Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/28/2017
-
Chemical industry Off to a Strong 2017
Apr 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Chemical firms releasing first-quarter financial results are reporting strong demand for a broad range of products including seeds, electronic materials, and even textile dyes. Several firms posted earnings growth that exceeded expectations. -
EPA Considers Repealing, Replacing Programs that Help Prevent Childhood Lead Exposure
Apr 28, 2017 | Think Progress
By Yvette Cabrera
Environmental advocates are bracing for potentially “catastrophic” changes to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that protect children from dangerous lead exposure across the country. -
(ACC Mentioned) Record Levels of Toxic Flame Retardants Found in College Dorms
Apr 27, 2017 | Newsweek
By Douglas Main
Very high levels of toxic flame retardants have been found in dust samples collected from college dormitories, raising concerns that they could impact the health of many young people. -
Product Stewardship and Textiles
Apr 27, 2017 | National Law Review
By Christopher L. Bell
The environmental parameters associated with textiles continue to attract both regulatory and value chain attention. In an interesting development, Vietnam just relaxed its chemical testing rules for exported textiles (e.g., textiles and apparel exported to the U.S. and EU markets)... -
Trump to Order Review of Offshore Drilling
Apr 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Trump will sign an executive order on Friday to reconsider several major Obama-era actions cracking down on offshore drilling. -
Power Plant Mercury Litigation Halted to Allow EPA Review
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal court indefinitely froze litigation over an Obama-era regulation limiting mercury emissions from the power sector, further lengthening a years-long legal battle over the agency's ability to regulate hazardous power plant emissions. -
Heartened by FIrst 100 Days, Trump Energy Allies Want More
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
Donald Trump on the campaign trail came out swinging on energy issues, promising to revive a dying coal industry, usher in a surge of new oil and gas infrastructure, and roll back Obama-era regulations. -
Effort to Scrap Oil, Gas and Coal Royalties Rule Challenged
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California and New Mexico are challenging the Trump administration's effort to repeal Obama-era changes to how royalties for oil, gas and coal extracted from federal and Indian lands are calculated. -
On Trump Tax Play, Watch What You Wish For, Drillers Warned
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
While President Donald Trump's plan to cut corporate income taxes could save oil and natural gas explorers $13 billion a year, it jeopardizes tax breaks that may mean even more to U.S. shale drillers. -
Why a Tightening US Natural Gas System Could Put the Squeeze on LNG
Apr 28, 2017 | Platts
By Gary Hornby
Europe is banking on cheap US LNG exports competing with Russian pipeline natural gas to keep prices low and global supplies plentiful. But the US natural gas system is not as comfortable as you might think. -
Peabody Energy, Marathon Oil Among Lobbyists on Review Act Actions
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
At least 68 fossil fuel companies, trade associations, environmental groups and others lobbied Congress on at least one of four Congressional Review Act resolutions in the first three months of 2017. -
Dow on Target for Mid-Year Startup of Texas Steam Cracker, PE Units
Apr 27, 2017 | Platts
By Chris Ferrell
Dow Chemical remains on pace for a mid-2017 startup of its world-scale steam cracker in Texas, potentially bringing the new capacity online ahead of competitors on the US Gulf Coast coming on stream, the company said Thursday during an earnings call. -
Manufacturers Meet with Pruitt and Chao
Apr 27, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Camille von Kaenel
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers met with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao today as the Trump administration reconsiders emissions and mileage requirements for the auto industry. -
Exclusive: Trump Says U.S. Wants Fair Treatment in Climate Pact
Apr 27, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By David Brunnstrom
President Donald Trump complained on Thursday that the United States was being unfairly treated in the Paris Climate Agreement and told Reuters he would announce a decision in about two weeks on whether Washington would remain in the accord. -
High Court Urged to Review EPA Ban on Facility Malfunction Air Waivers
Apr 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several conservative and free-market legal advocacy groups are urging the Supreme Court to grant a petition to review the Obama EPA's ban on Clean Air Act (CAA) emissions limits waivers for pollution from facility malfunctions... -
Scarce Congressional Presence Expected for D.C. March
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Lawmakers will have a light footprint at tomorrow's People's Climate March in Washington, if Congress wraps up its work on a bill to fund the federal government.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Chemical industry Off to a Strong 2017
Apr 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Chemical firms releasing first-quarter financial results are reporting strong demand for a broad range of products including seeds, electronic materials, and even textile dyes. Several firms posted earnings growth that exceeded expectations.
Both volumes and prices were up at Dow Chemical, as the company reported gains across businesses serving packaging, transportation, infrastructure, consumer care, and electronic materials. What’s more, demand growth was strong across China, the U.S., and Europe.
CEO Andrew N. Liveris linked Dow’s strength in operations to the growing global economy. He touted the firm’s 14 straight quarters of year-over-year volume gains and an even longer stretch of earnings growth. Liveris said he continues to expect Dow’s merger with DuPont to be completed by the end of August.
Industrial demand gave BASF room to hike basic chemical prices an average of 8% in the quarter. And like Dow, BASF saw volumes increase broadly in basic chemicals, performance products, and functional materials. It also posted slightly higher sales in crop protection chemicals. Overall, BASF raised earnings 23% compared to the first quarter of 2016 to almost $1.9 billion.
At DuPont, sales rose mainly due to demand from outside the U.S. For example, the firm saw strong demand for corn hybrids in Brazil and sunflower varieties in Europe. In addition to seeds, DuPont did a brisk business in specialty polymers for auto manufacturing and in electronic materials for semiconductors, consumer electronics, and photovoltaics.
In a conference call with analysts, DuPont CEO Edward D. Breen credited the company’s new product innovations as well as better-than-expected conditions in end markets for boosting earnings 8% to more than $1.1 billion compared to last year’s first quarter.
At Ashland, consumer demand for personal care products and pharmaceuticals containing its specialty ingredients helped the firm raise prices to make up for higher raw material costs. It also saw stronger sales in industrial products such as composites, intermediates, and solvents. Compared to last year, Ashland’s earnings were up 5% to $121 million.
Strong market conditions for polyurethanes gave Huntsman Corp. an opportunity to raise its prices for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate. And it sold 10% more performance products than in the year-ago quarter. Textile chemicals and dyes were big sellers in Asia, Europe, and South America.
Covestro, the former materials business of Bayer, saw overall volumes expand by 9% and prices soar more than 13% from last year on the strength of its polyurethanes portfolio and demand for coatings and adhesives. The firm’s polycarbonate business benefited from higher sales to auto and consumer electronics manufacturers.
Frank H. Lutz, Covestro’s chief financial officer, said the company is in a strong position to benefit from the growth in its customers’ industries. “Our optimism for fiscal year 2017 was confirmed in the first quarter,” he said.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i18/Chemical-industry-off-strong-2017.html
-
EPA Considers Repealing, Replacing Programs that Help Prevent Childhood Lead Exposure
Apr 28, 2017 | Think Progress
By Yvette Cabrera
Environmental advocates are bracing for potentially “catastrophic” changes to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that protect children from dangerous lead exposure across the country. Advocates say if the agency moves forward with its plans to repeal or replace programs that regulate hazardous lead levels, lead poisoning prevention efforts would be set back decades.
The advocates plan to voice their concerns at a May 1 public meeting that the EPA is hosting in Washington D.C. to seek input on regulations “to make them less burdensome,” according to an email the EPA sent last week to stakeholders. That email cited Donald Trump’s presidential order directing federal agencies lower regulatory burdens.
The lead regulations, which are part of the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect how hazardous lead levels in dust, soil, and paint are identified, remediated, and disclosed. Legal advocates expressed concern that these potential changes will relax standards rather than strengthening lead protections at a time when communities across the country are discovering that lead contamination is more pervasive than previously thought.
A lead epidemic threatens to return
mily Benfer, a clinical professor of law at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, described the potential repeals and changes as “catastrophic.”
“It was the lack of regulations that originally created the lead epidemic and this completely preventable public health crisis that we are still in the trenches fighting today,” said Benfer. “These regulations, these certification programs, the lead poisoning prevention programs, the funding that goes with them—this isn’t about burdening the American people. This about protecting our children, and we have an obligation, we have a duty, frankly to do that.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that no level of lead in children is safe, and experts have emphasized that primary prevention is essential to eliminating the threat of lead exposure.
Scientific research on the neurotoxic effects of lead on the developing brain has shown that elevated lead levels can cause a host of lasting damages: increased aggression, lack of impulse control, hyperactivity, inability to focus, and delinquent behaviors. And a growing body of evidence has shown that low blood lead levels are associated with a host of issues such as lowered IQ levels, attention-related behaviors, and poor academic achievement.
To eliminate childhood lead exposure would require that the EPA not just retain its existing regulations, but improve upon them, said Benfer.
“Removing these regulations — that will result in a neurotoxin being released into the environment and permanent brain damage for children — will place an additional burden on American people,” said Benfer. “If we truly want to support Americans and our country and our future generations, we have to protect them from lead poisoning as they’re starting out in life.”
Politicizing lead safety programs
Trump has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to significantly slash its budget, and an agency memo indicates the EPA plans to cut two lead-based paint programs. That, and the possible repeals and changes to the lead regulations, conflict with statements that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made during a visit earlier this month to a lead Superfund site in East Chicago. There, he pledged to get the agency “back to the basics of protecting human health and the environment.”
Pruitt said one of his top priorities is to deliver “real results” for the people of East Chicago, where neighborhoods such as the West Calumet public housing complex have dealt with the toxic fallout from a lead smelter facility.
“I was glad to witness some of this work firsthand today and hear from residents who are rightfully concerned with the cleanup of their community,” stated Pruitt in an EPA press release. “Their concerns were heard loud and clear, and I am committed to ensuring that the EPA works with our federal, state, and local partners to find solutions that protect the health and safety of East Chicago.”
Pruitt’s verbal commitment to lead safety is in sharp contrast to the president’s directive to aggressively hamper the EPA’s ability to enforce existing rules, let alone establish further safety measures.
Among the programs and regulations in danger of being repealed are the EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, which requires that certified firms perform lead-based-paint repairs and renovations in homes, childcares and preschools built before 1978; and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Rule, which requires that home sellers and landlords disclose known lead hazards in residences built before 1978. The latter rule ensures sellers and landlords provide buyers and renters with a lead hazard information pamphlet, and that they offer an opportunity for an independent lead inspection of the home. Also being considered for repeal or replacement are the residential hazard standards for lead in paint, dust, and soil.
Removing and weakening the disclosure rule in any way would be a step backward. Benfer said it would create a false sense of security and safety for buyers and renters.
“These laws are designed to put people on notice that there is an issue, that there is lead in the environment, before the child identifies it with their blood lead levels,” said Benfer. “Now people will be operating under the false belief that it must be safe because ‘in the past I’ve relied on the government to protect me from this harm.’”
Ignoring the science
The EPA has come under sharp criticism from environmental organizations and community groups who have said for years that the agency’s residential hazard standards, which are meant to protect children by identifying and removing lead hazards in homes, are obsolete. Those advocates point out the standards don’t align with scientific research, which indicates they must be stricter.
Last year, the San Francisco-based environmental law organization Earthjustice sued the EPA for failing to update the standards in a timely manner, a process that the agency launched in 2009 in response to a citizens’ petition. That same year, the EPA acknowledged that the hazard standards might not be sufficiently protective, according to the lawsuit.
In a court declaration responding to the lawsuit, the director of the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics stated that the agency has continued to study the matter and may not update the standards, if it moves forward to do so, until 2023.
“There is no need to study further whether kids are harmed by lead. We know the answer: That at any level, lead is harmful,” said Eve Gartner, one of the litigators at Earthjustice who filed the lawsuit.
Gartner said the EPA doesn’t have the authority to repeal large portions of these regulations, which went into effect after Congress passed a law mandating the creation of a national strategy to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in housing as quickly as possible. This was in 1992.
“It’s a fairly comprehensive — if it were well done — aggressive program to reduce kids’ exposure to lead. But it’s required by statute, so all of the regulations are within a program that [the] EPA doesn’t have the discretion to eliminate,” said Gartner, who oversees efforts to protect people from toxic chemicals in the Healthy Communities Program at Earthjustice.
The EPA has some discretion to, for example, select the proper health protective standards using its expertise, but the agency doesn’t have the discretion not to pick a standard at all, she said.
“So there may be at the margins some small pieces of the regulations that [the agency] could eliminate and that wouldn’t violate the statute, but on the whole, this is a program that Congress has said must exist,” said Gartner. “And EPA can’t eliminate it and the White House can’t eliminate it.”
Federal safety standards that work
These and other federal regulations to reduce lead exposure are credited with significantly reducing blood lead levels among American children over the past 40 years. But much work remains, and any modifications that weaken lead standards could potentially reverse advances that have been made in recent decades, said Benfer.
“If we remove these, we still have within society 38 million homes with lead paint that will eventually become a hazard, and 23 million homes that have a lead hazard right now,” said Benfer.
“Without these regulations in place that outline and have specific requirements for how you remediate a home, homes are much more likely to be remediated in an unsafe way that will put all of the occupants in harm’s way.”
In East Chicago, the EPA announced last week that the agency was working with the state and city to coordinate lead water service line replacement, and had plans to remove contaminated soil in high priority properties, as well as clean up the yards of an estimated 120 properties.
But it’s inconsistent, Benfer pointed out, for the EPA to announce this progress while simultaneously announcing the repeal of the rules that would ensure that this work is done effectively.
For example, if the EPA moves forward to repeal or reduce funding for the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, this would impact the grants the program offers states to train contractors on how to properly remove lead-based paint.
“It would place the burden of responding to the issue in East Chicago, on the state of Indiana — a state that is home to long-standing Superfund sites and is strapped for resources,” said Benfer, noting that there are more than 1.7 million homes in Indiana built before 1978, the year the federal government banned lead-based paint for residential use.
Last year, the EPA provided the state of Indiana a total of $262,497.00 via a Lead-Based Paint Program grant. Without that funding, the responsibility would fall on states alone to fund such programs, said Benfer.
“There’s no universe in which the EPA could both protect human health and the environment, and repeal the only EPA regulations aimed at protecting children from exposure to a neurotoxin,” said Benfer.
https://thinkprogress.org/epa-will-try-repeal-replace-tactic-on-lead-prevention-programs-19ede1e1ec25
-
(ACC Mentioned) Record Levels of Toxic Flame Retardants Found in College Dorms
Apr 27, 2017 | Newsweek
By Douglas Main
Very high levels of toxic flame retardants have been found in dust samples collected from college dormitories, raising concerns that they could impact the health of many young people.
A study published in April in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found large quantities of chemicals meant to suppress fire—which have been linked to cancer and hormone disruption—in dust bunnies.
Two of the flame retardants were detected in record-breaking quantities. The main chemical within DecaBDE, a flame retardant that was largely phased out in 2013, was found at levels nine times higher than ever previously recorded in any environment. The Environmental Protection Agency considers this substance a “possible carcinogen” due to its ability to cause cancer in lab animals. A related compound, PentaBDE, was found in college dorms in concentrations four times higher than discovered anywhere else. The EPA officially banned the manufacture of this chemical in 2005; it has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor, meaning it interferes with the function of hormones. It has also been known to negatively affect the development of fetuses, and has neurotoxic effects, says study first author Robin Dodson, a research scientist at the Silent Spring Institute.
“We know it can interfere with the way thyroid hormones act and work,” says Ami Zota, an assistant professor at George Washington University’s school of public health who wasn’t involved in the paper. Exposure to it, especially during critical periods early in life can negatively affect brain development, she adds.
The findings are based on 95 dust samples taken at two colleges in the Northeast, but are likely to generalize to other schools, Dodson says. As to why college dorms have a higher level of flame retardants, Dodson suspects it’s because they are small, relatively confined places that contain a lot of furniture (often old furniture). Furniture and electronics contain flame retardants that leach out and get into dust.
More than half of the dorm rooms tested had dust concentrations that exceed the EPA’s risk-based screening levels for soil. (The agency doesn’t have such levels for dust, though it too can cause exposure to toxins, such as through skin contact and accidental ingestion.) These screening levels usually correspond to “an increase in risk of at least one additional case in a million exposed people,” says Todd Whitehead, a researcher at UC-Berkeley, who wasn’t involved in the study.
All of these findings are “reason for concern,” Whitehead says. Miriam Diamond, a professor at University of Toronto says that it’s not possible to quantify the health risk just yet. “One reason why it’s not possible is because these chemicals tend to have effects that take a long time to manifest,” Diamond adds. “Those effects are endocrine disruption [interference with hormones and the endocrine system], where the strongest evidence shows effects due to fetal exposure. The second reason is that the effects are not known for all the FRs and we don't know the impact of exposure to the complex mixture of chemicals” people come into contact with in the United States and elsewhere.”
Four flame retardants were found in 100 percent of the 95 dust samples studied. Three are suspected carcinogens, meaning they may be capable of causing cancer. Two of them, chemicals known by their bulky acronyms TDCIPP and TCEP, are listed by the state of California as carcinogens. The third, TCIPP, was found in dorms in double the median quantities found in other indoor environments. TCIPP hasn’t been extensively studied, but chemicals it closely resembles in structure have toxic effectson brain cells in animals studies, and may lower thyroid levels and decrease sperm quality in humans. As to the fourth chemical found in all dust samples, named TPHP, “there is growing evidence that [it] could affect hormones, metabolism, reproduction and development,” the Environmental Working Groups reports.
Regardless of how much risk these chemicals pose, it’s a good idea to try and limit your exposure to them, scientists agree. Dodson recommends replacing furniture if it’s more than a few years, as new furniture is less likely to contain flame retardants, and also making sure the product is made without flame retardants. Regularly vacuuming and dusting, pursuits that college students aren’t particularly known for. also help enormously. Diamond also suggests ventilating rooms to avoid a build of chemicals leaching from furniture and electronics, almost all of which contain flame retardants. She also advises to not eat with your hands after touching electronics like cell phones, tablets and keyboards, all of which contain flame retardants.
Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, points out that many of the chemicals found in this study have been phased out. The quantities of flame retardants found in dust were also “far lower than the levels at which toxicological responses have been observed in animal studies,” he says. “Fire is still a real threat to life and property, and college campuses are no exception,” he says, adding that “flame retardants, which are used at times by manufacturers to meet these flammability standards, can be an important line of defense for those living on college campuses.”
However, there isn’t much good evidence that using more flame retardants actually makes fires less deadly, and some scientists suggest the opposite, showing that flame retardants can give rise to toxic fumes. In general, their efficacy is controversial, and "not really backed up by well-supported data," Zota says.
The paper found that one of the schools with a more stringent flame retardant standards—known as TB 133—had higher levels of these chemicals than the school with a less demanding one, known as TB 117. The former is typically observed in public areas, while the other applies to residential areas. But this more "stringent" standard hasn't been conclusively shown to better prevent fires.
Dodson emphasizes that the authors aren't against fire safety. "There are lots of non-chemical tools...like installing sprinklers that can effectively increase fire safety," she says.
http://www.newsweek.com/record-levels-toxic-flame-retardants-found-college-dorms-591101
-
Product Stewardship and Textiles
Apr 27, 2017 | National Law Review
By Christopher L. Bell
The environmental parameters associated with textiles continue to attract both regulatory and value chain attention. In an interesting development, Vietnam just relaxed its chemical testing rules for exported textiles (e.g., textiles and apparel exported to the U.S. and EU markets), specifically for formaldehyde and aromatic amines. Formaldehyde is frequently used in treating textiles, including popular “no-iron” and “permanent press” textiles. Aromatic amines are present in some common dyes used in textiles and include chemicals that are either known or suspected to be carcinogens.
The presence of these chemicals in textiles is relatively unregulated at the federal level in the United States, though there has been some attention at the state level. For example, formaldehyde is subject to California’s Proposition 65, and some crafts/textile stores in California post Proposition 65 warnings for their imported textiles. Washington, Maine, and Minnesota have statutes with reporting requirements for what are typically described as “high priority” chemicals, including formaldehyde, intentionally added to children’s products (though not all of these encompass apparel). There has been occasional litigation based on claims of skin irritation allegedly caused by the presence of formaldehyde in apparel.
Perhaps more importantly than formal regulation, the chemical content of apparel, including formaldehyde, receives a certain amount of attention in social media. This reverberates into market impacts, with some companies trying to leverage this into a competitive advantage by advertising “chemical-free” clothing. This leverage could increase if major buyers begin to drive chemical content requirements through their value chains. Some of the most prominent retailers, including Walmart, have already launched initiatives to decrease or remove certain chemicals, including formaldehyde, from a range of products, including personal care, cosmetics and cleaning products. Some major buyers and brands, including Walmart, Levi Strauss, and VF have signed on to policies and standards associated with sustainable forestry and agriculture that affect the value chain for a variety of raw materials for textiles, including rayon and cotton.
Decisions by Vietnam to impose more stringent chemical content standards for apparel on its own market than it does for its strong apparel export market might increase public and retailer attention to this issue. The most likely ongoing pressure points will probably be from social media, consumers, and companies seeking to leverage this issue for competitive advantage. And even if increased federal regulation is viewed by some as less likely under the current administration, that will not restrict state regulators from taking action (the preemption provisions of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act will operate, roughly speaking, in inverse proportion to the degree of EPA regulation of specific chemicals: the less active EPA is, the more freedom of movement at the state level).
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/product-stewardship-and-textiles
-
Trump to Order Review of Offshore Drilling
Apr 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Trump will sign an executive order on Friday to reconsider several major Obama-era actions cracking down on offshore drilling.
The aim of the order, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters Thursday, is to consider how to best expand offshore drilling in U.S. waters.
The Trump administration is reversing President Obama’s December decision to remove most of the Arctic Ocean from the federal drilling program.That move would have blocked drilling in the Arctic for years to come, angering the drilling industry, which has long desired to tap massive stores of oil underneath Arctic waters.
Zinke said his department will also reopen the Obama administration’s five-year drilling plan, finalized in November, that restricts lease sales for new drilling to only the Gulf of Mexico and waters off south-central Alaska.
Regulators will also reconsider government regulations on activities like seismic testing and will review decisions within the last 10 years to create offshore marine monuments and sanctuaries.
None of these actions mean new drilling in the Arctic or Atlantic Oceans is imminent. For one, reviewing the five-year plan is a lengthy process that Zinke predicted could take about two years.
Trump’s order is likely to draw lawsuits as well. The Obama administration insisted the decision to withdraw the Arctic from the drilling program could not be reversed under the law, and that contention has yet to be tested in court.
The order, once signed, will be the second action Trump has taken this week to try expanding oil and gas drilling in the United States. On Wednesday, he signed an order to reconsider 20 years of national monument designations on public lands, a proposal that could eventually open up more federal acreage to energy production.
On top of Trump’s other energy-related executive orders, this measure “puts us on track for American energy independence,” Zinke said.
Environmentalists have long fought to prevent drilling in environmentally sensitive areas off the coast to the United States, warning that the threat of a devastating oil spill outweighs the benefits of obtaining energy supplies.
The Obama administration stripped potential lease sales for the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from its final five-year plan, a regular government drilling blueprint that takes years to put together.
His decision to remove most of the Arctic from the drilling program was aimed at blocking oil production there indefinitely. It was a step greens urged him to take throughout his presidency and one he issued one month before he left office.
The drilling industry was incensed by the decision. Even though there is no drilling there now — it is too expensive to extract oil in the Arctic, and on-shore oil supplies are so plentiful that suppliers haven’t looked to expand their offshore portfolio — drillers still wanted the opportunity to tap them in the future.
"We are pleased to see this administration prioritizing responsible U.S. energy development and recognizing the benefits it will bring to American consumers and businesses,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a statement.
“Developing our abundant offshore energy resources is a critical part of a robust, forward-looking energy policy that will secure our nation’s energy future and strengthen the U.S. energy renaissance," he added.
Environmentalists and Democrats in Congress have begun lambasting Trump’s order before it even comes out.
Twenty-seven senators sent a letter to Zinke on Thursday asking him not to revise the five-year drilling plan, saying Obama’s plan would “protect key industries for our states, such as fishing and tourism, our environment and our climate.”
Green groups pledged vigorous opposition as well.
“This latest executive order is yet another indication that the Trump administration is committed to doubling down on dirty and dangerous oil and gas development, instead of moving America towards clean energy alternatives like offshore wind,” Nancy Pyne, the climate and energy campaign director at Oceana said in a statement, noting local opposition to drilling.
Zinke said he will listen to local opinions on drilling before making any decisions on a new plan.
“As a secretary of Interior, I want to know what our inventory is,” he said.
“It also involves public hearings and the opportunity for the public to vocalize their support or dissent. Not everywhere likes offshore drilling … that’s part of the process, is to look at that.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/331006-trump-to-order-review-of-offshore-drilling
-
Power Plant Mercury Litigation Halted to Allow EPA Review
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal court indefinitely froze litigation over an Obama-era regulation limiting mercury emissions from the power sector, further lengthening a years-long legal battle over the agency's ability to regulate hazardous power plant emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency sought the delay to allow for a close review of the Obama administration's determination that regulation of the power sector is warranted. The agency has successfully sought delays in several other high-profile Clean Air Act cases that were slated for argument, including litigation over the 2015 ozone standards and carbon emissions limits for new power plants.
A coalition of states and power sector organizations have been fighting the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in court since 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 ruled against the EPA, finding the agency made an error in the rulemaking process, but the regulation has remained in effect (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 2015 BL 207163, 80 ERC 1577 (U.S. 2015)).
The latest round of litigation over the regulation concerns a “supplemental finding” the EPA issued in response to the Michigan ruling that reaffirmed the agency's authority to regulate, as well as the EPA's decision to deny requests for reconsideration of the rule.
The litigation was expected to have a limited practical effect on utilities, which have already installed pollution controls, switched from coal to a cleaner source, or shut down operations in order to comply with the MATS rule. However, petitioners were seeking to challenge the EPA's accounting of indirect benefits—such as the benefits of reducing particulate matter and other pollutants not directly regulated by the MATS rule—which could have a broader impact on EPA's air regulatory regime.
Arguments over those issues had been scheduled for May 18. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit April 27 issued an order to halt those arguments and place the litigation in abeyance pending a review by the Trump administration (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1127, 4/27/17; ARIPPA v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1180, 4/27/17).
Environmental advocates, who are intervening in the litigation in defense of the EPA's finding, previously told Bloomberg BNA that they will fight any attempt by the Trump administration to roll back the mercury standards. Graham McCahan, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, said in an April 27 statement that advocates expect that the regulation will remain in place.
“The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have a rock-solid foundation in the law and science, and there is no basis to weaken them,” McCahan said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110318324&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110318324&jd=110318324
-
Heartened by FIrst 100 Days, Trump Energy Allies Want More
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
Sixth part of a series. Click here for the first part, here for the second part, here for the third part, here for the fourth part and here for the fifth part.
Donald Trump on the campaign trail came out swinging on energy issues, promising to revive a dying coal industry, usher in a surge of new oil and gas infrastructure, and roll back Obama-era regulations.
But while the president's myriad executive memos and orders and various agency appointments have thrilled Republican lawmakers and fossil fuel interests, some energy veterans question whether there is meat to the new administration's actions.
"I think a lot of it's just bravado and rhetoric without a great deal of delivery, even to his constituents," said Charles Ebinger, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center. "I'd think they'd start getting a little irritated, seems to be all show and not much action."
Within the past 100 days, Trump has welcomed back the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines and ordered a plan to make sure all new or expanded U.S. projects use domestic steel.
The president has also signaled the rollback of a host of U.S. EPA rules, like the Clean Power Plan and methane restrictions, and the opening of offshore waters to expanded drilling.
Republican lawmakers say Trump is indeed delivering on the broad-brush promises of his campaign, pointing to the successful use of the Congressional Review Act to block President Obama's regulations, as well as executive actions to unwind other policies.
"I think he's made real progress," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said this week. "Right out of the blocks we wanted to reduce the regulatory burden, and there's no question he's doing it. And I think that's why you're seeing some strengths and improvements in the economy. And we're not done."
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he's seen an uptick in economic optimism while traveling around his state in recent weeks.
"There's a spring in the step all around Wyoming," he said earlier this week. "People are very happy with the way things are heading in terms of energy development and exploration and economic opportunity."
Trump allies and advisers agree on the president's success but are also focusing on the list on unfinished priority items on energy and the environment.
"I think the White House has set the tone, the agenda for his agencies. It's very clear he's committed to at least attempting to fill his promises," said Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research and former leader of Trump's Energy Department transition team.
"The question is how the secretaries and administrators implement them," said Pyle, "and whether they can get them done and how soon and what impacts positively they'll have on the economy and energy."
Republican lawmakers say the president's legislative agenda has developed slower than some had anticipated, with details of major agenda items — such as comprehensive tax reform and the $1 trillion infrastructure plan — only trickling out.
There's also been grumbling for months that many key vacancies at federal agencies remain unfulfilled, despite prodding from industry and lawmakers themselves who fear shorthanded staff and agencies are hampering the president's priorities.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a member of the Energy and Finance committees, said some aspects of the economic growth Trump promised on the campaign trail will by necessity take longer than 100 days.
"The guy said he wanted to create jobs, right?" he said. "That was his No. 1 priority. That is related to tax reform, regulatory relief and infrastructure development."
Cassidy credited Trump policies with creating the regulatory relief necessary for new long-term capital investments he's seeing companies make, but said tax reform and infrastructure are more complex initiatives that will take longer.
"Could it have been better?" he asked of the president's first 100 days. "Yes. Have we made a running start? I think yes."
'He hasn't done anything'
With many committees eyeing the infrastructure package as a vehicle for carrying legislative priorities, Hoeven said it will take longer to build enough support to gain the 60 votes necessary to advance the bill through the Senate.
But he portrayed Trump's first 100 days as part of a multi-pronged strategy to stimulate the economy, citing the actions already taken on regulations, as well as the confirmation of "strict constructionist" Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
"All those fronts are at work, and that's why I say we're making real progress," he said. "The legislative piece takes a little longer, and that's to be expected."
Democrats, not surprisingly, painted a less rosy picture of Trump's first 100 days, saying the president failed to match his campaign rhetoric on jobs.
"He hasn't done anything so far," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, when asked about Trump's energy accomplishments.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said, "He's made a lot of promises to the people that I represent in Michigan and that my colleagues represent in their states as well, in terms of setting the stage to create jobs, being able to stop outsourcing that hurts middle-class and working families.
"But as my mother always said, actions speak louder than words. Studies aren't enough. Talking about something is not enough."
Stabenow dinged Trump for his repeated pledge that KXL and Dakota Access would be built with American steel. Observers and reporters have disproved those claims.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a co-chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, slammed Trump for focusing on "divisive" issues that only appeal to his base.
"Many of us heard a lot of the rhetoric of the president during his campaign and thought, 'This is an area we could work on together,' but what we've seen is a lot of discussion of those issues, a lot of use of them in political rallies, but very little if any execution of those policies by way of legislation or working with Democrats to move it forward," Cicilline said this week.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) noted that Trump has yet to offer a plan for either infrastructure or renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Casey, who has been forceful in criticising Trump, also laid into the president for not doing more in the fight to extend health benefits for coal workers. Trump campaigned heavily in coal country.
"And that I think the most egregious of all because he doesn't have to go on the road. He doesn't have to introduce a bill," Casey told reporters. "He doesn't have to do anything other than urge the two Republican leaders who are in charge of both houses to get this done for coal miners."
On Twitter yesterday, the president accused Democrats of being the ones to jeopardize miner benefits in negotiations to keep the government open. However, coal country lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long been lobbying on the issue.
Industry asks
While lawmakers await details on the infrastructure package, the administration has signaled it could move to deliver a number of energy industry asks, including expediting exports of liquefied natural gas, streamlining permitting of oil and gas pipelines and hydropower projects, and opening federal waters to increased drilling.
Pyle said much of what the president can do to bolster the oil and gas sector will happen on a case-by-case basis to relieve bottlenecks, pointing to Energy Secretary Rick Perry's recent approval of LNG exports from the Texas-based Golden Pass terminal to countries that lack free-trade agreements with the U.S.
Trump's approval of high-profile projects like KXL and Dakota Access that languished under Obama have already injected the sector with certainty, Pyle added, and the permitting reform could arrive in an infrastructure package of regulatory reform.
He also said the yet-to-be-named head of the Council on Environmental Quality could help in that regard. Pyle, pushing back on the notion Trump hasn't moved fast enough, called for patience.
"On energy and environment stuff, the White House has set the tone and the agenda on these issues through executive orders ... but it's not like tomorrow everything's going to be resolved," Pyle said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/28/stories/1060053733
-
Effort to Scrap Oil, Gas and Coal Royalties Rule Challenged
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California and New Mexico are challenging the Trump administration's effort to repeal Obama-era changes to how royalties for oil, gas and coal extracted from federal and Indian lands are calculated.
A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges the Interior Department has run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act by delaying a rule after its effective date ( California v. Interior, N.D. Cal., 3:17-cv-02376, 4/26/17).
At issue is the valuation rule that the Interior Department's Office of Natural Resources proposed to repeal April 4, invoking Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
“Section 705 does not apply to rules that have already gone into effect,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in an April 27 written statement.
The administration failed to weigh the economic and environmental harms to the public as required by the four-part test for postponing a rule, the complaint said. Also, the grounds offered for repeal don't justify delaying its implementation.
“Defendants have effectively revoked the Rule without completing the notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA,” the states’ attorneys general said in their April 26 complaint.
Effective Jan. 1, 2017, the valuation rule was expected to increase royalties by about $78 million a year.
Cloud Peak Energy Inc., the American Petroleum Institute and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. filed a lawsuit challenging the rule, which was finalized in July 2016. The Trump administration won a stay of the litigation in March, after telling a Wyoming federal court that it agreed with plaintiffs that the rule was flawed.
California and other states could lose about $18 million in royalties a year, Becerra said.
“The winners here are the private mining interests that profit from paying less for our natural resources,” he said. “The losers are—surprise, surprise—the American taxpayers.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110318328&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110318328&jd=110318328
-
On Trump Tax Play, Watch What You Wish For, Drillers Warned
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
While President Donald Trump's plan to cut corporate income taxes could save oil and natural gas explorers $13 billion a year, it jeopardizes tax breaks that may mean even more to U.S. shale drillers.
The proposal outlined April 26 is a long way from the finish line and could change significantly in the coming months. One major question is whether Trump and the U.S. Congress balance lower tax rates by reducing other incentives, like a deduction for drilling expenses that may save companies $35 billion over the next decade, according to a report April 27 by analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence.
That could be a bad exchange for independent exploration and production companies -- the small and midsize drillers who focus on U.S. shale fields. With oil prices slumping in recent years, they've tended to pay less in corporate taxes but plow more of their money back into drilling expenses, said BI analyst Rob Barnett, a co-author of the report.
“Be careful what you wish for, folks,” the analysts wrote. “Lowering tax rates could cause the federal deficit to balloon unless special interest tax breaks, including those used by E&Ps, are eliminated.“
U.S. energy producers paid the second highest effective tax rate of any business sector in 2014, at 37 percent of income, according to BI research. Trump's proposal to slash the federal corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent would have saved $13 billion that year for a group of 56 oil and natural-gas companies tracked by Bloomberg.
Yet losing other tax incentives could be a bad trade-off for some, the analysts said. Corporate tax payments are volatile, fluctuating with company earnings; by contrast, the savings from deducting intangible drilling costs and other tax breaks are more stable.
“Re-investing through predictable and stable cash flow is crucial to confidently replenishing a depleting resource,” the analysts wrote. “The certainty of deducting drilling costs, which are rising due to inflation, drives new well investment.“
The deduction could be replaced by another change that Republicans have discussed, allowing companies to immediately write off capital investments, said tax attorney Stephen D. Marcus, who works with energy explorers. But so far, the write-off has been proposed only for manufacturers, said Marcus, a partner in Dallas with Baker Botts LLP.
There's also been talk of eliminating the deduction for corporate interest payments. That would force a sea change for oil and gas drillers who've relied on borrowed money for decades to help pay bills and boost profits, Marcus said.
“It may well be that if I can no longer deduct the interest, it's not worth leveraging up and therefore the rewards are not as great and some of the risks are not worth taking.“
While interest for existing debt could be grandfathered in, “until there's someone in the administration or Congress actually saying that, people have a bit of anxiety,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110318327&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110318327&jd=110318327
-
Why a Tightening US Natural Gas System Could Put the Squeeze on LNG
Apr 28, 2017 | Platts
By Gary Hornby
Europe is banking on cheap US LNG exports competing with Russian pipeline natural gas to keep prices low and global supplies plentiful. But the US natural gas system is not as comfortable as you might think.
The US produced less gas in 2016 than in 2015, the first time since 2005 that gas output fell from one year to the next. At the same time demand for US natural gas is rising –- mainly in the power generation sector, but also for pipeline exports to Mexico and LNG exports.
Both domestic end-user demand in local distribution zones (LDZ) and power generation demand are highly weather sensitive, meaning a particularly hot summer or cold winter could create severe regional imbalances in the US gas system, if not a national imbalance.
This would put the US benchmark Henry Hub natural gas price on an upward trend unless domestic output recovers. This has implications for the global gas markets, as Henry Hub is expected to set the floor price for US LNG exports, and therefore the floor for natural gas prices in Europe and Asia.
The new Republican administration is attempting to remove regulatory barriers to oil and gas production within the US, which should support output in the medium-term.
However, if President Donald Trump delivers on his promises of boosting US manufacturing, or engineers a steer away from renewables in the generation mix, both the industrial and power generation sectors could deliver an additional boost to gas demand.
Higher Henry Hub prices would not necessarily reduce US LNG exports, as Cheniere Energy has already contracted significant volumes from its Sabine Pass LNG terminal to several large global LNG players, such as Shell and Centrica.
Volumes taken by Sabine Pass from the US gas system are expected to increase sharply this year as Trains 1 and 2 run at full capacity and a third train comes online, and more LNG export terminals are planned online by 2020.
These include Cove Point, southeast of Washington DC, which is due to bring on its single LNG train toward end-2017. Corpus Christi is scheduled to begin service in 2018, the three-train Cameron plant in 2018, while Freeport should have two trains operating in 2018, with a third following in 2020.
Cheniere also plans to bring on three more LNG trains at Sabine Pass by the end of this decade.
If all planned US LNG terminals come online within their estimated time frames, they could create as much as 105 Bcm of additional annual gas demand by 2020. This is around 13% of the total 810 Bcm of gas consumed in the US in 2016.
Can the US gas system cope?
Much confidence has been placed in the prolific output of US gas. Several years ago, forecasts for production showed steady year-on-year increases throughout the 2010s on the back of the shale revolution.
However, the supply/demand picture for US natural gas in 2016 was not as comfortable as many had predicted.
Demand increased, not just from liquefaction, which still represents only a fraction of gas use, but from other sources, such as pipeline exports to Mexico and the huge ongoing switch away from coal-fired generation to gas-for-power.
Not only that but output growth peaked and production started to decline. The collapse in oil prices from the summer of 2014 saw drilling activity plummet. The gas rig count was down, but so too was the number of oil rigs and, as a result, the supply of associated gas.
Tightening balance
According to data from Platts Analytics’ Bentek Energy, US dry gas production fell 0.6% in 2016 to 740.43 Bcm after having hit record highs in 2015.
The largest single demand source for US gas in 2016 was the electricity sector. Gas-for-power demand in 2016 stood at 281.43 Bcm, up 3.2% on 2015 and 21.3% higher than in 2014.
Conversely, LDZ demand extended its recent decrease to 248.55 Bcm, as opposed to 258.60 Bcm in 2015 and 280.20 Bcm in 2014. Weak LDZ demand during the first quarter of the year more than compensated for spikes towards end-December.
Industrial gas use remained largely unchanged in 2016 in comparison with recent years, totaling 214.98 Bcm, an increase of 0.9% on an annual basis after having been up at 216.94 Bcm in 2014.
Pipeline exports to Mexico continued to post solid year-on-year increases, reaching 37.25 Bcm in 2016, a hike of 25.1% from 2015 and close to double the 20.52 Bcm exported during 2014.
The new demand factor was feedgas for Sabine Pass, which reached 6.58 Bcm in 2016. Overall, gas demand rose 1.8% year-on-year in 2016 to 809.75 Bcm, beating total gas supply by 8.63 Bcm. Demand would have outstripped supply even without the additional LNG feedgas.
Variable demand
Demand from the gas-for-power generation and LDZ sectors combined totaled more than 500 Bcm last year. New coal-fired plant construction has ground to a halt in the US, and the rate of old coal-fired plant retirement has accelerated.
The US is expected to have 459 GW of gas-fired plant by end-2017, up from 423 GW at end-2012.
Rising use of gas-for-power generation creates its own stresses and strains, as gas demand becomes more sensitive to temperature variations.
The southern states see electricity demand peak in the summer months, owing to the use of air conditioning, while northern demand is heavily affected by cold in the winter.
LDZ demand is similarly affected. Despite having posted an annual fall last year, demand reached over 280 Bcm in 2014, more than 30 Bcm higher than in 2016.
Below-average temperatures saw demand during December 2016 up 37.2% year-on-year.
This variability cannot be controlled by government or suppliers, and given the tightening system balance, US weather is set to become an important driver for the global gas price.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/04/28/us-natgas-could-put-squeeze-on-lng/
-
Peabody Energy, Marathon Oil Among Lobbyists on Review Act Actions
Apr 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
At least 68 fossil fuel companies, trade associations, environmental groups and others lobbied Congress on at least one of four Congressional Review Act resolutions in the first three months of 2017.
Federal records offer a glimpse at how much interest there has been in action under the Review Act. Republicans have touted their use of the 1996 law this year as a way they have helped the economy. The resolutions repeal rules and block substantially similar regulations from ever being put in place.
“The Congressional Review Act, which had been utilized only one time until this year, now has been utilized 13 separate times by the Republicans here in the Senate, and that has resulted ... in over $60 billion in savings and 56 million man hours saved to our economy,” Senate Republican Conference Chair Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said at an April 25 press conference. “Those are the types of things that we think will help create conditions that are favorable to economic growth and job creation.”
Environmentalists and others said these actions would weaken current and future public health protections and leave certain jobs off the table for the future.
“The CRA is an extreme tool, a backdoor tactic used to eviscerate public safeguards with minimal debate and zero public input,” Jessica Ennis, a senior legislative representative in Washington for Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA in an emailed statement. “We will continue to work to protect critical public health and environmental safeguards, regardless of how the attack comes.”
The Senate has until May 9 to use the Congressional Review Act. It is expected to vote to repeal an Interior Department methane law before then. Only certain “midnight rules” finalized during the last 60 working days of the House or the Senate during the previous administration could be targeted. No new resolutions under the law can be introduced at this point.
Bloomberg BNA examined records filed with the Senate Office of Public Records on lobbying activities and spending from January through the end of March.
First Quarter Lobbying
Many groups lobbied on more than one resolution.
For example, at least 30 lobbyists worked on influencing Congress on whether the stream protection rule (RIN:1029-AC63) should be repealed. The rule would have limited mining through streams and placing waste in them, and would have limited the generation of total mining waste. The National Mining Association and the Sierra Club, both of whom were involved in litigation over a 2008 version of the rule, were among those who lobbied on it. A resolution to nullify the rule (H.J. Res. 38) was passed and signed into law (Pub. L. No. 115-5).
Others who were registered to lobby on the resolution of disapproval included coal companies such as Peabody Energy, rail companies such as Norfolk Southern Corp., and groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.
Meanwhile, at least 26 entities including Marathon Oil Corp. and the Wilderness Society lobbied on resolutions aiming to dismantle the Interior Department's land use planning rule. President Donald Trump signed a resolution to repeal this rule (H.J. Res. 44) on March 27 (Pub. L. No. 115-12).
Groups such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and the American Exploration & Mining Association commented during regulatory rule development and later lobbied on the efforts to repeal the final rule (RIN:1004-AE39).
Methane Lobbying Surges
One resolution of disapproval repealing an Interior Department rule (RIN:1018-BA31) delineating certain public participation and other procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska (H.J. Res. 69) had at least four entities that lobbied on it, including Defenders of Wildlife and Doyon Limited, one of 13 Alaska Native Corporations. Trump signed it into law April 3 (Pub. L. No. 115-20).
Of the issues these resolutions addressed, the one that appears to have gotten the most lobbying interest in the first quarter is one that isn't a law yet—a resolution to repeal the Interior Department's methane flaring rule. That rule (RIN:1004-AE14) would limit the venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas operations on federal and Indian lands.
At least 46 groups from Exxon Mobil Corp. to the environmental group the Sierra Club disclosed lobbying in the first quarter on the resolution or repeal of the rule generally. The House passed it Feb. 3 (H.J. Res. 36), and a vote on the Senate version (S.J. Res. 11) is expected.
Several of those entities, including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Wildlife Federation, also commented on the rule during its development through the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
What's Next
As the Congressional Review Act deadline for the Senate nears, political observers will be watching for a Senate vote on repealing the methane rule—a voting timeline that is still to be determined. Republican senators have said they have the votes to pass it.
Sandra Purohit, government relations legislative counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, told Bloomberg BNA in an email that her group will remain concerned until the deadline lapses about two additional resolutions of disapproval. One would repeal certain oil and gas regulations on national wildlife refuges (H.J. Res. 45), and the other would revoke certain exploratory drilling safeguards on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (H.J. Res. 70).
Defenders of Wildlife lobbied in opposition to all three of the energy and environment resolutions of disapproval that are now law.
Observers also may want to watch the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, where the Center for Biological Diversity has challenged the resolution of disapproval that rolls back wildlife protections Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, D. Alaska, No. 3:17-cv-91, 4/20/17.
The center is challenging the constitutionality of the review act saying it violates the “separation of powers” provision.
Peabody Energy and Marathon Oil Corp. didn't respond to multiple messages from Bloomberg BNA requesting comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110318325&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110318325&jd=110318325
-
Dow on Target for Mid-Year Startup of Texas Steam Cracker, PE Units
Apr 27, 2017 | Platts
By Chris Ferrell
Dow Chemical remains on pace for a mid-2017 startup of its world-scale steam cracker in Texas, potentially bringing the new capacity online ahead of competitors on the US Gulf Coast coming on stream, the company said Thursday during an earnings call.
Commissioning of the Light Hydrocarbons Unit No. 9 in Freeport, Texas is currently 50% complete, and is expected be be wrapped up during the second quarter of 2017, Dow said. The 1.5 million mt/year ethane-fed cracker is expected to start mid-year, along with two polyethylene units, Dow CEO Andrew Liveris said.
Sources have pegged the start for sometime during the third quarter.
Fluor Corp., which provided engineering, procurement and construction services on the cracker, said March 30 that mechanical construction had been completed.
The cracker is the cornerstone of Dow's $6 billion investment in the US Gulf Coast.
It will feed Dow's downstream projects, which include 400,000 mt/year of additional Elite polyethylene capacity, 350,000 mt/year of low-density PE, 200,000 mt/year of Nordel metallocene ethylene propylene diene monomer, and 320,000 mt/year of polyolefin elastomers, plus 125,000 mt/year of bimodal PE.
Dow said the LDPE and Elite capacity were expected to start up along with the cracker. The other capacity is expected to come online in early 2018. Dow also is planning to debottleneck an unspecified gas-phase PE unit in 2018, Liveris said.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/dow-on-target-for-mid-year-startup-of-texas-steam-21578343
-
Manufacturers Meet with Pruitt and Chao
Apr 27, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Camille von Kaenel
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers met with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao today as the Trump administration reconsiders emissions and mileage requirements for the auto industry.
An alliance spokeswoman characterized the get-together as an "introductory" meeting automakers hold with every new administration and declined to discuss it further. The Transportation Department and EPA did not comment.
The trade group represents General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, BMW of North America, Volkswagen Group of America and others.
The meeting kicks off negotiations over emissions and fuel economy regulations, which automakers argue are difficult to meet given consumers' taste for gas-guzzling trucks.
President Trump announced he would reconsider the requirements for 2022-2025 during a trip to Michigan on March 15, where he also met with major automaker CEOs. California and a dozen other states have vowed to move forward with the Golden State's own stringent rules, setting up a showdown with Trump, lengthy legal tussles and uncertainty for the auto industry. Automakers have said the White House will seek to broker a deal with California, but the administration has not yet started the talks.
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must decide by April 2018 whether to loosen the requirements.
"The notion that mutually assured destruction where California walks and creates a challenge, or the feds create a challenge on their part, neither of those is a good outcome," said Mitch Bainwol, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, at a New York International Auto Show event last month. He has urged the administration to start the review of the rules "as soon as possible."
Environmental and consumer advocates said they were concerned they were not yet involved in the talks over the rules.
"The last time standards were set, consumers, labor groups and industry had a voice, and everyone was heard," said Shannon Baker-Branstetter, policy counsel for Consumers Union. "If the administration chooses to make changes to the 2025 standards, it is important they understand the impact on consumers. Consumers should have a seat at the table."
Michael Brune, the director of the Sierra Club, called the meeting an effort to "dismantle one of our most important defenses against climate disruption" ahead of the climate march expected to draw tens of thousands of people to Washington this weekend.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/27/stories/1060053715
-
Exclusive: Trump Says U.S. Wants Fair Treatment in Climate Pact
Apr 27, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By David Brunnstrom
President Donald Trump complained on Thursday that the United States was being unfairly treated in the Paris Climate Agreement and told Reuters he would announce a decision in about two weeks on whether Washington would remain in the accord.
The Republican Trump, elected in November, had vowed during his campaign to withdraw from the Paris accord within 100 days of becoming president, part of a broader plan to sweep away Obama administration environmental protections he said were hobbling the economy.
He has since said he is open to staying in the pact if Washington gets better terms, and scores of large U.S. companies and several Republican lawmakers have urged him to stay in the deal as a way to protect American industry interests overseas.
Trump, who will mark the 100th day of his presidency on Saturday, told Reuters in an interview he would announce his decision "in about two weeks," but complained that China, India, Russia and other countries were paying too little to help poorer countries battle climate change under the agreement's Green Climate Fund.
"It's not a fair situation because they are paying virtually nothing and we are paying massive amounts of money," he said.
Asked for a hint of what his decision might be, he said: "I can say this, we want to be treated fairly."
An administration source told Reuters earlier that Trump administration officials would likely meet in May to decide whether to keep the United States in the climate deal, having had an initial meeting on Thursday at the White House.
The group of advisers, which includes Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, was on track to make the decision before a Group of Seven summit on May 26, the source said.
CABINET DIFFERENCES
Tillerson, the former head of Exxon Mobil Corp, and Perry have said the country should remain in the agreement. McMaster shares that view, a source outside the administration said.
Opponents of the pact include Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, the former attorney general of oil-producing state Oklahoma, and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
Nearly 200 countries struck the Paris agreement to limit climate change by cutting carbon dioxide emissions and making investments in clean energy.
Many companies such as BP Plc and Microsoft Corp have urged the United States to stay in the agreement to protect their competitiveness.
A group of nine Republican lawmakers on Thursday urged Trump to stick to the pact, but to weaken the U.S. pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Congressman Kevin Cramer of oil-producing state North Dakota and eight other Republicans in the House of Representatives sent a letter to Trump urging him to use the country's "seat at the Paris table to defend and promote our commercial interest, including our manufacturing and fossil fuel sectors."
If the United States is to stay in the 2015 agreement, Washington should present a new emissions cutting pledge that "does no harm to our economy," said the letter from Cramer, who advised Trump on energy and climate during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump's Democratic predecessor, former President Barack Obama, had pledged a 26 percent to 28 percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels, by 2025. Most scientists say the world needs to curb greenhouse gas emissions to limit the effects of climate change, including rising seas, deadly heatwaves, and severe storms and droughts.
The Republican lawmakers also said Washington should retain its seat on the Green Climate Fund but not make additional transfers to it. Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund in 2014, and gave $1 billion to it, with the last $500 million payment coming in his last days as president.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/04/27/world/asia/27reuters-usa-trump-climate-pact-exclusive.html?_r=0
-
High Court Urged to Review EPA Ban on Facility Malfunction Air Waivers
Apr 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several conservative and free-market legal advocacy groups are urging the Supreme Court to grant a petition to review the Obama EPA's ban on Clean Air Act (CAA) emissions limits waivers for pollution from facility malfunctions, saying the policy is unlawful because it sets unachievable requirements that facilities never exceed air law limits.
In an amicus brief filed this week in American Municipal Power, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al., Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Small Business Legal Center say that EPA's 2011 rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics limits for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers should be scrapped because of the lack of CAA waivers.
“A zero failure process does not exist in the industrialized world we live in today,” the groups say, arguing that it is technologically impossible for facilities to guarantee they will never exceed emissions limits as a result of air pollution increases associated with malfunctions.
The case uses the boiler MACT as a vehicle for more broadly challenging the Obama EPA's policy of removing language from its air rules that allowed waivers from air pollution limits during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) -- which the agency did in response to appellate rulings saying such waivers are illegal.
The Obama EPA also issued a rule ordering 36 states to remove language from their agency-approved state implementation plans (SIPs) for air law compliance that included SSM provisions, though several states and industry groups filed suit over the so-called SSM SIP Call rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case, Walter Coke, et al. v. EPA, et al. had been slated for May 8 oral argument, but the D.C. Circuit recently put it on hold. According to the Trump EPA's successful request to delay argument, the administration wants to review and possibly revise or repeal the SSM SIP Call, suggesting a potential policy change on SSM.
Separate from that suit, the wholesale power generator American Municipal Power (AMP) petitioned the Supreme Court in March to hear its appeal of U.S. Sugar Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al., a 2016 D.C. Circuit ruling which upheld EPA's prohibition on air limit waivers for pollution associated with malfunctions in the boiler MACT.
If the high court takes the case it could give Obama EPA critics an opening to argue against the policy of removing SSM provisions from CAA rules generally, not just in the boiler MACT -- even though the D.C. Circuit in two prior rulings has said SSM exemptions are unlawful, as are “affirmative defenses” EPA offered as an alternative. Affirmative defenses shield industry from civil liability in the event of a malfunction deemed “unavoidable” by regulators.
'Inevitable' Malfunctions
The amicus brief from the conservative and free-market groups urges the justices to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari to hear the case and outlines an attack on the malfunction waiver policy.
The groups argue that both EPA and the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. “determined that the CAA as written ignores the fact that malfunctions are inevitable and instead sets up all CAA regulated parties to violate the CAA simply by virtue of operating boilers that create emissions.”
They claim this is unlawful under the plain terms of the air law because the law requires that EPA set maximum achievable emissions limits -- and rules with no allowance for malfunction are by definition unachievable.
“Since all boilers will fail at one time or another, and the EPA does not interpret the CAA to account for this, all boiler operators will inevitably violate the CAA. That cannot be the law, and in fact the CAA unambiguously says it is not the law,” they argue. The air law in fact does have specific language on malfunctions, which the D.C. Circuit and Obama EPA chose to ignore, resulting in rules that will produce “absurd” results, they say.
The groups in an April 26 joint statement stress that the general principle at stake is much broader than just industrial boilers. “If unavoidable boiler malfunctions violate the Clean Air Act as a matter of strict liability, that opens the door to malfunctions of other industrial equipment similarly violating the law.”
The Obama EPA said it would fall back on using case-by-case enforcement discretion instead of SSM exemptions, but the groups denounce this as a “sham” because even if EPA does not enforce against a plant for malfunction emissions, others can sue using air law citizen suit provisions.
Other similar groups that have indicated their intent to file amicus briefs in the suit include the Southeastern Legal Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation.
A response brief is now due May 26 from EPA and environmentalists supporting the MACT rules, under a deadline extended by one month. The extension will allow the new administration time to determine its position on the issue, as it considers how to proceed in on the SSM “SIP Call” rule as well.
Long-Running Litigation
Notably absent from the petition for the high court to hear the boiler rules appeal are major industry groups such as the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, American Petroleum Institute, or others involved in the original litigation. Boiler sector and oil sector sources tell Inside EPA that although they dislike EPA's SSM policy, the approach taken by AMP in its cert petition could open the door to other legal complications if EPA looks to other air law provisions it has not previously relied on to provide relief for malfunction emissions.
A better approach, these sources say, would be for EPA to return to the George W. Bush administration's SSM policy, which worked for decades.
Also, relentless litigation over the boiler standards has led to a fatigue among industrial boiler owners with continued regulatory uncertainty, and many of them have already invested large sums of money to comply, boiler industry sources have previously said. For larger boilers in industrial applications, many achieved compliance through fuel switching from coal to natural gas, which for the time-being remains relatively cheap and abundant -- reducing the incentive to further litigate the rules.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/high-court-urged-review-epa-ban-facility-malfunction-air-waivers
-
Scarce Congressional Presence Expected for D.C. March
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Lawmakers will have a light footprint at tomorrow's People's Climate March in Washington, if Congress wraps up its work on a bill to fund the federal government.
Three Democratic senators — Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — are confirmed to speak during an 11 a.m. press conference by the reflecting pool west of the Capitol.
But other climate warriors said they planned to be back home rather than participating in the massive demonstration billed as a way to "directly confront" President Trump on his 100th day in office (E&E News PM, April 18).
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined marchers in New York City for the 2014 event billed as the largest demonstration on the issue ever. Tomorrow, Sanders will be speaking at the climate march in Montpelier, Vt., according to his office.
Virginia Rep. Don Beyer (D), who participated in last week's March for Science, will be in Maryland for a strategy meeting of the New Democrat Coalition, a moderate bloc of 61 Democrats.
Fellow Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly (D) confirmed his plans were the same — unless the House failed to finish up work on the continuing resolution.
Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott (D) said he would be at a ship commissioning in Newport News, Va.
Maryland Rep. John Delaney (D) said he was committed to attend the Western Maryland Democratic Summit this weekend.
Mark Richer, an organizer with the Virginia Climate Rally being held across the street from Union Station prior to the march, said the congressional Democrats invited to the rally all said they had some sort of out-of-town meeting. Candidates in statewide races will probably join the event, he wrote in an email.
"With that said, we are now focused on state issues and upcoming [Virginia] elections because the 'climate' in Washington amongst the ruling factions of the federal branches of government is unfortunately antagonistic about addressing climate change issues," Richer told E&E News.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) will meet with a big contingent of Minnesotans today who are in town for the march. She spoke about climate issues at the science march in St. Paul last weekend. Tomorrow, however, she will be helping with a move out of her district office to a new location.
"I was at the Women's March [on Washington], which had climate overtones," Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said when asked about his plans after a rally yesterday by the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition.
Tonko, who co-chairs the coalition, said he was "trying to balance" competing march demands and would instead be home in his district.
Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) are among those potentially planning to take part in climate-related activities at home.
Asked about his plans for climate activism, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) responded, "Well, I do that all the time."
Nelson, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, pointed to a recent field hearing he convened in West Palm Beach, Fla., on extreme weather and coastal flooding (E&E News PM, April 10).
Other climate advocates, such as Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), suggested the issue got big play from lawmakers who marched with scientists in lab coats last weekend.
"Everyone there at the science march, climate change was on their mind," McNerney said.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), another climate hawk who is skipping the mass protest from the Capitol to the White House, dismissed the notion of march fatigue.
"Not on my part, no," Huffman said. "In fact I've got a ton of constituents around town for the march."
Huffman's plans for tomorrow include Petaluma's "Butter & Egg Days" parade in Sonoma County, Calif. It will be "bigger than any rally in my district, and so I'm
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/28/stories/1060053738
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested