Scotland subsequently votes for independence from the UK, the CIA says. This could result in companies "trying to manage three sets of regulations all aiming to meet the same objectives" in Europe.
In a letter to the Environmental Audit Committee's chair MP Mary Creagh, the Welsh government has called for cooperation between the devolved administrations. "It is essential that the devolved administrations play a full part in discussions [...] to agree collectively the arrangements to be put in place" following Brexit, said cabinet secretary for environment and rural affairs, Lesley Griffiths.
To avoid such divergences, the Chemical Business Association (CBA) says the devolved administrations should not have a role in chemicals regulatory policy and enforcement. However, it says the most likely outcome is that the UK government will control health and safety while environmental issues would be controlled by the devolved administrations.
In the absence of a continued administrative role for Echa, the CBA, which represents chemical distributors and formulators, says a UK chemicals agency should be established.
But TechUK says this would require significant additional resources and potentially prohibitive costs.
Ms Griffiths said future arrangements for the supporting administrative structures currently provided by the European Commission and Echa "are an area where it is vital for the UK government to work with the devolved administrations in order to identify the most effective approach for the UK as a whole".
She agrees with industry bodies that further clarity is needed as to how the 'Repeal Bill' will continue ensuring regulatory alignment with the 'non-static annexes' of REACH.
This bill will convert the body of EU law into British law once it leaves the EU. "Simply copying and pasting"REACH into UK law on the day the it leaves the EU "without providing a mechanism for keeping [it] automatically updated" would, she said, have a deregulatory effect.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53340/brexit-solution-must-prevent-divergence-between-uk-regions
-
Echa Publishes Statistics on SVHC Authorisation Applications
Feb 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published statistics on received applications for authorisation for uses of substances included in Annex XIV of REACH – the authorisation list.
One hundred and eleven applications have been received in the past five years, resulting in 66 final decisions from the European Commission for each use and applicant. So far the Commission has not refused any applications.
From 2012 to 30 January 2017 there were:
277 received notifications;
111 received applications (from 195 applicants);
180 uses for the substances for which authorisation was sought; and
66 Commission decisions per use and per applicant.
Chromium trioxide received the highest number of applications, with 25 from 61 applicants. Sodium dichromate came second with 17 applications from 23 applicants. And 1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) was third with 15 applications from 17 applicants.
The substance that saw the highest number of Commission decisions was hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) with 26 decisions. This was followed by 12 decisions on lead sulfochromate yellow (CI pigment yellow 34) and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red (CI pigment red 104). Trichloroethylene had nine Commission decisions, while Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) received seven.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53325/echa-publishes-statistics-on-svhc-authorisation-applications
-
How Gorsuch Could Mean Change for U.S. Energy Sector
Feb 1, 2017 | Forbes (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ken Silverstein
Change is in the offing in Washington, especially energy and environmental policies -- and potentially with a new U.S. Supreme Court nominee who may try to nullify existing rulings. But such a revolution requires widespread support, which President Donald Trump does not have — best evidenced by his loss in the popular vote by 3 million and the angst he has already created.
The president, though, could spark a subtle evolution, or the freedom to explore for more oil, gas and coal and to be able to more easily transport those fuels that is more in line with his campaign promises. His pick to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, would likely facilitate those objectives from a judicial point of view. Given the escalating demand for natural gas, there is in fact a need for more pipelines. And given the country’s desire to use domestically-produced oil, the same may be true for pipelines lines headed out of shale-oil rich North Dakota.
But neither the Supreme Court nor the Executive Branch can help coal compete with natural gas, which at $3.25 per million Btus is tough to beat for nearly every fuel used to power electric generation. In a note, Bloomberg New Energy Finance says that coal use will remain flat not because of regulations but because of cheap natural gas.
“Natural gas is very competitive,” says Nicholas Potter, vice president of Commodities at Barclays, at a Bloomberg Intelligence web conference. “There is still room for gas to grow.”
However, if the Clean Power Plan is tossed by the Supreme Court -- now tied at 4-4 -- it would then have an effect on natural gas markets. Given that natural gas has about half the carbon emissions as does coal, it has become the immediate beneficiary of a national policy to cut carbon emissions.
Without that strategy, natural gas use falls by 11% by 2030, says the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Pipeline operators like EQT Corp., Spectra Energy, Dominion Resources and Duke Energy would thus get hurt, says Bloomberg.
At the same time, the coal sector can only hope that some utilities would keep certain coal-fired plants alive. That would then change the dynamics of the grid, Bloomberg says, especially in Texas and in the PJM Interconnection that encompasses a 13-state region in the Mid Atlantic and Midwest. That may throw a blanket to certain coal developers but it would burn utilities that rely on alternative fuels like Berkshire Hathaway and Consolidated Edison.
“Utilities have built gas plants and they will use them,” says Kit Konolige, senior utilities analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. “The momentum is already there … Trump will be more supportive of building gas pipelines. But getting from a theoretical standpoint to actual construction is a different matter.”
So how does the Trump theory of running an energy economy comport with that of the developed and the developing world? Both the European Union and Japan have said that they will remain committed to the Paris climate accord that seeks to curb carbon emissions and to limit global temperature increases. But neither one said it was willing to pick up the slack if the United States either withdrew from the deal or cut back on its commitments.
Among those obligations, by the way, is one affirmed by President Obama that would give $3 billion over four years to help developing countries incorporate more clean energy and new technologies. Trump has said that the money would be better spent in this country, developing such things as advanced coal plants.
China, meantime, ratified the Paris agreement in September alongside the United States. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, China’s President Xi Jinping said that his country will help lead the charge if the U.S. reneges. To that end, China has promised to invest $360 billion in renewable energy through 2020 while at the same time suspending 100,000 megawatts of coal capacity, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
India, too, is bucking up and says it will assume more responsibility.
If the United States were to pull out of the Paris accords, it would have to give notice. At the same time, if the American court system upholds the Clean Power Plan, it will be difficult to wipe it off the books, although the Trump administration could choose not to enforce the law. And if that is the case, plenty of interest groups, and some states such as New York and California, have said they will use the judiciary system to compel such compliance.
Federal Judge Gorsuch of Colorado, though, may change the calculus. Progress Now in Colorado says that the nominee would set back environmental causes. Meantime, NextGenPresident Tom Steyer said that the U.S. Senate owes "no deference" to Trump, who lost the popular vote.
As a practical matter, the United States is more than halfway to meeting the goals of the Clean Power Plan, which is to cut carbon by 32% by 2030. Altering that course may help the coal sector at the margins but it will assuredly put a dent in the natural gas sector that Trump has also pledged to assist. What now?
“The wheels to change policy take time,” says Rob Barnett, analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. “Reversing direction is a different matter altogether.”
The storm by which Trump has assumed the White House will eventually peter out. The same is true for the energy and environmental policies promised by the president, despite his nomination of Gorsuch. To get ahead, Trump must have popular backing and market support, both of which he clearly lacks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/01/even-trump-is-making-the-oval-office-spin-is-energy-policy-next-with-the-gorsuch-pick/#3df4d0623376
-
Westerners Fear GOP's 'Morally Outrageous' BLM Rule Rollback
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
As Congress prepares to strike down an Obama administration rule limiting natural gas releases on public lands, Western communities banking on federal protections against methane venting and flaring are concerned the regulation they fought for years to implement will soon disappear into thin air.
Republicans in Congress are invoking their authority under the Congressional Review Act to repeal rules finalized during President Obama's last months in office, including several regulations opposed by the energy industry. The Senate yesterday voted to kill an Interior Department rule designed to protect waterways from coal mining pollution, and it began debate on a second measure that would kill a Securities and Exchange Commission anti-corruption rule requiring disclosure of oil and gas industry payouts to governments (E&E News PM, Feb. 2).
The House today considers a resolution that would wipe from the books the Bureau of Land Management's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, which aims to prevent methane venting, flaring and leakage during oil and gas production.
New Mexico rancher Don Schreiber said he is incensed by the possibility.
"The thought of people without a vulnerable exposure, without exposing their own lives, the lives of their families, their wives, daughters, children, to this threat is infuriating to me and so outside anything that's reasonable or just," he said.
Schreiber said he has been struggling for years to balance conservation of his Devil's Spring Ranch in the gas-rich San Juan Basin against extraction operations. He helped launch the Open Space Pilot Project, a partnership with BLM and ConocoPhillips Co. to drill using only existing well pads and road infrastructure. The project was designed to reduce the industry's landscape footprint by 90 percent, former BLM acting Director Mike Poole wrote in a 2010 letter.
The bureau's flaring rule is helping shrink a different kind of footprint — one that stretches across the Western sky, Schreiber said. Natural gas is constantly leaking, venting and burning from wells and other infrastructure on and near his property, sending benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene — collectively known as BTEX — into the environment, he said.
"Those insults to our health, air quality, wildlife and climate go on around the clock, and we're on the sharp end of the stick," Schreiber said. "We ride our horses right into those BTEX discharges."
He'll take to Capitol Hill next week to make a case for keeping the BLM rule.
"We know that the methane waste rule removed so much of that vulnerability," Schreiber said. "The leaking, venting and flaring preventions are known technologies. It doesn't take a rocket ship launcher to fix that stuff. It's like a drip at your kitchen sink, there's plumbing there, and you can fix that."
They drill where the gas is
GOP lawmakers who favor repealing the BLM rule say that methane emissions from oil and natural gas production have fallen 21 percent since 1990 as natural gas production increased 47 percent — and that's before federal regulations came into play. The oil industry has a financial incentive to capture the gas byproduct it burns off. If the proper infrastructure exists, operators can send the fuel to market.
If implemented, the BLM rule would save up to 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year, bringing in an additional $14 million in royalties to state and federal treasuries, according to data provided by House Democrats in favor of keeping the regulation.San Juan Basin methane plume
But oil and gas producers in New Mexico and elsewhere are capable of solving the problems the BLM rule seeks to address with a federal mandate, said Carla Sonntag, president and founder of the New Mexico Business Coalition.
"Producers and their associates are innovative in finding new and better technology to capture as much of the emissions at the well head as possible," Sonntag wrote in an email. "This is good for the company, the environment, and the state and federal governments that receive royalties from production."
She noted that New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) had directed the state's Oil Conservation Division to develop a gas capture plan to reduce flaring and venting on new completions.
To Schreiber and other backers of the BLM rule, the arguments against the regulation are flimsy. Adding new requirements for oil and gas development doesn't stop drilling any more than taxes do, Schreiber said.
"They drill where the oil or the natural gas is," he said. "They don't drill where the taxes are best."
Locals were blindsided by lawmakers' decision to use the CRA to scrap those regulations, he added.
"The whole CRA thing is new to me," Schreiber said. "I'm not a lawyer or a legislator. I'm just a citizen rancher. This device that they've drug up to stop this rule is morally outrageous."
Shrinking the methane hot spot
Communities under the methane "hot spot" covering the Four Corners region hope to keep federal regulations to reduce the operations they say are contributing to the Delaware-sized emissions cloud.
A study last year by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory linked the hot spot to fossil fuel extraction in the San Juan Basin (Energywire, Aug. 16, 2016). The scientists did not say what percentage of that production was taking place on public lands.
Of the four states touched by the methane plume, three — New Mexico, Utah and Colorado — have a significant oil and gas presence. Of those, only Colorado has robust state-level flaring rules (Climatewire, Jan. 30).
"I'm concerned for my people," said Sam Dee, former oil and gas liaison for the Navajo Nation in the Beehive State. "My people, they are exposed to all this flaring and venting in the Utah area. I would like that venting and flaring to be controlled."
He said he is optimistic the BLM rule will survive congressional review because it addresses critical local concerns.
"It deals with the health issues and the environmental issues," Dee said.
Republicans in Congress and industry have said those protections are exactly why the rule should be repealed. Those issues fall under the purview of U.S. EPA and state regulators — not BLM, they say (Energywire, Feb. 1).
The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in northeastern Utah has told federal legislators that it would like to be exempt from the BLM rule.
"BLM never attempted to discuss with the Tribe what the appropriate balance should be for well venting and flaring or whether a rule for methane and waste reduction is even necessary on the Tribe's Reservation," the tribe said in written testimony to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. "Instead, the proposed rule imposes forced 'protection' on us. This kind of paternalism is not the modern role of the federal trustee and not the kind of trustee that President Obama has directed for his Administration. The Tribe's energy and economic development pay for our tribal government and the services we provide our members. We have bills to pay. BLM's protection of our lands will make it so that we can no longer pay our bills."
Colorado's Southern Ute Indian Tribe in southwest Colorado has expressed similar sentiments.
"The Tribe respectfully requests that BLM consider adopting a less restrictive, more tribal deferential, variance provision," the tribe wrote in comments to the subcommittee.
In La Plata County, Colo., which abuts Southern Ute lands, Commissioner Gwen Lachelt said she is searching for cross-border solutions to the methane issue.
"If this methane rule goes away, there goes the impetus to reduce those emissions," she said.
Although Colorado has strong flaring rules in place, the state's air quality is not protected if operators in the surrounding region continue to emit methane unabatedly, said Josh Mantell, energy campaign manager for the Wilderness Society.
"Emissions don't stop at state borders," he said. The Centennial State has taken the lead on methane capture, "but if their neighbors don't follow behind, then Coloradoans are going to be suffering."
A land grab in N.D.
With its northwest corner dipped in the oily Bakken Shale, North Dakota moved in 2014 to capture 90 percent of its flared gas by 2020 (Energywire, July 2, 2014).
The state has already achieved that target, but flaring remains more prevalent on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, according to data from the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources.
"North Dakota only implemented flaring regulations in 2014, which are a step toward natural gas and methane reduction. There should have been gas capture plans in place prior to drilling, but it was a land grab for oil companies," Fort Berthold resident Lisa Deville wrote in an email. "There are no additional protections for tribal lands regarding flaring."
BLM's rule gave Ruth Buffalo, a member of the Fort Berthold Protectors of Water & Earth Rights and the Dakota Resource Council, confidence that public health concerns associated with flaring would be addressed. She doesn't place the same trust in the state government.
"North Dakota's very oil driven, so they're not necessarily approaching this from a public health angle, putting the population's health as a top priority," she said. "North Dakota is putting profits No. 1 over people."
Federal requirements add a needed layer of protection, Buffalo said.
"If flaring is reduced, that's going to improve the quality of life for everyone," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/03/stories/1060049488
-
House Votes to Overturn Obama Drilling Rule
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House on Friday passed a resolution to reverse a pollution rule for oil and natural gas drillers that was put in place by the Obama administration.
Members voted 221-191 to approve a Congressional Review Act resolution against the Bureau of Land Management’s methane venting and flaring rule. If approved by the Senate and signed by President Trump, the rule would come off the books for good.
Republicans and the oil industry say the rule would hinder energy production on federal lands by restricting drilling, costing jobs as well as tax and royalty payments for state and local governments.
“It is a costly rule and a totally unnecessary rule,” said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. The resolution, he said, “will help people, it will support people. This rule’s repeal is a vote for people, and making sure that their lives are better, not worse.”
Democrats and the rule’s supporters consider the regulation more beneficial than costly, saying it will cut pollution, combat climate change, and put more natural gas onto the energy market.
The rule “is a win for the taxpayer, a win for the environment, a win for the climate and a win for common sense,” Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) said.
“The Republican anti-regulatory, anti-taxpayer, anti-health, anti-environment machine must be continually fed.”
The methane rule grew out of an Obama administration effort to tackle methane pollution, which has 25-times the climate change potential of carbon dioxide.
The BLM's rule would crack down on leaks of methane from natural gas wells on federal land and restrict flaring, the practice by which drillers burn off excess natural gas produced at drilling sites.
Environmentalists and Obama regulators say the rule will help cut down on methane pollution. Activists in the West — where most of the federal land wells are located — note that there's a financial aspect to the methane debate as well: through leaks and flaring, natural gas worth up to $400 million is lost each year.
“You don’t have to support the methane waste rule to see why repealing it using the Congressional Review Act will only make the problem worse,” Ryan Alexander, the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said earlier this week when a Senate version of the methane resolution was introduced.
“Taxpayers have been losing millions every year from wasted gas thanks to outdated, ineffective rules. A vote to repeal the methane rule is a vote to make the old rules permanent, which would be a disaster for taxpayers.”
The drilling industry has consistently said federal methane regulations — like this one from the BLM or an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation for new wells on private land — serve to restrict the industry and threaten jobs and energy production. Industry groups note producers have already slashed methane emissions at their wells, thanks in part to internal rules and state regulations.
“This redundant and technically flawed rule will further impede oil and natural gas production on federal land, which already has been declining,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a letter to House leaders this week.
“The rule is a step backwards for U.S. energy policy and all Americans who benefit from domestic energy production.”
Congressional Republicans have taken aim at several Obama-era efforts to cut down on methane emissions. They’ve also worked extensively this week to stop Obama-era rules on the environment and in other industries.
Both the House and Senate this week approved Congressional Review Act resolutions against a rule to protect water from coal mining debris, along with a regulation calling for more financial information from drillers and miners. President Trump supports those resolutions, and when he signs them, they will be only the second and third CRA measures to successfully undo a rule.
The House this week also passed a CRA resolution against a Social Security Administration rule to block disability recipients with mental disorders from owning guns.
Republicans say the resolutions are necessary tools for undoing rules issued late in the Obama administration. Democrats have broadly opposed the resolutions.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/317739-house-votes-to-overturn-obama-oil-and-gas-rule
-
Senate Votes to Repeal Transparency Rule for Oil Companies
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate voted strictly along party lines Friday morning to repeal a regulation requiring disclosures for the payments that energy companies make to foreign governments.
The measure passed 52-47 in a pre-dawn vote.
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) foreign payments rule was mandated by a key provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and was meant to reduce corruption in resource-rich countries by detailing the royalties and other payments that oil, natural gas, coal and mineral companies make to governments.
But the rule, made final last year, fell victim to a push by congressional Republicans to erase large portions of former President Barack Obama’s legacy by repealing major regulations through the Congressional Review Act. The move followed a late Thursday vote against the Interior Department’s stream protection rule for coal mining.
The House voted Wednesday to repeal the SEC transparency rule, so the Senate’s action sends the measure to President Trump’s desk.
The White House said Wednesday that Trump would sign the resolution and other measures to overturn Obama-era rules. The SEC rule, the White House said, would “impose unreasonable compliance costs on American energy companies that are not justified by quantifiable benefits” and could put those companies at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors.
The vote on the SEC rule is a major win for oil producers and other companies in extractive industries.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said on the Senate floor Thursday that the SEC’s own research did not show a strong connection between transparency and improving the lives of citizens in countries where mineral extraction revenues fuel government corruption.
“Unlike the potential benefits, though, the costs of this rule are reasonably certain,” he said. “The SEC estimated up to $700 million in initial costs, and up to $590 million on ongoing annual costs.”
Crapo warned that numerous small companies would be hurt in addition to major oil companies.
“We cannot view these costs as only affecting the largest companies, but must consider the plight of the smaller ones,” he said.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, framed the resolution as a vote for corruption.
“The rule they’re trying to repeal protects U.S. citizens and investors from having millions of their dollars vanished into the pockets of corrupt foreign oligarchs,” he said on the floor. “This kind of transparency is essential to combating waste, fraud, corruption and mismanagement.”
The oil industry has made it a priority to lobby against the SEC rule. Exxon Mobil Corp., whose former CEO, Rex Tillerson, was confirmed this week as secretary of State, was one of the most outspoken opponents, owing in part to its business operations in scores of countries around the world.
“The SEC’s rule requires disclosure for American companies but not foreign entities, fundamentally harming American workers and shareholders,” Stephen Comstock, head of tax policy for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.
Anti-corruption advocates slammed the move by Congress.
“Voting to roll-back basic transparency rules provides zero benefit for the public but will instead allow corrupt elites to continue to stuff their pockets with oil money and steal from their citizens,” said Isabel Munilla, senior policy adviser for extractive industries at Oxfam America.
Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate only needs 51 votes to pass repeal resolutions, a lower bar than the 60 needed to pass most legislation.
The vote does not repeal the provision in the 2010 law that mandates that the SEC write a transparency rule.
But under the CRA, the agency will be prohibited from writing another rule that is “substantially the same” as the one overturned by Congress.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/317700-senate-votes-to-repeal-transparency-rule-for-oil-companies
-
House Scraps Methane Standards After Senate Kills SEC Rule
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell and Dylan Brown
The House today voted to scrap a Bureau of Land Management rule that seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands.
The resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 36, passed by a 221 to 191 vote. Three Democrats voted for it and 11 Republicans against.
The measure now heads to the Senate, where Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has introduced his own resolution of disapproval, S.J. Res. 11.
House Republicans have axed a number of Obama-era rules this week using the Congressional Review Act, which prohibits agencies from reissuing a rule or issuing a "substantially similar" one.
Since its 1996 inception, the CRA has only been successfully used once in 2001. It's unclear the extent of its potential impact on the regulatory system.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said that, in addition to the methane rule being burdensome and ineffective, U.S. EPA has the authority to curb emissions under the Clean Air Act, not BLM.
"It's an illegal rule, where they had no statutory authority to do what they did," he said.
Bishop referenced data that show significant methane emissions reductions through voluntary industry action. "Emissions were being lowered before this rule, and they will be lowered after this rule," he said.
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee ranking member, countered that narrative, saying methane reductions have occurred in other energy production arenas, like transportation, but not on public land extraction.
"That claim is flat out false," he said. "That is the definition of an alternative fact."
Lowenthal, referencing a Denver Post editorial, said using the CRA to nix the rule is like using an ax when a scalpel is needed. "It's an ax being swung blindfolded after a couple shots of whiskey," he said.
"Less than two weeks into the new all-Republican government and they're already handing out early Valentine's Day gifts to their wealthy donors," he said. "We're here to shower more goodies onto the oil and gas companies."
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) said, on the contrary, the BLM rule is benefiting environmentalists who are out to destroy certain energy industries. He credited them with the demise of coal, saying that they are now after oil and gas.
The rule is "one more wink and nod to special interest that wants to kill the industry," he said.
Bishop echoed the sentiment, saying that affordable energy is being harmed by the BLM rule. People should be able to "turn on the light bulb without having to take out a loan at the local bank," he said.
Impact
Elizabeth Gore, former chief of staff and legislative director for Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), said that while repealing Obama-era rules demonstrates the new administration is willing to provide regulatory relief, the impact of repealing individual rules could be small.
"I don't think blocking these rules in and of themselves makes a demonstrable difference in the amount of jobs that will be generated in those industries," said Gore, who now serves as chairwoman of the Government Relations Department at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.
"The larger impact on industry is a cumulative effect, and this is just the first step," she said.
Addressing the regulatory burden is something the government can do, Gore said. But it's harder to reverse market forces.
"Decline in the use of coal is really more about market forces than regulatory burdens the industry feels is imposed on it," she said.
This week, the House and Senate voted to kill the Interior Department's Stream Protection Rule for coal mining. Opponents of the rule say the action will help save jobs.
SEC rule
The Senate this morning followed the House in disapproving of a recent Securities and Exchange Commission transparency rule for resource extraction firms. H.J. Res. 41 passed 52-47 on a strict party-line vote.
"Passing this CRA will right the ship and put U.S. companies back on a level playing field with their private and foreign competitors," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a statement. "It will also protect them from a dramatic increase in regulatory compliance costs."
The once-bipartisan mandate requires oil, gas and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign countries as a way to deter funding conflict and corruption (E&E Daily, Feb. 1).
"The rule they're trying to repeal protects U.S. citizens and investors from having millions of their dollars vanish into the pockets of corrupt foreign oligarchs," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Most major companies already report under similar laws abroad, including state-run Russian and Chinese companies. Isabel Munilla, an advocate with Oxfam America, said Congress has just given a gift to U.S. companies, namely Exxon Mobil Corp.
Former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson lobbied against the rule in part because it affected business in Russia, connections harshly criticized now that he has become secretary of State.
The American Petroleum Institute and Exxon have signed onto the international Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, a disclosure project involving companies and nonprofits.
But the federal watchdog group Project On Government Oversight is petitioning EITI to drop API for opposing the SEC rule despite it helping inform the 2016 EITI standard.
"It is simply unacceptable for API to continue to benefit from the goodwill generated from their boasting of their participation in [EITI] while at the same time actively working to directly undermine our success," said POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the House will next week take up a resolution of disapproval, sponsored by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), that addresses how the Department of the Interior regulates resource management plans.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/03/stories/1060049534
-
Trump Wants to Reduce Waste and Grow Jobs? Good, These Methane Policies Do Just That.
Feb 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dan Grossman
Today, lawmakers are using the Congressional Review Act to dismantle common-sense energy policies that can save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars and prevent massive amounts of energy resources from being needlessly wasted.
The targeted policies from the Bureau of Land Management apply to oil and gas companies that operate on 245 million acres of federal and tribal lands. Since 2013, these operators have wasted more than $1.5 billion worth of natural gas that belongs to the American public, with millions in lost royalties as a result.
That comes to more than $1 million every day – hardly what President Trump had in mind when he promised to maximize our natural resources.
Trump also famously campaigned against the “rigged system.” But dismantling policies that prevent private companies from wasting American resources rigs the system in favor of industry and against taxpayers.
Which begs the question, why would Congress take an action that affects our economy and flies in the face of the Trump administration’s explicit goals?
“We’re wasting energy and that is troubling”
Oil and gas operations on public lands cost taxpayers $600 million between 2005 and 2015, according to one report.
Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana, President Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of the Interior, has called this waste “troubling.” But even more more troubling is the fact that his Republican colleagues in Congress are moving to jettison the BLM natural gas waste rule that would directly benefit their constituents.
Rolling back BLM’s standards will now cost taxpayers [PDF] an additional $800 million in lost royalties over the next decade – money that would be welcome in many states across the West that today face budget shortfalls.
Methane rules have bipartisan support
Dismantling BLM’s policies run counter to the Trump administration’s own energy goals. According to the president’s energy plan, Trump plans to boost American energy production and to use the revenue to fund public infrastructure improvement projects.
BLM’s policies accomplish exactly this. It also explains why the policies have received bipartisan support from conservationists and fiscal conservatives, along with more than 80 percent of Westerners.
So who’s really against the BLM rules? Follow the money.
Oil lobby spent $118 million to fight rules
Last year, oil and gas companies reportedly spent $118 million lobbying against policies that protect the public from unintended consequences from energy development. In fact, the polluter lobby filed a lawsuit against BLM within 30 minutes of the policies being finalized, arguing that regulations are unnecessary as the industry is naturally incentivized not to waste product.
But the massive amount of gas currently being wasted tells a different story, not to mention the fact that the problem can easily be rectified given the affordable and proven technologies on the market today to stop this waste.
Some jurisdictions such as Colorado already require companies to address natural gas waste and operators there say these policies haven’t hurt their bottom line. They’ve also created new jobs: There are already 500 companies that develop, manufacture and sell methane control technologies in the U.S. today.
Using the Congressional Review Act to rescind BLM’s energy policies runs in direct opposition to the very ideals that Republican leaders claim to support. It’s a blunt, misplaced effort that undermines American taxpayers, threatens our energy security and causes irreparable damage to the environment.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/02/03/trump-wants-reduce-waste-and-grow-jobs-good-these-methane-policies-do-just
-
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Power Plants Decrease
Feb 3, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. have decreased significantly in the past decade, thanks to environmental regulations on coal-fired power plants and a rise in natural gas an energy source.
Sulfur dioxide, a toxic gas emitted from coal-fired power plants, decreased 73 percent between 2006 and 2015, while electricity generation from coal-fired power plants decreased by only 32 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Federal environmental regulations require that coal and oil-fired power plants use pollution control technology to decrease their sulfur dioxide emissions. Cheaper natural gas has also helped drive an increase in natural gas-fired power plants, and more power companies are moving away from coal-fired plants, which produce more sulfur dioxide.
Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky had the highest rates of sulfur dioxide emissions in 2014, although in 2015 all three states retired more coal-fired power plants than other states.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/03/sulfur-dioxide-emissions-from-power-plants-decrease/
-
FERC Delegation Order Reaffirms Staff Powers But Quiet on Pipelines
Feb 3, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC’s order today granting additional authorities to its senior staff covered uncontroversial processes around electric and natural gas rate filings, granting some time extensions and the power to approve uncontested settlements.
But, as some expected, the five-page order does not grant any new powers to staff to authorize interstate natural gas pipeline certificates. That may leave a wide range of projects in limbo for weeks, if not months, until a new FERC commissioner is confirmed because most legal experts say those certificates can’t be approved without three commissioners participating.
Still, the agency has several hours to churn out decisions on pipelines, regulations and enforcement cases before Commissioner Norman Bay departs today and leaves FERC without a quorum.
A good chunk of the order affirms that all pre-existing delegations the staff already had will continue to stand during the quorum-less period.
The order allows the director of the Office of Energy Market Regulation to accept and suspend rate filings and changes, as well as set hearings, settlement judge procedures. Agency staff will also be able to approve uncontested settlements without a leadership quorum.
On Tuesday, 14 industry trade associations wrote to President Donald Trump urging him to approve new FERC members.
The delegation order takes effect Saturday. The additional authority granted to agency staff will continue until the quorum is restored and the leadership lifts the order, or until 14 days after a quorum is reestablished.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
East Coast, South Ponder Fracking in Their States
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
As the oil industry recovers from a two-year price bust, a handful of East Coast states are grappling with how to regulate shale drilling, in case it spreads into their territory.
Maryland, Virginia, Georgia and Florida historically haven't seen any large-scale oil or gas development, but all of them are working on legislation to either regulate or block hydraulic fracturing and other aspects of shale drilling.
The Maryland Legislature could start debating next week whether to extend its moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, enact a permanent ban or allow it under tight regulations, said state Del. Kumar Barve, a Democrat from Montgomery County who leads the House Environment and Transportation Committee.
Parts of western Maryland sit over the Marcellus Shale gas field, and the Legislature imposed a temporary ban in 2015 on development while the state Department of Environmental Quality writes regulations on the practice (Energywire, June 1, 2015).
The Marcellus Shale is a dense layer of rock several thousand feet below the conventional oil and gas formations in the Appalachian Mountains. Unlike conventional formations, the oil and gas in the Marcellus is trapped in tiny pores, and producers typically get at it by blasting apart, or fracturing, the rock with a high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals.
The process, known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has boosted oil and gas production around the country. It has allowed drilling to spread into new areas of the country, leading to widespread complaints about air and water pollution, oil and chemical spills, truck traffic, and other side effects.
The American Petroleum Institute has pushed for broader development of oil and gas as a way to create jobs and break the United States of its dependence on foreign energy sources.
In Virginia, environmentalists are hoping to block two bills that would exempt fracking chemicals from disclosure. There's been no shale drilling in Virginia, but the state sits over part of the Marcellus Shale and has another shale field called the Taylorsville Basin in a handful of eastern counties.
The state Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy began writing fracking regulations last year in case drilling begins, including a requirement that companies post their drilling chemicals on a publicly available website.
House Bills 1678 and 1679 would undermine the regulations by allowing companies to claim some of their chemical information as trade secrets, which would exclude them from listing on the website and from the state freedom of information law. State officials would only be able to share the information in emergencies.
Similar bills were introduced last year and failed, said Michael Town, executive director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters.
"It's not like there's a huge rush" to drill in Virginia, Town said. "There's been a push by the industry to prepare the environment if they choose to go in that direction."
'Makes no sense'
In George, Rep. John Meadows (R) has introduced a bill that would require the state Board of Natural Resources to write regulations on hydraulic fracturing. H.B. 205 also would impose a severance tax on oil and gas production and would guarantee that cities and counties could still regulate drilling within their borders.
Georgia hasn't had any widespread drilling, but companies have leased acreage in the Conasauga Shale, a formation that runs under the northwest corner of the state. A coalition of environmentalists and legislators from the area has been pushing for an up-to-date drilling law (Energywire, Dec. 2, 2016).
Meanwhile, Florida is gearing up for another debate about banning hydraulic fracturing. Florida has a tiny amount of oil production, and it's unclear whether unconventional production could grow anytime soon.
The Legislature briefly debated a bill last year that would have set up a statewide regulatory system for drilling and fracking, but its sponsor pulled the bill amid protests (Energywire, March 14, 2016).
With the Legislature poised to open in March, Republican Sen. Dana Young has proposed a bill banning fracking and other types of well stimulation throughout the state. Opponents are worried that drilling chemicals could easily seep through the porous limestone that underlies most of Florida and contaminate drinking water.
Fracking in Florida "makes no sense," Young told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/03/stories/1060049502
-
Release the Chokehold on America's Energy Sector
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Williams
President Trump and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly vowed to bolster America's global economic competitiveness. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives made good on that promise.
Lawmakers voted to scrap a rule requiring publicly-traded companies to report all financial transactions with foreign governments concerning the extraction of energy products. In effect, the regulation forces domestic firms to open their books to rival companies abroad – many of which are entirely exempt from the requirement.
Don’t be fooled, this is not about transparency or anti corruption. This is about excessive regulation and putting significant tax revenues at risk.
The U.S. energy industry already abides by strict transparency standards that don't compromise America's global competitiveness. It's time for the Senate to join the House in eliminating this rule before it does any more damage to America's energy sector.
Under the rule in question, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, every company registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission must report any payments made to the federal government or foreign governments regarding oil, natural gas and mineral projects.
Here's the kicker: State-owned oil companies -- including those run by some of the world's most corrupt governments -- are exempt from the rule. They can, however, review the information disclosed by American firms in excruciating detail, including a company's valuation of a given energy resource site. This puts domestic companies at a serious competitive disadvantage.
Indeed, the top 16 oil companies on the planet aren't subject to the regulation. Government-owned National Oil Companies (NOC) own 75 percent of global oil reserves and directly compete with U.S. companies.
Companies must also disclose the geographic location of their projects, information that could prove useful to terrorists looking to target company facilities.
The rule also makes it difficult for American energy firms to negotiate with foreign governments. If a government notices a hefty payment from a U.S.-listed company to another nation in return for drilling rights, it could demand equal or greater compensation from all energy firms in the future.
At the same time, the regulation creates unnecessary administrative costs for businesses and the federal government alike. As Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) has argued, Section 1504 is "diverting precious resources not only from the SEC, but more importantly resources from American companies that could otherwise be used to create jobs." The SEC itself estimates recurring annual compliance costs at up to $700 million -- and notes that abiding by the rule for just the first three years required more than 200,000 hours.
Worse yet, section 1504’s misguided attempts to increase transparency aren’t called for. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 already monitors unlawful payments from private companies to foreign governments.
And the energy industry has repeatedly demonstrated that transparency efforts don't have to compromise American business. Take the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, a global collaboration between energy companies, civil society organizations, and governments. EITI rules, currently applied in 51 countries, regulate all companies within a country, including NOCs. The initiative independently reconciles company payments against government receipts -- which section 1504 fails to do.
Section 1504 undermines the interests of American energy companies, while doing little to improve genuine transparency. The House of Representatives is standing with American businesses and workers on this issue. It’s up to the Senate to follow suit.
David Williams is president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating the public on the government's effects on the economy.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/317750-release-the-chokehold-on-americas-energy-sector
-
Cyber Primer Envisions Critical Role for Utility Regulators
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Miles Keogh thinks regulators should take a page from particle physics to boost security at electric utilities across the United States.
Keogh, research director for the nonprofit National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), is encouraging state utility officials to quiz power companies about their cybersecurity programs. The logic behind the new effort may be rooted in complex principles of quantum mechanics, but the goal is simple: to "create action by observing it."
"If you ask a company 'how's it going with your cybersecurity investments?' very rarely will a company come back and say 'we're not interested in answering that,'" said Keogh, who co-authored a cyber primer for bringing state regulators up to speed on the issue. "Asking the question motivates actions."
Keogh's latest initiative builds on a security effort launched nearly five years ago at NARUC, which represents the state utility regulators who oversee U.S. electricity distributors. While millions of American homes and businesses draw power from these networks, local utilities don't have to abide by federal cybersecurity standards. State regulators are responsible for filling this gap in oversight (Energywire, Feb. 17, 2015).
NARUC's updated list of 108 questions span from "is there a cybersecurity budget?" to a more advanced inquiry like "what kind of guidance do you follow to ensure that your procurement language is both specific and comprehensive enough to result in acquiring secure components and systems?"
The manual also includes a walkthrough of key cybersecurity concepts, threats and defense strategies, a glossary of terms, and a list of relevant federal policies and regulations for state commissioners to use.
Richard Mroz, president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and chairman of NARUC's Committee on Critical Infrastructure, said in a statement that the manual "comes at a time when we need it most."
On Wednesday, House lawmakers heard from a panel of experts on budding grid cyberthreats and online defenses. While that hearing largely focused on threats to the bulk power grid — where operators face binding federal standards — speakers drew attention to hacking risks at local power distributors (Energywire, Feb. 2).
Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., which enforces bulk power system cybersecurity rules, said that there are "more electronic digital devices in the distribution systems and customer systems that I think are increasingly going to have an influence on the overall grid."
One of the only known cyberattacks on a grid system — a Dec. 23, 2015, event in Ukraine that temporarily knocked out power to 225,000 customers of three distribution utilities — disabled some digital devices that appear in U.S. systems (Energywire, July 19, 2016).
NARUC's manual outlined the threat posed by these "smart" devices, while noting that connected technologies still "fundamentally" make the electric system more reliable.
"The smart grid enhances the need for cybersecurity because it adds a layer of computer systems and software — all with additional doors to be hacked — to existing utility infrastructure," the primer said.
The document makes no recommendations for passing any particular requirements, but rather directs state regulators to prepare their own cybersecurity strategies and start leading frank discussions with utilities.
"This manual will help you figure out how to do that, how to make that strategy," said Keogh. "As we're going out and seeing strategies, and seeing implementations of it, we're keeping an eye on how [the primer] is used."
Keogh delivered cybersecurity briefings in 44 states, Washington, D.C., and several countries in preparing the project, which was funded in part by the Department of Energy. "State commissions are taking this thing really seriously, investing their time and learning this," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/03/stories/1060049498
-
Spate of Approvals Imperils Crude Shipped by Rail
Feb 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
The future of crude shipped by rail remains uncertain following the Canadian and U.S. governments' recent approvals of oil pipelines.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved Kinder Morgan Inc.'s Trans Mountain line and Enbridge Inc.'s Line 3 expansion in November (Energywire, Nov. 30, 2016).
More recently, President Trump invited TransCanada Corp. to reapply for approval of its Keystone XL project. The company reapplied for a presidential permit from the State Department just last week (Energywire, Jan. 27).
While all of these projects still face environmental opposition, they would significantly increase Canadian production if built.
Altogether, the pipelines would contribute an extra capacity of nearly 1.8 million barrels a day. This would provide enough room for all of western Canadian production expected by 2030.
"Down the road, if all those pipelines get built, then crude by rail becomes probably a moot point," said Dirk Lever, managing director at the Toronto consultancy AltaCorp Capital Inc. (Ian Bickis, Vancouver Sun, Feb. 1).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/03/stories/1060049474
-
Oil Train Numbers Drop Along with Oil Prices
Feb 3, 2017 | Prairie Business
By Don Davis
A third as many trains haul North Dakota crude oil across Minnesota as two years ago.
Falling oil prices forced a drop in oil output in the Bakken region in western North Dakota, which meant a dramatic drop in the number of trains needed to haul the oil to refineries to the east and south. Most North Dakota oil trains go through Minnesota.
The state Public Safety Department could not immediately say specifically how many trains go through Minnesota now. However, BNSF Railway Co. officials said it has about three trains dedicated to oil passing through Minnesota every day, compared to nine at the oil boom's peak.
BNSF is, by far, the biggest oil hauler in Minnesota. Most trains enter the state at Moorhead and go southeast through the Twin Cities and then south along the Mississippi River. Some trains head south through Willmar.
A North Dakota report last month showed that about 850,000 barrels a day were shipped from the state's oil patch each day in the fall of 2014. Late last year, that had fallen to about 300,000 barrels.
While the number of trains is down, state officials say they plan to continue to build Minnesota efforts to prevent rail accidents and improve emergency workers' respond if accidents occur.
"The track record is good," Chairman Paul Torkelson, R-Hanska, of the House Transportation Committee said Thursday, Feb. 2, after his committee heard two days of discussion about railroads.
State legislators will consider a transportation budget this year, including how much to spend on rail safety. But railroad representatives say their companies will continue to invest in safety regardless of state funding.
Railroad lobbyist John Apitz said that in the past two years railroads spent $700 million to improve their their Minnesota infrastructure. He said BNSF alone plans to spend another $85 million this year.
Apitz and Paul Hester of BNSF said the rail industry gets 99.997 percent of products safely to their destinations, thanks in part to improved facilities.
Safety concerns
Minnesota officials have discussed rail safety for the past few years, worried that deadly rail accidents that have occurred elsewhere could happen closer to home.
When Democrats ran the Legislature, railroads were assessed a tax to help support training and other safety issues. Republicans now are in charge and hesitate raising taxes.
Most of the talk is about oil trains because of crude oil's volatility, but ethanol is being examined. State Emergency Management Director Joe Kelly said there are a lot of similarities between the two, but one of the big difference between oil and ethanol, a fuel usually made from corn, is that firefighters should use a different type of foam to dose ethanol fires.
Rep. Frank Hornstein, D-Minneapolis, could not get state officials to tell him the extent the rails carry ethanol. The officials promised to get back to him with the information, including how many live close enough to tracks that they could be affected by a derailment or explosion.
After a Forum News Service inquiry two years ago, the state estimated that 326,000 Minnesotans live in the "blast zone" within a half mile of oil train routes. Oil trains also travel near schools, businesses and even under Target Field, home of the Minnesota Twins.
Kelly said that in the past two years local communities have improved their readiness in railroad and state-funded training.
Minnesota has hazardous materials response teams in Duluth, International Falls, Grand Rapids, Moorhead, St. Cloud, Rochester, Mankato and Marshall, as well as three in the Twin Cities. They can respond anywhere in the state.
Gov. Mark Dayton recommends $3.5 million to build a training facility for state and local emergency responders at Camp Ripley. The facility would include a short railroad track to be used to simulate derailments.
While emergency responder training is a priority, some communities are pushing for money to build overpasses or underpasses to separate roads from railroads. Dayton seeks nearly $70 million for rail crossings in Moorhead, Red Wing and Coon Rapids.Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, questioned whether that was a safety issue, but Peter Dahlberg of the Minnesota Department of Transportation said that a train can derail in a collision.
Dahlberg said that the state has little control over most parts of rail operation, but it can help with crossing safety. He said that fewer than 1 percent of all rail accidents occur at crossings.
Torkelson backs the crossings for safety and to allow people in those cities to get back and forth. "I believe those projects are worthy."
However, the chairman said that he will not know if they can be funded until legislative leaders tell budget committees how much money they can spend.
http://www.prairiebusinessmagazine.com/energy/4211374-oil-train-numbers-drop-along-oil-prices
-
CEI Presses Trump EPA to Stop Counting Some 'Co-Benefits' of Air Rules
Feb 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is pressing the Trump administration to drop the Obama-era practice of justifying major air rules by counting all the "co-benefits" of reducing pollutants not specifically targeted by the rules -- and is also suggesting that a stricter adherence to Clean Air Act deadlines would avoid excessively strict EPA rules.
Among several ideas that CEI is floating for the new administration is the revival of an argument raised by several of the agency's conservative critics that EPA under Obama wrongly counted "co-benefits" of reducing non-target pollutants in order to justify expensive rules. Perhaps the most-cited example is EPA's 2011 maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule to reduce air toxics from power plants, which is still being litigated in two cases now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Supreme Court in 2015 faulted the MACT rule for the agency's failure to consider costs in a prerequisite finding that it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate toxics from the sector. Although the court in its 5-4 opinion, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, did not address co-benefits, Chief Justice John Roberts at oral arguments probed the issue. Roberts voiced skepticism about EPA's practice of using co-benefits to justify rules, such as the MACT, that would otherwise be hard to justify on a monetized cost-benefit basis.
The high court remanded the issue back to the D.C. Circuit, which has despite industry opposition left the MACT rule in place while EPA reworked the "appropriate and necessary" finding. The revised finding is now being litigated in Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, et al., where the co-benefits question is again at issue.
In a Dec. 15 memo on "first steps for the Trump administration," CEI recommends, among other steps, that EPA stop the practice of counting co-benefits of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions reductions to justify rules not aimed at curbing PM2.5, such as the utility MACT.
Critics say that EPA has other programs, such as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), to address PM2.5. They further argue that because NAAQS set limits on pollution sufficient to protect public health with an "adequate margin of safety," the agency should not be able to count reductions in pollution to levels below NAAQS as beneficial to public health.
'Coincidental Reductions'
"Over the past two decades, the EPA has relied increasingly on coincidental reductions in fine particulate matter . . . pollution to create the perception that the benefits of its regulations justify the costs," CEI says, calling the utility MACT "perhaps the most egregious example" because the vast majority of the rule's monetized benefits stem from reductions in PM2.5, not toxics.
"EPA is claiming billions of dollars in health benefits for PM2.5 reductions below the level the agency has determined to be 'requisite to protect public health . . . allowing an adequate margin of safety.' That is inconsistent with the basic purpose and structure of the NAAQS program. President Trump should instruct federal agencies to make their PM2.5 co-benefit estimates consistent with the EPA's NAAQS determinations. Only PM2.5 reductions from concentrations above the NAAQS should be counted in agency cost-benefit estimates," CEI says.
One source with the group says that although no explicit plans are yet apparent from the Trump administration on the issue, "it wouldn't surprise me if EPA issued some sort of guidance/memo regarding the propriety of using co-benefits. I also doubt the incoming administration would rely on co-benefits as extensively as did the prior administration."
Statutory Deadlines
Meanwhile, CEI in the same memo revives an argument made in a paper last year by group's William Yeatman that if EPA actually met its statutory deadlines for action on a wide variety of issues under the air law, rather than missing many of them, it would avoid settlements with environmentalists that have disadvantaged industry.
Yeatman in the original August paper, "EPA's Dereliction of Duty," argued that EPA's habit of missing deadlines prompted environmentalists to sue in order to ask courts to force agency action. EPA would then settle, agreeing to deadlines with environmentalists for issuance of rules. Industry critics have derided this practice as "sue-and-settle," saying it cuts industry groups out of important decisions on rule development, but environmental groups say the term is meaningless and they are just enforcing the law, as permitted by the Clean Air Act.
Yeatman in this paper argues that if EPA put more effort into meeting deadlines, it would avoid "sue-and-settle." EPA has instead focused on discretionary rulemakings, such as its greenhouse gas programs, which flies in the face of congressional intent, and "also creates the opportunity for sue-and-settle lawsuits that empower ideological environmental activists to set agency policy," Yeatman argued.
The CEI source says that although industry groups complain often that EPA rushes its rulemakings, resulting in poor rules, that this rush is prompted more by tight consent-decree deadlines. Such deadlines could be avoided if EPA tried harder to meet its original deadlines in the first place, the source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/cei-presses-trump-epa-stop-counting-some-co-benefits-air-rules
-
Eliminate Regulations that Don’t Actually Help the Environment
Feb 3, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By James Broughel
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to roll back two regulations finalized in the waning days of the Obama administration. One rule is an Interior Department regulation targeting coal mining debris that ends up in steams; another was a financial disclosure rule emanating from the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Both rules are under threat because of a little-known law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that is about to take center stage.
The CRA allows Congress a limited amount of time to pass a “resolution of disapproval,” i.e., an opportunity to vote down major regulations after they are finalized. This can happen without the usual 60 votes needed to overcome gridlock in the Senate. CRA resolutions tend to be ineffective at overturning rules because they require the signature of the president to become law, and he presumably approves of the rules written by agencies under his supervision. But during presidential transitions where the party in power is switching—as is occurring right now—the CRA can be a powerful tool to target unnecessary red tape.
Two energy efficiency and one fuel efficiency regulations could be atop any list of rules targeted for the CRA chopping block. The two energy efficiency rules set conservation standards for dehumidifiers and battery chargers—these were written by the Department of Energy (DOE). The fuel efficiency standard is for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles—a joint effort from the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This entire class of regulation suffers similar problems. They are an especially inefficient means of achieving what should be their primary goal: protecting the environment. Perhaps the worst aspect of these regulations is that their primary benefits, as outlined by the agencies in their cost-benefit analyses, have nothing to do with the environment.
Instead—perhaps because the environmental benefits are so limited—the rules are justified on the basis that consumers and businesses are systematically making mistakes when purchasing energy-consuming devices. When people prioritize product attributes other than energy and fuel efficiency, the agencies behind these rules believe people are not making sound purchasing decisions. As such, the agencies perversely label the removal of a product from the marketplace as a “benefit” rather than a cost.
The DOT and the EPA also allege that market inefficiencies are causing businesses to leave billions of dollars in savings on the table. So, by forcing businesses to undertake costly compliance activities, the industry will actually become more profitable, thanks to a benevolent nudge from regulators. Recent research by the Mercatus Center casts doubt on these kinds of unsubstantiated agency assertions, which lack empirical evidence to support them. But common sense should also tell us that the trucking industry is perfectly capable of maximizing profits on its own without help from regulators in Washington, D.C.
Another odd aspect of these rules is that the agencies’ cost-benefit analyses intermingle environmental benefits that will accrue to foreigners with those that accrue to Americans. Meanwhile, the costs of these rules fall pretty much entirely on Americans. This practice of prioritizing foreign interests over American interests implies very perverse policy outcomes. For example, consider a hypothetical situation in which the top priority of the U.S. military was the security of foreigners rather than Americans. How would our military then behave? Such prioritizing is very much contrary to President Trump’s “America First” agenda that appears to have resonated so much with voters in the last election.
The three regulations identified in this article were selected because they were finalized near the end of the Obama administration, making them subject to CRA review. However, it is possible that dozens of other energy and fuel efficiency regulations rules may also be subject to the CRA. If this is the case, the list of rules targeted for the CRA chopping block could be expanded.
Regulatory expert Cass Sunstein recently referred to former President Obama as “the cost-benefit president.” True, Mr. Obama deserves a lot of credit for emphasizing the importance of analyzing the effects of regulations, especially in the context of reviews of existing regulations. Unfortunately, the poor and misleading analyses underlying energy and fuel efficiency regulations issued during his presidency undermine a legacy of objectively balancing costs and benefits. Congress and President Trump might therefore be doing Mr. Obama a favor by using the authority granted by the Congressional Review Act to strike down regulations that are built on inadequate or disingenuous cost-benefit analysis.
James Broughel is a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/317671-eliminate-regulations-that-dont-actually-help-the
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested