Preview Newsletter

ACC PM 2/28/2017

Industry and Association News

Enviros: Massive Cuts Would Gut Agency, Buy 1 Warship
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen and Emily Holden

Environmental groups and congressional Democrats yesterday lashed out against President Trump's attempts to slash federal agency spending about 10 percent in favor of defense programs.
Trump Budget Cuts Dubbed 'Declaration of War'
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender

U.S. EPA staff and environmentalists have been bracing for big cuts to the agency's budget under the Trump administration, but a plan to slash funding by almost a quarter was even more than some expected.
As Budget Cuts Loom, Industry Seeks to Save Some EPA Programs
Feb 28, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Tiffany Stecker

President Donald Trump sent out his budget blueprint to federal agencies Feb. 27, seeking to slash the budget for the EPA and other agencies while boosting defense spending by $54 billion.
EPA Could Face Major Cuts Under Trump; Barrasso Blames Senate Dems for Confirmation Delay
Feb 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

On the same day President Trump said he wants to make the federal government "do more with less," his administration reportedly outlined a draft budget that envisions possible cuts to foreign aid and domestic agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in order to fund a $54 billion increase in defense spending.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Publish Proposed TSCA Fees Rule Within 3 Months
Feb 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon

The US EPA is aiming to release a proposal for collection of fees under the revised TSCA within the next two to three months, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Wendy Cleland-Hamnett has said.

Chemical Management News

US FDA Petitioned to Prohibit Lead Acetate in Hair Dye
Feb 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch

A group of NGOs and citizens has petitioned the US FDA to prohibit the use of lead acetate as a hair dye.

Energy News

Zinke's Mandate is a Tough Fit for a Teddy Roosevelt Devotee
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

Rep. Ryan Zinke has offered few details on how he will oversee energy development on public lands if he takes the Interior Department's top post, but the self-styled Teddy Roosevelt conservationist will inherit an agency that seems poised to shed Obama-era rules limiting drilling and mining.
Senate Must Act on BLM Methane Rule
Feb 28, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Erik Milito

The U.S. energy renaissance continues to pay off for American families and businesses. From lower fuel and utility costs to decreased costs for manufacturers – whose electricity costs are 30-50 percent lower than those of foreign competitors – the benefits of increased oil and natural gas production have been wide-ranging.
Western Local Leaders Urge Senate Not to Kill Methane Rule
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater

A broad coalition of local leaders from Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada and the Ute Tribe are urging senators not to approve a resolution that would kill an Obama administration rule designed to control methane emissions from thousands of oil and natural gas drilling operations on federal and Native American lands.
Health Workers Ask Gas Lobby to Stop Fighting Emissions Rules
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire

Pennsylvania health care workers sent a letter yesterday to the Marcellus Shale Coalition, requesting that it stop legal challenges and lobbying against regulations aimed at reducing drilling air emissions.
US Consumers Benefit from Energy Integration with Mexico, Canada
Feb 27, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Lou Pugliaresi

U.S., Canadian, and Mexican energy markets are poised for substantial and sustained growth that will contribute to expanded employment and energy abundance throughout the North American continent.
Wood Mackenzie Forecasts 'Net Positive' for Energy Markets Under Trump
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint

What will the biggest energy market trends be during the Trump administration? During today's OnPoint, Paul McConnell, research director for global trends at Wood Mackenzie, explains how the coal, oil and gas markets will fare under President Trump. He also discusses expectations for how the global business community will move on emissions reductions and energy investments.
OxyChem-Mexichem JV Texas Ethylene Cracker Begins Operations
Feb 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher

Ingleside Ethylene LLC, a 50/50 joint venture of Occidental Chemical Corp. (OxyChem), and Mexichem, S.A.B. de C.V. said its new its ethylene cracker at OxyChem’s Ingleside, TX, complex has begun operations on schedule and on budget.
Minn. Proposes Increasing RPS to 50% by 2030
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Daniel Cusick

Riding a decade of sustained wind and solar power expansion, Minnesota will seek to significantly raise the bar for power producers to deliver even more clean energy to Minnesota consumers by 2030.

Chemical Security News

Enviros Threaten Suit Over Alaska Pipeline Leak
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

Environmentalists are threatening to go to court if U.S. EPA doesn't address an ongoing natural gas leak in Alaska.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

A Recap of Scott Pruitt's First Week at the EPA - and the News isn't Good
Feb 28, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Martha Roberts

Just days after senators rushed through Scott Pruitt’s confirmation as the new head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – without key information on his record – concerns are growing over how Pruitt’s tenure will affect the critical work the agency does to protect public health and our environment.
Haze Plan Puts Ark. Power Reliability at Risk — Brief
Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly

A U.S. EPA plan to curb pollution-related haze could put Arkansas' power supply at risk, the state argues in a newly filed brief seeking to overturn the agency's approach.

Industry and Association News

Enviros: Massive Cuts Would Gut Agency, Buy 1 Warship

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

By Niina Heikkinen and Emily Holden

Environmental groups and congressional Democrats yesterday lashed out against President Trump's attempts to slash federal agency spending about 10 percent in favor of defense programs.
They said constituents will push back against threats to environmental protection and warned that it will be difficult to cobble together support in the narrowly divided Senate.
Yesterday, the White House Office of Management and Budget told reporters the president would seek to increase the military budget by $54 billion and the government would pay for the increase through cuts to federal agencies, including U.S. EPA. The agency-level details are not yet available, but some suggest EPA could see cuts of about 24 percent (E&E News PM, Feb. 27).
Democratic leaders in the Senate and House noted that Congress will have to sign off on the president's cuts. Speaking at the National Press Club, they predicted that moderate Republicans will resist White House efforts to cut any core programs. If Trump's budget slashing isn't extreme enough, right-wing GOP lawmakers might not vote on Trump's side.
"We all want a strong defense," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. But, he argued, increasing the Pentagon budget while cutting programs that help middle-class Americans is wrong.
Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also said Republicans will need at least some Democrats to pass an infrastructure package. They said Democrats wouldn't support a plan to give tax breaks to companies to build toll roads that taxpayers have to pay to use. They also chided Republicans for saying they want to help coal communities and then holding up health benefits for miners.
Across town at the headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council, environmental advocates insisted that Trump voters want clean air and clean water. They said they're working to make it clear how EPA spends its budget on environmental protection, not just climate change.
David Doniger, director of NRDC's Climate and Clean Air program, noted that "the Defense Department spends in a day what it takes EPA a year and a half to spend. Zeroing out EPA or badly damaging the EPA budget will not go very far to expend our defense capacity."
Plus, he added, EPA will need experts on salary even just to carry out the regulatory rollbacks Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have proposed.
Trump is expected to take executive action this week to lift a moratorium on coal leasing on public land and attack the Clean Power Plan. Meanwhile, this morning, the president will sign an executive order to repeal the Waters of the U.S. rule (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
NRDC officials said Trump could easily expand areas available for coal mining, although gutting the other regulations would be more difficult.
Others also scoffed at the idea that cutting EPA funding would give any significant boost to the military's capabilities to combat terrorism.
EPA's roughly $8 billion budget is "hardly more than a rounding error" compared with the $600 billion going to the Defense Department, said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project. He is also a former director of civil enforcement at EPA.
"If you wiped out EPA, you could buy one destroyer," Schaeffer said. "This administration is so chaotic and nonlinear and so Twitter-driven, I can't find a logic in it. I don't know why you would cut EPA to increase the Pentagon budget."
A 'bloody' appropriations process ahead
With almost no details about the possible cuts available, environmental groups yesterday were left to speculate about possible targets within the agency.
Steep cuts could have various and far-reaching consequences, from whether the agency can keep lead out of drinking water to ensuring chemicals are safe for human use. The cuts would potentially affect EPA's core function of monitoring national air and water quality. A lot of funding to the agency goes to screening monitoring data, making sure data are coming in from states and keeping track of pollution from upwind sources, Schaeffer said.
Less enforcement would also mean fewer dollars coming back to the Treasury Department. Polluting companies like Volkswagen AG and BP PLC have paid the U.S. government billions of dollars. That additional incidental source of revenue would also disappear with less legal enforcement.
Ultimately, steep cuts would force EPA to spend its time trying to figure out where to cut personnel and programs, rather than doing the job of protecting the environment.
"The worst-case scenario is a total gutting of EPA and programs that deal with climate change, the implementation of existing regulations and things like Clean Power Plan," said Ben Schreiber, senior political strategist at Friends of the Earth.
Schreiber suggested Trump could potentially propose a budget that eliminated funding for regulatory enforcement, which would have the effect of eliminating clean air and water regulations without having to go through a rulemaking process to reverse them.
He noted that the appropriations process will likely be "long, protracted and bloody."
"The first step the proposal has been floated in some sense to get a reaction to everyone. It is especially important that Senate Democrats have a strong reaction to this proposal. Appropriations bills still needs to be passed by Congress," he said.
Stan Collender, executive vice president of Qorvis MSLGROUP, a public relations firm, said increasing the military's budget by $54 billion while slashing money to agencies wouldn't be possible without action from Congress.
"There are separate caps for security and domestic spending, and they are not interchangeable. You can spend less than the cap; you can't use a reduction in one to pay for the other," Collender said.
For Trump to get the budget changes he is suggesting, the House and Senate would have to pass legislation that would on one hand increase the military cap on spending, and then separately decrease the cap on domestic spending. But Senate Democrats could filibuster to block their passage.
Collender called this possibility "not impossible and not likely."
Nick Loris, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, defended trimming the agency's budget, saying EPA would still function even if its budget is relatively small.
"It's not about spending money to protect public health and the environment but how best to do so," Loris said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050659

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Budget Cuts Dubbed 'Declaration of War'

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

By Robin Bravender

U.S. EPA staff and environmentalists have been bracing for big cuts to the agency's budget under the Trump administration, but a plan to slash funding by almost a quarter was even more than some expected.
The budget outline sent to the agency yesterday by the Trump White House asked for a 24 percent overall cut to EPA's budget, a source informed about the administration's plan told E&E News. The EPA outline, the source said, would trim nearly $2 billion from EPA's current budget of about $8.1 billion (E&E News PM, Feb. 27).
John O'Grady, an EPA union leader and longtime agency employee based in Chicago, called that number "devastating."
O'Grady said today, "This is a declaration of war, a war on the environment. It's a declaration of war against children with asthma, against women of child-bearing age, against the elderly."
Joe Edgell, another EPA union leader, said today, "People are nervous here, and this certainly doesn't cause people to be less nervous."
The White House plans sent out to federal agencies yesterday are just the opening salvo in what promises to be a lengthy negotiation over the upcoming fiscal year's budget. Agencies will weigh in on the White House's plans, and the funding details will be hashed out with Congress during the appropriations process.
But EPA employees and greens say cuts that steep would take a major toll.
"It would be like taking a meat ax to the agency," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "Enforcement would drop, new rules would stop, companies could be emboldened to cheat more, like Volkswagen did — and public health could only suffer. And a lot of state governments will start screaming if this involves big cuts in grants to state and local agencies."
It's still unclear where exactly the cuts would come from. White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said yesterday that his office sent recommendations about how it thinks the agencies can make cuts to reach those targets. Agencies are expected to respond to the White House in the coming days, and the first round of formal top-line budget proposals will be sent to Congress in mid-March.
EPA spokesman Doug Ericksen yesterday insisted that certain projects prioritized by the administration would remain intact.
"On the budget front, we are committed to investments on the capital side, clean water projects, water treatment facilities and cleaning up Superfund sites and Brownfields sites," Ericksen said in an interview. "Any cut that did come would be on the non-capital side. It would be strategic and in line with the president's agenda and Congress" (Greenwire, Feb. 27).
Much of EPA's budget is doled out to states for environmental programs, and observers are expecting the cuts to heavily target operations and personnel.
"To the extent that grants to states and utilities to administer delegated programs and upgrade water infrastructure are spared, cuts to the EPA workforce would be magnified to reach a 24% overall reduction, with perhaps as many as 5,000 EPA scientists, engineers and other specialists being 'de-funded,'" Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said today in an email.
Ruch said his group is preparing to deliver legal aid to EPA employees who may be laid off.
O'Grady is expecting the Trump White House to target activities like climate change, the Waters of the U.S. rule that Trump aims to repeal and enforcement efforts. And, he added, "This is only the first year. So what's in store after that?"
Stan Meiburg, who was EPA's acting deputy administrator during the Obama administration, said the details about the budget cuts "make a tremendous amount of difference."
Taking a significant chunk out of the personnel budget could dramatically affect how the agency functions, he said.
"This notion that you can run EPA with the same 5,000 people that you did in 1970 is just not consistent with reality," Meiburg said. "In 1970, you didn't have the whole range of laws that EPA now administers."
Meiburg said that while Trump's executive orders — including one expected to come today that takes aim at the Waters of the U.S. rule — have sparked a lot of "noise and drama," the debate over the agency's budget is "about the heart of the EPA."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050687

Return to headline | Return to top
As Budget Cuts Loom, Industry Seeks to Save Some EPA Programs

Feb 28, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA

By Tiffany Stecker

President Donald Trump sent out his budget blueprint to federal agencies Feb. 27, seeking to slash the budget for the EPA and other agencies while boosting defense spending by $54 billion.
With a baseline for the next fiscal year in hand—pending approval from Congress, which authorizes and appropriates funds to federal agencies—EPA leaders will have to ask themselves a difficult question: what will be the first programs to go? Chemical industry groups are hoping the incoming administration will saves its key programs at the Environmental Protection Agency that are essential to keep their businesses moving.
The pesticide industry, which depends on the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to put its products on the market, has been particularly active in telling the White House’s advisers not to blindly take a hatchet to the agency’s budget.
Industries Lobby for Strengthening EPA Program
“This administration has made no big secret about cutting the EPA,” Ed Ruckert, an attorney in the Washington office of McDermott, Will and Emery who represents several agricultural and pest control organizations, told Bloomberg BNA. “I think you’re going to see industry say ‘this is an organization that needs to be maintained and strengthened’.”
Many industries—from the power plant sector to construction, to water utilities—depend on the EPA to issue the permits necessary to legally operate their businesses. Slowdowns or halts in permitting could constrain operations.
But pesticide manufacturers that make crop insecticides, household disinfectants and other such chemicals are unique because they pay fees to the Office of Pesticide Programs to ensure that work gets done. Congress is poised to reauthorize a bill later this year that would renew the business’s commitment to paying dues in exchange for certainty about the approvals they legally need to stay in business.
Under the latest iteration, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act ( H.R. 1029) will allow the EPA to raise up to $31 million—an increase from $27.8 million—to maintain the registrations of existing pesticides. At the same time, congressional appropriations since fiscal year 2010 have dropped from about $143 million per year to about $120 million. Congress has sidestepped this obligation by issuing waivers that allow the industry fees to fund pesticide licensing despite the low appropriations.
The PRIA Coalition—headed by agricultural pesticide association CropLife America and consumer trade group, the Consumer Specialty Products Association—have met with the EPA and with lawmakers to press their case to preserve the program.
Doug Ericksen, spokesman for the transition team at the EPA, did not respond to Bloomberg BNA’s request for comment on the agency’s budget.
The agency’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, made his name fighting the Obama administration in court over high-profile regulations on climate change and water. E-mails released to the public last week by the Center for Media and Democracy show that Pruitt worked closely with the oil and gas industry on policy issues as he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Backers of the agency under President Barack Obama fear that Pruitt will put a target on the agency’s climate change work, undoing much of the effort his predecessors Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy put forward.
The clampdown on the agency comes after a steady decline in the budget over the last seven years. The EPA’s spending allowance has declined from $10.3 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $8.1 billion in fiscal year 2016.
Drastic Impacts?
Former agency officials are decrying the impact of the expected cuts.
Staff already has grappled with smaller conference travel budgets, cuts in discretionary expenses, and less contractor support to assist with reducing environmental and health risks, said Jim Aidala, former EPA assistant administrator under President Bill Clinton and now a senior government affairs consultant with Bergeson and Campbell, P.C.
“The agency is really operating on a bare bones budget,” Mathy Stanislaus, the former head of the EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management, told Bloomberg BNA. Stanislaus was a presidential appointee in the Obama administration.
The EPA is already operating at a “life support level,” said Tracey Woodruff, a former scientist in the Office of Policy under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.
“It’s going to have really drastic implications for EPA’s ability to enforce environmental regulations,” Woodruff, now director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco, told Bloomberg BNA.
Myron Ebell, a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and former environmental adviser to Trump, said earlier this year that the administration could cut the agency’s staff levels by two-thirds.
“Good luck with that,” Aidala told Bloomberg BNA, responding to the possibility of such a drastic cut. “It would be very tough to do it.”
Voluntary Programs in the Cross-Hairs
But offices like the pesticides division—and the air and water offices that have drawn fire for recent regulatory proposals—won’t be the first to feel a belt-tightening said Daniella Taveau, a former trade negotiator for the EPA.
Non-mandatory voluntary programs could be the first to get cut or moved to the private sector, said Taveau, who now works as a regulatory and global trade specialist for King & Spalding LLP in Washington. The best known example of these is the EnergyStar program, which certifies energy-efficient appliances.
“We should expect a leaner organization, focused on the core mission of EPA,” she told Bloomberg BNA. That means cutting some programs, but also reinvesting in information technology, communications and scientific research, she said.
Taveau and others expect some former George W. Bush appointees to return to the agency. Changes in leadership at the regional level, often the first and ablest responders to local environmental crises, may also be afoot.
But Taveau thinks the cuts offer the EPA a chance to improve management and create a more efficient agency, allowing the EPA to emerge as a regulatory model for the world.
If Pruitt is able to cut some of the perceived excess, said Taveau, “I think he could be a hero.”
https://www.bna.com/budget-cuts-loom-n57982084524/

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Could Face Major Cuts Under Trump; Barrasso Blames Senate Dems for Confirmation Delay

Feb 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

On the same day President Trump said he wants to make the federal government "do more with less," his administration reportedly outlined a draft budget that envisions possible cuts to foreign aid and domestic agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in order to fund a $54 billion increase in defense spending.
Meanwhile, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) on Monday accused his Democratic counterparts of delaying confirmation votes on Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) to lead the Department of Interior (DOI) and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy (DOE).
Officials with the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) told reporters in a conference call Monday that a "first draft" of the federal budget was being shared with Congress in order to prepare lawmakers for a formal budget request to be submitted in March, according to multiple reports.
Although OMB officials did not disclose specific details of the budget, media reports said the Trump administration appears to be leaving entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, alone. That could mean large cuts to domestic agencies -- including the DOI, the EPA and the Department of State (DOS) which includes foreign aid -- are looming.
According to reports, Myron Ebell, who served previously as part of the Trump transition team, said EPA staff could be cut by as much as two-thirds. Meanwhile, an unnamed White House budget official reportedly said the DOS budget could be cut by as much as 30%.
In public comments, Trump said his priorities would be to increase spending on issues related to national security matters, including the military, law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, which manages the Border Patrol.
"My first budget will be submitted to the Congress next month," Trump told attendees of a meeting of the National Governors Association at the White House on Monday. "It will include an historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it. This defense spending increase will be offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the federal government...
"We're going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people. We can do so much more with the money we spend."
Trump later stated that despite spending $6 trillion in the Middle East, "we have potholes all over our highways and our roads...So we're going to take care of that. Infrastructure: we're going to start spending on infrastructure big."
Speaking from the Senate floor on Monday, Barrasso accused Democrats of deliberately trying to stall the votes on Zinke and Perry, pointing out that at this time in his presidency, Barack Obama had many more appointments approved by lawmakers. He urged the chamber to move forward on votes for both nominees, adding that both men would serve with distinction in leading their respective departments.
According to reports, the Senate will hold a roll call vote to confirm Wilbur Ross as Secretary of Commerce at 7 p.m. Monday. That vote will immediately be followed by a roll call vote on a motion to invoke cloture over Zinke's nomination. Senate records show cloture motions have already been filed over the nominations of Zinke, Perry, Ross and Ben Carson, Trump's nominee to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Last month, the nominations of both Zinke and Perry passed the muster of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Zinke was approved on a 16-6 vote, while Perry's vote was 16-7.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109562-epa-could-face-major-cuts-under-trump-barrasso-blames-senate-dems-for-confirmation-delay

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Publish Proposed TSCA Fees Rule Within 3 Months

Feb 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By David Stegon

The US EPA is aiming to release a proposal for collection of fees under the revised TSCA within the next two to three months, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Wendy Cleland-Hamnett has said.
The EPA was scheduled to release the proposed rule in December, according to a timeline the agency released in August. A final rule was slated for issue this June, following public comment.
But the agency has decided to take extra time to ensure it gets the pricing model correct, Ms Cleland-Hamnett said at the American Chemistry Council’s GlobalChem conference in Washington DC.
“With so many numbers involved, we wanted to be cautious and take the time needed, as opposed to rushing,” she said.
The amended TSCA authorises the EPA to establish fees to defray 25% of costs for testing, new substance notification and risk evaluation and management (as set out in sections 4, 5 and 6); these are capped at $25m for the first three years.
Fees may also support collecting, processing, reviewing, and providing access to and protecting from disclosure, as appropriate, under section 14, information on chemical substances.
Risk evaluation burden
Many of the revised law’s added costs will come from the risk evaluation programme. The EPA projects that once fully implemented, risk evaluations will cost $35.8m a year. This factors in 30 ongoing risk evaluations – 20 initiated by the EPA and as many as ten requested by manufacturers – estimated at $3.7m per evaluation, according to a January EPA report to Congress.
The costs are expected to ramp up over the next few years. Fiscal year 2017 is projected to carry a total cost of $12.3m, rising to $38.3m by FY 2019.
Speaking at an SME session during GlobalChem, environmental lawyer Jamie Conrad said there is concern that the EPA will look to new chemicals fees to subsidise these risk evaluations.
“No one will want to pay fees for the other person,” Mr Conrad said. "It's going to be a real challenge, particularly, to protect new chemical submissions – pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and exemptions – from being [berated] with the cost of risk evaluations."
Under the pre-amended version of TSCA, individual user fees for section 5 notices – such as for PMNs and significant new use notices (Snuns) – were capped at $2,500. Small business faced a fee cap of $100, while some organisations were completely exempt.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) said last September that there was broad consensus that $2,500 was too low a fee for a PMN. But it urged the EPA to adopt a fee structure that is not overly restrictive to market entry.
"The current fee has contributed to making the US the preferred market for new chemistries and has resulted in a relatively large number of new chemical submissions when compared to other regions."
Risk evaluations, Socma said, "can and should bear the brunt of meeting EPA's cost recovery requirements".
https://chemicalwatch.com/53896/epa-to-publish-proposed-tsca-fees-rule-within-3-months

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

US FDA Petitioned to Prohibit Lead Acetate in Hair Dye

Feb 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch

A group of NGOs and citizens has petitioned the US FDA to prohibit the use of lead acetate as a hair dye.
The colour additive petition (CAP) calls on the agency to revoke its 1980 approval of the substance, contending that the use results in “dangerous lead exposure”.
The FDA’s 1980 rule limits use to the scalp, excluding facial hair. It sets a maximum concentration in final products at 0.6%, or 6,000ppm. But it does not set limits on frequency or amount of use, nor on who can use it.
The use of lead acetate in cosmetic products is prohibited in Canada and the EU.
The FDA is required to respond to the petition within 180 days.
Petitioners include the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Center for Environmental Health.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53894/us-fda-petitioned-to-prohibit-lead-acetate-in-hair-dye

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Zinke's Mandate is a Tough Fit for a Teddy Roosevelt Devotee

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

Rep. Ryan Zinke has offered few details on how he will oversee energy development on public lands if he takes the Interior Department's top post, but the self-styled Teddy Roosevelt conservationist will inherit an agency that seems poised to shed Obama-era rules limiting drilling and mining.
The Senate is expected to confirm the Montana Republican as early as tonight.
"I don't think President Trump would have picked Zinke unless he was on board with the overall agenda of increasing production of oil and gas," said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group.
Sgamma said she has few specifics on how Zinke's Interior would handle the oil and gas industry, but she expects greater lenience on permitting and rights of way for gas pipelines and other infrastructure projects.
"We'd just like some direction from the top that, indeed, the long-established law is that oil and natural gas development is one of the principal uses of federal land," Sgamma said.
In the department's Bureau of Land Management, a return to the multiple-use mission is anticipated, said Luke Johnson, policy director at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and a former deputy director of policy and programs for BLM under President George W. Bush.
"For those that believe the BLM never has enough resources to focus on its core mission, whether that be oil and gas, or mining, or recreation, or grazing, or wild horses or whatever other activity stakeholders might feel is neglected, one ought to applaud the idea of BLM being directed not to attempt to regulate clean air and leave that to other more appropriate regulatory bodies," Johnson said.
Removing climate regulation from BLM's slate is a critical element in the debate over the bureau's venting and flaring rule (Energywire, Feb. 21). President Obama's Interior incorporated climate considerations into its rulemaking process as the result of an administrative directive. Industry has said the rule steps too far into the territory of U.S. EPA and states.
Zinke abstained from a vote to strike down the rule using powers granted under the Congressional Review Act. The bill passed the chamber by a 221-191 vote.
During his confirmation hearing, Zinke said he believes humans have contributed to global climate change and that Interior has a role to play in combating the process. He did not offer any details on steps he would take in that realm.
"Many programs at the Department relate to or impact the climate," Zinke said in a written response to senators' questions following his hearing. "In general, my role, if confirmed, and the Department's role will be to ensure that we manage programs and make decisions based upon best available information and sound science."
Drilling in precious areas
Zinke has promised to hit the road as soon as he is confirmed (Energywire, Feb. 13).
Among his first stops? Utah, where Obama bestowed an eleventh-hour designation of the Bears Ears National Monument, protecting 1.35 million acres of desert canyons and mountains. In doing so, Obama exercised the powers of the Antiquities Act, which Roosevelt signed into law in 1906.
If the designation stands, it would help shelter the Canyonlands National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area from development. A move to overturn a monument designation would be unprecedented.
"Legally, it is untested," Zinke said during his hearing. "What I would prefer is working in a collaborative effort with the states."
While industry hasn't demonstrated a voracious appetite for extracting oil and gas near Bears Ears, the region contains some leases, and the monument isolates state lands that could be ripe for development, Sgamma said.
"A top-down monument designation is always problematic," she said. "This was much larger than was really necessary."
If Zinke rolls back the Bears Ears designation, he would be distancing himself from his historical hero, said Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club's lands protection program.
"Teddy Roosevelt was the father of the Antiquities Act. He used that law to protect the Grand Canyon," Manuel said. "Zinke should be trying to defend it not working to undermine the act or areas protected by that law."
A Zinke Interior could also allow oil and gas development to creep closer to New Mexico's Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — even as low oil prices tamp developers' hunger for marginal fields, Manuel said.
"I don't think those facts are going to impact the policies in the Trump administration," he said.
Zinke has garnered cautious praise from conservation advocates for expressing some level of opposition to oil and gas development near Glacier National Park and mining in the Yellowstone River watershed.
In other places — like the Badger-Two Medicine area in Montana's Rocky Mountain Front — Zinke has failed to take a position on questions surrounding leasing rights, said Peter Aengst, senior regional director of the Northern Rockies and Alaska for the Wilderness Society.
"Zinke's got the whole spectrum covered in Montana on his track record on oil and gas," he said.
Manuel said he expects Zinke will bow to the pressures of a powerfully pro-energy administration.
"He is very proud of defending federal lands, but will he stand up to Donald Trump, [Secretary of State] Rex Tillerson and [Energy secretary nominee] Rick Perry? This administration is full of oil and gas industry advocates," Manuel said.
"Is Zinke willing to stand up to them? That's how he will be measured."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050657

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Must Act on BLM Methane Rule

Feb 28, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Erik Milito

The U.S. energy renaissance continues to pay off for American families and businesses. From lower fuel and utility costs to decreased costs for manufacturers – whose electricity costs are 30-50 percent lower than those of foreign competitors – the benefits of increased oil and natural gas production have been wide-ranging.
Less publicized is our success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States leads the world in reduction of carbon emissions, which have reached 25-year lows in the power sector due to greater use of clean-burning natural gas. Methane emissions associated with natural gas development have also declined 18.6 percent from 1990 – 2015 at the same time as natural gas production increased by over 45 percent.
Technological innovation and industry leadership, combined with effective state and federal regulations, are making the difference. That makes the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) new Methane and Waste Prevention rule not only redundant but actually counterproductive. BLM’s new policy, also called the venting and flaring rule, is just the kind of regulation the Congressional Review Act was designed to correct.
From a technical perspective alone, the rule is misguided. BLM lacks the statutory authority and expertise to regulate air quality. That authority rests with EPA and the states under the Clean Air Act, and the data make it clear the existing system is effective.
But it’s the practical impact that demands action from Congress.
Implementing the BLM’s rule – on top of current regulations -- could impede U.S. energy production, potentially reducing the availability of affordable domestic energy to the American consumer, decreasing revenues to the federal government and hindering production of natural gas – the key factor in cutting U.S. power generation carbon emissions.
The added cost of compliance could make as many as 40 percent of federal wells that flare uneconomical to produce, leading to their permanent shut-in, according to analysis from Environmental Resources Management. Based on 2016 royalties reported by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, even a 1 percent loss of royalties would result in lost federal revenues of over $14 million – far more than the $3-10 million in additional incremental royalties estimated by the Bureau of Land Management.
Natural gas production on federal land has already declined 18 percent from 2010 to 2015 – compared to a 55 percent increase on non-federal land. Adding another duplicative layer to federal regulation could stifle production ever further – with direct impacts on state and local revenues.
All this risk to the economy, U.S. energy security and environmental progress would regulate emissions that are already highly regulated and already declining. It is bad public policy to add significant costs and reduces local revenues, without corresponding environmental or consumer benefits. BLM’s redundant methane rule is tailor-made for repeal under the Congressional Review Act. The House has acted. Now it’s up to the Senate.
Erik Milito is director of Upstream and Industry Operations at API.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/321568-senate-must-act-on-blm-methane-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Western Local Leaders Urge Senate Not to Kill Methane Rule

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

By Scott Streater

A broad coalition of local leaders from Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada and the Ute Tribe are urging senators not to approve a resolution that would kill an Obama administration rule designed to control methane emissions from thousands of oil and natural gas drilling operations on federal and Native American lands.
The group of more than 60 local officials sent the letter today asking senators not to approve a Congressional Review Act resolution that would kill the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule finalized by the Interior Department last November.
The House earlier this month approved H.J. Res. 36, which would not only revoke the methane rule but prevent Congress from proposing a similar regulation in the future (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has introduced his own resolution, S.J. Res. 11, which could be voted on as early as this week.
"As elected officials from local governments across the Interior West, we strongly support this recently adopted rule on venting and flaring methane because it will cut natural gas waste on federal and tribal lands, will help ensure a fair return to local governments and the taxpaying public, will put our energy resources to good use, and will clean up our air," the local officials wrote.
They are part of the Western Leaders Network, a group of county, tribal and municipal leaders in Western states who support policies "that advance conservation in the realm of water, energy, public lands, climate change and community resilience," according to their website.
They called the CRA "a blunt tool" that they wrote would allow "the oil and natural gas industry to continue to waste hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of taxpayer owned resources every year, and use outdated, wasteful technologies."
The Obama administration defended the rule — which replaces 30-year-old regulations — saying it would cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by as much as 35 percent.
The Bureau of Land Management worked for five years on the rule, which it said would allow more natural gas to be sold and prevent the escape of methane and other pollutants.
In the letter, the local leaders said the rule "would save more than $330 million worth of natural gas annually" from being vented and flared into the atmosphere.
"This common sense rule has strong bipartisan support among the public," they wrote. "We urge your opposition to using the Congressional Review Act to eliminate BLM's rule to reduce natural gas waste because of the rule's benefit to our local governments, constituents, and taxpayers."
But the rule is fiercely opposed by the oil and gas industry and congressional Republicans. The Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America in November filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming calling the regulation "a vast overreach" of Interior's regulatory authority.
The Republican governors of New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have written letters in support of the methane CRA resolutions.
It's not clear when the Senate will vote on the CRA resolution.
Don Stewart, deputy chief of staff to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), told E&E News that the Senate might take up Barrasso's CRA resolution this week (Greenwire, Feb. 24).
The Senate, however, appears set to focus on votes confirming Cabinet position nominees, including Interior secretary nominee Ryan Zinke.
The Senate late yesterday voted to end debate on Zinke, whose nomination has languished for weeks after being caught up in the broader political fight over President Trump's Cabinet (E&E Daily, Feb. 28).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050684

Return to headline | Return to top
Health Workers Ask Gas Lobby to Stop Fighting Emissions Rules

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire

Pennsylvania health care workers sent a letter yesterday to the Marcellus Shale Coalition, requesting that it stop legal challenges and lobbying against regulations aimed at reducing drilling air emissions.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition represents the shale gas drilling industry's major lobbying organization in Pennsylvania. The one-page letter was signed by 40 doctors, nurses and health care workers, as well as organizations representing more than 40,000 health care professionals.
The letter states that drilling operations can have harmful public health effects, especially for children, seniors and people with existing lung problems. As such, the letter calls for the industry to abide by emissions controls proposed for pollutants such as methane and volatile organic compounds.
"Reducing this pollution will have a positive impact on Pennsylvania's most vulnerable communities," the letter states. "As health care and public health professionals, we are asking that you stop attacking these reasonable safeguards for the Pennsylvanians we are committed to protecting."
Ned Ketyer, a physician who led the letter-writing coalition, said drilling emissions can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leading to more emergency room visits and missed school and work days.
"I've talked to a lot of people, many patients and families, whose health has been negatively affected in the gas patches," Ketyer said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050652

Return to headline | Return to top
US Consumers Benefit from Energy Integration with Mexico, Canada

Feb 27, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

By Lou Pugliaresi

U.S., Canadian, and Mexican energy markets are poised for substantial and sustained growth that will contribute to expanded employment and energy abundance throughout the North American continent. This production growth offers energy security and growing abundance in oil and gas supplies for consumers in all three countries.
This integrated market is especially important for the U.S., which is well placed to expand domestic oil and gas production, as well as exports of advanced oil field services and equipment.
As negotiations begin on the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it is essential that U.S. policymakers have a full understanding of the long-term economic and security stakes related to sustaining and promoting full integration of the North American energy market.
This expansion in North American energy output took its lead from the U.S. petroleum renaissance that saw domestic crude oil rise from 5 million barrels per day (MBD) in 2008 to over 9.5 MBD by mid-2015.
Although U.S. production fell back by nearly 1 MBD when oil prices collapsed in the second half of 2015, output is rising again with the recent gain in world oil prices. U.S. natural gas production has followed a similar path, growing from 45 billion cubic feet a day (Bcf/d) in 1985 to nearly 75 Bcf/d in 2015.
Our NAFTA partners are participating in this petroleum renaissance. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers forecast oil sands production in Alberta to rise from 3.8 MBD to 4.9 MBD by 2030. Energy reform and privatization in Mexico promises to halt the decline in crude oil production in a province historically starved for investment by a government monopoly.
The actions by the Trump administration to restore certainty and rule of law to oil and gas development and pipeline permitting in the U.S. will provide new supplies and low-cost transportation options for both Canadian oil sands and North Dakota crude oil for delivery to U.S. refining centers.
An open border for natural gas, combined with pipeline development and power generation in Mexico, is providing an important and growing market for U.S. natural gas producers, pipeline developers, and equipment manufacturers.
Open access and connections to petroleum production and consumption centers outside of North America will provide additional opportunities for both efficiency and economic growth in a sector that the U.S. already has many comparative advantages in.
We are already realizing the benefits of enhanced energy security and resiliency from this integrated production platform. At the recent Energy 2017 petroleum conference in Mexico City, undersecretary of hydrocarbons for the Mexican government, Aldo Flores Quiroga, emphasized his nation's commitment to full integration.
Quiroga pointed out that when it comes to natural gas flows, U.S and Canada already have 42 cross-border interconnections, while the U.S. and Mexico have 13 interconnections. Refined products move across three cross-border pipelines in Canada and four in Mexico.
Estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that North American petroleum consumption exceeds 22 MBD, but well over three-fourths of this consumption is now sourced from NAFTA partners, as net petroleum imports amounted to less than 4 MBD. Government forecasts expect the combined U.S., Canadian and Mexican markets to be a net crude oil exporter by the end of the decade.
Last month, U.S exports of natural gas to Mexico exceeded 4 billion cubic feet/day (Bcf/d) and are expected to double in the next few years. The growing export market has helped U.S. producers survive in a depressed market and has also permitted Mexico to replace high-cost, oil power generation capacity with low-cost natural gas.
This is both good economic news and a plus for the environment, as Mexican power generation capacity moves toward eco-friendly natural gas and away from fuel oil. At the same time, the large and technologically advanced refining centers on the U.S. Gulf Coast are exporting low-cost gasoline and diesel fuel to Mexico, freeing up capital for oil and gas exploration and production that would otherwise have gone into new refining capacity. This is how international trade is supposed to work.
Admittedly, trade flows can be highly unbalanced. According to an analysis by Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners, in the first 11 months of 2016, the U.S. exported over $19 billion of energy products to Mexico, including bituminous coal, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane and natural gas. At the same time, the U.S. imported about $9 billion of energy products from Mexico, nearly all of which was crude oil.
Energy trade with Canada was more unbalanced. The U.S. imported $52 billion in energy products versus exports valued at $15 billion. Recall that this trade is taking place in close proximity, largely overland, with stable and secure allies. It is also a highly-dynamic market. Just a few short years ago, the U.S. was highly dependent on Canadian natural gas, but this trend has now reversed as U.S. supplies surge.
Some commentators have raised concerns that the U.S. will now mimic a Russian strategy with Ukraine by cutting off Mexico from U.S natural gas supplies to gain some kind of leverage on trade deals.
Participants in the NAFTA energy market should instead take solace that the value of the North American integrated energy market is well understood as both an economic boom to American consumers, employment for the U.S. oil field workers, and more importantly, a critically valuable strategic asset.
In recent years, the Pentagon has put considerable effort into understanding how the North American energy surge contributes to an improved strategic outlook. Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis and Secretary of Homeland Security Gen. John Kelly are well aware of its importance.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, has intimate knowledge of the functioning of this market. The important task going forward is to reassure our Canadian and Mexican partners that the U.S. is committed to full integration of the North American energy market, even if some aspects of our trade relationship require adjustment.
Lucian (Lou) Pugliaresi is president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRINC).
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/321396-us-consumers-benefit-from-nafta-cross-border-energy

Return to headline | Return to top
Wood Mackenzie Forecasts 'Net Positive' for Energy Markets Under Trump

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E TV

By OnPoint

What will the biggest energy market trends be during the Trump administration? During today's OnPoint, Paul McConnell, research director for global trends at Wood Mackenzie, explains how the coal, oil and gas markets will fare under President Trump. He also discusses expectations for how the global business community will move on emissions reductions and energy investments.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Paul McConnell, research director for global trends at Wood Mackenzie. Paul, thanks for joining me.
Paul McConnell: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Paul, the energy space is facing some big changes under the Trump administration. We are beginning to learn a bit more about what types of policies we might see from this White House on energy and environment issues. What do you believe will be the biggest energy market trends that emerge over the next couple of years under the Trump administration?
Paul McConnell: Well, our feeling is really that the Trump administration has promised quite a lot in the energy space, but its room to deliver that might actually be quite constrained by just realities on the ground. I mean, a case in point might be the coal industry. A lot of promises to revive coal, but really coal's been under pressure from unconventional gas, slowed demand growth in electricity and also the rise of renewables, all of which are operating on a commercial basis that the government has very little to do with.
Monica Trauzzi: So we've heard Trump talk a lot about clean coal. If the sort of mechanics of that can get into place, do you think we could see a resurgence in coal?
Paul McConnell: We don't expect to see a resurgence in coal over the long term. I think really what the Trump administration could do is perhaps slow the decline rate, make the operating environment a little bit more comfortable for coal producers, but it seems to us that a revival in coal demand, a resurgence in coal in the U.S., is probably a little bit difficult to hope for, I would think.
Monica Trauzzi: And do you think that that then would be a solid economic move for the United States on the whole if the Trump administration were to alleviate some pressure that currently exists on the industry?
Paul McConnell: Well, it's quite clear that the coal industry globally is changing pretty fast. You know, we had China really for a long time as the — was one of the biggest single point sources of demand anywhere in the world. Now, the way the Chinese economy is changing means the coal demand there we think has probably peaked and will also enter a decline over the long term. So that source of demand growth globally has disappeared, leaving really India and Southeast Asia as the only regions where we continue to see growth in coal over the long term.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk oil. There are reports this week that U.S. shale oil production is on the rise. What do you anticipate on U.S. oil exports, and how do you think OPEC will be navigating?
Paul McConnell: Well, our thoughts at the moment are OPEC will roll over their production cut agreement again when they meet in a few months' time. So at the next six-monthly meeting. That means the cuts will be, you know, in place for another six months, and that should be supportive of prices and should help the supply-demand rebalancing happen more quickly. Now, in terms of U.S. oil, we think that, generally speaking, $55 a barrel is the magic number for shale oil production here in the States, and should we see prices stay at around that level for — you know, for a few months, then shale will continue to rebound.
Monica Trauzzi: Keystone XL and Dakota Access have both gotten green lights from this administration. What does that mean for infrastructure for future pipeline projects?
Paul McConnell: Well, generally we've been very convinced that the Trump administration would be positive for energy infrastructure so, you know, I mean, those two pipelines are a case in point. Blockages that were existing under the previous administration have been got rid of quite quickly and we probably expect to see similar things with other infrastructure projects in the near future.
Monica Trauzzi: The Trump administration definitely is expected to be more favorable toward fossils. Will gas production, though, see an uptick?
Paul McConnell: Natural gas production. Yeah, we think natural gas production, again, is subject to pressures which really have much more to do with economics than anything else, and you know, there's demand for gas. That's been the key driver and we'll continue to see production meet that demand.
Monica Trauzzi: So the Trump administration has a very different view on climate than the previous administration and the Obama folks, but companies around the world, regardless of that, have been shifting to sort of more efficient, cleaner business strategies. What pressure do you think the business community will put on the Trump administration and how might that impact what we see in terms of policy coming out of the White House?
Paul McConnell: Well, we already appear to see some softening in the rhetoric around climate from the Trump administration. You know, there were some very, very bold statements around the science behind climate change prior to the election. Now we see stories saying that some of the ambitions to walk away from Paris might not come through so quickly. Now, we were of the opinion that the U.S. was not — did not have enough policies in place when it signed the Paris Agreement to deliver those kind of emissions cuts. So more would have had to be done. Now, whether or not the Trump administration walks away from Paris, it looks unlikely that the U.S. will meet its commitments. From sort of another country perspective or international perspective, I think there is still a broad agreement or broad acceptance that a decarbonizing strategy is the way to go, and certainly from a corporate perspective, companies recognize the demand growth in the future may not be as strong as it has been in the past, and looking at a lower carbon future is certainly something — is a risk that can't be avoided.
Monica Trauzzi: So do you think we could see the Trump administration come more in line with what the global business community is doing?
Paul McConnell: Well, I think what the global business community is doing is almost exclusive of the policy side of things, right. So I think 15, 20 years ago, you had policy trying to drive certain outcomes. Now it's the business community, the economics, the technology which are driving those outcomes, and governments may follow behind. It may be that the Trump administration sort of follows quite a long way behind, but I don't think they'll be the only one to be left behind by what's happening in the energy space.
Monica Trauzzi: So on the whole, will the U.S. economy do well under this administration, and what are sort of the key factors and drivers that you consider to answer that question?
Paul McConnell: Well, I'm not an economist, so I can't give you a forecast on economic growth, but certainly from an energy point of view, we think this administration will be a net positive for the fossil fuel industry, but having said that, there are trends in the energy space around the ... cost of renewables and lower demand growth that mean the energy picture will get cleaner, regardless of what the administration wants or what the administration is trying to promote. So I think it's a question of cleaner energy no longer being a barrier to growth, and certainly emissions over the last 20 years have fallen pretty significantly relative to where they were in the past, and that hasn't been a barrier to growth, so we'll see.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Paul McConnell: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2206/transcript

Return to headline | Return to top
OxyChem-Mexichem JV Texas Ethylene Cracker Begins Operations

Feb 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Joe Fisher

Ingleside Ethylene LLC, a 50/50 joint venture of Occidental Chemical Corp. (OxyChem), and Mexichem, S.A.B. de C.V. said its new its ethylene cracker at OxyChem’s Ingleside, TX, complex has begun operations on schedule and on budget.
The cracker is currently in a production stabilization phase. The unit will be operated by OxyChem and has capacity to produce 1.2 billion pounds (550,000 cubic meters) of ethylene per year and provide OxyChem with an ongoing source of ethylene for manufacturing vinyl chloride monomer, which Mexichem will use to produce polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin and PVC piping systems. The companies have a 20-year supply agreement. Their joint venture was formed in 2013. Construction began almost three years ago.
“This is a significant milestone for both OxyChem and Mexichem, enabling us to capitalize on the advantages that shale gas development presents for the chemical industry. It also helps our companies better compete globally in our respective markets, and gives us an inherent advantage to manage the cost of ethylene,” said OxyChem President Robert Peterson.
The project also includes a pipeline and storage facility at Markham, TX. Total investment in the project was $1.5 billion and the facility will provide 150 permanent jobs.
“For Mexichem, the ethylene plant is a vital part of our global strategy to become a vertically integrated specialty chemicals company with a focus on high-end products,” said Mexichem CEO Antonio Carrillo.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109561-oxychem-mexichem-jv-texas-ethylene-cracker-begins-operations

Return to headline | Return to top
Minn. Proposes Increasing RPS to 50% by 2030

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire

By Daniel Cusick

Riding a decade of sustained wind and solar power expansion, Minnesota will seek to significantly raise the bar for power producers to deliver even more clean energy to Minnesota consumers by 2030.
Legislation announced yesterday by Lt. Gov. Tina Smith (D) would effectively double the amount of renewable energy investor-owned utilities and electric cooperatives are required to generate or procure — from 25 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2025 to 50 percent of all retail sales by 2030.
The state's utilities currently meet more than one-fifth of all electricity sales using renewable resources, as providers like Xcel Energy Inc., Minnesota Power and Great River Energy continue to make direct investments or sign long-term purchase agreements for utility-scale wind and solar power.
"Ten years ago, Minnesota enacted the bipartisan Next Generation Energy Act and proved that we can have affordable, reliable, and clean energy," Smith said in a statement announcing the legislation. "If we redouble our efforts, and raise Minnesota's renewable energy standard to 50 percent by 2030, we will improve air quality, continue to drive down the cost of renewable energy, and generate thousands of new energy jobs."
The bill is co-authored by state Sens. Nick Frentz (D) and Karin Housley (R), with companion language from state Reps. Erin Maye Quade (D) and Joe Schomacker (R) in the House. Both chambers of the Minnesota Legislature are Republican-controlled, but the legislation will have a tougher test in the 138-member House, where the GOP holds a 20-vote majority.
State Rep. Pat Garofalo, the Republican chairman of the House Job Growth and Energy Affordability Policy and Finance Committee, said in an interview that the proposal will meet opposition from lawmakers who are "focused on energy outputs," such as overall lower emissions and costs, and not mandates for specific generation technologies.
But Frentz, whose district encompasses the city of Mankato and a swath of south-central Minnesota farm communities, said the legislation will keep Minnesota among the nation's leading states "in promoting renewable energy, reaping the rewards in good-paying jobs, cost savings for our people and environmental benefits."
If Minnesota joins the 50 percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS) club, the state's leading utilities like Minneapolis-based Xcel and Minnesota Power of Duluth will have to broaden their commitments to wind and solar while also possibly seeking out new clean energy resources like hydro, biomass and landfill gas.
In a statement, Xcel said it is already planning double renewable energy capacity on its Upper Midwest grid, while also reducing carbon emissions by more than 60 percent in 15 years. "We'll continue to invest in cost-effective renewable energy for our customers, as we are doing with our current plans to add up to 1,500 megawatts of new wind energy in the coming years," the company said.
Amy Rutledge, a Minnesota Power spokeswoman, said the utility has made "tremendous strides in advancing clean energy" over the past decade, effectively reducing its reliance on coal from 95 percent of total generation in 2005 to less than 60 percent today.
The shift came largely from Minnesota Power's multimillion-dollar investments in North Dakota wind power, including the 500-megawatt Bison Wind Energy Center near Bismarck. Minnesota Power has also partnered with the National Guard to install a 10-MW utility-scale solar farm at Camp Ripley, a regional training facility near Little Falls, Minn.
But, Rutledge added, any revision to the current RPS should be subject to a thorough analysis of impacts to customer cost and electric reliability, both of which could be affected by adding large amounts of renewables to the grid. Rutledge also said Minnesota Power would want to see any revision to the RPS provide credit to utilities that import utility-scale hydropower from Canada.
Minnesota Power is set to begin receiving the first of up to 383 MW of hydropower from Manitoba Hydro upon completion of the Great Northern Transmission Line. Preliminary construction on the 220-mile power line began this month after the issuance of a federal presidential permit in November.
Experts have noted that in the absence of the federal Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be withdrawn by the Trump administration, states will have to exercise more authority over power generation as they seek to reduce carbon emissions linked to climate change. RPSs are one of the primary tools states have to shift utilities away from fossil fuels.
Beyond Minnesota, New York and California both have adopted 50-percent-by-2025 RPSs, while Hawaii has the nation's most ambitious renewable energy standard for electric utilities — 100 percent by 2045. Last month, Massachusetts introduced legislation to make the commonwealth 100 percent reliant on renewable electricity by 2035, with a complete phaseout of fossil fuels from all sectors by 2050 (Climatewire, Feb. 14).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050633

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Enviros Threaten Suit Over Alaska Pipeline Leak

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

Environmentalists are threatening to go to court if U.S. EPA doesn't address an ongoing natural gas leak in Alaska.
The Center for Biological Diversity sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday urging the agency to take action against Hilcorp Alaska LLC, which operates a natural gas pipeline that has been leaking into Cook Inlet for weeks.
The rupture, discovered Feb. 7, may be leaking up to 310,000 cubic feet per day of natural gas. The line is located about 3 miles offshore from the Kenai Peninsula town of Nikiski.
In a statement about the leak last week, Hilcorp said it plans to use divers to repair the leak, but they cannot do the job until sea ice clears. The company argued that the effect of the leak on marine life is "minimal based on the volume of gas being leaked."
CBD attorneys are calling on EPA to take enforcement action against the company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. They're particularly concerned about impacts of the natural gas rupture on endangered beluga whales and other wildlife.
"A company that defies regulatory oversight shouldn't be calling the shots here," CBD attorney Miyoko Sakashita, who leads the group's oceans program, said in a statement. "The EPA needs to intervene and enforce laws that protect wildlife and human health. This uncontrolled natural gas leak in sensitive waters will be the first test of Scott Pruitt's approach to regulating the oil industry."
If EPA doesn't act within 60 days, CBD will take the matter into its own hands with a citizen suit against Hilcorp under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Pipeline Safety Act and Endangered Species Act. The Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper has also threatened to sue Hilcorp over the leak.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050653

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

A Recap of Scott Pruitt's First Week at the EPA - and the News isn't Good

Feb 28, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Martha Roberts

Just days after senators rushed through Scott Pruitt’s confirmation as the new head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – without key information on his record – concerns are growing over how Pruitt’s tenure will affect the critical work the agency does to protect public health and our environment.
On his very first week on the job, the new EPA administrator already questioned some of the agency’s key responsibilities, we learned more about the lack of transparency during EPA’s recent transition, and Pruitt’s problematic email recordsremained mired in a court fight.
With the EPA now facing potentially draconian budget cuts, here’s a recap of Pruitt’s troubling first week on the job.
Making the EPA go away? Not a funny joke.
Just this weekend, Pruitt was caught on video laughing at a suggestion that some would “kind of hope that Administrator Pruitt will just sort of make the EPA go away.”
Remarkably, the press release meant to herald Pruitt’s first day instead served up a litany of false insinuations against EPA from a long list of major industries – from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity to the National Association of Manufacturers.
And in his very first interview as EPA administrator, Pruitt cast doubt on his agency’s ability to address climate change, our nation’s foremost environmental threat, despite three Supreme Court opinions underscoring the agency’s responsibility to address climate pollution.
These are disturbing examples of the lack of concern he’s shown for the EPA’s vital role in protecting America’s public health and welfare.
A secret “action plan” for EPA
According to confirmed reports, the EPA transition team’s list of nine “landing team” members did not reflect a broader group of team members who guided development of an “action plan” for EPA.
The names of these mystery people – and the final action plan – have not been shared with the public. Without this information, it’s impossible to know what additional conflicts of interest we should be concerned about as Pruitt’s tenure begins.
The biggest story of the week, however, began long before Pruitt set his foot in Washington.
Emails show his cozy relationship with industry
During Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s top lawyer, his team already had a known history of cutting and pasting industry requests and sending them in to federal officials on official letterhead.
Last week, we learned more. Additional records released – under court order, after an “abject failure” to respond to a two-year-old open records request from the Center for Media and Democracy – further underscore Pruitt’s troubling pattern of transactional relationships.
The emails show, among other things, that the lobbying group American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers sent information to Pruitt’s personal email about opposition to the Renewable Fuels Standard and ozone limits. The group provided detailed substantive input about the state weighing in on the standards, advising that “this argument is more credible coming from a State.”
They also exposed in greater detail Pruitt’s close ties with Devon Energy, a large oil and gas company that provided line edits on additional Oklahoma Attorney General letters to federal officials, pushing back against federal safeguards addressing oil and gas pollution.
What other emails are out there?
We also learned last week that the Oklahoma attorney general’s office withheld some emails from this release as privileged; the judge will review those emails in chambers to make sure she agrees – if not, more will be released.
Moreover, Pruitt’s old office is under court order to respond to five additional open records requests by March 3, after stonewalling these requests for years in some cases.
Remarkably, the office has appealed to the Supreme Court to block this order. After years of delay, they claim that they are still unable to fulfill these requests.
A lot to take in from a single week, in other words, and we have no faith the pace of disruption will slow.
Scott Pruitt’s nomination was the first time Environmental Defense Fund has gone on the record to oppose such an appointment in our 50-year history. What we’ve seen so far only reinforces that we must stay vigilant.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/02/28/recap-scott-pruitts-first-week-epa-and-news-isnt-good

Return to headline | Return to top
Haze Plan Puts Ark. Power Reliability at Risk — Brief

Feb 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

By Sean Reilly

A U.S. EPA plan to curb pollution-related haze could put Arkansas' power supply at risk, the state argues in a newly filed brief seeking to overturn the agency's approach.
The plan requires five electric generating units that represent a substantial portion of the state's output to install "sophisticated new controls" over 18 months, according to the brief filed Friday with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yet "no explanation was offered for how EPA determined that 18 months — as opposed to 24, 36, or 42 months — provided sufficient time beyond the typical installation time to ensure safe installation and safeguard the reliability of Arkansas's electricity supply," lawyers for state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) said in contending that the plan should accordingly be voided.
The regional haze plan, published in September 2016, would require Entergy Corp. and several other power producers to install scrubbers or take other steps to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to haze at national wilderness areas and wildlife refuges in Arkansas and Missouri.
Earlier this month, Rutledge sought to stay the plan, saying that plant operators would otherwise be forced to immediately incur hefty costs for the new controls. The 8th Circuit has yet to rule on that motion. The broader challenges to the plan meanwhile continue, with additional briefs due at least into May, under a court schedule released yesterday.
Allied with the state are Entergy and the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., which in a separate brief also raised concerns about the potential impact on grid reliability (E&E News PM, Feb. 8).
In a legal challenge to a separate EPA haze rule, Texas last year mounted a similar argument, citing the conclusions of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state's independent system operator. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals referenced the council's conclusions in agreeing last July to stay the Texas regulations.
In the Arkansas case, the plaintiffs do not cite a similar outside authority. The state also alleges, however, that EPA unlawfully reversed the process for deciding what pollution controls are needed in pursuit of a plan that would lead to visibility conditions that are "inferior" to those that already exist.
EPA, which imposed its plan as a partial substitute for a state strategy it deemed inadequate, has not yet responded to those allegations in court.
Still to be seen is how Scott Pruitt, the agency's newly installed administrator, will opt to proceed. In his previous post as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt, a Republican, spent three years in a losing court fight against still another EPA haze plan affecting power plants in his state (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
The congressionally mandated haze program, dating in its current form to 1999, aims to restore natural visibility conditions to 156 national parks and wilderness areas by 2064.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/28/stories/1060050688

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested