Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/31/2017
-
(ACC Blog) Proposed Marine Debris Legislation Helps Fortify Industry’s Ongoing Work
Mar 31, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
On March 29 Senators Sullivan (R-AK), Whitehouse (D-RI) and Booker (D-NJ) introduced the bipartisan Saving Our Seas Act, which also included Senators Coons (D-DE), Inhofe (R-OK), Murkowski (R-AK), Peters (D-MI) and Tillis (R-NC) as cosponsors. -
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: Buzz Tempers at AFPM
Mar 31, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
It’s happening. The US cracker project wave is amplifying with Dow Chemical on 28 March announcing the completion of its 1.5m tonne/year project – the second after Occidental Chemical/Mexichem’s start-up in Q1 2017. -
Washington State Initiates Rulemaking to Update CHCC List
Mar 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Washington Department of Ecology has initiated a rulemaking to add 21 chemicals and delete three others from its list of reportable substances under the state's Children's Safe Products Reporting Rule. -
EU Cosmetics Committee Backs Fragrance Allergens Ban
Mar 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Commission's Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products has voted in favour of a longstanding proposal banning three fragrance allergens. -
Pruitt Reiterates States Don't Have to Make Plans
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
States have been under no obligation to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for more than a year, but Administrator Scott Pruitt didn't leave any room for doubt with guidance he sent to governors yesterday. -
Cities Voice Support for Clean Power Plan, Pledge to Continue Climate Change Fight
Mar 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two organizations representing major cities in the United States said they support the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which has come under fire from the Trump administration, and outlined plans to continue efforts to combat climate change, regardless of the position of the federal government. -
E&E News Reporters Talk Next Steps for Power Plan, EPA and Keystone XL
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E TV
By Special Report
This week, the Trump administration rolled out its highly anticipated executive action on climate and energy that largely seeks to reverse the Obama climate legacy. -
Energy Transfer Moves to Expand Pipeline Capacity
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Mike Lee
The company that controls the Dakota Access pipeline is looking to push even more oil into the line, days after the project carried its first crude. -
Pipeline Lawsuit Could Face Rocky Road in Court
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists face hurdles in the courtroom as they challenge the Trump administration's approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. -
Sabine Train 3 First LNG Cargo to be Delivered in June, Cheniere Says
Mar 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Cheniere Energy Partners LP said Friday that Train 3 of the Sabine Pass liquefaction project in Cameron Parish, LA, is substantially complete as of last Tuesday and commissioning has been completed. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks to Lengthen Freeze on New RMP Regs
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is moving to further roll back implementation of new industrial safety regulations — this time for almost two years. -
Climate Change Fact Must Trump Politics
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Niki Tsongas
Donald Trump is not responsible for the rise in global temperature last year, even though he did raise the temperature of our political dialogue. The fact is, even though 2016 was the warmest year on record, the previous two years also received that same ominous designation. -
Conservatives Fear EPA Chief Going Soft on Climate Science
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency is facing heavy pressure from conservatives to take on the science of climate change. -
Paris Pact Will Ease Harmful Impacts of Pipeline — State
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Paris climate agreement means the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline will be less harmful to the global environment. That's what the Trump administration is saying. -
Trump to Decide by Late May Whether to Stay in Paris Climate Pact
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is planning to decide by late May on whether the U.S. should stay in the Paris climate change agreement, the White House announced Thursday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Proposed Marine Debris Legislation Helps Fortify Industry’s Ongoing Work
Mar 31, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
On March 29 Senators Sullivan (R-AK), Whitehouse (D-RI) and Booker (D-NJ) introduced the bipartisan Saving Our Seas Act, which also included Senators Coons (D-DE), Inhofe (R-OK), Murkowski (R-AK), Peters (D-MI) and Tillis (R-NC) as cosponsors. In addition to reauthorizing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Marine Debris research program, the bill underscores the need for international action to reduce marine litter. The strong bipartisan support for this bill shows that clean, healthy oceans is a shared value. America’s plastic makers have worked closely with NOAA and others to help drive effective marine debris solutions, and we congratulate these sponsors for their leadership.
The Saving Our Seas Act will make resources available to assist developing countries with expanding waste management systems, including recycling and recovery. This is an important earmark and one in line with a growing consensus for improved waste management systems as a critical part of curbing the amount of trash entering our oceans. Last year the Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas Alliance® released, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean, a first-of-its-kind analysis that evaluates specific land-based solutions for plastic waste in the ocean. The recommendations have subsequently been mirrored by reports and recommendations from the United Nations Environment Assembly and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Over the years, America’s plastics makers have been partners in many efforts to research and address marine debris, through prevention, education and removal. Our efforts include working with governments and conservationists to encourage recycling and discourage litter, educating children on the link between litter and marine health, promoting industry wide practices to contain plastic pellets, and working with NOAA to advance scientific understanding of marine litter. And, in California, we’ve placed more than 700 recycling bins and educational signage in state parks-owned sites along coastal areas.
In 2011, plastics associations around the world joined forces to share knowledge and recommend effective practices for keeping plastics out of the ocean. These efforts are formalized under the “Declaration of the Global Plastics Solutions for Solutions on Marine Litter,” which has been signed by 69 plastics associations in 35 countries. Currently, more than 260 projects focused on researching, preventing or reducing marine debris are underway around the globe.
Marine debris is too big of an issue for any one organization, government, country or region to tackle alone. The Saving Our Seas Act will help support long-term, holistic solutions to this global challenge.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/03/proposed-marine-debris-legislation-helps-fortify-industrys-ongoing-work/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: Buzz Tempers at AFPM
Mar 31, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
It’s happening. The US cracker project wave is amplifying with Dow Chemical on 28 March announcing the completion of its 1.5m tonne/year project – the second after Occidental Chemical/Mexichem’s start-up in Q1 2017.
A day earlier, Total/Borealis and NOVA Chemicals announced their 1.0m tonne/year cracker project to be completed by the end of 2020 in Port Arthur, Texas, which comes with a new 625,000 tonne/year Borstar polyethylene (PE) unit at nearby Bayport.
Executives were relatively optimistic about the global market being able to absorb the new volumes sans a major downturn, citing construction delays.
Not everyone was bullish. “The ethylene bubble has got to burst. To put billions and billions of pounds into the market and not see a disruption, is unrealistic,” Huntsman Corp CEO Peter Huntsman warned.
Bob Bauman, president of Polymer Consulting International, sees a plunge in PE prices as three new crackers with downstream PE units likely start up within six months of each other in 2017-2018. Despite producers’ stated export focus, “no doubt they will have to place product in the domestic market”.
POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY
All this comes amid the most uncertain and volatile political climate in decades. After the “Trump Bump”, palpable caution has been injected into the collective consciousness, much revolving around US tax reform.
While optimistic on the administration’s willingness to engage with the industry on regulatory reform, the failure of the Republican-led healthcare overhaul “is a concern”, noted AFPM president Chet Thompson.
The US chemical sector (ex pharma) generated $121bn in exports in 2016 and a trade surplus of $28.2bn, according to the American Chemistry Council.
The product from the US cracker wave is primarily targeted for export, in the form of PE pellets. The US aims to use its huge shale gas resource to supply the growing polymer demands of the world.
“We have some concerns about any border adjustment tax’s (BAT) impact on trade as it could be interpreted by countries as protectionist,” said Peter Cella, CEO of Chevron Phillips Chemical, who also noted US chemical exports are expected to grow by 7%/year over the next five years.
“We hope they don’t rush it. It needs time and a comprehensive look,” said Neil Chapman, president of ExxonMobil Chemical, on tax reform. “At the end of the day, Congress will find ways to make tax reform revenue neutral – you can’t rely on just [economic] growth. So there will be winners and losers. We have to get comfortable as a country that someone’s going to lose.”
PETER HUNTSMAN LETS IT RIP
But higher US growth, if it does come, won’t be enough to climb out of the mountain of federal debt, said Peter Huntsman in his 28 March breakfast meeting talk at the IPC called “A view of the North American Chemical Industry (and other sundry views)”. He relishes this forum to let rip on a slew of topics.
Huntsman points out the US budget deficit is growing at around $700bn/year. Even if the US can get to 4% GDP growth, this would only generate $130bn in additional tax revenue – “nowhere close to being balanced”. By 2027, interest on US federal debt will account for 19% of the entire budget versus 7% today, he warned.
Huntsman is unabashedly bearish on oil. “We will continue to underestimate the impact of innovation on oil supply.” Fracking technology has led to once declining fields such as the Permian Basin in Texas being prolific once more and on a larger scale. “The Permian was the epitome of peak oil. Now there are billions more barrels of recoverable oil from this 100-year old field. There is nothing like it in the world,” said Huntsman. He called $20-30/bbl not necessarily the floor, and $50/bbl “the new ceiling”.
But this is certainly not the consensus view. If it was, companies would not be gearing up for a 2nd wave of new US crackers. Look for potential new cracker announcements in the coming year from ExxonMobil and SABIC (JV) and Chevron Phillips.
Plus, how about an aromatics project in the US? “For the same reasons US shale catalysed opportunities in the olefins market, that set-up could be there for aromatics as well,” said Chevron Phillips’ Cella. The company’s proprietary aromatics process uses light paraffins and naphthenes – abundant in US shale.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/03/30/10093196/commentary-buzz-tempers-at-afpm/
-
Washington State Initiates Rulemaking to Update CHCC List
Mar 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Washington Department of Ecology has initiated a rulemaking to add 21 chemicals and delete three others from its list of reportable substances under the state's Children's Safe Products Reporting Rule.
Its notice follows a stakeholder consultation that began last August and saw the consideration of several dozen substances for removal or addition to the state's Chemicals of High Concern for Children (CHCC) list.
The rulemaking is largely consistent with the preliminary draft rule text issued in December. Along with the 19 chemicals named in a January update to the draft, the department has added two more for possible addition to the list:
butylated triphenyl phosphate; and
chlorinated paraffins.
Phthalic anhydride, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and molybdenum remain candidates for deletion.
The proposal also separates some listed chemicals currently grouped together into individual listings, and sets a single annual reporting date consistent with those in other states.
Other minor amendments include:
updating the reporting schedule to remove now obsolete phase-in requirements;
using the term de minimis to refer to existing minimum chemical reporting levels;
clarifying that resubmission of identical annual data (ie copy and paste) is sufficient, rather than the currently required letter confirming that no changes have been made from the previous annual report; and
updating chemical names to be consistent with terminology in the product testing database.
The Department of Ecology will hold a public hearing on the proposal on 25 April. It will accept comments until 12 May and expects to adopt the rule in September.
As proposed, the rule would require manufacturers to report on all CHCCs – both existing and new – at the end of January 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54830/washington-state-initiates-rulemaking-to-update-chcc-list
-
EU Cosmetics Committee Backs Fragrance Allergens Ban
Mar 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Commission's Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products has voted in favour of a longstanding proposal banning three fragrance allergens.
The substances affected are:
atranol;
chloroatranol; and
3 and 4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (HICC).
Marketing of products containing them will not be permitted two years after the Regulation enters into force. And two years after that such products must be completely withdrawn.
The Commission first proposed the ban in 2014, but progress was delayed when it reshuffled its internal cosmetics policy. The proposal is part of a Commission package to tackle fragrance allergens, which will also extend current labelling requirements under Annex III of the cosmetics Regulation.
MIT and zinc oxide
At its meeting on 14 March, the Standing Committee also backed a Commission Regulation restricting the use of zinc oxide as a colourant in applications that do not lead to exposure by inhalation. This covers the substance in its uncoated, non-nano form.
The Commission plans to amend the entry for zinc oxide under Annex IV of the cosmetic products Regulation, which lists all approved colourants.
Annex V will also be amended to lower the permitted concentration of the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MIT) in rinse-off cosmetics. The Committee voted in favour of a concentration limit of 15 parts per million (ppm), following a recommendation by the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). This flagged up concerns around its sensitising potential. The substance has also been linked to an increasing number of allergy incidents.
MIT is currently authorised at a concentration up to 100ppm. Last year, it was banned for use in leave-on cosmetic products.
The restriction marks the latest blow to the cosmetic industry's available preservatives, oftenacknowledged as being one of the biggest challenges currently facing the sector. The cosmetics industry has said that, at a concentration of 15ppm, MIT will not be effective enough as a preservative.
But the Danish EPA, which has frequently flagged allergens in cosmetics as an area of concern, says it is pleased with the Standing Committee's decisions. Last year an EPA research paper said fragrances could constitute the biggest problem with regards to allergy.
The regulations will enter into force 20 days after publication in the EU’s Official Journal. A nine-month transitional period for withdrawing non-compliant products from the market will start upon entry into force.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54823/eu-cosmetics-committee-backs-fragrance-allergens-ban
-
Pruitt Reiterates States Don't Have to Make Plans
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
States have been under no obligation to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for more than a year, but Administrator Scott Pruitt didn't leave any room for doubt with guidance he sent to governors yesterday.
In a letter to state leaders, Pruitt reminded them of the February 2016 Supreme Court order staying implementation of the power-sector climate standards and specified that they "have no obligation to spend resources to comply with a Rule that has been stayed."
He added that "the days of coercive federalism are over" and that he looks forward to working with governors, state experts and local communities to "develop a path forward to improve our environment and bolster the economy in a manner that is respectful of and consistent with the rule of law."
The letter comes on the heels of an executive order that President Trump signed Tuesday to reverse the Clean Power Plan. Most states since the stay had shelved their work on specific plans, though some states that supported the rule had initially said they would keep working on plans in the hope that they would have a head start if the courts upheld the Clean Power Plan and let it begin in 2022 or soon thereafter.
Pruitt suggested that if the courts did uphold the rule, states would get extra time to meet requirements.
"To the extent that any deadlines become relevant in the future, case law and practice of the EPA supports the application of day-to-day tolling," he said.
But he also is set to begin a new rulemaking process to undo the Clean Power Plan.
Specific planning efforts for the rule trailed off over the last year, although some states continued to talk broadly about carbon-cutting efforts. Only Minnesota was still holding regular public meetings on the regulation. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency meets with stakeholders today to discuss what the group has learned and where the state might go from here.
Pruitt's letter is mostly symbolic, as states already were not under any requirement to work on plans to cut carbon emissions. It could, however, complicate political debates in some states.
The governor in Virginia, for example, is taking heat from some Democrats, the former Republican attorney general and consumer advocates for not working to reverse a rate freeze that was enacted because of a debate over the Clean Power Plan (Climatewire, Feb. 24).
Utilities had argued that electric bills could rise under the Clean Power Plan. So the General Assembly passed legislation to prevent state regulators from reviewing rates. That means companies can't charge customers more, but it also means they can't charge them less. Instead, they have been able to keep extra profits they might otherwise have had to pass on to ratepayers.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has said the state should wait until the Clean Power Plan is off the books before repealing the measure. That could take years.
In addition to the letter, EPA yesterday morning also sent out and then corrected an error in a press release quoting various conservative lawmakers and industry groups praising the executive order (Greenwire, March 30). The Obama administration, in comparison, typically followed up its announcements with mostly favorable news clips or blog posts from agency leaders.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/31/stories/1060052407
-
Cities Voice Support for Clean Power Plan, Pledge to Continue Climate Change Fight
Mar 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two organizations representing major cities in the United States said they support the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which has come under fire from the Trump administration, and outlined plans to continue efforts to combat climate change, regardless of the position of the federal government.
On Tuesday, shortly after Trump signed an executive order (EO) calling for sweeping changes in the energy sector, the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (MNCAA) issued a letter to Trump condemning the move, arguing that climate change is the "greatest single threat" to the 75 cities the organization represents.
"We write to strongly object to your actions to roll back critically important U.S. climate policies, including the CPP and vehicle fuel efficiency standards, as well as proposed budget cuts to the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and critical federal programs like Energy Star," the mayors wrote, later adding "we urge you to change course, and to join us."
The MNCAA letter had 47 signatories as of Wednesday evening, including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The mayors of Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Houston, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington also signed the letter.
The mayors reaffirmed their cities' commitments to achieving goals outlined at a climate change summit in Paris in December 2015, which the EO does not affect. They added in January, 30 cities from the organization issued a formal request for information over the potential purchase of nearly 115,000 electric-powered vehicles (EVs) for their municipal fleets.
"Climate action is also an investment in our economy and job creation -- EVs, solar power, energy efficiency and battery storage are all avenues to restoring our nation's manufacturing base and create good, middle class jobs," the MNCAA mayors said.
In a separate statement, Garcetti, a co-founder of the MNCAA, said that "no matter what happens in Washington," his city will continue with its plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 -- a goal shared by the states of California and New York.
"Nothing can stop us from investing in EVs and mass transit; from ending our reliance on coal; from installing cool roofs and pavement; or from leading America in solar power," Garcetti said. "Los Angeles will uphold the obligation to preserve the health of our planet, protect our most vulnerable residents, and create a 21st century economy." The mayors, he added, "will continue doing our part to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement in cities across the country."
On Wednesday, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) issued a separate statement also in support of the CPP, but did not condemn the Trump administration for its EO. Instead, it signaled support for a new rulemaking process surrounding the CPP, which experts say will take years and the end result is unclear.
"We hope as the Trump administration moves forward that the CPP will be implemented as promulgated," said Tom Cochran, CEO of the USCM. "The rule was finalized after countless scientific, industry and governmental input. It should remain."
Cochran added that the USCM "supports the CPP as an essential next step to address and lower GHG emissions as part of our nation's responsibility to address global warming. The U.S. utility sector must be part of the solution and the CPP is a framework to ensure necessary reductions from this sector."
Last June, at its annual conference in Indianapolis, the USCM issued a list of resolutions on climate change, including support for "strong federal action to achieve the U.S. commitments under the Paris agreement," and a commitment by cities to "taking local action required to do our part to achieve the targets in the Paris agreement."
In a related matter, more than 30 mayors at the same Indianapolis conference also signed a statement supporting local control of laws governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The move was seen as a symbolic gesture because fracking isn't performed in most of the cities that the signatories represent.
De Blasio, Emanuel and Garcetti are also members of the USCM. The organization has more than 1,400 members, representing cities with populations of 30,000 or more.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109951-cities-voice-support-for-clean-power-plan-pledge-to-continue-climate-change-fight
-
E&E News Reporters Talk Next Steps for Power Plan, EPA and Keystone XL
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E TV
By Special Report
This week, the Trump administration rolled out its highly anticipated executive action on climate and energy that largely seeks to reverse the Obama climate legacy. In an E&E News special report, reporters Emily Holden, Evan Lehmann, Hannah Hess and Ellen Gilmer discuss the details of this week's executive order and outline what's next for litigation, regulation and the politics of climate change.
Transcript Found Here: http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2216/transcript
-
Energy Transfer Moves to Expand Pipeline Capacity
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Mike Lee
The company that controls the Dakota Access pipeline is looking to push even more oil into the line, days after the project carried its first crude.
Energy Transfer Partners started signing up new customers for the line yesterday in a process known as an open season, the company said in a news release today. A company spokeswoman didn't respond to a call seeking comment on the open season.
Customers can pay to ship oil to Patoka, Ill., where it can be sold to refineries or transferred to other pipelines, the release said. They also can move oil through a combination of Energy Transfer pipes from North Dakota to Nederland, Texas, near the Gulf of Mexico.
The news release didn't specify how much additional capacity was for sale. Energy Transfer has previously said it could expand the project to 570,000 barrels a day, from an initial capacity of more than 470,000 barrels a day.
The additional capacity could be lucrative for Energy Transfer, said Andy Lipow, a Houston-based oil consultant. The company can add capacity to the line by simply upgrading its pumps, and the last shippers to sign up for a new route typically pay higher rates.
"It may also be an indication that shippers have solicited Energy Transfer" asking for service on the pipeline, Lipow said.
Energy Transfer, based in Dallas, said Monday that oil was flowing through the pipeline.
The 1,172-mile pipeline can carry more than half the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken Shale field, maybe making the field more competitive. Oil in North Dakota has been selling for as much as $10 a barrel less than the national benchmark because there are few pipelines that connect the state to refining centers (Energywire, March 9).
Dakota Access touched off lawsuits and protests among environmentalists, landowners and Native American tribes along its route. In addition to the potential for water contamination and climate change concerns, the tribal members in North Dakota worried that the pipeline could disturb cultural sites. Thousands of protesters flocked to Cannon Ball, N.D., last summer, trying to block construction of the line.
The Standing Rock Sioux and other tribes argued that the Army Corps of Engineers improperly approved several permits to cross streams and rivers, including Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. They've asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to throw out federal approval of those water-crossing permits and an easement across the lake, which could block the line from operating (Energywire, March 29).
The Obama administration temporarily blocked the pipeline, saying it wanted to reassess how the Army Corps consults with tribal leaders on pipelines and other projects. The Trump administration overturned that decision and issued an easement in February for the final water crossing, under Lake Oahe (Energywire, Feb. 9).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/31/stories/1060052429
-
Pipeline Lawsuit Could Face Rocky Road in Court
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists face hurdles in the courtroom as they challenge the Trump administration's approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
A coalition of green groups filed suit yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, arguing that the State Department relied on an outdated 2014 environmental review to greenlight the contentious oil project.
Environmental lawyers say the administration's reversal of President Obama's 2015 rejection of the pipeline violates the National Environmental Policy Act and "just doesn't make sense" (Greenwire, March 30).
The lawsuit is one of two challenges filed so far to President Trump's approval of the pipeline. Under the new administration, environmental groups are focused on courtroom battles and state-level permit decisions to oppose the project, which they view as a symbol of dangerous reliance on fossil fuels in the face of climate change.
Legal experts caution, however, that the groups have a tough battle ahead in court, as judges have generally taken a hands-off approach to the type of presidential permit issued for the pipeline's U.S.-Canada border crossing.
"A NEPA challenge to a Presidential Permit may be more difficult to mount than typical challenges to agency decisions," Dorsey & Whitney attorney James Rubin said in an email. "Though the State Department utilization of a NEPA process may provide a jurisdictional hook for review, courts may be reluctant to review a decision which is ultimately made under Presidential discretion."
Is the permit reviewable?
Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau noted a line of past court decisions that do not work in environmentalists' favor. In litigation over the Alberta Clipper pipeline, for example, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled in 2015 that State Department cross-border approvals fell under presidential powers set aside in an executive order and were therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act and NEPA.
In 2009, district courts in South Dakota and Washington, D.C., similarly ruled that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation" and that a cross-border permit issued under that authority is not reviewable in court.
At least one outlier exists: In 2010, a different Minnesota federal judge rejected the notion that the environmental review underlying a presidential permit for a pipeline was unreviewable, but he still ultimately sided with the government in the case.
Center for Biological Diversity attorney Amy Atwood, who is representing the group in the lawsuit, argued that the issue is not settled law.
"On presidential permits, as they like to call them under the executive order, courts are split," she said. "They're sort of all over the place, really. It's not like they've all concluded you can't challenge them in court. ... It is not a settled area."
CBD is joined in the lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Bold Alliance, the Northern Plains Resource Council and Friends of the Earth.
One feature of their complaint that could help with jurisdictional questions in court is the incorporation of the Interior Department, Parenteau said. The suit names both the State Department and Interior, noting that the agency's Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction over a pending right-of-way application for KXL's crossing of 45 miles of federal lands in Montana. The environmentalists argue that BLM has no plans to supplement the 2014 environmental review to inform its decision.
"By saying, 'Yeah, but here's this agency that's not insulated from suits for violations of NEPA and they have certain right-of-way approvals they have to grant ... and they're not entitled to rely on a deficient EIS in making their decisions,' that's intriguing," Parenteau said. "That's a different wrinkle. I'm not sure how the courts are going to treat that."
Still, he argued, it's not a slam dunk.
"It really is bootstrapping, that's what I think the court is going to see," he said. "That you can't challenge the State Department's reliance on an EIS, so why should you be able to challenge BLM's reliance on it?"
'Where do you get off the treadmill?'
If environmental groups overcome the jurisdictional questions, experts say they could have more luck with arguments that the Trump administration flouted NEPA.
The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration improperly relied on the 3-year-old environmental impact statement to approve the pipeline. The groups say the EIS was flawed to begin with and is even less credible now.
"Developments over the more than three years since the State Department published its 2014 EIS have further undermined that document's core assumptions and associated predictions about Keystone XL's environmental impacts," the suit says, noting sunken oil prices and new estimates about greenhouse gas emissions and oil spill harms from Canadian oil sands.
The State Department's recent decision acknowledges some changes but concludes that the 2014 document still "reflects the expected environmental impacts" and supports the agency's determination that the pipeline is in the national interest.
But Parenteau argues that oil's decreased profitability calls into question the EIS's assumption that Canadian oil sands will be developed regardless of whether KXL is built.
"That alone undercuts the rationale that the State Department used that there's no climate impact because this stuff is going to be used whether we say yes or no," he said.
On the other hand, energy law professor James Coleman of Southern Methodist University noted that courts would likely not find it reasonable to force the government to redo an EIS every time there's a change in energy markets.
"[Environmental groups] will have a certain pragmatic difficulty with courts who say, 'Wait a second, this has been delayed for so long. You're saying now because of that delay, we have to entirely redo the analysis? Where do you get off the treadmill?'" he said.
The Trump administration's answer to the complaint is due in about 60 days.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/31/stories/1060052398
-
Sabine Train 3 First LNG Cargo to be Delivered in June, Cheniere Says
Mar 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Cheniere Energy Partners LP said Friday that Train 3 of the Sabine Pass liquefaction project in Cameron Parish, LA, is substantially complete as of last Tuesday and commissioning has been completed.
Contractor Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals Inc. is turning over custody of the train to Cheniere. Earlier this month the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved commencement of operations of Train 3.
Under a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with Korea Gas Corp., the date of first commercial delivery for Train 3 is expected to occur in June, upon which the SPA's 20-year term begins.
Financial results of LNG sales from Train 3 will be reflected in the future statements of operations of Cheniere Partners and its affiliates.
Cheniere Partners plans to construct up to six liquefaction trains at Sabine Pass. Trains 1, 2, and 3 have achieved substantial completion; Train 4 is in the commissioning process; Train 5 is under construction; and Train 6 is fully permitted and being commercialized.
Each liquefaction train is expected to have nominal production capacity of about 4.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG. Sabine Pass has entered into six third-party LNG SPAs that in the aggregate equate to 19.75 mtpa of LNG and commence with date of first commercial delivery from Trains 1 through 5.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109962-sabine-train-3-first-lng-cargo-to-be-delivered-in-june-cheniere-says
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks to Lengthen Freeze on New RMP Regs
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is moving to further roll back implementation of new industrial safety regulations — this time for almost two years.
In a Federal Register notice set for Monday publication, the agency proposes to extend the effective date of stricter "accidental release prevention requirements" until Feb. 19, 2019.
The delay would give EPA time to consider administrative petitions for reconsideration of the final rule "and take further regulatory action, which could include proposing and finalizing" a new rule, the notice says.
The proposal sets a May 19 deadline for public comment; a public hearing is scheduled for April 19 at EPA headquarters in Washington.
The agency had published the regulations — issued in response to an Obama administration directive, after a 2013 explosion at a Texas fertilizer storage and distribution facility killed 15 people — in January.
They are intended to strengthen accident prevention requirements, better protect firefighters and other first responders from chemical exposure, and do more to keep the public informed of potential hazards.
The new rules could apply to as many as 12,500 chemical plants, refineries and other industrial facilities covered by federal Risk Management Program requirements.
They had originally been scheduled to take effect this month, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently stayed implementation until June 19 in response to an industry petition (Greenwire, March 14). Since then, a coalition of Louisiana and 10 other states asked EPA to delay the effective date until September 2018.
The American Chemistry Council and other industry trade groups have also brought lawsuits against the new requirements (E&E News PM, March 16).
In an unopposed motion filed earlier this week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, they asked that the litigation be put on hold until at least June 19 to allow the administrative reconsideration process to play out.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/31/stories/1060052434
-
Climate Change Fact Must Trump Politics
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Niki Tsongas
Donald Trump is not responsible for the rise in global temperature last year, even though he did raise the temperature of our political dialogue. The fact is, even though 2016 was the warmest year on record, the previous two years also received that same ominous designation.
But today, in 2017, President Trump is responsible for actively working to hinder our nation’s ability to stop such warming trends from continuing.
The most recent blow came this week when President Trump signed an executive order that attempts to undo President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, as well as undermine other environmental conservation and climate change prevention efforts.
Scientists tell us that climate change is real, is caused by human activity, and could have devastating effects all over the world. It is a very real crisis that, if left untouched, will cause irreparable harm to current and future generations. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan was a critical step in the effort to prevent that from happening.
The Clean Power Plan called for a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from our nation’s single largest source, power plants. It gave states the flexibility to reduce carbon pollution with strategies that work best in their state while cutting emissions, increasing the use of renewable energy and encouraging innovative green technologies. Rolling back the Clean Power Plan prevents our country from taking necessary steps to safeguard our future.
But this executive order was not done in isolation. Rather it is part of a disturbing trend of undermining conservation and green industry efforts, while negating the importance of scientific fact.
Since his inauguration, President Trump promised to upended fuel efficiency standards. He has also consistently worked to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency at the forefront of promoting public health by protecting the land we live on, the water we drink and the air we breathe.
The President installed a climate change denier to head the EPA and proposed dramatic cuts to the agency in his recent budget proposal. And just this week, Republicans in the House passed a bill to weaken the scientific expertise of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. Alienating the EPA is particularly disturbing because they are uniquely positioned to lead the federal government’s efforts confronting today’s most pressing environmental challenges, from developing fuel efficient vehicles, to improving energy-efficient household appliances to tackling the causes and effects of climate change.
The failure to support climate change initiatives is made all the more intolerable when considering the accompanying economic and job creation benefits presented by a clean energy economy.
Rejecting climate change science is tantamount to rejecting the growing green technology sector that it fuels, which puts America at a global disadvantage. Instead of ceding green tech jobs to our competitors in China, we should give ourselves an opportunity to create high paying jobs and expand this industry.
Take my home state of Massachusetts, where jobs in the clean energy sector have grown by 75 percent since 2010 and is now an eleven billion dollar industry. Companies right in my own district are developing and manufacturing solar and fuel cell technology, new ways of transporting energy, and other clean energy technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency. Local colleges and universities are expanding to include new classes and innovation technology centers that will pave the way for future pioneering in this field.
Addressing climate change has just as much benefit for our economic future as it does for our environment. There is a literal cost of inaction and denial.
We’ve seen the administration’s disregard for science elsewhere, for example in the president’s budget proposal that slashed funding for life-saving medical research. It is a problem that can be addressed through legislation I introduced earlier this month with Reps. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.). Our Scientific Integrity Act would require U.S. federal agencies to adopt or strengthen policies to insulate government-directed research from the influence of political pressure and special interests.
We must be guided by the facts. And the fact is climate change is real. The fact is we have some of the brightest and most experienced minds in the world working to combat this challenge. The fact is America has the wherewithal to make a difference.
Ultimately, if we want our children and grandchildren to inherit a better, cleaner planet, fact must trump politics.
Rep. Tsongas is a member of the Natural Resources Committee and founding member of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC).
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/326629-climate-change-fact-must-trump-politics
-
Conservatives Fear EPA Chief Going Soft on Climate Science
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency is facing heavy pressure from conservatives to take on the science of climate change.
Undoing the 2009 endangerment finding — the Obama administration’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are a threat and can be regulated — would make it easier for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reverse President Obama’s climate agenda.
That’s because it would remove the legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, removing a key tool that environmentalists are counting on as they try to keep Obama’s policies like the Clean Power Plan in place.
The finding that greenhouse gases “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations” is the lynchpin of climate policy under the Clean Air Act, and removing it could effectively gut many of EPA regulations.
But while Pruitt has expressed skepticism of the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change, repealing or changing the endangerment finding would be a significant lift, according to experts and supporters of climate policies, with the vast majority of scientific data working against Pruitt.
“The science is very clear. The endangerment finding is basically unquestioned throughout the scientific community and the legal community,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). “So I think it would be a very bizarre, unproductive and destructive thing to revisit that.”
President Trump’s executive order this week to start the process of rolling back nearly all of Obama’s climate agenda did not ask the EPA to reconsider the endangerment finding.
Sources close to EPA leadership said that early drafts of the order would have instructed the department review the finding. But Pruitt successfully pushed against that.
Those sources claimed that Pruitt, who as attorney general of Oklahoma was a frequent litigant against the Obama administration, was concerned about his political future and didn’t want to be labeled anti-science.
“They’re looking for reasons to not do it because they don’t want a fight,” a person familiar with the deliberations said, referring to Pruitt and his allies.
Breitbart News columnist James Delingpole wrote this week that Pruitt should consider resigning if he won’t repeal the endangerment finding, saying that he “is more interested in building his political career than he is taking on the Green Blob.”
In addition, the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a petition last month formally asking the EPA to launch a review, saying “since that finding was issued, evidence has continued to mount that directly contradicts it.”
The original push in the administration to strike down the endangerment finding came in part because Trump promised last year, in a questionnaire from the fossil fuel-backed American Energy Alliance (AEA), to review the finding if he were elected.
Apart from that, Trump frequently railed against Obama’s climate policies. He called climate change a “hoax” and promised to remove barriers to fossil fuel production and use.
Pruitt has walked a fine line on climate change science. He said at his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he believes the climate is changing but that the extent to which human activity contributes to it, and what should be done about it, are “subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well it should be.”
But on CNBC earlier this month, Pruitt said carbon dioxide is not the “primary contributor” to global warming and said that Congress should have a say over what the United States does, if anything, about climate change.
The EPA’s endangerment finding came in response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The court ruled that greenhouse gases from cars are air pollutants and said the EPA is obligated to decide whether their emissions rise to the level of requiring regulation.
The fact that Trump’s executive order didn’t mention the finding does not preclude future action on the matter.
The EPA did not return a request for comment on whether it plans to consider repealing the endangerment finding.
Republicans in Congress are split on Pruitt’s decision to forego action on the finding for the time being.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sponsored unsuccessful legislation to undo the finding shortly after it was issued, out of concern of the impact on fossil fuel industries like oil, which is important to Alaska’s economy.
But she said she is bothered by the Trump administration’s plans.
“It seems to me a rational, responsible approach, given what he has in front of him,” Murkowski said of Pruitt’s agenda. “So I’m not questioning why or if he has to go back to the endangerment finding.”
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a close Trump ally who served last year as an adviser to his campaign on energy policy, said he doesn’t like the finding, but he understands the need to avoid action for now.
“It’s a little bit like healthcare. If you let perfect be the enemy of good, you sometimes don’t get anything,” Cramer said, comparing it to the recent fight over repealing and replacing ObamaCare.
“And I think the endangerment finding just would have been such a heavy lift, because legally, to unwind it would have just been so onerous. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try or continue to try over time. But it shouldn’t hold up these other, more immediate things,” he continued.
But Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he’d like to see the administration take on climate science.
“They ought to really take a look at the endangerment finding that the Obama administration issued when they first got in office,” he said. “I think it’s very flawed and should be, at a minimum, revisited.”
Tom Pyle, president of the AEA, agreed that the Trump administration should make it a priority.
“A lot of the hard work they’ll be doing over the next several years could easily be undone should another administration come in and have a significantly different perspective on the issue,” said Pyle, who led Trump’s transition team at the Energy Department.
Pyle said his group doesn’t necessarily think that greenhouse gases do not cause climate change. But Congress should decide the issue, and the Clean Air Act is not the right tool, he said.
“I think it only makes sense for the president and the administration to do these things,” Pyle said. “I don’t think the advice he’s been getting about putting it aside for now is sound.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326635-conservatives-fear-epa-chief-going-soft-on-climate-science
-
Paris Pact Will Ease Harmful Impacts of Pipeline — State
Mar 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Paris climate agreement means the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline will be less harmful to the global environment. That's what the Trump administration is saying.
Last week's State Department record of decision, which used Obama-era analyses to reverse the former president's 2015 decision to kill the controversial pipeline, included that unusual conclusion.
The memo by Undersecretary of State Thomas Shannon notes that President Obama pulled the plug on the pipeline in the immediate run-up to the 2015 Paris summit, which produced the first global accord to address warming.
"In the 2015 decision, the Department determined that approval of the proposed project at that time would have undercut the credibility and influence of the United States in urging other countries to address climate change," wrote Shannon.
"Since then, there have been numerous developments related to global action to address climate change, including announcements by many countries of their plans to do so," he added. "In this changed global context, a decision to approve this proposed project at this time would not undermine U.S. objectives in this area."
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recused himself from the decision because of his previous position as CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp.
The Paris Agreement relies on countries submitting pledges — known in U.N. parlance as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) — for emissions abatement and sometimes adaptation. The United States put forward an NDC that promised to cut its greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.
Obama played a personal role in pressing world leaders to offer ambitious plans ahead of Paris, perhaps most significantly releasing the outline of the U.S. NDC during a 2014 meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in which Xi pledged for the first time that China would stop growing its emissions. That pledge is now codified in the Paris deal.
But President Trump, who has called climate change a Chinese hoax, is expected to announce in late May whether he will withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. Even if people within the White House who favor staying in the deal prevail, the administration will likely weaken its NDC.
The timing of the decision, which White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced during yesterday's press briefing, is timed for Trump's participation in the Group of Seven leaders' summit in Taormina, Italy. The group has strongly favored climate action in recent years, and the timing might indicate a decision to stay in the deal.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said yesterday that the G-7 timing would be "sensible."
But he said the administration could afford to take its time with the decision.
"I don't seen any rush to become not a part of something that doesn't obligate you anyway, and maybe you can influence the direction of it," he said.
'Befuddling'
Josh Axelrod, an analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called Shannon's reference to Paris in the Keystone decision "befuddling."
"It doesn't make any sense," he said. "When people have stumbled across that paragraph, they're left scratching their heads."
The pipeline is opposed by environmentalists and others because it would move crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico and ensure that high-emitting fossil fuels are used for decades to come.
Last week's memo notes that the environmental impact statement for another pipeline, the Alberta Clipper, estimates that oil sands crude may have a life-cycle greenhouse gas footprint that is up to 20 percent more emitting than previously thought.
Most environmentalists and proponents of Paris say the Trump administration's reduced commitment to climate mitigation will not prompt other countries to leave the deal or rescind their plans, but some acknowledge that it might dampen future commitments by some countries.
Most international players say they would prefer to see the United States stay in the deal, even if it comes to be viewed as a laggard, but a few disagree.
Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in Bangladesh, told reporters that "if the U.S. remains in and tries to drag everybody back, then I would be in favor of them making a clean break and going their own way and letting the rest of the world move ahead."
"From our perspective, being a drag on collective action is actually worse," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/31/stories/1060052380
-
Trump to Decide by Late May Whether to Stay in Paris Climate Pact
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is planning to decide by late May on whether the U.S. should stay in the Paris climate change agreement, the White House announced Thursday.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at his daily briefing that White House aides “are currently reviewing issues related to the agreement.”
The administration expects to announce a final decision by May 26 — the beginning of a conference in Italy for the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized countries — or even sooner, Spicer said.
The president promised last year on the campaign trail to “cancel” the 2015 agreement, which former President Barack Obama helped formulate. The pact consists of non-binding greenhouse gas emissions cuts agreed to by nearly 200 nations.
Trump has been under pressure from conservatives, top White House adviser Stephen Bannon and others to fulfill his campaign promise and formally exit the agreement.
But others close to the president want to maintain the United States’ position in the pact, even if Trump doesn’t want to abide by the 26 percent to 28 percent emissions cut that Obama promised.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said it’s valuable from a diplomatic perspective to stay in the accord, and Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner — both close advisers — agree.
Trump’s wide-ranging executive order signed Tuesday started the process to roll back nearly all of Obama’s climate agenda, but did not mention the Paris agreement. Still, the order makes it unlikely that the nation could live up to Obama’s commitment.
The pact sets out a four-year process for exiting the agreement. But some conservatives have suggested pulling the U.S. out of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, a much larger agency, which would also have the effect of pulling out of Paris.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326561-trump-to-decide-whether-to-stay-paris-climate-pact-by-late-may
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested