Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/8/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Resin Production Down Slightly, Sales Up in January
Mar 8, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Processing
US production of major plastic resins totaled 6.8 billion pounds during January 2017, a decrease of 0.9 percent compared to the same month in 2016, according to statistics released today by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Halt on TSCA ‘Non 5(e) Snurs’ Raises Industry Concerns
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s apparent policy to stop using ‘non-5(e) Snurs’ under the new TSCA is delaying products from coming to market and stifling innovation of safer alternatives, according to some chemical manufacturers and industry consultants. -
Mesothelioma Deaths Alert US to Continuing Asbestos Exposure
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Continuing deaths from malignant mesothelioma, the lung disease associated with asbestos fibres, have alerted the US health authorities of the need for continuing efforts to prevent exposure. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Would Ban Furniture with Toxic Flame-Retardants
Mar 8, 2017 | ecoRI News
By Tim Faulkner
The evidence against chemical flame-retardants has been mounting for decades. Not only do they not prevent fires, but these synthetic additives to furniture and plastics are dangerous to human health and the environment. -
Recognizing Women Leaders: Laura Vandenberg, PhD
Mar 8, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Cindy Luppi
International Women’s Day seems more important than ever this year… to honor important women leaders in environmental health, we’re shining the spotlight today on one of our favorite sheroes, a trailblazing scientist whose research helps explore the complex relationships between toxic chemicals used in everyday products (like bisphenol-A or BPA, the toxic chemical commonly used in canned food linings) and human health damage. -
Trump Order Now 'Unlikely' This Week
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
An executive order aimed at repealing the Obama administration's signature climate change rule is now "unlikely" to come this week, according to a White House official. -
Oil and Gas Industry Applauds Planning 2.0 Repeal
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Senate yesterday voted to erase updates to an Interior Department land management policy that would have opened up increased public participation on planning. -
EPA Scraps Methane Reporting for Oil and Gas Industries
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
The Trump Administration has withdrawn an EPA request that oil and natural gas companies provide information on their methane emission from field operations. -
LNG Exports Push Back Against Anti-Globalization Trends
Mar 8, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
While “globalization” has evolved into a dirty word in many nationalist movements around the world, the growth of liquefied natural gas to power much of the world is pushing back against such political trends. -
Proposed Louisiana LNG Terminal Adding Petrochemical Export Capability
Mar 8, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
G2 LNG plans to expand the site of its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Cameron Parish, LA, by 500 acres to allow it to potentially export petrochemicals besides LNG. -
Tribes Push Broader Strategy After Failed Bid to Halt Project
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Opponents of the Dakota Access pipeline sought to quickly pivot to other legal challenges yesterday after a federal court rejected their latest attempt to stall the rapidly progressing oil project. -
Fractious Fractions Teased from Crude Oil
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Mark Peplow
Crude oil is an unruly soup of tens of thousands of different organic compounds, and this diversity makes it difficult to pick out individual molecules from the crowd for analysis using standard tools like mass spectrometry. -
The Trouble With Over-Hyping Clean Energy
Mar 8, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Dan Cohan
While renewables go unmentioned in President Trump's "America First Energy Plan," environmentalists have found solace in the notion that wind and solar can withstand political headwinds. -
Groups Urge Immediate Shutdown of Leaking Alaska Pipeline
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
Conservation groups are pushing for the immediate shutdown of a leaking pipeline in Alaska's Cook Inlet, asserting that the monthslong spill threatens endangered beluga whales. -
Freight Train Spills Sulfuric Acid After Crash
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A CSX freight train transporting hazardous materials struck a vehicle on the tracks and derailed yesterday, spilling sulfuric acid. -
Former GOP Chairman: 'Extremely Important' to Stay in Pact
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Former Sen. Richard Lugar hopes the Trump administration not only remains within the 2015 Paris climate deal but takes an active role in convincing other countries to do the same. -
What Will Happen to U.S. Carbon Pricing Under Trump?
Mar 8, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By James Osborne
The United States might not have a national carbon pricing system like Europe has and Canada and Mexico are developing. But it does have a scattering of regional carbon markets, in the northeast and in California. -
EPA Looking for Deal in Ark. Haze Litigation
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA wants to explore the possibility of settling a tangle of legal challenges to its regional haze rule for Arkansas.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Resin Production Down Slightly, Sales Up in January
Mar 8, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Processing
US production of major plastic resins totaled 6.8 billion pounds during January 2017, a decrease of 0.9 percent compared to the same month in 2016, according to statistics released today by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Sales and captive (internal) use of major plastic resins totaled 7.0 billion pounds during January 2017, an increase of 8.9% from the same month one year earlier.
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/news/2017/03/acc-us-resin-production-down-slightly-sales-up-in-january
-
(ACC Mentioned) Halt on TSCA ‘Non 5(e) Snurs’ Raises Industry Concerns
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s apparent policy to stop using ‘non-5(e) Snurs’ under the new TSCA is delaying products from coming to market and stifling innovation of safer alternatives, according to some chemical manufacturers and industry consultants.
At the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) recent GlobalChem conference in Washington, DC, concerns were raised over growing pains in the EPA’s new chemicals programme since passage of the Lautenberg Act.
Several industry representatives pointed to the agency’s altered approach on consent orders and significant new use rules (Snurs) as a source of this anxiety.
Under the reformed TSCA, the new chemicals review process has slowed, and the percentage of substances subject to consent orders has risen sharply. And with these changes, it appears that the EPA has also discontinued its use of so-called non-5(e) Snurs to manage potentially concerning uses, outside of those enumerated in a pre-manufacture notice (PMN).
Speaking at an SME session during GlobalChem, attorney Jamie Conrad said that “the EPA is saying unofficially that they can’t do [non-5(e) Snurs] anymore because of the new law.”
“I have yet to figure out what provision of the new law prevents them from doing it, and they haven’t ever said that officially so that we can have a conversation,” he added.
The EPA did not respond to a Chemical Watch request for comment by publishing time. But the agency’s website indicates that “a small subset of PMNs that previously would have been ‘dropped’ from review and for which a non-section 5(e) Snur would have been issued ... will now be subject to [5(e)] orders.”
‘Life has changed’
Speaking at the event, Marcia Levinson, regulatory affairs specialist at chemicals firm Covestro, said that “life has changed for industry” as far as new chemicals are concerned.
The advent of the EPA no longer using non-5(e) Snurs means that now new substance manufacturers must frequently enter into a consent order for “something that they did not even foresee in their PMN application”, she said.
And while the order is being written, the manufacturer must wait beyond the 90-day PMN review period before their new substance can go to market – a process she says takes a minimum of 60 days. The resulting consent order may also contain testing requirements for foreseeable uses.
“This definitely has an impact on our innovative spirit,” she said.
Further, she said that it is more challenging to sell a regulated product than a non-regulated one.
“The perception is that a regulated chemical is much more hazardous than a non-regulated,” said Ms Levison. “Therefore we’ve got a discrepancy in terms of the perception of the impact of this regulation.”
Even if companies are able to work with customers to explain that this is simply the new way of doing business, there is still the added burden of managing a regulated chemical, such as recordkeeping requirements, export notifications, lower chemical data reporting (CDR) rule reporting thresholds, or changes to existing hazcom practices.
For these reasons, she said, “it’s hard to get customers to go toward these new chemicals.”
Lisa Marie Nespoli, also of Covestro, agreed: “We’re creating safer models that are more sustainable, and nobody wants to buy them because they have the recordkeeping [requirements].”
“That is our biggest concern for our innovation pipeline – we are creating things that are better, this is what everybody wants – but yet we can’t get them through, and I don’t know how we fix that.”
Changes to consent orders, Snurs under new TSCA
TSCA section 5(e) orders – including consent orders – are only binding to the original pre-manufacture notice (PMN) submitter. As a consequence, the EPA typically promulgates a significant new use rule (Snur) that mimics the 5(e) order so that all subsequent manufacturers and processors of the substance will be bound to the same requirements.
The agency has continued the practice of these so-called 5(e) Snurs under the new law.
This does not appear to be the case, however, for non-5(e) Snurs, or Snurs issued in the absence of a consent order. Before TSCA reform, the EPA would often use these when it determined that the specific conditions of use and precautions described in a PMN would not pose an unreasonable risk, but for which additional uses may be concerning.
In these cases, the agency would ‘drop’ the PMN – that is, allow the substance to come to market – and subsequently issue a non-5(e) Snur that defined additional uses or conditions that may be problematic. Any future engagement in such activities by a manufacturer or processor would thereby require notifying the agency before doing so.
But under the new TSCA, the agency may no longer drop a PMN; it must instead make an affirmative finding that the substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. And in order to meet this bar, it has apparently interpreted the statute as requiring it to impose a consent order on the original submitter to block potentially foreseen uses, even if they are not named in the PMN. The use of non-5(e) Snurs has correspondingly dropped off.
This change has resulted in real consequences for the PMN submitter. Not only is that company likely to experience delays in coming to market while a consent order is negotiated, but it also may face additional testing requirements for uses it has not indicated an intent to pursue.
Previously, this testing burden had fallen to those manufacturers or processors submitting significant new use notifications (Snuns) for any potentially concerning uses identified in the Snur.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54098/halt-on-tsca-non-5e-snurs-raises-industry-concerns
-
Mesothelioma Deaths Alert US to Continuing Asbestos Exposure
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Continuing deaths from malignant mesothelioma, the lung disease associated with asbestos fibres, have alerted the US health authorities of the need for continuing efforts to prevent exposure.
A paper from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) reveals that the latest data for deaths linked to mesothelioma show increases between 1999 and 2009. The trend was for both sexes and all ethnic groups, and the authors remark that the “continuing deaths of those aged less than 55 suggests continuing exposure to asbestos fibres”.
The latency period for the disease is generally between 20 and 40 years, the paper says, and projected deaths were expected to peak in 2001-2005 at about 3,000 annually then decline.
Instead Niosh reports that deaths increased from 2,479 in 1999 to 2,597 in 2015.
The paper appeared in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on 3 March, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The US Geological Survey produced a commodity summary in January 2016, which says that the chloralkali industry accounted for 90% of US consumption of 360 tons in 2015. The remainder is used in coatings and compounds, plastics and roofing products. Its use by the industry is for diaphragms which separate anode and cathode products in chloralkali electrolytic cells.
Asbestos is also one of the first ten chemicals to face risk evaluation under the new TSCA. Comments on the US EPA’s review can be accepted until 15 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54048/mesothelioma-deaths-alert-us-to-continuing-asbestos-exposure
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Would Ban Furniture with Toxic Flame-Retardants
Mar 8, 2017 | ecoRI News
By Tim Faulkner
The evidence against chemical flame-retardants has been mounting for decades. Not only do they not prevent fires, but these synthetic additives to furniture and plastics are dangerous to human health and the environment.
According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, some of the most common flame-retardants have been linked to cancer, lower IQ and reduced fertility, and they can harm fetal and child development.
While some chemical flame-retardants have been banned, others remain in regulation limbo. A Senate bill is attempting to ban the sale of bedding and furniture in Rhode Island that contain a class of chemicals known as organohalogens. Specifically, the bill would prevent the use of flame-retardants that contain bromine and chlorine.
The powerful lobbying group American Chemistry Council (ACC), however, testified that a ban on organohalogens is too broad and includes chemicals that may not be harmful. Senators and witnesses at the March 7 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the bill must include a broad class of flame-retardants to prevent the chemical industry from making comparable chemicals that skirt the law.
“They take a chemical off the market; they tweak the formula a little bit; they change one little aspect of it and that chemical goes right back into mattress pads, nursing pillows, crib mattresses that children are sleeping on,” said David Gerraughty, an organizer for Clean Water Action of Rhode Island.
It’s not the first time a bill has been filed to ban flame-retardants, but this year some compelling witnesses testified in favor of the ban.
Donna MacDonald was Providence firefighter for 15 years, until she retired in 2016 because of occupational cancer. MacDonald testified that flame-retardants may slow fires but the smoldering of fabric and furniture releases a harmful concentration of toxins. The chemicals are ingested by firefighters and the public through breathing or touching the invisible emissions.
“If we can limit the amount (of exposure) by limiting the fire-retardant chemicals and lowering the cyanide levels it’s going to be a big help,” she said.
Hannah Gardener, an epidemiologist from the University of Miami, testified that this class of flame-retardants leaks over time from furniture and other household products. They migrate into the air or collect in dust, which are ingested by children, adults and pets.
Members of the Judiciary Committee challenged the testimony of Stephen Rosario, an ACC lobbyist. Sen. Frank Lombardi, D-Cranston, compared flame-retardants to the fight against cigarettes and asbestos.
“I can only help but feel we are having an asbestos debate again like they did in the '30s, '40 and '50s,” Lombardi said. “They talked about this wonder product called asbestos that was going save houses from fires and be the greatest thing since slice bread. And we know the rest of the story.”
Rosario said the bill is broader than other bans by prohibiting an entire category of chemicals rather than specific flame-retardant’s. He said studies show that individual chemicals can't accurately be attributed to cancer, especially in firefighters who are exposed to numerous elements.
If passed, the ban would make it unlawful for a manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer in Rhode Island to sell residential upholstered bedding or furniture that contains 100 parts per million or greater of any organohalogen flame-retardant chemical.
The bill was held for further study. A companion House bill is expected to have a hearing this month.
http://www.ecori.org/government/2017/3/8/senate-bill-bans-toxic-flame-retardants
-
Recognizing Women Leaders: Laura Vandenberg, PhD
Mar 8, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Cindy Luppi
International Women’s Day seems more important than ever this year… to honor important women leaders in environmental health, we’re shining the spotlight today on one of our favorite sheroes, a trailblazing scientist whose research helps explore the complex relationships between toxic chemicals used in everyday products (like bisphenol-A or BPA, the toxic chemical commonly used in canned food linings) and human health damage.
Thank you, Dr. Vandenberg, for your research that helps answer the tough questions about how to prevent harm to our health in a world where we’re constantly in contact with toxic chemicals!
And take action: Today, in honor of Dr. Vandenberg’s leadership, please urge the largest supermarket chains in the United States to phase out their use of BPA in the linings of canned food they sell.
Read on to learn more about Dr. Vandenberg’s story as she’s interviewed by Cindy Luppi, Clean Water Action New England Director.
* What drew you to a career in science and your specific environmental health research?
I was one of those odd little kids that liked to figure out how things work. I was in love with nature! I tried to make my own perfumes to gift to my mother – a colossal failure – I made bug terrariums, collected odd plants, and analyzed data from tiny solar cells I set up on a ladder in the front yard. My dad was a hunter, and I learned a lot about anatomy and physiology from dissecting the things we would later eat. And I was definitely the kid who asked for a microscope for Christmas!
In college, I developed a real passion for developmental biology, the study of how embryos develop from a single fertilized cell. I was fascinated by the processes that allow us to put every part of our body in the right place at the right time, at least most of the time. But I was also very interested in reproductive health, and I chose to get my PhD from Tufts Medical school because they had many faculty members focused on female reproduction. When I started working on BPA with Dr. Ana Soto, I realized that environmental health sciences was a way to integrate multiple fields of biology – developmental biology, cancer biology, molecular biology, reproductive biology, endocrinology – with really important public health problems, namely exposures to environmental chemicals.
* What do you see as your most important studies or proudest achievements?
Honestly, I think the most important studies are the ones we haven’t even thought of yet. I don’t mean to suggest some sense of false modesty. I’m a junior scientist, just getting started, and I’m proud of my work to date. But I cannot help but look at the problems that still affect everyday people, and realize that there is still so much to do.
* How does sexism affect your professional playing field?
I think a lot of people believe that sexism is a thing of the past. Right? Shouldn’t scientists be judged solely based on their contributions?!? Yet, I can still tell you my stories about job interviews where someone on the search committee mentioned to me that “women don’t make good science professors.” (Didn’t get that job!) Or the time that an administrator commented on my pregnant colleagues by saying that we were experiencing “a fertility problem” in our group. On the flip side, we have come so far!! My own mentors have shared such awful examples of sexism, that I feel so fortunate to be able to laugh off – after initial anger, of course – the few bad experiences I’ve had.
* Do you think we’re making progress in the search for a safer alternative to BPA as used in products, thermal receipts, food can linings?
I think alternatives are the easy part. *Safer* alternatives are quite difficult, especially when we are still trying to determine what makes a chemical safer. I would hope that sincere efforts to replace BPA would not involve substituting another bisphenol like BPS. Unfortunately, that is what we often see. But I have heard inklings of companies that are developing BPA alternatives for use in can linings and thermal receipt papers. I do hope that these will not only reach the market (soon), but that they also will be truly safer. This is a problem we can tackle.
* Did you have important women mentors and do you enjoy being a mentor for others?
Yes, I have had several strong women who have mentored me through my career, including my undergraduate research advisor, Dr. Mariana Wolfner; my graduate advisor, Dr. Ana Soto; my graduate thesis chair, Dr. Beverly Rubin; and my postdoctoral teaching mentor, Dr. Kelly McLaughlin. But I have also had amazing advising from male scientists, who mentored me not just in science but also understood that a scientific career is different for women. These include my graduate co-advisor, Dr. Carlos Sonnenschein; my postdoctoral advisor, Dr. Mike Levin; and my mentor at UMass, Dr. Tom Zoeller.
I absolutely LOVE being a mentor. At UMass, I have the great pleasure to mentor awesome young men and women, undergraduates and graduate students. Working with them is honestly the best part of my job. They have such passion for science! Watching them in the process of scientific discovery and seeing their excitement at being the first person in the world to know something – like, what effect does Chemical X have on health outcome Y – is so amazing.
* What keeps you motivated personally and do your students realize how lucky they are to work with you?
Adorable question!
I don’t have children, but I spend a lot of time with my friends’ children – and they motivate me. I saw a sign that said, “We don’t inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our grandchildren.” This kind of philosophy keeps me going. I truly believe that we’re changing the world and improving the health of vulnerable people! Who could think of a better use of their life?!?
My students are awesome! Yes, they know how lucky they are to get to do hands-on research. And I am so grateful to serve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and teach the next generation!!
* Two of the words that I think of to describe you: brilliant and brave, in the face of difficult political/industry dynamics. Have you paid a price for exercising your independent scientific voice? Do you have any advice for women aspiring to enter the field?
I’d like to think the main price I’ve paid is in gray hair!! Sometimes doing the right thing is hard, and it has occasionally given me heartache. The best solution to the political dynamics in the field of environmental health is to stick to the science. One way that the chemical industry has tried to attack scientists like me is to label us ‘activists’, as if speaking about science is unscientific. How odd, considering that these same people are literally advocating for a product or chemical! But again, the best solution is to let the science be the voice. The thing I truly ‘advocate’ for is good science – and the use of good science by decision makers to protect public health!
My advice to young women is to get strong training in a basic scientific field, so they can apply this training to address the important public health issues we will encounter in the future. Stick to science, and let it guide you! There is so much work to do, but many hands make lighter work.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/03/08/recognizing-women-leaders-laura-vandenberg-phd/
-
Trump Order Now 'Unlikely' This Week
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
An executive order aimed at repealing the Obama administration's signature climate change rule is now "unlikely" to come this week, according to a White House official.
The directive, which had been slated to be signed this week by President Trump, "may be pushed beyond this week," the official said.
Details about the exact timing and contents of that order remain unclear.
The document was previously expected to tackle energy and climate issues broadly by ordering U.S. EPA to undo the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases and a related rule to curb new power plants' emissions, and to repeal the coal leasing moratorium on federal lands. Some also speculated that the order could be even broader, tackling additional Obama-era climate and energy policies.
But some sources now say the looming order may be narrower than expected, targeting only EPA rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants.
Some supporters of the Clean Power Plan have welcomed the delay, but critics of the rule are eager for the administration to take action.
"For those of us working on the issue, it's a bit frustrating that we don't have the executive order yet," said Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney at Bracewell LLP who is representing clients suing EPA over the rule.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051144
-
Oil and Gas Industry Applauds Planning 2.0 Repeal
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Senate yesterday voted to erase updates to an Interior Department land management policy that would have opened up increased public participation on planning.
In a 51-48 party-line vote, the upper chamber eliminated the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0 rule, under the authority of the rarely used Congressional Review Act. Republicans in Congress are using the CRA to cut through swaths of Obama-era regulations. This is the third energy-related measure to be wiped from the slate.
The House has already voted to strike down two BLM rules: Planning 2.0 and the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule. Though the House took up the methane rule before Planning 2.0, the Senate has yet to vote on the measure to curb flaring, venting and leaking of natural gas from extraction operations on public lands.
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas said yesterday that the Senate is "not where we need to be" to take a vote on methane, which is widely expected to be more contentious than Planning 2.0.
Oil and gas groups, which said Planning 2.0 unfairly tipped land management decisions away from fossil fuel extraction, celebrated the rule's repeal (Energywire, Feb. 8). Keeping the rule would have opened too wide a gate for public input — and, therefore, uncertainty — in the early stages of the project planning process, said Dan Naatz, senior vice president of government relations and political affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
"The final rule allowed for all planning documents to be changed at any moment, which does not allow for a set understanding of expectations and long-term planning. Oil and natural gas businesses are not able to adjust plans on a whim and depend on certainty throughout the planning process," Naatz wrote in an emailed statement. "This added uncertainty would have likely resulted in reduced development of federal minerals and, therefore, would have lead to a loss of royalty and tax revenue for federal, state, and local governments. IPAA welcomes congressional repeal of this rule, as it will bring meaningful relief to independent producers and small business job creators across the country."
In a fact sheet on the final rule, BLM says its new approach included a "planning assessment" as the first step in its process. During that stage, the bureau would have identified public concerns, defined the planning area boundary and collected best available information. The goal was to circumvent litigation that could have been avoided if stakeholders had the opportunity to raise concerns and conflicts earlier in the process, BLM said.
"Blocking these updated rules, possibly forever, leaves a planning process that, by comparison, wastes time, extends uncertainty, consumes more scarce agency resources and produces more contentious outcomes," said Alexandra Teitz, former counselor to BLM Director Neil Kornze. "The repeal effort makes no sense, and it suggests that this rule is being targeted not because of what it does, but because it was issued during the prior administration."
Planning 2.0 asked stakeholders to take a "landscape-scale" view of development, which BLM has said could help address broad challenges like climate change, wildfires and invasive species.
"What's really different is under the old rule, the BLM starts by divvying up their land and resources without taking a hard look at what they have first. They look before they leap," said Joel Webster, director of the Center for Western Lands at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. "What we're worried about is that the agency is not going to take as thoughtful an approach to identifying important resources like migration corridors and wildlife habitats and doing oil and gas development in ways that minimizes impact to those resources."
Controversy 'baked in'
Repeal is a return to the status quo, said Western Environmental Law Center attorney Kyle Tisdel.
He said the BLM's review of oil and gas development typically focuses on the use of individual plots. "What Planning 2.0 offered was to take a broader look and not focus on jurisdictional boundaries but to look at a complete landscape and assess the impacts of oil and gas development across that landscape," he said.
In comments on the proposed rule, IPAA and the American Petroleum Institute raised concerns that the new phase in the planning process would introduce new opportunities for groups staunchly opposed to their operations to block projects from moving forward.
"There are simply some activities on federal land that generate controversy and that will not go away regardless of what process the BLM uses," said Luke Johnson, policy director at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP and a former deputy director of policy and programs for BLM under President George W. Bush. "As an example, the 'keep it in the ground' folks are not likely to drop their opposition if they are able to participate in a lengthier federal land planning process. A certain degree of controversy is simply baked into the cake given the breadth of opinion about multiple uses on federal land."
Industry advocates have pointed to a Nov. 3, 2015, memo from President Obama stating that mitigation policies should set a "net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal" for natural resources as an indication that the previous administration intended to favor other land uses above oil and gas extraction. Oil and gas groups have said that directive introduces a bias against their business.
"The Planning 2.0 rule is one of those boring bureaucratic-sounding things that actually has very wide implications," said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma. "With that rule, BLM would have turned from a multiple-use agency into an agency that prioritizes preservation only above productive uses of appropriate public lands. It's very important to get that overturned for not just energy but for any multiple productive user of public lands such as agriculture and mining and energy development."
'Let's work with Secretary Zinke'
Opponents of congressional efforts to repeal Planning 2.0 have raised concerns that the CRA might preclude BLM from revisiting the issues the old regulation addressed.
If a rule is abolished using the CRA, the act provides that an agency may not reintroduce a regulation that is "substantially the same" as the old rule. The statute does not define the standard, nor does it state who would determine whether an amended rule is too similar to a disapproved regulation.
Proposals to introduce new regulations after CRA remain legally ambiguous, experts say (Energywire, Feb. 1).
During debate yesterday, senators in favor of repealing Planning 2.0 said they would work with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to craft new planning procedures.
"This is a fatally flawed rule," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "Our best option is to overturn it while we have the ability to do so under the Congressional Review Act and to hold BLM accountable to the underlying statute and its multiple-use mission. If we can agree to do that today, we can then work with our new secretary of the Interior, Secretary Zinke, to make genuine improvements to the BLM land management planning process."
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) urged any senator who likes some, but not all, provisions of Planning 2.0 to vote against the CRA proposal and instead work with BLM directly.
"You are literally preventing the agency from moving forward on any improvements," she said.
Conservation groups said they fear the CRA will permanently limit public input on land use.
"Overturning this regulation through such an arcane, backchannel tool goes against the spirit and importance of our public lands," said Josh Mantell, energy and climate campaign manager for the Wilderness Society.
The implications of the CRA are too poorly understood to be putting the statute to such widespread use, said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians.
"This is really uncharted territory," he said.
Republicans on the Senate floor said concerns about CRA's "substantially the same" provision are misleading and pledged to maintain an ongoing dialogue with Interior.
"Let's take this rule back to the drawing board and do it right," said Montana Sen. Steve Daines (R). "Let's work with Secretary Zinke."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051100
-
EPA Scraps Methane Reporting for Oil and Gas Industries
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
The Trump Administration has withdrawn an EPA request that oil and natural gas companies provide information on their methane emission from field operations.
The Obama Administration had sent the data request to some 15,000 oil and gas companies late last year. It asked for basic information on the numbers and types of equipment used at onshore drilling and production facilities as well as more detailed information on methane emissions sources and control devices.
Earlier in 2016, EPA issued methane control regulations for new oil and gas facilities, but did not address existing facilities. The data collection rule was an attempt by the Obama EPA to learn more about oil and gas operations in preparation for emissions regulations at operating facilities.
Oil and gas operations are the largest industrial source of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent that carbon dioxide, according to EPA.
The U.S. is experiencing an oil and gas bonanza with some million wells in operation. However, in the rush to exploit the resource much is unclear—even the exact number of wells is uncertain. Confusion also surrounds the quantity of methane emissions. The now-canceled reporting was intended to help resolve this uncertainty.
“There is a lack of transparency in oil and gas operations,” notes Mark Brownstein, vice president of climate and energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group. “We really don’t know what is out there. You can’t manage what you are not measuring. The irony is industry called for this information before EPA proposes to regulate existing oil and gas facilities.”
“It is a missed opportunity,” says Rob Jackson, a Stanford University earth scientist. Some companies are already collecting—and often sharing—information on their methane emissions, he adds.
Industry applauds the withdrawal. Howard Feldman, the American Petroleum Institute’s director of regulatory affairs, calls EPA’s announcement a “positive step in reducing significant oil industry uncertainties and burdens.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says he received a request the day before the March 2 withdrawal from nine state attorneys general and the governors of Mississippi and Kentucky to kill the reporting request. EPA, he said, takes such concerns “seriously and is committed to strengthening its partnership with the states.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i11/EPA-scraps-methane-reporting-oil-and-gas-industries.html
-
LNG Exports Push Back Against Anti-Globalization Trends
Mar 8, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
While “globalization” has evolved into a dirty word in many nationalist movements around the world, the growth of liquefied natural gas to power much of the world is pushing back against such political trends.
Shipping LNG on vessels across oceans will increasingly help fuel both the developing and developed world from emerging Asian markets to Europe to Latin America, said Michael Stoppard, IHS Markit chief global gas strategist.
“LNG has moved from being a continental or regional business to being a, dare I say, globalized business,” Stoppard said. “It is gas and not oil that will lie at the heart of your global volume growth.”
Via the expanded Panama Canal, even Peru shipped some LNG to the United Kingdom in February. Royal Dutch Shell was the buyer. “If that isn’t global I don’t know what is,” Stoppard said.
Annual global gas demand will grow from 3.6 trillion cubic meters to 5.4 trillion cubic meters by 2040, he said. “We keep looking for oil and finding gas,” Stoppard said of exploration efforts.
The three global hubs for LNG exports will be Qatar, Australia and increasingly the United States, especially along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast. That started early last year when Houston-based Cheniere Energy began shipping LNG from its Sabine Pass Terminal near the Texas border. A slew of other projects are underway.
Cheniere founder Charif Souki said he helped “break the model” for regional gas. The only problem for him is he was ousted from his company at the end of 2015. As the market weakened, activist investors like Carl Icahn grew weary of Souki’s greater ambitions to keep expanding and pushed for the change.
So Souki co-founded Houston-based Tellurian Inc. as an LNG exporting competitor. The company went public in February. Tellurian is developing the $12 billion Driftwood LNG project south of Lake Charles, Louisiana as part of the next wave of LNG export projects. The goal is to bring it online in 2022 with the expectation that global demand growth by then will have wiped away the anticipated glut of LNG in the coming years.
The problem is U.S. LNG developers are having trouble finding long-term buyers to help finance the projects, as Cheniere did with 20-year contracts. Buyers are increasingly looking for short-term deals and greater flexibility. Souki said the increasing global demand will make quality projects viable, even if the buyers come increasingly from emerging markets, rather than developed nations like Japan, which was originally expected to be a much larger LNG buyer.
“We’re very confident we’re going to find buyers for our gas. I absolutely have no doubt the global gas market is going to continue to grow,” Souki said. “It seems we have a couple of decades of ample gas supply in the U.S. at very cheap rates, so I like our position.”
He added, “We think we can offer the low-cost gas on the global basis.”
But trends for LNG exports are becoming much more fluid and seasonal, and difficult to predict long term.
Because of weather and seasonality, premium prices move from Asia to southern Europe to the Middle East.
“We’ll listen to customers. I’m not going to try to sell a car to someone who’s looking for a boat,” Souki said. “The business model will find itself simply because the world needs this gas.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/08/lng-exports-push-back-against-anti-globalization-trends/
-
Proposed Louisiana LNG Terminal Adding Petrochemical Export Capability
Mar 8, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
G2 LNG plans to expand the site of its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Cameron Parish, LA, by 500 acres to allow it to potentially export petrochemicals besides LNG.
“The expansion of our Cameron Parish, LA, location is in direct response to our customers’ increasing demands for both LNG and petrochemicals,” said G2 Chairman Charles Roemer, a former governor of Louisiana and former U.S. congressman.
With the additional acreage the G2 facility would cover 1,266 acres along the Calcasieu Ship Channel about three miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
“There are significant synergies in co-locating both LNG and petrochemical exporters on the same site,” said G2 LNG President Thomas Hudson. “Natural gas exists at a lower cost along the Gulf Coast than any other location in America and, at the same time, quality locations along the coast are becoming harder for project developers to find.”
G2 LNG is owned by Louisiana natives and headquartered in Baton Rouge.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109678-proposed-louisiana-lng-terminal-adding-petrochemical-export-capability
-
Tribes Push Broader Strategy After Failed Bid to Halt Project
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Opponents of the Dakota Access pipeline sought to quickly pivot to other legal challenges yesterday after a federal court rejected their latest attempt to stall the rapidly progressing oil project.
Lawyers for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said they were disappointed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's denial of their request for a preliminary injunction that would block completion of the pipeline. But they warned that the legal fight is far from over.
"Even though the tribe is disappointed, this preliminary injunction motion was just the beginning of a much broader legal fight against the [Army Corps of Engineers'] authorization of this pipeline under the sacred waters of the Missouri River," Fredericks Peebles & Morgan attorney Nicole Ducheneaux, representing Cheyenne River, said on a press call shortly after the decision.
Both tribes have filed summary judgment motions asking the court to rule on fundamental legal issues in the case and scrap several layers of federal approvals for the pipeline.
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who represents Standing Rock, noted that while the court has rejected several requests for injunctive relief, it has not yet weighed in on those core issues.
Standing Rock's failed 2016 preliminary injunction request focused on claims under the National Historic Preservation Act, and Cheyenne River's recent injunction attempt dealt with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The partial summary judgment motions, meanwhile, center on whether the federal government violated the National Environmental Policy Act and tribal treaties in approving the pipeline and whether the Trump administration improperly ignored the Obama administration's conclusion that further study was needed.
District court Judge James Boasberg may choose to schedule a hearing on the requests next month after all sides file their briefs.
"The court plainly understands that time is of the essence," Hasselman said.
Indeed, pipeline construction is moving quickly, with company lawyers recently estimating that oil may flow through it next week. Hasselman argued that pipeline completion will not affect how the case moves forward.
"The court has already indicated that if [Boasberg] finds that the permits were issued contrary to law, he can order the pipeline turned back off, and that's what we'll be asking for," he said.
'Robust process'
Dakota Access is urging the district court to reject Standing Rock's summary judgment request.
In a brief filed last night, company lawyers argued that the tribe's complaints about the process used to approve the pipeline have no merit.
"Under the statutes that the Tribe invokes — [NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act — the Tribe received all process to which it was entitled: a meaningful opportunity to comment and consult, and a decision based on reasoned consideration of a sizeable record developed over a period of two years," the company said in its brief.
The brief outlines the Army Corps of Engineers' environmental assessment process for the pipeline and the Obama administration's added layers of review last fall, concluding that "it is hard to imagine a case where more robust process was afforded."
It notes, for example, that the Army Corps responded to Standing Rock's concerns during the environmental assessment process by requiring added safety features like double-walled pipes, shut-off valves at the Lake Oahe crossing and fiber-optic pipeline monitoring.
The brief also takes issue with allegations that the pipeline was subject to an overly narrow environmental justice review. Standing Rock has argued that the Dakota Access review looked only a half-mile from the pipeline crossing and found that it would not disproportionately affect minority communities, ignoring the Standing Rock Indian Reservation another 0.05 mile from the review area.
Dakota Access lawyers defended the review process, noting that a half-mile is the standard scope of review for a linear project like a pipeline, and the Army Corps gave a "reasonable explanation" for the range.
"Standing Rock may disagree with this conclusion, but it was not arbitrary and capricious," the company's brief says.
The Army Corps will file its response to Standing Rock's summary judgment motion next week.
Supporters of the pipeline, meanwhile, said they're hopeful the court will ultimately rule in its favor.
"Going forward, we continue to appreciate Judge Boasberg's careful consideration of this case and remain hopeful that the construction and operation of this pipeline will be completed in a safe and timely manner," Midwest Coalition of Infrastructure Now spokesman Craig Stevens said in a statement.
Future of RFRA claim
Ducheneaux also vowed that the tribe is not done making arguments based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was the foundation of the preliminary injunction request.
Cheyenne River says the very presence of an oil pipeline beneath Lake Oahe would fulfill the Lakota people's prophesy of a "black snake" that would destroy their land. The tribe says the project would desecrate waters used in religious practices and violate the religious freedom rights under RFRA.
The court rejected that argument yesterday, finding that Cheyenne River had raised the claim too late in the process and that the federal government's approval of the Lake Oahe crossing likely did not amount to a "substantial burden" under the test used to weigh RFRA claims (Greenwire, March 7).
Ducheneaux said she disagrees with the ruling and noted that "there are several good bases for an appeal," though the tribe has not yet decided whether to take its RFRA claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If it does appeal, she said the D.C. Circuit could block the pipeline from moving oil.
"If we wanted to appeal this decision, the court could enter an administrative injunction to preserve the tribe's constitutional rights until it had an opportunity to resolve the appeal," she said.
The RFRA claims are also part of broad updated complaints Cheyenne River and Standing Rock have asked the court to consider.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051116
-
Fractious Fractions Teased from Crude Oil
Mar 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Mark Peplow
Crude oil is an unruly soup of tens of thousands of different organic compounds, and this diversity makes it difficult to pick out individual molecules from the crowd for analysis using standard tools like mass spectrometry. Despite the vast quantities of crude oil used globally each day, much remains unknown about its chemical composition, which can vary dramatically from one oil field to the next.
So a method that separates crude oil into a dozen fractions, based on their chemical properties, now promises to help measure levels of molecules that could trigger corrosion in a pipeline, or pinpoint the most toxic compounds in an oil spill (Anal. Chem. 2017, DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04202).
Fractionation is not a new approach to simplifying oil analysis. One of the most common methods, dubbed SARA, uses chromatography to split the oil into four broad classes: saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes. But this separation is largely based on the molecules’ solubilities in the solvent being used, and many chemical classes remain obscured within the mélange in each fraction.
In contrast, the new method developed by Steven J. Rowland of the University of Plymouth and coworkers is particularly good at teasing apart polar compounds containing nitrogen, sulfur, or oxygen—often responsible for poisoning oil-processing catalysts—which conventional analytical methods struggle to identify.
The procedure is not based on radical innovation: It relies on a series of columns filled with commercial ion exchange resins and silica, making the method reproducible, relatively simple, and inexpensive. “The real novelty is putting it all together,” says Ryan P. Rodgers, director of the Future Fuels Institute at Florida State University, who was not involved with the work. By deploying the separation columns in the right order and eluting the crude with a series of increasingly polar solvents, the method isolates molecules depending on how well their functional groups stick to each type of column. This yields fractions that are each dominated by a particular chemical class: sulfoxides, quinolines, carbazoles, fluorenones, and more.
After analyzing each fraction with techniques such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), the team identified dozens of specific compounds. Some of them, such as thioxanthones, were previously unknown in crude oil. The method achieves “a better separation between different classes of chemicals,” says Sonnich Meier of the Institute of Marine Research. “It’s the best I’ve seen.”
Meier has been working with Rowland’s team for the past three years, and plans to use the technique to single out the compounds in crude oil that are toxic to fish embryos. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons account for about 60% of oil’s toxicity, says Meier, but the culprits responsible for the remainder of the effect are unknown. “There are thousands of compounds in oil that we just ignore, because we’re not good at analyzing them,” he says. These data will feed into a new risk assessment on the potential exploitation of oil reserves in the Lofoten region of northern Norway, currently a matter of fierce debate in the country.
Meanwhile, the oil industry increasingly wants to know the precise composition of a crude oil before investing billions in extracting and refining it. The world’s declining production of low-sulfur oil, known as sweet crude, means there is more reliance on crudes that contain higher proportions of heteroatoms and heavier compounds, requiring more refining and presenting new processing challenges, such as pipeline corrosion or blockages. The oil industry has expressed interest in the method, Rowland says.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/03/Fractious-fractions-teased-crude-oil.html
-
The Trouble With Over-Hyping Clean Energy
Mar 8, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Dan Cohan
This is the second installment in a two-part series. Read the first installment here.
While renewables go unmentioned in President Trump's "America First Energy Plan," environmentalists have found solace in the notion that wind and solar can withstand political headwinds. Headlines proclaim renewable energy to be "unstoppable," "inevitable" and "cheaper than fossil fuels." President Obama wrote of the "irreversible momentum of clean energy."
In the long run, those headlines are true. Wind and solar are already the cheapest forms of new electricity generation, even before accounting for tax credits and environmental benefits. Thus, Trump's fossil-first plan cannot reverse market moves toward cleaner cheaper energy.
But, as John Maynard Keynes quipped, "In the long run we are all dead." What matters now is accelerating the rate at which wind and solar displace fossil electricity.
The pace of the clean energy transition impacts health and climate now and later. Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists estimate that air pollution from power plants kills 52,000 Americans each year. Meanwhile, climate-warming gases emitted by power plants today can last in the atmosphere for centuries.
Faster progress means saving lives now while slowing the accumulation of carbon dioxide.
In a companion piece, I wrote of the trouble with government forecasts that under-predict the growth of renewables. Yet excess optimism brings its own dangers. Seeing clean energy as "inevitable" masks the urgency of policies and actions to accelerate its adoption.
Wind and solar are indeed affordable. Even before subsidies, wind costs as little as 3.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and solar as little as 4.6 cents per kWh. With current tax credits, long-term power purchasing agreements lock in even lower rates, protected from inflation or a potential carbon tax.
Yet even with plunging prices, progress is slowed by the glacial pace of replacing old power plants. In a typical year, only 1 to 2 percent of the country's electricity capacity retires, while slightly more new capacity is added.
Wind and solar have led new capacity additions for the past decade, and will likely expand their lead as their costs continue to fall. But clean energy is slower to displace old fossil power plants whose capital costs have already been paid. Inefficient coal plants, most of them over 35 years old, still comprise a substantial portion of electricity supply.
Policy and action are needed to accelerate the clean energy transition. Tax credits for wind and solar dramatically increase the rates at which they're adopted. While those credits are scheduled to phase down, other options can catalyze clean energy markets.
The conservative Climate Leadership Council (CLC) has proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend. The nonpartisan Citizens Climate Lobby advocates a similar plan. As I discussed in a recent column, the CLC proposal would be especially effective at accelerating retirements of old coal plants and catalyzing adoption of wind and solar.
If renewables tax credits and carbon taxes are politically unpalatable, other options are available.
Here in Texas, carefully designed competitive renewable energy zones have linked wind- and solar-rich regions with urban areas. That has spurred Texas to lead the nation in wind power. As I argued here, similar investments, including high-voltage transmission in Trump's infrastructure plan, would boost jobs while enabling a cleaner and more reliable grid.
Texas also illustrates the link between clean air and clean energy. Litigation by the state has impeded plans to comply with the EPA's regional haze rule. Enforcing that and other air pollution rules would ensure that the dirtiest coal plants close or install modern control devices, with solar and wind likely to replace most retired capacity. Enforcement now depends upon Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, who sued to block clean air rules while serving as attorney general of Oklahoma.
Other states have achieved progress by stronger renewable portfolio standards, which set rising targets for renewable power generation. While some states are considering strengthening their standards, others are considering policies that would slow the growth of renewables. Lawmakers in Wyoming and Oklahoma have even tried, unsuccessfully so far, to tax wind energy. With federal action stalled, states will be the key battlegrounds for efforts to propel or impede renewables.
Beyond government policy, actions by individual, municipal, and corporate power purchasers matter, too. RE100 now lists 87 major companies committed to 100 percent renewables. The city of Houston recently added 20 megawatts to its solar deal while lowering the price. Homes and businesses can install solar panels, while companies like LocalSun enable renters to buy solar power as well.
A key feature of these clean power purchases is their "additionality" in adding new wind and solar supply. Doing so yields economies of scale that cut costs, creating a virtuous cycle of self-reinforcing progress.
As more wind and solar are added, further steps will be needed to reliably integrate them into the grid. That includes battery storage, demand response, and other means of balancing supply and demand. Research and investments are needed to enhance storage technologies and modernize the electric grid to accommodate larger amounts of variable supply.
Propelled by low prices, clean energy is indeed irreversible. But lack of a reverse gear doesn’t mean clean energy is an autonomous vehicle that can drive itself forward. Sensible government policies and actions by businesses and consumers can move us closer to a clean energy future and the climate and health benefits that come with it.
Dan Cohan is associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/322902-the-trouble-with-over-hyping-clean-energy
-
Groups Urge Immediate Shutdown of Leaking Alaska Pipeline
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
Conservation groups are pushing for the immediate shutdown of a leaking pipeline in Alaska's Cook Inlet, asserting that the monthslong spill threatens endangered beluga whales.
Hilcorp Alaska LLC noticed the leak in its pipeline on Feb. 7. But federal officials say it began months earlier, in December, and is now leaking 210,000 to 310,000 cubic feet of gas per day.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has proposed that Hilcorp repair the pipeline by May 1. Immediate repair is "not a viable option" because sea ice, weather conditions and extreme tides make diving dangerous, according to the agency.
Hilcorp has said that shutting down the pipeline could lead to saltwater intrusion — and a crude oil spill.
But in a letter to PHMSA, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and five other groups argue that the leak is an "imminent" hazard to the environment. They ask the agency to issue an emergency order to shut down the pipeline and inspect all of Hilcorp's pipelines in Cook Inlet's Middle Ground Shoal oil field.
"This dangerous leak could stop immediately if regulators did their job and shut down this rickety old pipeline," said Miyoko Sakashita, CBD's oceans program director. "We're disgusted with the Trump administration's lack of concern about this ongoing disaster. Every day the leak continues, this pipeline spews more pollution into Cook Inlet and threatens endangered belugas and other wildlife."
In addition to NRDC and CBD, the letter is signed by Friends of the Earth, Defenders of Wildlife, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, Greenpeace and the Eyak Preservation Council.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has warned that belugas are likely near the leak site, as it is located in their winter foraging area.
"NMFS is particularly concerned that if a significant hypoxic zone is created by a continuous natural gas discharge, Cook Inlet beluga whales and [physical and biological features] of their habitat could be adversely affected," NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator James Balsiger wrote in a Feb. 24 letter. "There are only an estimated 340 remaining Cook Inlet belugas, therefore, significant impacts to any individuals, particularly lethal take, could have population level effects."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051140
-
Freight Train Spills Sulfuric Acid After Crash
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A CSX freight train transporting hazardous materials struck a vehicle on the tracks and derailed yesterday, spilling sulfuric acid.
The lead car ended up on a two-lane road in New York's Hudson Valley.
The 77-car train struck an equipment loader, according to officials, injuring two train crew members. The forklift was crossing the tracks when the train approached and the gates dropped, trapping the machine. The forklift driver escaped.
The train was on its way to Georgia with sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, cardboard, corn oil and glass products.
Hazardous materials teams responded to the minor sulfuric acid leak and some spilled diesel fuel.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051129
-
Former GOP Chairman: 'Extremely Important' to Stay in Pact
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Former Sen. Richard Lugar hopes the Trump administration not only remains within the 2015 Paris climate deal but takes an active role in convincing other countries to do the same.
The Indiana Republican and former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman told E&E News yesterday that undoing the landmark deal would be a diplomatic misstep. It also, he said, would undercut global efforts to contain man-made warming in ways that would jeopardize the "life and property" of U.S. citizens.
"This is going to be extremely important for the United States to participate in and to try to persuade others to do so, or we're going to have great losses in our country as waters come up over our coast or in the interior of our country, rivers overflow residential areas," said Lugar.
The Trump administration is weighing a withdrawal from the agreement the U.S. helped forge under President Obama. While there are some Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill who advocate remaining a party to the agreement, most make the case either that withdrawal would spark too much diplomatic outrage or that the lack of enforcement measures makes it hardly worth pulling out.
Lugar, by contrast, argued the Paris Agreement is scientifically necessary to avoid "genuine global warming."
Lugar suffered a primary loss in 2012 after 36 years in the Senate. But during his time in Congress, he acknowledged man-made climate change and sponsored legislation to cut down on fossil fuels use without pricing carbon. His is still a rare position for a Senate Republican to take.
"This is going to continue to be a debate among the naysayers who say the science community is all wrong on this, and on and on," he acknowledged yesterday. A Paris withdrawal, he added, would indeed take a toll on U.S. clout abroad.
"Other countries will probably still maintain a strong interest in the Paris Agreement, or more importantly in control of CO2 around the world," he said. "The Chinese in particular, with their cities engulfed by horrible pollution day in and day out, are already suffering."
Selling foreign aid as 'America First'
Republican opponents of climate policy frequently argue that China would be called on to do little under the Paris deal. That's because the country's target calls for keeping emissions steady starting in 2030. But most accounts show China drawing down emissions well before that time through a new economywide cap-and-trade program, and the world's second-largest economy has asserted it will not abandon Paris even if the U.S. does.
The U.S. has pledged $3 billion by 2020 toward the United Nations' Green Climate Fund (GCF), of which $2 billion is still owed.
"There is a cost in not delivering in that we as leaders in the world are going to have to work with other countries wherever is possible to make headway against global warming," said Lugar. But he acknowledged the administration would have a hard enough time politically justifying a decision to stay within the Paris deal, and GCF funding would be "a much more difficult sell."
Foreign aid will be a hard sell overall. Trump plans to propose cutting the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development budgets by more than a third in fiscal 2018 to offset large increases in military spending. The proposal has faced pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill, and Lugar agreed.
"The feeling on the part of many who have not studied the problem is that essentially money is being spent on a purely humanitarian basis," Lugar said. Those who support funding soft power efforts must "point out that it's in our interest, strategically."
He credited U.S. foreign aid with helping contain the 2014 and 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, preventing it from spreading abroad, including to the United States. Feeding programs, too, prevent starving populations from taking "desperate measures" that would jeopardize U.S. interests.
The State Department and USAID could introduce reforms, he said, that would boost the effectiveness and accountability of foreign aid expenditures. These might include greater U.S. oversight of programs that are now administered by foreign partners. Those steps may save dollars, as well.
Toner downplays State Department budget cuts
The proposal is not universally panned. One senior official in the George W. Bush White House said there was room to cut the USAID budget, which is riddled with "redundancy, duplication and waste."
"I don't think it will end up being that steep, but I think there's a lot of waste that can be eliminated, and what you would have is likely a more focused and more effective State Department," the official said. "Less bureaucracy to have to cope with."
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has agreed in principle to the White House's 37 percent cut plan, though he has suggested that it be spaced out over three years rather than one. But Tillerson has frequently been seen to take a back-seat role to the White House on foreign policy during his first month in office. He's released few public statements, and until yesterday the department had not held a press briefing since Jan. 19, though they're usually held daily.
"It has been a pretty silent department so far," said Lugar, noting that the Trump White House had been slower to nominate senior staff than past administrations, including Tillerson's deputy.
Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner said during yesterday's first press briefing that Tillerson is "very engaged with the White House, very engaged with the president, [and] speaks to him frequently."
Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO, had spent his early days in office cultivating relationships with foreign counterparts that would make him more effective, Toner said.
Asked about Tillerson's stance on the budget, Toner called the 37 percent number "preliminary" but said Tillerson is consulting with State Department staff to see where it thinks resources are needed.
"Let's face it, the State Department operates on a fairly modest budget in the grand scheme of things," he said. But he said the new team would take a fresh look at past foreign aid priorities.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051097
-
What Will Happen to U.S. Carbon Pricing Under Trump?
Mar 8, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By James Osborne
The United States might not have a national carbon pricing system like Europe has and Canada and Mexico are developing. But it does have a scattering of regional carbon markets, in the northeast and in California.
With President Donald Trump in the White House, some are wondering whether the administration might act to undermine those regional markets in keeping with its pro-business, climate change-skeptic point of view.
Speaking at CERAWeek by IHS Markit Wednesday, Richard Newell, president of the research firm Resources for the Future, said he doesn’t think so.
“I don’t think they’re at risk,” he said. “California is very aware of its importance as a state. They’ve taken on the mantle of being a leader at the regional and local level and view themselves as an international voice on climate.”
So far carbon prices remain relatively low in both California and the northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which caps carbon emissions from the power sector across Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
In RGGI, allowances are trading around $4 per ton, Newell said. By way of comparison, the Canadian oil company Suncor is factoring a carbon price of $60 to $65 per ton on new projects, said Arlene Strom, vice president of sustainability and communications at Suncor.
Carbon pricing, whether through a tax or cap and trade schemes, is gaining momentum worldwide following the Paris agreement on climate change in 2015.
Mexico is in the process of developing a carbon pricing system and is in discussions with both California and countries in South America including Chile and Peru about creating an integrated carbon pricing system, said Dirk Forrister, president of the International Emissions Trading Association.
“You can see this stream of countries forming a carbon system recognizing each other’s [carbon] units,” he said.
But it’s not all so upbeat. For example, last year voters in Washington state voted down a referendum to create a carbon pricing scheme there.
After Paris, “now we have it where every country is taking a stand,” said Kathy Benini, managing director at IHS Markit. “We just have to recognize its a lot of work to get there.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/08/what-will-happen-to-u-s-carbon-pricing-under-trump/
-
EPA Looking for Deal in Ark. Haze Litigation
Mar 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA wants to explore the possibility of settling a tangle of legal challenges to its regional haze rule for Arkansas.
In an unopposed motion submitted yesterday, the agency asked for a 90-day freeze on all court proceedings, including briefing deadlines, "to allow the parties time to determine whether there is common ground to seek settlement on some or all of the issues in these cases."
The motion, which the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved today, came soon after the agency agreed to administratively reconsider some of the issues raised by Entergy Arkansas and other challengers to the haze rule, which was published in September.
In yesterday's court filing, EPA attorneys said the agency intends to issue a 90-day administrative stay on the parts of the rule now under reconsideration.
The haze regulations are aimed at cutting power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that worsen visibility in national wilderness areas in Arkansas and Missouri. Among other steps, Entergy Arkansas will have to retool four generating units at two coal-fired plants with sulfur dioxide scrubbers at a projected cost of $2.2 billion, a company spokeswoman said in September.
EPA's approach has been fiercely opposed by Arkansas elected leaders; state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R), who has asked the appellate court to stay implementation, argued in a filing last month that the plan could imperil the reliability of the state's electric grid (Greenwire, Feb. 28).
It's not unusual for EPA either to pursue lawsuit settlement talks or to administratively reconsider complex regulations. The Arkansas litigation involves "seven petitioners, each with different interest and constituents, a complicated collection of issues and a highly technical record," the motion said.
For the Arkansas chapter of the Sierra Club, which had sued to force EPA regulators to issue the haze plan after they found a state blueprint lacking, the preferred option "is to avoid court whenever possible," Director Glen Hooks said in an interview this morning. "If there's an opportunity to reach an agreement, then we're all for it."
Still to be seen, however, is whether EPA's new tack portends a broader shift under newly installed Administrator Scott Pruitt.
As Oklahoma's attorney general, the Republican fought a losing three-year legal battle against a separate set of haze regulations requiring new pollution curbs on Oklahoma power plants. Like many GOP officeholders, Pruitt has complained that EPA under the Obama administration trampled on state prerogatives; during his Senate confirmation hearing in January, he touted "cooperative federalism" as key "to restoring confidence and certainty in those that are regulated."
An EPA spokesman did not respond to an email this morning asking whether Pruitt had any input into the agency's latest moves on the Arkansas haze rule or whether they could be read as emblematic of a more conciliatory style to state concerns.
In a letter to Pruitt yesterday, Rutledge and GOP elected officials from 18 other states sought a "collaborative arrangement" in pursuing the goals of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and singled out a separate fight over a Texas haze rule as antithetical to that approach (E&E News PM, March 7).
The regional haze program, which dates back to 1999 in its current form, is intended to restore pristine views in 156 national parks and wilderness areas by 2064.
EPA expects the Arkansas rule to eventually cut yearly releases of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 68,500 and 15,100 tons, respectively. Benefiting from the tighter pollution controls will be the Caney Creek Wilderness and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness, both of which are in Arkansas, as well as the Hercules Glades Wilderness and the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri, according to the agency.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/08/stories/1060051145
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested