Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/13/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Set Priorities for Rewrite of NAFTA
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
With the Trump Administration vowing to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, trade groups representing the North American chemical industry say they are open to modernizing the accord. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Outlines Priorities for Modernizing NAFTA
Mar 3, 2017 | CHEManager International
By Elaine Burridge
As US President Donald Trump appears ready to start renegotiating NAFTA – a treaty he has described as a “catastrophe” for the country – industry associations from the US, Canada and Mexico have taken the unusual step of releasing a joint statement defending the free trade agreement and stating their priorities. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Groups Welcome Prospect of NAFTA Revamp
Mar 2, 2017 | Downstream Today
By Staff
Key chemical industry associations from Canada, Mexico and the United States issued a joint statement Wednesday outlining their priorities for a potential renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Firms Exit 2016 With Some Bruises
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
U.S.-based chemical firms failed in their attempts to boost profits in 2016 in the face of an uneven and slow-growing global economy. -
Fish on Prozac
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Ida Emilie Steinmark
Psychiatric medicine has become a go-to remedy for broken spirits and wrecked nerves all over the world. Although it is created to cause physiological effects at low concentrations and designed to significantly alter the consumer’s mood and behaviour, it has long flown under the ecotoxicological radar. -
ECHA Reauthorization Case for Glyphosate Heating Up
Mar 13, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
The European Chemicals Agency's Committee for Risk Assessment is developing an opinion on the classification of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide that is classifiedas a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aiming to adopt a final opinion by the end of November 2017 on whether to extend the authorization for it to continue being used in the European Union. -
Hearing Shut-In Well Concerns, BLM Rule Backers Ask Why
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
For those in favor of keeping the Bureau of Land Management's rule to curb natural gas releases on public lands, claims that the regulation would shut in marginal wells are puzzling. -
Right-Leaning Panel May Decide Fracking Rule's Fate
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A panel of mostly conservative-leaning judges is poised to consider the legality of the Obama administration's landmark rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands. -
Rural Co-Op Group's Matheson Talks Anticipated Power Plan Executive Action
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
Will the Trump administration be more favorable to the needs of rural electric cooperatives compared with the approach that existed under the Obama administration? During today's OnPoint, former Rep. Jim Matheson, now CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, explains what an executive order that unravels the Clean Power Plan could mean for his member groups and how electric co-ops plan to lobby the Trump administration on climate policy. -
Court Sets May 18 Argument in Utility MACT Suits
Mar 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral argument May 18 in two closely-related lawsuits challenging the Obama EPA's air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for power plants, providing a key test of the Trump administration's position on the controversial rule. -
Can the Golden State Go 100% Green?
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's Senate leader wants the Golden State to shift to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045, pushing it to lead the country in grabbing that green power goal. -
Washington State Panel OKs Funds for Safety Improvements at Oil-Train Crossing
Mar 13, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) last week approved nearly $450,000 in grant funds to make safety upgrades at a crossing on an oil train route in Skamania County. -
N.J. Commuter Rail Led Nation in Accidents
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
New Jersey Transit reported the most accidents last year among the 10 largest commuter railroads in the country, according to federal records. -
Pruitt: Congress Should Decide If Agency Can Regulate CO2
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt wants Congress — not his own agency — to decide whether U.S. EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases. -
Meteorologists Rebuke Pruitt for CO2 Comment
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The head of the American Meteorological Society issued the latest rebuke today to U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's statement that he does not believe carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming. -
Enviros Demand Records on Pruitt's Climate Stance
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The Natural Resources Defense Council has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with U.S. EPA for all documents or meetings that influenced Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial statement to CNBC concerning humans' contribution to climate change. -
Will Merkel Stand Up to Trump on Climate Change?
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to raise climate change directly and publicly when she meets for the first time with President Trump tomorrow.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Set Priorities for Rewrite of NAFTA
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
With the Trump Administration vowing to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, trade groups representing the North American chemical industry say they are open to modernizing the accord. The American Chemistry Council, the Chemical Industry Association of Canada, and the Mexican Chemical Industry National Association say NAFTA has greatly benefited the industry, created jobs, and made the region more competitive globally. Trade in chemicals among the three NAFTA countries more than tripled from $20 billion in 1994 to more than $63 billion in 2014. But the groups say they are open to updating NAFTA, outlining priorities such as strengthening cross-border data protection, setting new standards for state-owned companies, and streamlining customs procedures. “Most importantly, all chemical products are traded duty-free under NAFTA, and a modernized NAFTA should maintain this policy,” the industry associations say in a joint statement. It’s unclear what changes the White House will seek in the trilateral trade agreement, but the GOP-led Congress is considering border adjustment import taxes and other measures that would upend the current tariff-free arrangement.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i11/Chemical-makers-set-priorities-rewrite.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Outlines Priorities for Modernizing NAFTA
Mar 3, 2017 | CHEManager International
By Elaine Burridge
As US President Donald Trump appears ready to start renegotiating NAFTA – a treaty he has described as a “catastrophe” for the country – industry associations from the US, Canada and Mexico have taken the unusual step of releasing a joint statement defending the free trade agreement and stating their priorities.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC) and the Mexican Chemical Industry National Association (ANIQ) said NAFTA’s success lies in the economic partnerships and supply chain synergies and efficiencies that have been created through reduced barriers to trade. They noted that since NAFTA entered into force, trade in chemicals between the three jurisdictions has more than tripled, from $20 billion in 1994 to $63 billion in 2014.
However, they conceded that while NAFTA has delivered important gains for the North American chemicals sector, the trade deal could have an even larger impact if it reflected progress in regulatory, customs, transportation and communication practices and procedures.
Their statement was issued just two days after Trump aide and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross – owner of major chemical distributor Nexeo Solutions – was confirmed by the Senate as commerce secretary. Ross is expected to be a key player in renegotiating the 23-year old pact with Canada and Mexico, something he has been reported as saying would be a “top priority” in his appointment.
ACC, CIAC and ANIQ said the most important issue for a new NAFTA would be to maintain the existing duty-free status of chemical products traded between the three countries. Both during his campaign and after his election, Trump has threatened to impose high tariffs against imports from Mexico.
In addition, a modernized NAFTA should facilitate digital trade, set key standards - such as on the competitive practises of state-owned enterprises - and close inefficiencies on trade disciplines, including rules of origin and duty drawback, the associations said.
They added that they would also advocate for enhanced regulatory cooperation commitments, which would provide a significant boost to innovation, growth and jobs.
http://www.chemanager-online.com/en/news-opinions/headlines/industry-outlines-priorities-modernizing-nafta
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Groups Welcome Prospect of NAFTA Revamp
Mar 2, 2017 | Downstream Today
By Staff
Key chemical industry associations from Canada, Mexico and the United States issued a joint statement Wednesday outlining their priorities for a potential renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
"NAFTA set the global standard for free trade agreements 23 years ago, and we look forward to its modernization to further improve continental trade of chemistry products," said Bob Masterson, president and CEO of the Chemical Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), which released the statement with Mexico's Asociación Nacional de la Industria Química (ANIQ) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Although NAFTA has helped the chemicals trade among the three countries to grow from $20 billion in 1994 to more than $63 billion today, the trade deal could spur even more growth in the sector by reflecting recent progress in regulatory, customs, transportation and communication practices and procedures, the groups argue.
"CIAC, ACC and ANIQ welcome opportunities to work with our respective governments to re-examine and strengthen NAFTA, with a focus on delivering enhanced benefits for the region's businesses, workers and consumers," a CIAC press release stated. "We are united in our support of a comprehensive review and modernization of NAFTA that energizes economic growth and job creation in North America, and we are ready to help drive it."
http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=55554&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Firms Exit 2016 With Some Bruises
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
U.S.-based chemical firms failed in their attempts to boost profits in 2016 in the face of an uneven and slow-growing global economy. The 19 chemical companies tracked by C&EN largely met earnings expectations for the final quarter. But for the full year, sales declined 5.3%, mainly because of lower raw material costs, while earnings fell 8.7%.
The picture looked rosier for the 17 firms that are not in the fertilizer business. Their combined earnings slipped . . .
In January, manufacturing activity expanded for a third straight month, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the main trade group for U.S. chemical companies. “Production was higher in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including food and beverages, appliances, construction supplies, machinery, electronics, semiconductors, petroleum refining, iron and steel . . .
Full Article accessible with login: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i11/Chemical-firms-exit-2016-bruises.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Ida Emilie Steinmark
Psychiatric medicine has become a go-to remedy for broken spirits and wrecked nerves all over the world. Although it is created to cause physiological effects at low concentrations and designed to significantly alter the consumer’s mood and behaviour, it has long flown under the ecotoxicological radar. However, evidence has been emerging in the last five years of the polluting effects of pharmaceuticals, specifically antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs. And it turns out that we are unintentionally forcing them on wild animals.
It doesn’t feature much in the wider discussion of pollution, because it’s not like we periodically witness a Prozac-induced wildlife catastrophe with scores of dead animals washing up on the shore like an oil spill. Although the endocrine disrupting effects of contraceptive drugs on fish and frogs are well known, in general pharmaceutical pollution isn’t something you can take a picture of. But imagine what happens when, as has been extensively shown, this type of psychiatric medicine makes it into the wild. For Jonatan Klaminder, an ecologist at Umeå University in Sweden, it’s straightforward. ‘It’s not science fiction to think there will be a therapeutic effect,’ he says. He is not mistaken: it’s calming the nerves and improving the moods of wildlife all around us. This is pollution that makes animals feel better.
A new state of mind
One of the biggest causes of therapeutic pollution is benzodiazepines, or ‘benzos’, the most famous of which is diazepam, better known as Valium. Consisting of a benzene and a diazepene ring with various modifications, it is an anti-anxiety heavyweight, used to treat a variety of mental illnesses. Benzos work by enhancing the effect of the neurotransmitter GABA that causes neurons to reduce their communication with each other; in other words, the brain goes quiet. In evolutionary terms this mechanism is ancient, and so the target for the benzo mechanism is conserved across many, many species. As a result, the experienced effect – a reduced sense of stress and anxiety – is the roughly the same, both in humans and in, for example, fish and birds.
Klaminder and his colleagues have shown that benzos, and specifically a drug called oxazepam, are found in Swedish rivers. Rivers full of fish. So they decided to take some perch, a common freshwater fish, and expose them to oxazepam in a laboratory study.1 Crucially, the exposure concentration was environmentally relevant and comparable to that observed in the field. What happened was a profound change. The fish became less fearful, more active and put more effort into feeding. In fact, they lived better and longer than their completely clean counterparts. Their mortality rate went down. In short, it seemed this particular type of pollution had improved the lives of the previously anxious fish. Klaminder also has strong reasons to believe that similar effects can be seen in wild perch. Firstly because when caught the fish have comparable concentrations in their systems, and secondly, when you expose fish in the wild to oxazepam they show similar behavioural changes.2
It was an astounding finding, but it is not just benzodiazepines that make fish loosen up and chill out – antidepressants do too. They work generally by regulating monoamine neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which are also very old in evolutionary terms and therefore widespread across species. In several species of fish, antidepressants seem to suppress territorial aggression and promote sociability and boldness. One fish in which such changes are clearly observed is the fathead minnow. Bryan Brooks, an environmental scientist at Baylor University in Texas, US, has seen how antidepressants lessen their most fundamental anxieties.2 ‘These fish will tend to hide in daylight,’ he says. ‘It’s basically anxiety behaviour.’ The fathead minnows usually forage during night time instead. When exposed to setraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-type antidepressant marketed as Zoloft, however, this pattern flips. ‘[Being exposed to the drug] induced anti-anxiety behaviour,’ Brooks says. The fish started feeding during daytime, leaving their worries at the door. ‘We might have expected this based on how this antidepressant works in humans,’ he adds.
The downside of therapy
To most people, pollution that improves the welfare and fitness of wildlife and give them longer, healther, maybe even happier lives hardly qualifies as pollution at all. Unfortunately, therapeutic pollution isn’t always as therapeutic as it sounds. The results were observed in the safe atmosphere of the lab aquarium – and there is a vast difference between that and the real world.
‘It’s important to remember that even though the drug in a lab environment increases survival rate of the fish, in the natural environment it could be eaten,’ Klaminder says. In the wild, fear and a sense of risk play a huge role in keeping animals alive, mainly by keeping them away from predators. If a fish becomes too relaxed or too brave it will likely become prey. That is the exact situation for the fathead minnows: the very real prospect of potentially being eaten, or the eggs in the nest being eaten, is responsible for the shelter-seeking behaviour. Changing that behaviour could be devastating to the population in the wild. ‘Behavioural responses can be highly important, ecologically,’ says Brooks. ‘If you can’t attract a mate, can’t avoid a predator, can’t access prey – you’re doomed!’
Additionally, just like with humans, there are medicinal side effects to worry about. Kathryn Arnold is a behavioural ecologist at the University of York in the UK, and she has seen the side effects in her own subjects. ‘Humans taking Prozac [fluoxetine] have altered feeding and weight, and changes to cortisol and libido,’ she explains. Birds, it turns out, aren’t so different. In her study, they captured wild starlings and fed the experimental group wax worms containing Prozac at environmentally relevant concentrations.4 ‘A normal bird would have a hearty breakfast, and then snack slightly throughout the day,’ she says. ‘And then they would have supper. However, the Prozac-treated birds didn’t have breakfast or a hearty supper. They only snacked.’
Not feeding in the right way could be very dangerous to the birds, and it doesn’t end there. ‘This year we will publish that female starlings are less interested in the opposite sex, and show a reduced libido,’ Arnold says, confirming that other human side effects also have found their way into bird behaviour. ‘We don’t see a mass die-off. Instead, we see animals who don’t do a certain thing properly, which ought to come naturally.’ On top of all this, there is the risk to the overall ecosystem – if one organism benefits or suffers disproportionally, it can cause a serious imbalance.
Persistently under the radar
Psychiatric drugs in the environment are a double-edged sword, raising questions why their polluting effect hasn’t been highlighted in ecotoxicological tests and propelled to the front pages. The main issue is that pharmaceuticals in general are thought to break down quickly and so are not considered to be persistent. However, if you look closer that justification does not seem to hold water. ‘Recent studies show that anti-anxiety drugs are really persistent in the environment,’ Klaminder says. ‘Particularly [oxazepam] from the early 70s can still be found in the bottom of rivers with almost no degradation.’ Oxazepam was first marketed in 1965 and shows up in sediments dating back to 1972. It makes its way into rivers and lakes from the wastewaters of hospitals and private homes because water treatment plants currently don’t remove it. ‘The concentration is just building up, because of urbanisation,’ Klaminder says. Although the consumption of the drug has fallen in the studied area since the nineties, a continuous in-flow of people is keeping levels high.
Brooks agrees: the constant release of the drugs means they might as well be persistent. ‘Many of these chemicals would not be considered persistent in the environment, but because they’re consistently being used, they are persistent-like,’ he explains. ‘Even molecules that don’t stick around for so long, because they’re continually being released into these urban rivers, organisms in these rivers are being continually exposed to these substances.’ From that perspective, it is not enough to simply consider concentration and degradation time.
Another issue has been the lack of adequate bio-tools. A biological tool is a small organism that allow ecologists to evaluate water quality based on how the organism reacts to the water, specifically whether it is able to survive and reproduce. But for pharmaceuticals, the right tools have gone undiscovered. ‘We historally have developed environmental assessment tools generally to address some of the biggest issues: heavy metals, pesticides,’ Brooks explains. ‘[But] if you were to use these toxicology tools to determine whether or not one of these [pharmaceutical] compounds were present at levels that could cause problems for say, fish in the Thames, you could make a six order of magnitude mistake.’ This has meant there have been hurdles to investigating even the most basic questions about this type of pollution.
The trick here, Brooks explains, is to recognise which organisms might be sensitive to pharmaceutical compounds. ‘We have to embrace the idea that fish and other types of aquatic vertebrates – frogs, salamanders – are more similar to us,’ Brooks says. ‘We’re designing medicines inherently to elicit biological responses in humans or in animals, [so] if we can understand the evolutionary relationships and the evolutionary conservation of the targets for drugs, then we may be able to identify which organisms are more, or less, sensitive to these molecules.’
Finally, there are the behavioural assays. ‘Positive’ outcomes for animals can’t currently be detected in standard ecotoxicological tests, and as we have seen, the changes seen in animals from psychiatric pollution is not necessarily about all of them dropping dead or getting very ill. Klaminder thinks the subtle changes could be as detrimental, and only behavioural tests will be able to identify them. Arnold agrees: ‘The issue is really to get a behaviour part of the risk assessment,’ she says. ‘Especially risk-taking behaviour, as an animal that is bolder has higher risk of predation.’ Being systematically blind to the beneficial impacts of drug exposure could well translate into completely overlooking impending threats to certain animal populations, or worse, entire ecosystems.
Chemical challenges
How we might eventually be able to deal with the problem, once we have it all laid out, is still somewhat vague. Water treatment technologies exist that could bring the pharmaceutical waste to very low levels, although these are incredibly energy intensive. Another approach is drug take-back programs, where patients hand back their unused medication instead of flushing it down the drain – but this doesn’t catch the release from hospitals, nor does it prevent metabolites of used pharmaceuticals from entering the waterways.
Brooks believes in a combination of short-term green engineering and long-term green chemistry. Constructed wetlands can work as a ‘bio-filter’ to naturally treat wastewater streams through soil, vegetation and microorganisms, and can be implemented in a variety of places, though they do take up a lot of space. In the future though, Brooks hopes that chemists can help to remove the issue once and for all. ‘Can we design chemicals to have functions that have inherently reduced environmental hazard profiles?’ he asks. This is currently the focus of an interdisciplinary collaboration he is involved with, but as they wrote in their 2015 Science editorial, they recognise that it is ‘a great challenge’.5 Many chemists would probably think that an understatement.
Arnold, however, highlights the central issue, and the biggest hindrance to a satisfying solution. ‘The problem is: who has responsibility? Who is the polluter? Is it pharma, is it water companies, is it the consumer?’ she asks. The answer is far from clear.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/feature/antidepressant-pollution/2500495.article
-
ECHA Reauthorization Case for Glyphosate Heating Up
Mar 13, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
The European Chemicals Agency's Committee for Risk Assessment is developing an opinion on the classification of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide that is classifiedas a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aiming to adopt a final opinion by the end of November 2017 on whether to extend the authorization for it to continue being used in the European Union. Stakeholders on both sides of the question are weighing in, and ECHA has posted two letters on its website this month stressing there are no conflicts of interest by the committee's chairman, Tim Bowmer, or two of its members.
The letters written by Geert Dancet, ECHA's executive director, are addressed to Jorgo Riss, director of the Greenpeace European Unit. In a March 8 letter to Dancet, Riss alleged that ECHA has failed to apply its own rules on conflicts of interest. "Conflicts of interest related to industry consultancy cannot simply be declared. They must be ruled out," Riss wrote. "ECHA's conflicts of interest policy requires that experts declare the 'provision of an expert opinion or testimony in the regulatory field of activity of ECHA for a commercial entity or other organisation, as part of a regulatory, legislative or judicial process.' The definition of scientific criteria for endocrine disruptors is the subject of an ongoing regulatory process. If an expert opinion in relation to this process can be omitted from the declaration of interests, the requirement to disclose such interests may as well be scrapped. These rules only make sense if they are enforced."
ECHA conducted a public consultation on glyphosate last summer and accepted more than 300 comments on its use. The authorization for using it in the EU has expired and been extended until the end of 2017 as the agency decides whether to extend it for another 15 years.
Stakeholders including the Health and Environment Alliance, the European Food Safety Authority, and the Glyphosate Task Force have offered opinions to the agency on the safety of glyphosate, including at a December 2016 committee meeting, with EFSA concluding in its presentation there that the overall evidence is inconclusive for a causal link between glyphosate and cancer in human studies.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/03/13/echa-reauthorization-case-for-glyphosate-heating-up.aspx?admgarea=news
-
Hearing Shut-In Well Concerns, BLM Rule Backers Ask Why
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
For those in favor of keeping the Bureau of Land Management's rule to curb natural gas releases on public lands, claims that the regulation would shut in marginal wells are puzzling.
Republican lawmakers, invoking powers granted under the Congressional Review Act, have proposed a measure to repeal BLM's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, introduced last year by President Obama's Interior Department. The CRA resolution passed the House by a 221-191 vote, but uncertainty around the outcome of a Senate vote has delayed action in the upper chamber (Energywire, March 8).
Energy industry groups and local business associations have said the BLM rule could stifle output from small independent producers (Energywire, Feb. 21). The New Mexico Business Coalition (NMBC) has estimated that the rule could shutter as many as 21,000 natural gas wells in the state's northwest corner. Bringing each well into compliance could cost as much as $50,000, according to NMBC President Carla Sonntag.
But the intent of BLM's rule was that the agency would honor legitimate requests for cost-based exemptions, said Alexandra Teitz, former counselor to BLM Director Neil Kornze. To apply for an exemption, an operator would simply submit information showing that compliance would be too cost-prohibitive, she said.
"The claim that the waste rule would cause widespread well shut-ins is refuted by the rule's own language. Every major requirement to reduce flaring, venting or leaks includes an exemption for any operator who shows that the cost would cause the operator to shut in a lease," Teitz said. "BLM included these exemptions to ensure that the rule would boost production, not harm it — but the exemptions are being conveniently ignored by those predicting shut-ins."
She indicated at least six exemptions outlined in BLM's final rule, all of which call for operators to be excused from compliance where they would be forced to "cease production and abandon significant recoverable oil reserves under the lease" (see sidebar).
Exemptions at issue
BLM's final Methane and Waste Prevention Rule contains at least six exemptions to provisions that might cause an operator to incur costs so high as to require shutting in a well. All exemptions are subject to BLM's approval:
1. Section 3179.8(a): Alternative gas capture (flaring) requirement — BLM may approve a gas capture percentage lower than its final rule allows if an operator demonstrates that the federal limit would be cost-prohibitive. BLM's goal increases incrementally from 85 percent in 2018 to 98 percent in 2026, modeling North Dakota's flexible capture target.
2. Section 3179.102(c): Well completion and related operations — After a well has been hydraulically fractured or refractured, gas that surfaces must be captured and sold; directed to a flare pit or flare stack; used in operations on the lease; or injected. An operator may be exempted if such action would be too costly.
3. Section 3179.201(b)(4): Equipment requirements for pneumatic controllers — An operator must replace a pneumatic controller with a bleed rate of 6 standard cubic feet per hour or less, unless the company can demonstrate that such action would require them to shut in the well.
4. Section 3179.202(f): Requirements for pneumatic diaphragm pumps — A requirement to replace a pump or reroute exhaust gas may be waived if an operator can show that it is economically infeasible.
5. Section 3179.203(c)(3): Storage vessels — If a storage vessel has the potential for volatile organic compound emissions equal to or greater than 6 tons per year, it must be replaced, unless the operator can show that the switch would be prohibitively expensive.
6. Section 3179.303(c): Leak detection inspection requirements — BLM may approve an alternative leak detection program for an operator that can demonstrate that compliance with the federal requirement would shut in production.
But the rule's exemptions carry little meaning for industry, said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma. The regulation opens the door to BLM second-guessing companies' economics, she said.
Sgamma questioned whether firms would have to wait a year or two before their exemptions are approved. Until an exemption is granted, the operator would have to comply, she said.
"You might as well have shut in the well anyway," she said. "That carries serious implications. That's a lot of uncertainty."
Eric Waeckerlin, an attorney who has represented the Western Energy Alliance against the rule, said BLM failed to define "significant recoverable oil reserves," leaving interpretations of that threshold up to the states and the bureau's field offices.
"They haven't defined a key term in the regulation," Waeckerlin said. "Without that definition, it's hard to understand as an operator what's going to qualify for an exemption and what's not."
In its notice of proposed rulemaking, BLM said the previous standard — abandonment of recoverable oil reserves — set in its Notice to Lessees 4A for approving venting or flaring of natural gas led to rubber-stamp approvals of exemptions.
"In particular, in some instances in the past, even small net costs have been viewed as meeting the test under NTL-4A, as any net cost might theoretically cause an operator to abandon a well earlier than it otherwise would have," BLM wrote. "In light of the BLM's statutory obligation to reduce waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and leaks, however, the BLM believes that an operator must demonstrate more than a negligible economic impact in order to qualify for an exemption from the flaring limit."
While the methane rule was designed to set a more stringent threshold, it assigns no numerical value to its "significant recoverable oil reserves" standard.
Even taking into account a definition of that standard, the BLM rule excludes future wells and low-producing "stripper wells," which the bureau has said represent 85 percent of federal wells in production, said Mark Barron, a partner at the law firm BakerHostetler.
"In the end, the 'exemptions' that supporters of the rule laud apply to no more than 15 percent of the producing wells on existing leases and none of any wells driven on future leases," he said. "Using BLM's own math and the agency's explanations in the preamble, it's hard to argue that the 'exemptions' are anything more than symbolic."
Industry's cost arguments failed to compel a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to grant a preliminary injunction on the BLM rule earlier this year (Energywire, Jan. 17). Judge Scott Skavdahl, an Obama appointee, found that the rule's implementation would not inhibit oil and gas production to the extent that it would irreparably affect state economic interests.
"[T]he Rule provides for several economic exemptions where an operator shows, and BLM concurs, that compliance with the Rule's requirements 'would impose such costs as to cause the operator to cease production and abandon significant recoverable oil reserves under the lease,'" Skavdahl wrote in his decision.
He did, however, raise concerns about BLM's application of the "social cost of methane" metric in a rule designed to regulate resource conservation — a major point of contention between those who wish to trash the methane rule under the CRA and those who wish to keep it.
Skavdahl ultimately concluded that Interior was entitled to Chevron deference, which grants agencies the power to reasonably interpret ambiguous statutes.
Variances
BLM also allows for variances in cases where its methane rule overlaps with U.S. EPA, state or tribal requirements.
"With respect to State, local, or tribal rules, the final rule allows a State or tribe to request a variance from a particular BLM regulation," the rule says. "If the variance is granted, the BLM has the authority to enforce the specific provisions of the State, local, or tribal rule for which the variance was granted, in lieu of the comparable provisions of the BLM rule."
In a Nov. 28, 2016, memorandum supporting the motion for preliminary injunction against the methane rule, lawyers for the states of Wyoming and Montana wrote that BLM had failed to address industry concerns about regulatory overlap. The attorneys questioned the language around BLM's role in cases where variances are granted.
"The Bureau's variance process included in its Venting and Flaring Rule would not mitigate these harms. If anything, it would exacerbate them," they wrote. "The variance process would not allow states to maintain sovereignty. Rather, it is a mechanism through which the Bureau improperly seeks to grant itself authority to enforce state regulations."
But BLM is unable to withdraw from its inspection and enforcement responsibilities, Teitz said.
"In essence, in granting a variance, the BLM is agreeing to substitute state requirements for BLM requirements for operators in a state," she said. "However, the BLM does not, and probably could not legally, abdicate its responsibilities under the Mineral Leasing Act and other laws to oversee production of federal and Indian minerals, prevent waste, and collect royalties, which it carries out through inspection and enforcement activities.
"Under a variance, the BLM would still be responsible for overseeing production of federal minerals, but the BLM would enforce the state standards rather than the BLM standards."
In his order denying the motion for preliminary injunction, Skavdahl noted the possibility of regulatory overlap.
"The Rule further empowers the BLM to enforce the state or tribal rules if the variance is granted, creating the potential for inconsistent or conflicting enforcement," he wrote.
Industry has expressed concern that the paperwork requirements for variance and exemption applications and for new planning requirements would be too onerous.
"It is particularly troubling because many of the rule's administrative and reporting components duplicate reporting requirements that already exist under state law," Barron said. "So what we are left with are compliance costs for paperwork that does not result in any incremental increase in environmental protection."
Where states and companies are eligible for variances and exemptions, the paperwork requirements don't appear to be overly burdensome, said Warren King, an energy specialist at the Wilderness Society and a former regulator within the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division.
"There's a lot of information BLM asks for, but in my experience, that wouldn't be anything an operator wouldn't already have on hand," King said.
State cases
Because Colorado has its own methane regulations, the state is expected to be broadly excused from BLM's requirements.
But there are a few gaps between Colorado's Regulation 7 and the BLM rule that leave room for uncertainty, said American Petroleum Institute spokesman Michael Tadeo.
One key difference is the frequency of equipment leak checks. BLM requires semi-annual inspections, but Colorado has created a tiered system that lessens the burden on small producers, Tadeo said. Because Colorado's requirement is less stringent, there's some confusion as to whether the state's regulations could be considered less protective than the federal rule.
If BLM's rule superceded the state, that would constitute "another example of a 'one size fits all' solution to a problem that demanded more nuance," Tadeo wrote in an email.
Will Toor, a member of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, said he expected the state's oil and gas companies could enjoy a more equal competitive environment under the BLM rule.
"There's something to be said for having similar rules implemented beyond the state's borders," he said, noting that he was not speaking on the commission's behalf.
BLM's regulation, if it is allowed to stand, could add new protections for Colorado's tribal lands and place restrictions on flaring where there currently are none, said Dan Grossman, national director of state oil and gas programs for the Environmental Defense Fund.
In North Dakota, where state regulations reduced flaring from 30 percent to 10 percent of gas extracted from the Bakken Shale, the state is likely to receive a variance on federal flaring limitations, Grossman said.
"This rule was designed this way with the variance process so that states would have elbow room in the way they regulated oil and gas," he said.
By definition, passing a CRA resolution to eliminate the methane rule altogether removes BLM from the discussion, since the statute says a regulation may not be reissued in "substantially the same form" as a disapproved rule.
The Western Energy Alliance has proposed a narrower regulation on natural gas capture, but because the CRA had only been invoked once prior to this year, determining whether a follow-up rule is substantially similar is uncharted territory (Energywire, Feb. 1).
If the federal government is blocked from addressing the issues that fall under the BLM rule, there would likely be a renewed call for states to tackle waste issues. But an act of Congress to allow BLM to go back and address leaking, venting and royalty issues seems unlikely, Grossman said.
"We would certainly want to be a part of those conversations, but we simply can't if the resolution passes," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051313
-
Right-Leaning Panel May Decide Fracking Rule's Fate
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A panel of mostly conservative-leaning judges is poised to consider the legality of the Obama administration's landmark rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday revealed the three judges presiding over a high-stakes legal battle that centers on whether the federal government has authority to regulate fracking at all.
The panel comprises two George W. Bush appointees, Judges Jerome Holmes and Harris Hartz, and one Clinton appointee, Judge Mary Beck Briscoe.
At issue in the lawsuit is whether the Bureau of Land Management overstepped its authority in issuing a rule that sets new requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracking on public and tribal lands. A federal district court struck down the rule last summer, and the 10th Circuit is now considering an appeal from the federal government and environmentalists.
It's unclear whether the Trump administration plans to continue defending the fracking rule. Justice Department lawyers are scheduled to notify the court this week of any changes in their legal position, which would likely delay proceedings in the case (Energywire, March 10).
If the appeal goes forward as planned, Holmes, Hartz and Briscoe will hear oral arguments March 22. The judges' records on natural resources issues are mixed.
Briscoe has handled a number of significant public lands cases, including a decision in 2012 to uphold several felony convictions of Tim DeChristopher, an activist who falsely bid on federal oil and gas leases in an attempt to stymie development. In 2008, she denied a request from environmentalists seeking to block the construction of a natural gas pipeline through national forests in Colorado.
Among Holmes' notable public lands cases is a 2011 decision that rejected arguments from mining companies and off-highway vehicle users opposed to the Interior Department's roadless rule. He authored a unanimous opinion upholding the rule, finding that it did not violate the Wilderness Act or National Environmental Policy Act.
Holmes also backed Interior in several cases dealing with public lands development plans that faced opposition from environmental groups.
Likewise, Hartz has sided with the government in many environmental cases, including a 2011 challenge to a Forest Service-approved plan for coalbed methane development in Colorado and a 2008 challenge to timber projects in a Utah forest. Last year, however, he handed environmentalists a small procedural victory in a case dealing with jurisdiction over roads that cross public lands in Utah.
Hartz and Holmes were frequent donors to Republican politicians before they joined the 10th Circuit.
All three judges appear to have a relatively strong history of deferring to Interior's expertise in public lands matters — an issue that may play a role in the fracking rule litigation. A key question in the case is whether the court should accept the agency's interpretation of federal laws that address jurisdiction over oil and gas development.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051339
-
Rural Co-Op Group's Matheson Talks Anticipated Power Plan Executive Action
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
Will the Trump administration be more favorable to the needs of rural electric cooperatives compared with the approach that existed under the Obama administration? During today's OnPoint, former Rep. Jim Matheson, now CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, explains what an executive order that unravels the Clean Power Plan could mean for his member groups and how electric co-ops plan to lobby the Trump administration on climate policy.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is former Congressman Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Jim, it's nice to see you again.
Jim Matheson: Oh, it's great to be here again.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Jim, E&E News has reported that the White House is not currently intending to replace the Clean Power Plan once an executive order to unravel the plan is released. What is your reaction to the change in direction that we're seeing on the power plan between the Obama administration and the Trump administration, and what does it mean, ultimately, for your member organizations?
Jim Matheson: Yeah, the overriding reaction is we're glad we're going to have a change from what the Obama administration Clean Power Plan had been. It was structured in a way that we thought was an overreach. We as the electric co-ops were participating in the litigation that resulted in the Supreme Court actually issuing a stay, so we think we had a lot of merit in our complaints about the Clean Power Plan. It really would have hurt electric co-ops. Some of our folks would have been very economically disadvantaged by having it go through, so we're pleased the Trump administration wants to take a look at changing from where we were. We think that's really important for the future of electric co-ops.
Monica Trauzzi: But does an outright refusal to replace the CPP provide your member groups with enough certainty?
Jim Matheson: I think taking the existing rule that's still on the books — it's being held in stay by the Supreme Court, but it still exists. Moving that off the books is going to be really important to the electric co-ops. What it looks like if there's something on the books or a replacement instead, that's less of an importance to us than moving away from what is written now because, again, as I said, the way it's structured, it'd be really tough on a lot of our members.
Monica Trauzzi: Would you like to see the power plan replaced with something else?
Jim Matheson: You know, I think that — I think that's open to some conjecture about what's the best path to take, and I think the Trump administration, I assume, is going to be looking at whether it makes sense to replace it with a different version or take it out altogether. As I said, for me, those are two choices that are both far preferable to where we are today, which is what the rule that is on the books. So we want to sit down with the Trump administration as a representative of the electric co-ops, offer our thoughts about what works and what doesn't work and what it really means for our consumers. That's really the pitch we want to make.
Monica Trauzzi: And what will you lobby for when you sit down with them?
Jim Matheson: We're going to lobby for — primarily, it's for flexibility. You know, electric co-ops are in 47 different states. We're all over the map in terms of our circumstances, too, and what we want is the flexibility to make the right decisions for our members. We don't need these regulations that put onerous requirements on us, force us, quite frankly, to shut down power plants that aren't even paid for yet really hits our member consumers in the pocketbook in a significant way, and we just don't want that.
Monica Trauzzi: A lot of planning, though, has already gone into meeting the requirements of the CPP. Many utilities are making investments that will put them well beyond what the power plan is calling for. So is some kind of policy mechanism even necessary when we see the market sort of going in that direction of emissions reduction?
Jim Matheson: I think you're right that the broad markets are going in that direction, but if you look at individual utilities, some have multiple power plants, and shutting down one may not be such significant action. For electric co-ops where we don't own a lot of different power plants within a specific co-op, that one co-op — that one power plant may be a significant part of their asset base, so shutting down one is a big deal for certain co-ops. We actually think electric co-ops were more significantly affected by the Clean Power Plan than other parts of the electric industry because of the way we're structured. So for us, it's a big deal if you shut down a plant.
Monica Trauzzi: But the story for your folks has also been evolving and changing over the last couple of years. You're just reporting that by the end of 2017, the total solar energy capacity for co-ops will be five times what it was two years ago. What have been the key drivers behind that?
Jim Matheson: We've learned that the implementation, what's called community solar, as opposed to rooftop, really has a lot of economic advantages, and so we have been at the forefront of promoting community solar. In fact, 75 percent of all community solar in America is owned by electric co-ops. We pride ourselves on the fact that we're innovative and we're also completely consumer-driven. We've had a lot of success with that program, as you've just suggested. Particularly in the last year, we've doubled our solar capacity, and that trend is going to continue.
Monica Trauzzi: And this is ultimately driving you towards emissions reductions, yeah?
Jim Matheson: There's no question that that's one of the outcomes, but it's also got to be economically viable for our consumers, and that's one of the criteria we always look at, but we've been leaders on innovation when it comes to community solar. Also with community storage, you may be familiar with our program where we have grid-enabled hot water heaters where we can use them, in effect, as batteries, and we take advantage particularly in western Minnesota for the wind power that's so cheap at night. We fire up all those hot water heaters. They can't fire during the day during peak electric times. We can store up to a gigawatt of power in one of our co-ops, just among 65,000 hot water heaters that we use as storage.
Monica Trauzzi: Ultimately, do you believe that the Trump administration will be more favorable, or what you perceive as favorable, towards your member groups?
Jim Matheson: There's no question that the Trump administration, with its regulatory reform agenda, is going to offer greater flexibility for our members to do what's best for their consumers, and that's really all we ask for. We are a consumer-driven organization by definition, and we want that flexibility to meet those consumer needs.
Monica Trauzzi: I know you recently wrapped NRECA's annual meeting in San Diego. Overall tone and message coming from your member groups?
Jim Matheson: We had a fantastic annual meeting, and there was a lot of optimism about the future. The fact that co-ops recognize all the change that's happening at the consumer level with smartphones, with smart thermostats, with so many devices in the house that are smart now, and since we have that relationship directly with the consumer as a co-op, we feel like we're best positioned to work with them, to help realize value and be a partner, so we're excited about all these technological changes that are happening. From a co-op perspective, we think it's just going to continue what's been a great member relationship.
Monica Trauzzi:All right, a lot to keep watching. Thanks for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
Jim Matheson: OK, thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2209/transcript
-
Court Sets May 18 Argument in Utility MACT Suits
Mar 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral argument May 18 in two closely-related lawsuits challenging the Obama EPA's air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for power plants, providing a key test of the Trump administration's position on the controversial rule.
In a March 10 order, the court set argument for the the same day in Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al. and ARIPPA, et al. v. EPA, et al.
The order underscores the court's earlier decision to reject industry and state requests to delay briefing in the case to allow time to negotiate a settlement with the Trump administration.
In Murray, industry and states are urging the court to overturn EPA's revised finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants under a MACT, a legal prerequisite to the rule itself. The Supreme Court in a 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA voted 5-4 to force EPA to revise the finding to include consideration of implementation costs, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia in his opinion for the court said the agency wrongly excluded.
The Murray suit challenges EPA's April 25 revised cost finding as inadequate. Opponents of the MACT rule say the finding falls far short of a full cost-benefit analysis of the rule, but EPA in the case has argued Scalia's opinion requires no such fully-developed analysis.
The suit will test that proposition, assuming the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to defend its case -- which it might not if the Trump EPA determines that the cost finding fails to meet Trump administration policy on reducing regulatory costs.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sued EPA in the Murray suit as Oklahoma attorney general, and the state remains a party to the case.
Environmentalists intervening in the case have threatened to continue the finding's defense, and that of the MACT itself, if DOJ abruptly changes course.
The same panel three-judge panel, yet to be announced, will hear arguments in ARIPPA, a suit that pits the power-sector Utility Air Regulatory Group and Pennsylvania utility ARIPPA against EPA with respect to aspects of the MACT that the agency declined to reconsider under Obama-era Administrator Gina McCarthy.
UARG alleges that the MACT rule is seriously flawed, and therefore excessively stringent, because air monitoring samples used to develop the rule were chemically contaminated. ARIPPA, meanwhile, claims that EPA unreasonably failed to reconsider emissions limits under the MACT that its power plants struggle to meet because of the unique properties of their coal-waste fuel.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Can the Golden State Go 100% Green?
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's Senate leader wants the Golden State to shift to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045, pushing it to lead the country in grabbing that green power goal.
Environmentalists are cheering California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León's (D) plan to double, and accelerate, the state's current renewables mandate of 50 percent by 2050. Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio even tweeted his thanks to de León among his 17 million followers.
The nation's most populous state switching to fully renewable electricity sounds idealistic. But several experts said it can be done — with a lot depending on definitions, technological advancements and acceptable price tags.
"2045 is a long way away," said Severin Borenstein, economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "A lot could happen between now and 2045."
Energy storage through batteries "could get a lot cheaper. That could make the goal much more attainable and much more cost-effective," he added. Wind and solar energy already are close in price to natural gas, he said. "If you could actually store the power cost-effectively, then you could make it work much more effectively."
Others warned major expenses would ensue. Large-scale solar and wind projects often go in deserts or other open areas, requiring added infrastructure to move the power to cities, said Evan Birenbaum, who led the environmental strategies program at Los Angeles-area utility Southern California Edison Co. before leaving in 2014. He now heads Chai Energy, which focuses on reducing household energy consumption.
"You would need to build new transmission lines to support the incoming [renewable] power," Birenbaum said. "Old power lines might not be able to support it."
Utility substations also likely would need upgrades, he said, adding, "You're talking about many billions of dollars that have to be invested in that new renewable energy future. It's the ratepayer who will have to pay for that."
Borenstein said that calculating how much it will cost nearly 30 years from now is "nearly impossible to answer. ... Imagine going back 30 years," when the internet-connected cellphones used now didn't exist.
"It's very hard to predict technology 30 years in advance," he added.
Electricity system shifting
De León's S.B. 584 comes as California leaders vow to aggressively push ahead on climate change policies and defy any attempt by the Trump administration to roll back climate and clean energy measures.
It also emerges as California's electricity market undergoes a multiyear transformation, said Jan Smutny-Jones, CEO of the Independent Energy Producers Association, a trade group that represents natural-gas-fired power and renewable generators.
The demand footprint of big utilities is shrinking as several cities have opted for community choice aggregation (CCA), forming groups that contract to buy power. Meanwhile, more people put solar power on their rooftops, and there's a state-ordered push for more energy storage.
Utilities, regulators, environmental groups and others, meanwhile, are dealing with the implications of a de León bill passed last year. S.B. 350 increased the renewables mandate to 50 percent by 2050 and ordered a doubling in the energy efficiency of buildings. It also ordered all utilities, including municipal ones and CCAs, to show they're making progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The new bill in addition to the 100 percent mandate would speed up the 50 percent deadline to 2025.
The measure is intended as a draft to get people talking, see how much support exists and figure out what would be needed politically to get lawmakers and interested parties on board, said people familiar with the process. Competitive juices are flowing as Hawaii and Massachusetts look into 100 percent renewable power.
California's largest investor-owned utilities mostly declined to comment on the proposal. In conversations with legislative officials in Sacramento, they've indicated the 2045 goal is far enough out that they aren't panicked. But they wanted to discuss what flexibility would exist to reach the proposed mandate, said those aware of the talks.
Pedro Pizarro, CEO of Edison International, said he thinks it's technically possible for California to go to 100 percent renewable power, as resources could be paired with batteries. But he said questions remain around economic feasibility, reliability and timing.
"Is it doable tomorrow? No," Pizarro said in an interview at the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference in Houston. "You don't have storage at scale. You also don't have the renewables at scale. You have to build up the renewables. You have to build up the storage."
California alone can't solve climate change, he said, but "I do think the long-term trend, certainly in California and probably more broadly, is going to be towards more and more renewables."
"Eventually there will be 100 percent," he added.
The proposed goal of speeding up the deadline on the 50 percent renewables to 2025 is likely to have utilities more concerned, Smutny-Jones said.
They'd likely argue against buying more renewable power "because they don't know who their customers are," as the growth in CCAs and in rooftop solar shrinks their demand base, he said.
How to calculate costs
The largest utilities in California said they are on the path toward meeting the existing 50 percent by 2050 mandate. That edict requires them to use wind, geothermal, biomass, small-scale hydropower and utility-scale solar. They cannot count household rooftop solar, large hydropower or nuclear.
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. now has 43 percent renewable power. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., located in the San Francisco region, generates nearly 33 percent. Southern California Edison for 2015 was at 25 percent. It hasn't yet updated the total for last year.
Statewide, renewable generation was 24.5 percent in 2015, the most recent year available. With solar alone and including panels on rooftops, California has an abundance of renewable power to meet daytime needs, experts said. On some days, there's too much solar energy, forcing the grid manager to ask generators to back down their production.
California also imports electricity. Last year that constituted about a quarter of the California grid's average daily demand, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Imports as a portion of overall generation have steadily increased in recent years, said Cara Marcy, renewable electricity analyst with EIA. In-state generation has been trending down since 2007. That has happened because of the 2008 recession, and then as the economy recovered, people bought more efficient appliances, electronics and lighting, Smutny-Jones said.
Mark Jacobson, professor in Stanford University's department of civil and environmental engineering, said the state can hit 100 percent renewable power.
"It's mostly a question of willpower," he said, adding that "from a technological, economic point of view it's possible to do it." The main obstacle, he said, is that there are people with a financial interest in stopping it from happening.
There are all kinds of energy storage options beyond batteries, he said. Stanford at night freezes ice in rooftop tubing, with the melted cold water from it used for air conditioning during the day. A pilot system in Okotoks, Alberta, uses solar plus heated rocks underground for winter heating.
Jacobson rejected the idea of consumers having to pick up the costs if natural-gas-fired plants in California were put out of service early. If you factor in health costs connected to air pollutants, he said, the plants "cost more to stay open."
Jacobson added that while aiming for 100 percent electricity is "a good start, we have to go a lot further than that." The emissions for electricity constitute about one-fifth of total greenhouse gas pollution, he said. The country needs to deal with emissions from aircraft and ships and electrify all transportation, he said.
Designing for rare peaks
The challenge in seeking 100 percent renewables is how to address peaks in demand that are well above the system average, said Arne Olson, partner at Energy and Environmental Economics, an energy consulting firm.
On the grid managed by the California Independent System Operator, the average electricity demand ranges between 20,000 and 35,000 megawatts. But there have been peaks of more than 50,000 MW. Those spikes have driven infrastructure planning for decades, he said.
"Every electric system in the developed world is built around the expected peak demands that might be placed on," Olson said, from the size of the transmission system to the size of distribution wires. "Every piece of infrastructure is designed around the highest peak it might see in 10 years."
It's "a matter of how much expense are we willing to bear to make sure that we've kept that level of reliability that we're accustomed to," Olson said.
It gets increasingly expensive to provide power as the renewables share of electricity gets closer to 100 percent, he said. It's similar to natural gas "peaker" plants that sit idle for most of the year and run only when needed. "This has been the way that we've done it for years," he said.
Birenbaum with Chai Energy noted that utilities in recent years have put about $100 billion into infrastructure and now are looking at more investments in battery storage. Anything additional utilities had to spend for an upgrade to meet the state's proposed 100 percent goal is "going to cost the customer more money," Birenbaum said.
"Everyone wants to push it farther and farther," he said. "All of a sudden the lights go out, like in Germany." In that country there were some blackouts in 2012 that some blamed on adding more renewable power than the grid could handle, without enough base load to support it.
"That's a very dangerous game that we're playing here in California," Birenbaum added. "We always try to put burden on utilities or think technology is going to solve it."
Birenbaum argued that the state needs to take steps to shrink electricity consumption and improve energy efficiency. About 30 percent of electricity use comes from waste, such as leaving lights on, he said.
Definitions matter
Lawmakers would have to decide if they are sticking with the current rules on what is renewable.
The state does not allow utilities to count large hydropower as part of their renewable electricity makeup. The intent of that was to prevent creating a reason to build more large dams, said a person familiar with the original renewable portfolio standard legislation. That's one aspect that might need another look if the state considers going to a 100 percent green power mandate, he said.
Large hydropower in recent years has generated 6 to 12 percent of the state's electricity, depending on precipitation and other water needs.
Smutny-Jones said his group would oppose allowing large hydro, because excluding it as a renewable has been state policy for decades.
The trade group also would oppose allowing rooftop solar to count. Panels on roofs already lower the amount utilities have to generate to meet their renewables mandate, he said. That's because the RPS requirement is based on a percent of retail sales. A consumer with rooftop photovoltaics is buying less electricity. So including household PV toward the 100 percent renewables would be "double-counting," he said.
California needs to look at how it will define 100 percent renewable electricity, Berkeley's Borenstein said. Does the state only want clean power within its borders on an every-second basis, he asked, or does it want at the end of a year to say it consumed all clean power?
If the latter, the state could calculate how much power it consumes, then buy from outside the state what it couldn't make in California. It would sign agreements for renewable power amounts to match what's needed, Smutny-Jones said.
"It really comes down to more of a system of accounting," he said.
If California wanted to ensure 100 percent all the time, it probably couldn't expand its grid to take power from other Western and Midwest states. California might aspire to get wind power from Iowa overnight, Borenstein explained, but there wouldn't be any guarantees that the Golden State wouldn't take in fossil-fuel-generated electricity.
"Electricity is electricity," Borenstein said. "You can't identify the electrons coming in, where they came from."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051344
-
Washington State Panel OKs Funds for Safety Improvements at Oil-Train Crossing
Mar 13, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) last week approved nearly $450,000 in grant funds to make safety upgrades at a crossing on an oil train route in Skamania County.
The county requested the funds to complete long-term safety improvements at Butler Road, also known as Skamania Landing Road. The crossing was identified by commission rail-safety staff as a priority under-protected crossing along an oil route, according to a UTC press release.
Existing railroad warning devices at the crossing consist of flashing lights, crossbucks and advance warning signs. The slope on the south approach to the crossing limits sight distance down the tracks, making it difficult for vehicles to stop, restart, and quickly clear the tracks, UTC officials said.
The site is a two-track crossing with no visual or physical barrier between vehicles and trains. Double-track crossings also present an added safety hazard for motorists due to the "second train" dynamic, they said.
The grant will cover the cost of installing new active warning devices that include shoulder-mounted flashing LED lights, gates and a bungalow that will house batteries, chargers, an event recorder, and a constant warning train detection system.
The project must be completed by Dec. 31, 2018.
An average of 100 vehicles cross the track daily. BNSF Railway Co. operates up to 30 trains over the crossing each day, traveling at a speed of 55 mph. Two passenger trains each day operate over the crossing at 60 mph.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/Washington-state-panel-OKs-funds-for-safety-improvements-at-oil-train-crossing--51065
-
N.J. Commuter Rail Led Nation in Accidents
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
New Jersey Transit reported the most accidents last year among the 10 largest commuter railroads in the country, according to federal records.
The 21 accidents include its first fatal wreck in 20 years. The railroad is struggling to maintain operations as ridership increases but funding does not.
"The agency is in a state of crisis," said state Sen. Bob Gordon (D), who is helping to lead a legislative inquiry into New Jersey Transit. "I don't have high hopes for any short-term relief."
The railroad is facing a 2018 deadline to install positive train control, technology that can override human error. Investigators are looking into whether the system could have prevented the September crash in Hoboken that killed a woman standing on a platform.
The system's cost has risen to $320 million, 42 percent more than originally planned. The agency is also understaffed, with flat funding proposed in Republican Gov. Chris Christie's budget for the next fiscal year.
Officials have promised they won't raise rates, at least before mid-2018, after five fare hikes in recent years.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051357
-
Pruitt: Congress Should Decide If Agency Can Regulate CO2
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt wants Congress — not his own agency — to decide whether U.S. EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases.
Last week, the new EPA administrator caused an uproar when he told CNBC's "Squawk Box" that he did not believe carbon dioxide was a main contributor to climate change. What has gotten less attention was his suggestion that Congress should have a say in whether EPA should regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the first place.
"Nowhere in the equation has Congress spoken," Pruitt noted. "The legislative branch has not addressed this issue at all. It's a very fundamental question to say, 'Are the tools in the toolbox available to the EPA to address this issue of CO2, as the court had recognized in 2007, with it being a pollutant?'"
Writing new legislation could be the fastest and easiest way for the Trump administration to roll back federal regulations addressing climate change, said Deborah Sivas, an environmental law professor at Stanford University.
"The chances of getting this Congress to roll back the Clean Air Act are pretty good, I think," she said.
So far, much of the attention has been focused on how the Trump administration might roll back environmental regulations, the workhorses that carry out the legal actions laid out by legislation. But rewriting regulations isn't easy. It requires a whole rulemaking process, complete with a public comment period to put it in place.
These new regulations would also be more vulnerable to legal challenges if the administration fails to show evidence that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants. The Supreme Court upheld that EPA should regulate these pollutants in Massachusetts v. EPA, Sivas noted.
But taking a legislative approach gets around all this. Congress could instead simply change the definition of an air pollutant to exclude carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which would have trickle-down effects on a range of federal regulations from the Clean Power Plan to fuel economy standards.
"Almost 50 years of improvements under our existing set of environmental laws could evaporate pretty quickly. You can just change a definition with a sentence or two and [CO2] is not covered," she said.
'Congress should deal with it once and for all'
While such legislation has been attempted in the past — Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) put his support behind the Energy Tax Prevention Act in 2011 — there has been always been some check in either Congress or the White House to keep it from passing.
This Congress and administration could be the exception, according to Sivas.
"The crazy part is they have a Republican majority that is farther right and this crazy White House — who knows what they will do — but they have been pretty clear that they will go against climate change. I think that's the thing that is worrying people a lot," Sivas said.
The House has already put forward a new piece of legislation, the "Stopping EPA Overreach Act," amending the Clean Air Act to exclude methane and carbon dioxide, among other gases, from the definition of "air pollutant" (E&E News PM, March 10).
Steve Milloy, a longtime foe of EPA who served on the agency's transition team, said it would be a good idea for Congress to weigh in on whether EPA should regulate greenhouse gases.
"I think a lot of people will think Trump is running EPA now, we won't have any more climate regulations, so we don't need to do anything. But as long as EPA has that authority, they can come back and do it, so Congress should deal with it once and for all," he said.
But Milloy isn't sure whether changing the rules for greenhouse gases will be an immediate priority, or even whether Republicans could garner the votes to pass the changes.
"Can Congress do it? Well, they have so many other things to do, I don't know," Milloy said.
"I don't even know if it's on their calendar, I don't think enough people have thought enough about it," he added.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051319
-
Meteorologists Rebuke Pruitt for CO2 Comment
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The head of the American Meteorological Society issued the latest rebuke today to U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's statement that he does not believe carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming.
Reams of evidence support the view that carbon dioxide is a major heat-trapping gas, AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter wrote in a letter to Pruitt after the former Oklahoma attorney general's controversial interview on CNBC (Greenwire, March 9).
"We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion," Seitter wrote, noting that thousands of scientific bodies around the world have affirmed the link.
AMS, a global leader on climate science, represents more than 13,000 scientists, researchers, educators and broadcast meteorologists — many of whom have been contradicting Pruitt's claims on air.
Weather Channel meteorologist Carl Parker said Friday that Pruitt's statements were false. Parker showed viewers a chart showing the rise in the average global temperature coinciding with the rise in carbon emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
"It is simply not true that there is disagreement among scientists, and there have been multiple studies that have shown that ... 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made phenomenon," Parker said.
Veteran NBC weatherman Al Roker debunked Pruitt's claim during an appearance on "MSNBC Live," explaining that there is "no credible science or scientist" to support Pruitt's statement.
Roker also discussed the importance of climate science at EPA, with the Trump administration recommending budget cuts (E&E Daily, March 1).
"Well, I think hopefully cooler heads will prevail upon him to say we need to continue to research this," Roker said.
Seitter's message was cordial. AMS understands and accepts that different conclusions may be reached, he noted. "But mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue," Seitter wrote.
Seitter offered to work with Pruitt or his staff "to advance understanding the science of climate and use those advances for the benefit of the nation and the world."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051368
-
Enviros Demand Records on Pruitt's Climate Stance
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The Natural Resources Defense Council has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with U.S. EPA for all documents or meetings that influenced Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial statement to CNBC concerning humans' contribution to climate change.
Pruitt raised doubts over whether carbon dioxide is the main driver behind global warming during a Thursday interview, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change (Greenwire, March 9).
NRDC is seeking all records that Pruitt considered or relied upon to develop his understanding of humans' contribution to climate change and records of all meetings, telephone calls or other discussions he held, including schedules of such meetings, to discuss humans' contribution to climate change.
"This is crazy talk," said NRDC's Ben Longstreth, senior attorney in the Climate and Clean Air Program, on Friday.
"Pruitt's belief is so confounding, so contrary to established science and, frankly, even apparently inconsistent with his own past statements, NRDC wants to know what prompted him to make that claim and to out himself as a true climate denier," Longstreth said in a blog post.
The request is timely, with President Trump expected to formally begin dismantling the Clean Power Plan — the Obama administration's signature rule on carbon pollution — tomorrow with an "energy independence" executive order (E&E Daily, March 13).
Pruitt told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during his confirmation hearing, "Science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change."
NRDC wants to know what may have changed Pruitt's view since then.
"We need to know who he has met with to talk about climate science and what articles he's been reading to help answer that question," Longstreth said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051373
-
Will Merkel Stand Up to Trump on Climate Change?
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to raise climate change directly and publicly when she meets for the first time with President Trump tomorrow.
Doing so would set Merkel apart from other world leaders, many of whom have spoken passionately about tackling climate change, yet have avoided putting Trump on the hot seat about it in person.
Merkel is the current president of the Group of 20 (G-20) international forum, and many believe she will make sure the Paris Agreement is at the center of its July leaders summit in Hamburg, Germany. Trump campaigned on a promise to "cancel" the 2015 accord, though the White House is currently locked in an internal struggle over whether to abandon it or take less extreme measures.
Administration officials last week sidestepped questions about whether Trump and Merkel will discuss the Paris Agreement today.
"It's quite possible that that will be something that the chancellor will raise; I don't know for sure," a senior White House official told reporters Friday. "Internally, the United States is still working on that issue, and that's an issue that still is to be determined and I'm sure will be discussed with the chancellor, but also clarified in the weeks and months ahead as we move forward to the [Group of Seven] and the G-20 ministerial and summit meetings."
It's not the first time White House staff have hinted that a decision about the Paris Agreement might be timed for this summer's two summit meetings, which Trump is expected to attend in person.
Greens hope the two meetings — Italy will host the G-7 summit in Taormina in May — will give other countries a platform to change Trump's mind about Paris. The White House official last week said it was "unclear" whether a decision would be ready for release during the G-7 or G-20. But the selection of those venues as possible places to unveil the decision has led some to predict that the White House is leaning toward remaining a party to the 187-nation agreement.
Others predict Trump will feel no concern about withdrawing from Paris at a gathering of foreign leaders anxious for him not to do so.
"I don't think he's going to be trying to win a beauty contest at the G-20," was how one senior George H.W. Bush White House official put it.
Merkel's 'first real test'
The G-7 and G-20 agendas provide other opportunities beyond the Paris Agreement to put pressure on the Trump administration's climate change positions.
Delegates may discuss fossil fuel subsidies — which Secretary of State and former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson says do not exist. They may also talk about greater disclosure of climate-related financial risks, or even carbon pricing.
Meanwhile, environmentalists say they hope Merkel will do what Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and other leaders who support the Paris Agreement have not: call out Trump publicly on climate change.
"It's time for a leader who meets with Trump to make a public statement after Trudeau and May did not deliver," said Susanne Dröge, a senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, on a call Friday hosted by the World Resources Institute.
"I'm pretty positive about Merkel's will to do so if she manages to address it in the talks with Trump," she said.
David Waskow, director of WRI's international climate program, agreed. "I think Chancellor Merkel will in fact be able to help shape President Trump's views directly. She's known as a quite convincing interlocutor, quite persuasive with those with whom she speaks," he said.
Trump, of course, has his own priorities for tomorrow's meeting — and climate change isn't one of them. The White House official made clear that the president would focus on his insistence that other members of NATO boost their financial commitment to defense. Germany does not currently spend at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, as agreed on by the 28-member military alliance.
Also on the docket will be Germany's trade surplus with the United States, immigration and other potentially contentious issues.
"There's an entirely new discussion to be had which touches on core German interests," said Michael Werz, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Asked whether taking on Trump publicly on climate change this week might prove popular at home, Dröge said Germans are concerned about a U.S. departure from Paris, as well as security and trade issues. Voters will expect her to take a stand.
"The further she can push in that context, the more support she can expect in Germany, because her campaigning this year has still been moderated by her international role," she said. "She has to prove to her German voters that it is useful to keep her, and Trump is the first real test."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/13/stories/1060051343
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested