Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/4/2017
-
US Senate Energy Panel Leaders Urge Trump to 'Get Moving' on FERC Nominees
May 3, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee expressed frustration Wednesday at the Trump administration's slow response to the lack of a quorum on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that is stretching into its fourth month. -
Chemicals Law Is Top Priority of Trade Group's New Leadership
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA must narrow the scope of potential uses it considers as it reviews new chemicals prior to their manufacture, said the president of a trade association representing specialty chemical manufacturers. -
Implementation of Alternative Testing Strategies Under Amended TSCA
May 3, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
The amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has ushered in new developments in testing strategies. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA to Hold Hearing on Inorganic Byproducts Under CDR
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will hold a meeting next week on plans for a negotiated rulemaking to limit chemical data reporting (CDR) for manufacturers of inorganic byproducts that are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. -
US NTP Science Board Convenes Public Meeting
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US National Institute of Environmental Health Services’ (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) has convened a meeting of its Board of Scientific Counselors for 29 June. -
Spending Bill Orders Defense Report on Emerging Toxins
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Emerging contaminants on military installations may take center stage among environmental concerns for the Department of Defense if a mandate in the federal omnibus spending bill becomes final. -
EU Kicks Off Evaluation of Detergents Law
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission wants to revisit the EU's environmental standards for laundry detergent and other cleaners to see if labeling or other changes are needed to current law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Phillips 66 Sees Its Future in Pipelines and Chemicals
May 3, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
The top two executives at Phillips 66, one of the largest refiners in the U.S., backed away from the gasoline business on Wednesday and said that pipelines and chemicals hold more promise for the company. -
(ACC Mentioned) Officials, Experts Discuss Area Pipeline Development
May 3, 2017 | Exponent Telegram
By Charles Young
Experts and officials from the oil and gas industry discussed the future of pipeline development in the Mountain State on Wednesday. -
LCV Files its First-Ever Lawsuit, Challenging Trump on Drilling
May 4, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The League of Conservation Voters, founded 48 years ago to spur political action on environmental issues, filed its first-ever lawsuit today. -
Dakota Access Pipeline Ready to Open for Business
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Dakota Access Pipeline, filling with crude oil in preparation for going into service May 14, should rearrange some crude oil flows and give a boost to the profit margins of oil producers in North Dakota, analysts told Bloomberg BNA. -
Methane Rule Vote Still on Track for Next Week — Barrasso
May 4, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney and Geof Koss
Senate Republicans expressed confidence today that a vote on a controversial rule regulating methane waste on public lands would happen next week, despite an eleventh-hour threat related to ethanol sales. -
ExxonMobil Lacked Adequate Process Safety at Refinery
May 4, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Fundamental process safety management errors—some common to all U.S. refineries—led to a 2015 accident at an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., says a May 3 report from the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. -
Senators Fret as Trump Decision Looms
May 4, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
The Trump administration's looming decision on the Paris Agreement is causing hand-wringing on Capitol Hill — with Democrats making fresh pleas to preserve the 2015 agreement, and some Republicans rethinking the legal and diplomatic ramifications of an exit. -
In the Trump White House, The Momentum Has Turned Against the Paris Climate Agreement
May 4, 2017 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Foes of the Paris climate agreement have gained the upper hand in the ongoing debate at the White House over whether the United States should pull out of the historic pact, although President Trump has yet to make a final decision... -
Bill Reflects Growing GOP Interest in Action on Warming
May 4, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Reps. John Delaney (D-Md.) and John Faso (R-N.Y.) have reintroduced the "Climate Solutions Commission Act" to review "economically viable" policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
Undoing the Damage Caused By the Flawed ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Metric
May 3, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Evan Jenkins
Over the past few months, we’ve seen the energy economy grow as President Trump follows through on his promises. -
EPA Sends WOTUS Repeal to OMB
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA has sent its proposal for repealing the Obama administration's controversial water rule to the White House for interagency review. -
Philadelphia, D.C. Ozone Decisions Overdue, Advocates Say
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Environmental advocates want a federal judge to impose firm deadlines on the EPA to decide whether the greater Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., regions meet air quality standards for ozone. -
Climate of Unintended Consequences
May 4, 2017 | New York Times
By Bret Stephens
“Converting biomass feedstocks to biofuels is an environmentally friendly process. So is using biofuels for transportation. When we use bioethanol instead of gasoline, we help reduce atmospheric CO2.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
US Senate Energy Panel Leaders Urge Trump to 'Get Moving' on FERC Nominees
May 3, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee expressed frustration Wednesday at the Trump administration's slow response to the lack of a quorum on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that is stretching into its fourth month.
Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, Republican-Alaska, said she was "very frustrated" that no one has been nominated to fill the three vacant seats on the five-member commission. A fourth seat will open in June.
FERC has lacked a quorum since February 3, after the Trump administration pulled the chairmanship from the sitting Democrat, Norman Bay, prompting him to leave."I'd like to see some names now," Murkowski said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's very frustrating that we are here at May 3 and there hasn't been a quorum at FERC for months now.
"We can't do much of anything in the energy space until there is a functioning quorum at the FERC. First, we need to get names so that we can actually act as a committee. Believe me, I am urging anybody who will listen that they need to get moving on it."
Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat-Washington, the Senate committee's ranking member, agreed with Murkowski: "I'll just say, 'Amen.'"
It has been widely reported that President Donald Trump intends to nominate Kevin McIntyre, Neil Chatterjee and Rob Powelson to the commission, restoring its quorum. Sources said the announcement of their nominations is pending completion of routine background checks.
The White House will need to find a fourth nominee after Commissioner Colette Honorable said Friday that she does not plan to seek another term when her current stint expires in June.
The nominees will need approval from Murkowski's committee before going before the full Senate for confirmation, a process that can take some time.
"The joke on FERC is, 'the nominees will be imminent,'" Murkowski said. "And I said, I have no idea who 'imminent' is, but just please send him or her quickly so we can confirm them."https://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/us-senate-energy-panel-leaders-urge-trump-to-21625452
-
Chemicals Law Is Top Priority of Trade Group's New Leadership
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA must narrow the scope of potential uses it considers as it reviews new chemicals prior to their manufacture, said the president of a trade association representing specialty chemical manufacturers.
The amended chemical law's requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency examine intended, known or reasonably foreseeable uses of chemicals “shouldn't create paralysis and the inability to be comfortable making a determination” about whether a new chemical can be made, Jennifer Abril, president and chief executive officer of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), told Bloomberg BNA.
Abril, who joined SOCMA last fall, and Robert Helminiak, who became managing director for government relations in January, sat down with Bloomberg BNA for their first joint interview since joining SOCMA.
The trade association represents more than 160 specialty chemical manufacturers—a term referring to companies ranging in size from Boron Specialties LLC, headquartered in Ambridge, Pa., which has fewer than a dozen employees, to BASF Corp., one of the world's largest multinational chemical manufacturers that employs more than 100,000 people worldwide.
Logjam of Chemicals
A logjam of nearly 800 new chemicals has developed in the EPA's new chemicals office since the Toxic Substances Control Act was amended June 22, 2016. The agency has authorized only 63 new chemicals and microbes as of April 20 to enter the market without regulation since TSCA was amended, and no regulated new chemicals have been allowed to enter the market since that time.
That compares to the EPA's prior practice of allowing nearly 80 percent of the 1,000 to 1,500 new chemicals and microbes submitted to enter the market without regulations prior to the amendments, Richard Engler, a senior chemist with the Washington, D.C., office of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., told Bloomberg BNA.
About 10 percent of the total new chemicals that the EPA reviewed entered the market with some kind of regulation such as a significant new use rule, said Engler, who spent 17 years working with the EPA prior to joining the law firm.
SOCMA's “primary concern really is the fact that EPA is looking at every use under the sun for these chemicals,” Helminiak said.
“It's preventing chemicals from getting to market, and it's a problem,” he said, adding that working with the EPA to find ways to make reviews more efficient is a top priority.
The 2016 TSCA amendments require the EPA to examine the conditions of a chemical's use. The law defines conditions of use as “the circumstances, as determined by the administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
In public comments at EPA meetings and in written comments on the agency's proposed rule to evaluate chemicals, the regulated community has criticized the broad spectrum of uses the agency has chosen to examine for new and existing chemicals. Environmental and public health groups, by contrast, support a broad interpretation of uses.
Partnerships With Customers
Specialty chemical manufacturers are being hit particularly hard by the slow pace of the EPA's new chemical clearance, because of the very close relationship they have with their customers, according to Abril.
It's quite common for customers to work with specialty chemical manufacturers to develop chemical solutions for a particular need, she said.
For example, a SOCMA member makes a chemical that blocks ultraviolet light in the replacement lens that eye surgeons use following cataract surgery. “What's nice about having plants and facilities like our members have is that they are able to be configured and reconfigured to adjust to whatever project comes through the door,” Abril said.
Despite concerns about the slow pace in the new chemicals program, SOCMA remains optimistic that the new EPA administrator and agency staff will be able to resolve this problem, Helminiak said.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will be meeting with SOCMA to discuss new chemicals and other issues, he said.
Policy, Facility-Specific Services
SOCMA's work with the agency on policy issues, however, is only part of what the association is doing and planning to undertake for its members, said Abril, who worked at SOCMA from 2006 to 2008. She left to become president of the International Fragrance Association of North America and then returned to SOCMA last October.
During the past 10 years, SOCMA transitioned from focusing on a trade show that highlighted its members to being a traditional association that works on policy and compliance support, she said.
SOCMA staff regularly visit member facilities to better understand their needs and to share opportunities to improve safety and enhance operations overall, she said.
The organization is now poised to grow in new directions dictated by members’ needs, according to Abril.
“Our challenge now is to listen, to react and to build toward the SOCMA of tomorrow,” she said.
Commercial, Agricultural, Pharma
For example, SOCMA members serve not only the industrial and consumer specialty chemical markets, but also make active pharmaceutical ingredients purchased by pharmaceutical manufacturers, Abril said. They also produce chemicals used in agricultural products and purchased by pesticide manufacturers, she said.
The diverse customer base means some of the chemicals that SOCMA members make are regulated by the EPA under either the Toxic Substances Control Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Other specialty chemicals, called active pharmaceutical ingredients, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
One of Abril's goals is to find common threads among the various types of manufacturers and establish ways that SOCMA can help meet their needs.
To accomplish that, she plans to reach out to both current and former SOCMA members.
One need she has identified is to help the general public, regulators and members of Congress better understand the contributions that chemical manufacturers make not only to the U.S. economy, but to people's health and daily lives.
Abril describes SOCMA members’ roles as similar to ghostwriters: They write the book, but their name isn't on the final product. SOCMA's members don't make computers or cellular phones, but specialty chemicals make those devices possible, Abril said. “There's magic in that.”
Another need is to help members protect their intellectual property. “That has as much relevance in the TSCA space as in the agricultural space as it does in the pharma space,” Abril said.
Finally, she and Helminiak said, SOCMA is working to track legislation and regulations that individual states focus on, such as Proposition 65 in California and other laws in states such as Washington and Vermont.
“We don't want a patchwork of state regulations, because it makes it impossible for our companies to ship product across the country and over state lines,” Helminiak said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110673428&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110673428&jd=110673428
-
Implementation of Alternative Testing Strategies Under Amended TSCA
May 3, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
The amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has ushered in new developments in testing strategies. In March 2017, Andre E. Nel, Ph.D. (Division of NanoMedicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California (UCLA); California NanoSystems Institute, UCLA (CNSI)) and Timothy F. Malloy (CNSI; UCLA School of Law; UCLA Center on Environmental and Occupational Health) published Policy reforms to update chemical safety testing: TSCA reform empowers EPA to use modernized safety testing in the United States, in the Journal Science. This article discusses this new “paradigm” in testing, which it states relies “largely on nonanimal, alternative testing strategies (ATS), uses mechanism-based in vitro assays and in silico predictive tools for testing chemicals at considerably less cost.” There are technological and institutional challenges, however, that the article addresses, but the authors state they hope to provide a “cautious but hopeful assessment of this intersection of law and science.”
The article describes five iterative components that make up the elements of ATS: conceptual pathways; biomolecular events; screening and modeling; integrating evidence; and regulatory applications. These components work together to inform four types of regulatory decisions: “screening to identify chemicals and nanomaterials for more extensive testing and evaluation; ranking or prioritization for further action; qualitative or quantitative risk management in support of risk management; and comparative evaluation of the hazards and risks of different substances in support of safer design.”
Amended TSCA Section 4(h)(2) implements alternative testing methods to “promote the development and timely incorporation of new scientifically valid test methods and strategies that are not based on vertebrate animals,” and Section 4(h)(2)(A) directs EPA, by June 2018, to develop a strategic plan that will promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures….”
The article states that while the amended statute seems to be only “procedural in nature” in terms of the implementation of ATS, as the statute compels EPA to facilitate development of ATS but does not obligate the agency to adopt it, two factors bode well for ATS implementation: (1) various EPA offices as well as its partner entities are “already engaged in bringing ATS into the regulatory context”; and (2) as amended TSCA mandates EPA to prioritize chemicals already in the marketplace for safety evaluations, by “specified enforceable deadlines,” which incentivizes the broader EPA chemical regulatory program to “adopt ATS for prioritization and subsequent risk evaluation of chemicals deemed high priority.” The article references EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP), the new chemical review program, and EPA’s partner entity the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods as those entities engaged in ATS implementation.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/implementation-alternative-testing-strategies-under-amended-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA to Hold Hearing on Inorganic Byproducts Under CDR
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will hold a meeting next week on plans for a negotiated rulemaking to limit chemical data reporting (CDR) for manufacturers of inorganic byproducts that are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.
Byproduct chemicals are those produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing use or disposal of another substance or mixture. They are exempted from CDR reporting when they are not used for any commercial purposes. But the recycling of an inorganic byproduct "may qualify as a commercial purposes". If so they are reportable under the CDR.
Section 8(a)(6)(A) of the Lautenberg Act includes a requirement that the EPA enters into a negotiated rulemaking to develop and publish a proposed rule to limit these reporting requirements. It does not, however, lay out how the requirements should be amended.
As announced in a 15 December Federal Register notice, the EPA is establishing a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC). It will be charged with "conduct[ing] discussions in a good faith attempt to reach consensus on proposed regulatory language" for this proposal.
The committee will consist of around 25 members representing interest areas that have a "definable stake" in the outcome of the negotiated rulemaking process. The agency is in the process of selecting its membership.
In December, the EPA named the following groups as those potentially affected:
· Aluminum Association;
· American Chemistry Council;
· American Coal Ash Association;
· Environmental Defense Fund;
· Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries;
· IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries;
· North American Metals Council;
· National Mining Association;
· US EPA; and
· Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.
It also accepted nominations until 17 January. The Washington State Department of Ecology, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Council of the States were among organisations not named in the agency's notice that have expressed interest in serving on the NRC.
The 9-10 May public meeting will be convened in Washington, DC, for the purpose of information exchange and to discuss the process of negotiated rulemaking. Potential committee members and the public will have opportunities to submit oral or written comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55617/us-epa-to-hold-hearing-on-inorganic-byproducts-under-cdr
-
US NTP Science Board Convenes Public Meeting
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US National Institute of Environmental Health Services’ (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) has convened a meeting of its Board of Scientific Counselors for 29 June.
The BSC is an external advisory group composed of scientists from the public and private sectors, tasked with reviewing and advising on programmed activities.
Preliminary agenda topics include:
· discussion on strategies for studying combined exposures and mixtures;
· an update on the NTP crumb rubber research programme;
· an evaluation of the zebrafish model for toxicology;
· the new Integrated Chemical Environment (ICE) database; and
· a state of science evaluation on transgenerational inheritance of health effects.
The meeting will also allow for input on the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (Iccvam) efforts to explore new approaches for evaluating chemicals and medical products.
The all-day meeting will take place in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Advanced registration is required for members of the public looking to attend or view the webcast.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55619/us-ntp-science-board-convenes-public-meeting
-
Spending Bill Orders Defense Report on Emerging Toxins
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Emerging contaminants on military installations may take center stage among environmental concerns for the Department of Defense if a mandate in the federal omnibus spending bill becomes final.
In the bill, Congress asks the Department of Defense to compile a list of military installations where the use of a fire-suppressing foam could leave contaminants in groundwater.
The main concern about the contaminants is how they affect the public, Lenny Siegel, executive director for the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in California, told Bloomberg BNA.
“The question is, how many places has it made it into drinking water supplies?” said Siegel.
Emerging Concerns
The Department of Defense previously counted 664 fire or crash training sites where the firefighting foam was used.
The foam, also known as aqueous film-forming foam or AFFF, can contain perfluorochemicals that seep into soil and groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency says most people have the chemicals in their bodies, and the agency is concerned about how some perfluorochemicals persist in the environment and may affect human health.
Exposure to the chemicals through contaminated drinking water could cause adverse health effects, according to the EPA.
Ordered by Congress
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) worked to get the language into the spending bill.
In a statement released by his office, he said he sought “greater transparency” from the Defense Department on water contamination, especially for affected counties in his own state. About 16 public and 140 private drinking water wells in Pennsylvania have been shut down because of contamination suspected to originate at nearby Air Force properties, according to an investigation by the Burlington County Times.
Siegel said this type of contamination, and how it affects military bases, is a bipartisan issue.
“It's not like climate change,” he said. “It's a crossover issue where Republican parents are concerned about their kids.”
Gaining Clarity
States are having a difficult time investigating these types of contaminants because little is known about treatment options, Dania Rodriguez, executive director of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, said in an email to Bloomberg BNA.
“A report from DoD is a good thing for all parties involved in addressing this contaminant,” she said.
The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to congressional defense committees on not only locations where the foam was or is used, but plans to notify communities of contamination, details on when contamination was detected and the cleanup plan.
Siegel expects the report to provide a big-picture perspective on perfluorochemicals at federal facilities.
“Those of us who follow the issue don't have a comprehensive sense of what's going on,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110673446&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110673446&jd=110673446
-
EU Kicks Off Evaluation of Detergents Law
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission wants to revisit the EU's environmental standards for laundry detergent and other cleaners to see if labeling or other changes are needed to current law.
The commission is calling for comments through July 25 on a 2004 law that sets out the minimum environmental and information standards that cleaning products, laundry powders and other detergents must meet to be placed on the European Union's single market.
The law, the EU Detergents Regulation (EC 648/2004), requires surfactants used in detergents to be biodegradable and has required the phaseout of phosphates from laundry and dishwasher detergents in an effort to tackle the eutrophication—or oxygen depletion because of excess nutrients—of rivers and lakes.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, said it was seeking input on the effectiveness and impact of the Detergents Regulation, as part of an evaluation that could result in the regulation being revised. The evaluation would be completed by the end of 2017, the commission said.
In particular, the commission said comments should be provided on overlaps with other EU laws governing chemicals, including REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) and the EU CLP Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the classification, labeling and packaging of substances).
Roberto Scazzola, scientific director with the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products, told Bloomberg BNA May 3 that the EU Detergents Regulation was considered a “gold standard” worldwide because of its provisions on the biodegradabilty of surfactants, but it should be modified to “avoid inconsistencies and reduce overlaps” with other laws.
For example, the Detergents Regulation and the CLP Regulation have separate provisions on the labeling of chemicals that can result in ingredients being listed twice in different contexts, leading to labels that “consumers do not really understand because there is too much information,” Scazzola said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110673437&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110673437&jd=110673437
-
(ACC Mentioned) Phillips 66 Sees Its Future in Pipelines and Chemicals
May 3, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
The top two executives at Phillips 66, one of the largest refiners in the U.S., backed away from the gasoline business on Wednesday and said that pipelines and chemicals hold more promise for the company.
U.S. demand for gasoline is falling and will continue to do so, Chief Executive Greg Garland and President Tim Taylor said after the Houston company's annual shareholder meeting. At the same time, the U.S. shale revolution has opened vast underground reservoirs of inexpensive natural gas, a feedstock for chemicals and plastics.
"The Middle East and U.S. Gulf Coast are going to be the two best places in the world to make petrochemicals, long-term," Garland said.
Phillips said refining will begin to make up a smaller portion of its portfolio, as Phillips expands its pipeline and chemical businesses to take advantage of booming natural gas production, particularly West Texas' Permian Basin. And U.S. natural gas prices - some of the cheapest in the world - are holding around $3 per million British thermal units, or half what they were at their 2014 peak.
Meanwhile, gasoline demand is on a long slide downhill, Garland said. An uptick in 2015, driven by cheap U.S. fuel and lots of driving, surprised the industry. But it didn't last.
Millennials are driving less, he said. They're using bikes, public transportation and ride-sharing companies like Uber more. Even the quintessential American truck, the Ford F-150, is getting better gas mileage. The new F-150 is 20 percent more fuel efficient than older models, Garland said.
"In 10 years, if we're driving the same, we're going to see less need for transportation fuel," Garland said. "Given that as a backdrop, you don't want to invest in adding capacity in a declining market."
Increasing gasoline demand in South America, Latin America and Mexico will, in the short term, offset the decline in the U.S. market, Garland said.
Phillips' long-term future lies in chemicals, executives said. Not only does the company have access to cheap natural gas as feedstock, Gulf ports also provide access to foreign markets, where expanding economies and rising middle classes are increasing demand for petrochemical products, particularly plastics.TRANSLATOR
To read this article in one of Houston's most-spoken languages, click on the button below.Select Language▼ENERGYPhillips 66 sees its future in pipelines and chemicalsQ&A: Cybersecurity, cost controls worry offshore companiesTrump appointees offer muscular support for oil and gasMethane rule repeal said to hit snag in Senate over ethanolGroups sue to keep drilling ban in Arctic, Atlantic watersBuoy with a battery seeks energy work
"The trade we have makes the U.S. a very viable world export platform," Taylor said. "And that's where the competitive advantage comes from."
Phillips has already begun expanding its pipelines and chemical facilities.
Eighteen months ago, it opened a plant at its Old Ocean complex, southwest of Houston, to separate natural gas liquids into components such as ethane, butane and propane, which are used in making plastics and other petrochemicals. It built a massive ethane cracker at its Cedar Bayou plant in Baytown to break down natural gas and create ethylene, the most common building block of plastics. The plant covers a plot the size of 44 football fields,
In December, Phillips said its new liquefied petroleum gas export terminal in Freeport was shipping cargo. The facility can export the equivalent of 4.4 million barrels per month of refrigerated propane and butane.
And in March, the company announced plans to build a 450,000-barrel-per-day pipeline from the Permian's Delaware Basin north to facilities in Odessa.
The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade group, estimates that more than 250 petrochemical projects, costing about $160 billion, are under construction or planned across the country through 2023.
U.S. natural gas prices settled at $3.228 on Wednesday, up 3 cents. Phillips 66 shares rose 33 cents to $79.59 in New York.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Chemicals-not-gasoline-is-future-says-11119634.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Officials, Experts Discuss Area Pipeline Development
May 3, 2017 | Exponent Telegram
By Charles Young
Experts and officials from the oil and gas industry discussed the future of pipeline development in the Mountain State on Wednesday.
The panel discussion took place during the West Virginia Manufacturers Association’s annual Marcellus and Manufacturing Development Conference at the Waterfront Place Hotel in Morgantown.
Maribeth Anderson, director of government and community relations for Southwestern Energy, moderated the panel discussion.
Since Marcellus drilling operations first began in the state, there has been debate about the best, most efficient ways to transport natural gas, Anderson said.
“We have this need to find markets, both inside our region and outside the region. We have this need for more demand. We also have this need to use the gas here,” Anderson said.
Gas pipelines are the best solution for these problems because they provide “certainty and keep our economic development going,” Anderson said.
Anne Blankenship, executive director of the West Virginia Oil and Gas Association, said there are currently more than 30 pipeline projects in development on the East Coast.
There are more than 10 underway in West Virginia, Blankenship said.
“A number of them start or go through Northern West Virginia,” she added.
Bob Orndorff, state policy director for Dominion Transmission, said that as the number of total pipeline projects increases, so does the industry’s total output of natural gas.
“We have increased production more than 400 percent from 2008 to 2016,” he said.
The biggest problem for the oil and gas industry currently is finding ways to ensure that methods of transportation are able to keep up with production, Orndorff said.
“Now there’s not enough take-away capacity to be able to get that gas out of West Virginia and into emerging markets,” he said.
The lack of means of transporting natural gas has greatly reduced the price producers can sell the commodity for, Orndorff said.
“We can’t get it to market, and it’s really depressed the prices,” he said. “That’s why ultimately we’re setting up the scenario why we need these pipes and we need them desperately.”
Josh Young of the American Chemistry Council said one of the biggest obstacles facing pipeline construction is the complicated array of regulations at every level of government.
“The problem occurs where it might get federal approval, but you still have to get approval from state agencies or local agencies,” he said.
This process has impeded the progress of many pipeline projects, Young said.
“Barely any pipelines are advancing through the approval process in the Northeast, and that has to do with politics,” he said.
Orndorff agreed, saying that vacancies on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have slowed the approval process for pipeline construction.
The FERC needs a quorum of at least three commissioners to give a project approval, Orndorff said. Currently, the commission is operating with just two members.
President Donald Trump has yet to appoint any new members to the commission, Orndorff said.
“We’re really in a pickle, as they say, with what’s taking place with FERC,” he said, “until we get these folks nominated and approved by the Senate.”
Following the panel discussion, Anderson opened the floor to questions from audience members.
The panel discussion was just one of many talks and seminars held during the conference. Subjects ranged from ethane storage to industry growth in the region.
According to organizers, more than 300 professionals from the oil and gas industry attended the conference.
https://www.theet.com/news/free/officials-experts-discuss-area-pipeline-development/article_84443790-aaeb-538c-aa23-0ce1888eb17c.html
-
LCV Files its First-Ever Lawsuit, Challenging Trump on Drilling
May 4, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The League of Conservation Voters, founded 48 years ago to spur political action on environmental issues, filed its first-ever lawsuit today.
LCV is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit targeting President Trump's executive order to scrap the Obama administration's decision to put 98 percent of the U.S. Arctic out of the reach of future oil and gas development.
"Never in LCV's history have we taken this step," LCV President Gene Karpinski wrote on Medium, the open-platform website.
LCV's main mission is influencing elections and is best known for its "Dirty Dozen" lists of candidates the group sees as working against environmental protection. The group also issues scorecards ranking lawmakers by how they handle environment- and energy-related votes.
But, Karpinski wrote, "in a country where too much of our government is controlled by forces hostile to conservation and environmental safeguards, we simply cannot afford to leave any tool in the toolbox."
Today's lawsuit centers on Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
It argues that Trump lacks authority to reverse a December 2016 decision by Obama to declare nearly all of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, as well as some canyons in the Atlantic Ocean, off-limits for oil and gas leasing. Trump's recent offshore energy executive order reverses multiple Obama-era withdrawals made using Section 12(a).
Nine other environmental and indigenous groups joined LCV in the suit. Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are representing plaintiffs (Greenwire, May 3).
Karpinski wrote that LCV was concerned that the Trump administration was "trying to erase all the climate and environmental progress we've made."
"By joining this litigation," he said, "we are signaling to Congress our resolute and growing commitment to defending the Arctic and Atlantic permanent protections and halting the expansion of risky offshore drilling."
LCV spokesman David Willett said in an interview that the reason LCV has not gotten involved in litigation in the past is that it never felt such an "unprecedented assault" on environmental policies.
The group, he said, didn't join litigation defending Obama administration policies such as the Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Rule because other organizations were already fighting those battles.
Willett said the offshore drilling order Trump issued last week was especially problematic because it stripped away protections, rather than just directed federal agencies to take future action.
"The idea is that this executive order actually changed what was protected," Willett said. "Parts of the Arctic and Atlantic that were protected on Thursday were not on Friday."
Litigation is not the only new strategy that LCV is exploring in the Trump era.
During the confirmation proceedings for U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, for example, Karpinski warned senators the group would unequivocally score the Pruitt vote in its annual scorecard. LCV has only scored a handful of Cabinet or sub-Cabinet votes in the past, and never a vote on EPA administrator.
LCV also joined with Emily's List and other advocacy groups Sunday in holding a training session for women who are interested in becoming political candidates.
Other environmental groups have also broken new ground since the election. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund opposed a nominee for EPA administrator for the first time in its history.
Said one environmental advocate: "An unprecedented assault on safeguards has led to unprecedented responses."
While it steps into new arenas, Karpinski said that LCV wasn't backing off its work on the legislative branch. LCV is not "reinventing ourselves as a legal outfit," he wrote.
"Our friends at NRDC and Earthjustice, who are representing us and other plaintiffs in this litigation have decades of experience making sure that our hard-won environmental laws are defended and properly enforced through the courts," he wrote.
"So we will continue to see you at the ballot box, in the states and the streets, and in the halls of Congress," he wrote. "But now Mr. Trump, we will see you in court."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/03/stories/1060054012
-
Dakota Access Pipeline Ready to Open for Business
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Dakota Access Pipeline, filling with crude oil in preparation for going into service May 14, should rearrange some crude oil flows and give a boost to the profit margins of oil producers in North Dakota, analysts told Bloomberg BNA.
After delays, politics, protests and litigation, the $3.78 billion 1,172-mile pipeline built by Energy Transfer Partners L.P. will move crude from the Bakken Shale region to a pipeline hub in Patoka, Ill.
The system has another long leg that avoided the politics and protests. It is the $1 billion Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline (ETCO), also set to go into service May 14. It is a converted former natural gas pipeline stretching 788 miles from Patoka to Nederland, Texas, on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
“Line fill is nearly finished,” Greg Garland, CEO of Phillips 66 Co., said April 28 during his company's first-quarter earnings call. His company owns 25 percent of both Dakota Access and ETCO.
A common expectation among production companies and investment bank analysts appears to be a boost to gross margins in a range of $1 to $3 a barrel as transportation costs drop and North Dakota prices rise because of greater market access in much of the Midwest and South. But not necessarily an immediate boost.
Higher Prices in ‘New Normal’
“It's going to take a while, I believe, for the market to adjust to what's the new normal,” said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority, a non-regulatory petroleum data analytics agency.
Kringstad told Bloomberg BNA his agency is expecting a general boost to crude oil prices in North Dakota, not just an increase for companies booking capacity on the pipelines. The price gain could be $1 to $2 a barrel, though varying by location and company, he said April 25.
He suggested it would take six to 12 months for the market to reach a new equilibrium and clarify the price impact of the new pipeline.
Bakken oil producers have been suggesting a boost of around $2 a barrel for North Dakota crude, said Subash Chandra, an analyst at Guggenheim Partners LLC, an investment and advisory company.
Some of the operators want to manage their own crude sales, while others appear to be leaning on third-party marketers, who may have a better sense of the pipeline's likely market impacts, Chandra said.
If an increase of $2 a barrel is a reasonable estimate, it would mean a shipper moving 50,000 barrels a day would get an additional $36.5 million a year.
Producers Anticipate Benefits
Dakota Access will start out carrying about 470,000 barrels a day and is designed to be able to carry as much as 570,000 barrels a day, or about half of North Dakota's oil output.
Nine companies committed to long-term contracts for shipping oil on Dakota Access. Energy Transfer Partners does not appear to have released their names, though some have named themselves.
“We start putting barrels on it June 1st, ourselves,” James Volker, CEO of Whiting Petroleum Corp., said during his company's April 27 earnings call.
Whiting especially may benefit, given that 93 percent of its production is from the Bakken Shale and, below that shale, the Three Forks formation. The two oil-rich strata are the heart of what petroleum geologists call the Williston Basin, which is primarily in North Dakota but includes a little of Montana, South Dakota, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Other companies that may benefit from the Bakken oil market boost, regardless of whether they have booked space on the new line, include Oasis Petroleum Inc., Continental Resources Inc. and, to a lesser extent, Hess Corp., according to an April 13 research note by investment bank Morgan Stanley.
Refiners Look at Options
The ownership of the Dakota Access and ETCO combined system includes Energy Transfer Partners (38.25 percent), Phillips 66 (25 percent), Enbridge Inc. (27.6 percent) and Marathon Petroleum Corp. (9.15 percent).
Energy Transfer Partners completed a merger April 28 with Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P., and the combined company is called Energy Transfer Partners.
The two refiners with ownership stakes noted options within their own systems for benefiting from the impending market changes as Bakken crude flows to refineries in the Midwest and around the Texas Gulf Coast.
“We think Bakken will be an attractive supply crude within our system, particularly in Louisiana and Wood River,” Garland said, referring to Phillips 66's two refineries in Louisiana and one in Wood River, Ill. A connection in the Nederland, Texas, area will allow the crude to flow east on a line into Louisiana.
Marathon Petroleum will be have the option of taking Bakken crude to the company's Midwest refineries, CEO Gary Heminger said during his company's first-quarter earnings call April 27.
Rails Down But Not Out
Railroads can be expected to lose business to the pipeline. Some of the crude has been going east by rail on the BNSF railway as far as Chicago and then by CSX railway from Chicago to Albany, N.Y., after which the oil can be taken south to New Jersey by rail or barge for delivery to refineries along the Delaware River.
Dakota Access should allow for a $3 to $8 decrease in transportation costs per barrel, said Tessa Sandstrom, spokeswoman for the North Dakota Petroleum Council. Rail transportation is not expected to dry up, however.
“Rail is still helpful because it goes to premium eastern markets where pipe doesn't,” Chandra said. “So it's not just transport cost but also oil sale price that matters,” he said, implying there is a price premium for oil reaching Delaware River refineries.
Those refineries typically have relied on light sweet crudes, a category including Bakken crude. They often have processed crude from the North Sea and West Africa.
Opposition Not Done
Pipelines are safer and less polluting than railroads, but environmental advocates are unhappy about Dakota Access. They have supported the Standing Rock Sioux in the tribe's lawsuit to stop the pipeline from crossing under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe near their reservation.
The lawsuit is continuing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but the rejection of a preliminary injunction did not bode well for the litigants (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, D.D.C., No. 1:16-cv-1534, 7/27/16).
The tribe still has a chance to win through its arguments over violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, said Sharon Buccino, director of the land and wildlife program for the Natural Resources Defense Council, speaking to Bloomberg BNA April 20.
Buccino criticized the policies of President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for heading the nation toward more oil and gas drilling and more pipeline construction without adequate consideration of the environmental consequences.
“In the past there was an assumption that building more pipelines was in the national interest,” she said.
“We have to take the time to make sure we're making smart investments about our future,” Buccino said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110673430&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110673430&jd=110673430
-
Methane Rule Vote Still on Track for Next Week — Barrasso
May 4, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney and Geof Koss
Senate Republicans expressed confidence today that a vote on a controversial rule regulating methane waste on public lands would happen next week, despite an eleventh-hour threat related to ethanol sales.
The reassurance from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) that a floor vote is in the works came shortly after news emerged that corn state Republicans are using the methane rule vote as possible leverage to encourage their colleagues to support a waiver of seasonal restrictions on the sale of E15, or 15 percent ethanol in gasoline.
"Next week," Barrasso said when asked this afternoon when the vote would happen. Cornyn echoed that timing, while also acknowledging the ethanol complication.
"They [pro-ethanol lawmakers] were making an argument it should be included in the omnibus, and it wasn't, so there's a conversation going on," Cornyn said. "Senator Barrasso's taking the lead on that, to see if we can get the votes, which we'll probably do next week."
Pro-ethanol senators, including Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.), tried unsuccessfully to get the ethanol waiver — which producers say would help get the fuel's higher blend into more markets — into the massive 2017 omnibus package.
So they are seeking other legislative vehicles for the measure and seeing "how methane fits into that picture," Thune told E&E News today. A deal on the ethanol matter "is still up in the air," he said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said he believed a successful outcome on both issues was possible for lawmakers from the "corn states" and the "rest."
"I think there is room for a compromise," said the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Still, the political confluence of ethanol and methane took some stakeholders by surprise, including Robert Dillon, spokesman for the American Council for Capital Formation and former aide to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
"It's not uncommon for members to take hostages when something is moving, but it rarely ends well," Dillon said, adding that ethanol and methane issues should be worked on independently.
"It's time for the Senate to vote on this [methane measure], and this alone," said Dillon, whose organization supports repeal of the rule and Barrasso's resolution.
The deadline for rolling back the previous administration's "midnight" rules expires next week, May 11, which puts pressure on lawmakers to hold a vote soon on S.J. Res. 11.
The American Council for Capital Formation was one of 11 organizations known as the Methane Coalition that sent senators a letter today urging them to roll back the methane rule, calling it unnecessary and costly — economically and otherwise.
"The methane rule will decrease energy production on federal lands, leading to fewer revenues from royalties and higher energy costs, not to mention lost jobs," said the letter from groups including the American Energy Alliance, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Americans for Tax Reform.
"This regulation runs completely counter to the pro-growth agenda many of you ran upon in the 2016 elections," the missive stated.
But supporters of the BLM methane rule, including religious officials, many veterans and more than 100 local elected officials in several Western states, believe the Congressional Review Act resolution is a gift to wealthy GOP donors and that reversing the methane regulation will harm the environment.
In late April, former Interior Department solicitor John Leshy, who served from 1993 to 2001, sent a letter to Senate leadership supporting the rule. He argued that repealing it through the CRA will "greatly impair, if not eliminate altogether, BLM's ability to promote recapture of wasted gas, absent new legislation from Congress."
Under the CRA, agencies cannot issue "substantially similar" rules on regulations that Congress has repealed without new legislation.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/03/stories/1060054010
-
ExxonMobil Lacked Adequate Process Safety at Refinery
May 4, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Fundamental process safety management errors—some common to all U.S. refineries—led to a 2015 accident at an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., says a May 3 report from the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.
ExxonMobil’s lack of proper protocol to manage risk meant “workers were essentially running the unit blind,” says CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland.
The accident injured four workers, none seriously. The explosion sent debris flying, with some landing near tanks of hydrofluoric acid (HF). Many refineries use this highly toxic chemical in the alkylation process.
The explosion occurred in the electrostatic precipitator, part of the refinery’s air pollution control system. Undetected hydrocarbons back-flowed through piping from the fluid catalytic cracking unit and ignited in the precipitator, CSB determined. At the time of the incident, the cracking unit was shut down for planned maintenance but was not sufficiently isolated from the rest of the facility, the report says.
The refinery lacked hydrocarbon detection equipment that might have flagged the leak, CSB says. The absence of such equipment is an industry-wide problem, it adds.
The accident shut down the refinery and cut output for more than a year. It also heightened fears of some 150,000 nearby residents.
HF is used in about one-third of the some 150 refineries in the U.S. It is a heavier-than-air gas that can seriously injure or kill even in small concentrations.
CSB is also investigating the potential impact if debris had hit the HF storage tanks. However, ExxonMobil, which recently sold the refinery to BPF Holdings, has withheld the information CSB asked for, saying this aspect of the probe exceeds board’s authority.
The company tells C&EN there is no evidence the incident posed any risk to the community.
Following this incident and four others since the 2015 accident, regional regulators in California have launched a study to consider substitutes for HF at refineries. They are aiming to release their findings by year’s end.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i19/ExxonMobil-lacked-adequate-process-safety.html
-
Senators Fret as Trump Decision Looms
May 4, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
The Trump administration's looming decision on the Paris Agreement is causing hand-wringing on Capitol Hill — with Democrats making fresh pleas to preserve the 2015 agreement, and some Republicans rethinking the legal and diplomatic ramifications of an exit.
Conservatives lobbying President Trump to withdraw argue it's foolish to rely on legal advice prepared by the State Department, which suggests legal obligations of staying in the deal are minimal. They side with the White House counsel's ruling that doing so could open the door to new hurdles in court.
"If President Trump stays in this treaty and follows through in his energy agenda, every climate-activist state attorney general, environmental group and the entire climate industry will surely litigate on the basis of the Paris treaty," Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Chris Horner said yesterday, as CEI released a new report to bolster that case.
But some GOP lawmakers see withdrawing as setting the White House on a collision course with allies.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) is concerned U.S. energy exports could be subject to a carbon border tax potentially levied by the European Union if it withdraws, putting the industry at a competitive disadvantage. "There would be a great irony, as we continue to lower our carbon footprint ... if we were penalized," Cassidy said.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) have suggested that without Obama-era climate regulations in place, there is little urgency to leave.
Corker still believes Trump will opt to stay in, he said yesterday, "because getting out of it, all it does is hack off some of our allies and friends when we've got other fish to fry [and] other important issues to deal with, with that same group of people."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), an appropriator, is in the same camp.
The spending deal advanced by the House yesterday does not include any money for the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, but advocates have noted it would not explicitly prohibit such spending. Advocates of the Paris Agreement saw that as another indication Trump might stay in but not do much to advance international efforts to combat the problem (E&E Daily, May 2).
"My question is, would we be better off staying in the agreement to make it more realistic, make it make better sense, bring other people to the table, rather than totally walk away from it?" Capito said. "I don't have the answer to that question, but I'm willing to discuss it as a possibility."
Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), a former state attorney general who fought the Obama administration's efforts to enact regulations in line with the aims of the deal, said he had not thought much about the legal ramifications of exiting or sticking with the deal. He referred E&E News to his office, which did not respond to multiple inquiries.
Asked whether he thinks Trump should stay in, Strange said: "I have not made a decision on that yet. I'm still reviewing what their position on that is."
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) joined Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) to send a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging that the United States keep its "seat at the table."
"We encourage your active engagement in the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to maintain a robust commitment to climate diplomacy," they wrote. "Doing so keeps the U.S. safer and our global alliances secure."
Comments by Tillerson and in conversations with other key players at the White House have "given us every indication that we're going to stay in the Paris Agreement," Cardin told E&E News.
But Cardin, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Trump's approach has been unorthodox. "We might wake up tomorrow morning to a tweet that validates or invalidates that. And it may be different than what his closest advisers think he's doing today," Cardin said.
Other lawmakers who have prioritized climate action stressed leaving the agreement would hurt U.S. leadership on other international issues. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) suggested geopolitical reasons for staying in.
In his confirmation hearing earlier this week, Terry Branstad, the longtime Iowa governor whom Trump tapped to be his China ambassador, talked about how clean energy has been a boon for the Hawkeye State's economy.
Kaine said Branstad countered the arguments put forth by the officials in the Trump administration who want to leave. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, for instance, has repeatedly called Paris a "bad deal."
Pruitt repeated those claims yesterday in an appearance on the Fox Business Network. He said Trump would be making a decision soon.
"I think they are looking for some rationale to back away from an agreement," Kaine said. "And if we back away from it, others will too. We shouldn't cede the clean energy future to China or any other nations."
The chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, meanwhile, wants Trump to walk away. Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) have said they agree with Sen. John Barrasso's assessment that the agreement is a "great deal" for countries like China and India, which are "eager to take full advantage of the chance to get an economic leg up" on the United States in terms of energy security.
Barrasso recently laid out the policy committee's stance in a memo to fellow GOP senators (E&E Daily, April 26).
The Wyoming Republican said the election gave Trump and Republicans in Congress a "mandate to put this country's needs first." Walking away from Paris, he wrote in an op-ed, "would be a good start."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/04/stories/1060054035
-
In the Trump White House, The Momentum Has Turned Against the Paris Climate Agreement
May 4, 2017 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Foes of the Paris climate agreement have gained the upper hand in the ongoing debate at the White House over whether the United States should pull out of the historic pact, although President Trump has yet to make a final decision, according to participants in the discussions and those briefed on the deliberations.
Senior administration officials have met twice since Thursday to discuss whether the United States should abandon the U.N. accord struck in December 2015, under which the Obama administration pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The president’s aides remain divided over the international and domestic legal implications of remaining party to the agreement, which has provided a critical political opening for those pushing for an exit. At this point officials are considering whether the United States should stay in the agreement but renegotiate it in some form, or opt out entirely. Even if Trump decides to abandon the agreement — which is not a treaty, and therefore did not undergo Senate ratification — it may take three years for the United States to formally withdraw from it.
On Thursday several Cabinet members — including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who’s called for exiting the accord; Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who wants it renegotiated; and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who advocates remaining a party to it — met with top White House advisers, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner advocate remaining part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, even though the president has repeatedly criticized the global warming deal.
During that meeting, according to several people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, White House counsel Don McGahn informed participants that the United States could not remain in the agreement and lower the level of carbon cuts it would make by 2025.
The Trump administration is working to unravel many Obama-era policies underpinning that pledge, and the economic consulting firm Rhodium Group has estimated that the elimination of those policies would mean the United States would cut its emissions by 14 percent by 2025 compared with 21 percent if they remained in place.
This interpretation represented a change from the White House counsel’s earlier analysis and is at odds with the State Department’s view of the agreement.
Susan Biniaz, who served as the State Department’s lead climate lawyer from 1989 until earlier this year, said in an interview Tuesday that the agreement reached by nearly 200 nations in Paris allows for countries to alter their commitments in either direction.
“The Paris agreement provides for contributions to be nationally determined and it encourages countries, if they decide to change their targets, to make them more ambitious,” Biniaz said. “But it doesn’t legally prohibit them from changing them in another direction.”
Ivanka Trump urged White House staff secretary Rob Porter to convene a second meeting Monday with lawyers from both the White House and the State Department. That session addressed the question of America’s obligations under the 2015 deal as well as whether remaining in the agreement would make it more difficult for the administration to legally defend the changes it was making to the federal government’s existing climate policies, but it did not reach a final decision. Pruitt, who is spearheading the effort to rewrite several Obama-era rules aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, has argued that exiting the agreement will make it easier to fend off the numerous legal lawsuits he will face in the months ahead.
However an internal Sierra Club memo dated May 1, written by John Coequyt, who heads the group’s federal and international climate campaigns, concludes that even if environmentalists sue to challenge the administration’s lowering climate targets or withdrawal from the Paris accord, “it would be extremely difficult to prevail on the merits of either argument.”
Writing to Steve Herz, the senior attorney for the Sierra Club’s international climate program, Coequyt wrote that the group will still be able to sue over the administration’s push to rewrite current climate regulations, “the question will be whether the administration is properly exercising its domestic regulatory authority. The Paris agreement, and its enforceability in U.S. courts, will have no bearing on this issue.”
At a rally with supporters on Saturday, Trump said he would make a “big decision” on Paris within the next two weeks and vowed to end “a broken system of global plunder at American expense.”
Administration advisers on both sides of the political spectrum, however, emphasized that the president himself would decide what path to pursue when it came to the climate agreement.
“In the end, President Trump will make the final decision, regardless of where the staff conversations end up,” Thomas J. Pyle, who heads the conservative Institute for Energy Research and led the Trump transition team for the Energy Department, said in an email. “The environmental lobby is going to cause litigation problems on nearly every aspect of President Trump’s energy and environmental agenda whether or not the administration stays in the Paris agreement. Staying in Paris only gives them another target to shoot at.”
But Paul Bledsoe, who served as a White House climate adviser under Bill Clinton and is now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy, warned that the administration might face serious pushback from abroad if Trump seeks to withdraw from the agreement.
“The Trump team seems oblivious to the fact that climate protection is now viewed by leading allies and nations around the world as a key measure of moral and diplomatic standing,” Bledsoe said in an email. “The U.S. would be risking pariah status on the international stage by withdrawing from Paris, and even a fig leaf approach of technically staying in the agreement while ignoring most of its provisions would be better than pulling out altogether.”
Even as private deliberations continued this week, groups on both sides of the debate lobbied the president publicly. The governors of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington state, all Democrats, sent a letter to Trump on Wednesday saying they “stand ready as state leaders to continue to support the achievement of the existing” U.S. international climate commitment “and if possible to go further, faster.”
Meanwhile the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute published a paper laying out the legal and economic case for exiting the agreement, stating, “Failure to withdraw from the agreement would entrench a constitutionally damaging precedent, set President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies in conflict, and ensure decades of diplomatic blowback.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/02/in-the-trump-white-house-the-momentum-has-turned-against-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.3c601b9fea5e
-
Bill Reflects Growing GOP Interest in Action on Warming
May 4, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Reps. John Delaney (D-Md.) and John Faso (R-N.Y.) have reintroduced the "Climate Solutions Commission Act" to review "economically viable" policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Delaney first introduced the bill last Congress, earning accolades from climate advocates.
It stalled before reaching committee as Congress left town for the 2016 elections — but supporters are encouraged by the growing bloc of Republicans on Capitol Hill who support action to confront greenhouse gas emissions (E&E News PM, April 26).
The legislation is co-sponsored by five other Republicans: Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Pat Meehan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Elise Stefanik of New York. And five other Democrats are on board: Ted Deutch of Florida, Alan Lowenthal and Scott Peters of California, Tom Suozzi of New York, and Brad Schneider of Illinois.
In a press release, Delaney and Faso stressed the importance of bipartisan consensus around confronting the causes of climate change.
Leaders from the Environmental Defense Fund's political arm, Nature Conservancy, Partnership for Responsible Growth, National Wildlife Federation and Friends Committee on National Legislation also praised the bill.
It would establish a 10-person commission to undertake a comprehensive review of "economically viable" government and private-sector actions that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Academic and civic leaders with expertise in energy, climate or public health would be eligible to serve on the panel. So would the heads of industry organizations and small businesses involved in oil and gas drilling, chemical manufacturing, agriculture, forestry or fossil fuels more broadly.
Funding for the commission would come from private-sector donations, with the amounts and sources made publicly available online. Those who contribute would not be eligible to serve.
Congress' four leaders would each get to appoint two members. The president and the Senate majority leader would also appoint one member each to serve as co-chairs of the commission.
The panel would report back to Congress, the president and states within 18 months with recommendations on how to best reduce non-sequestered greenhouse gas emissions, based on the findings of the scientific community.
At the same time, the Government Accountability Office would study financial tools, policies and institutions that can contribute to the goal of reducing emissions. The bill suggests private-sector energy efficiency and renewable energy guaranteed loan programs or green banks.
GAO would produce its report 180 days after the study is complete.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/04/stories/1060054034
-
Undoing the Damage Caused By the Flawed ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Metric
May 3, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Evan Jenkins
Over the past few months, we’ve seen the energy economy grow as President Trump follows through on his promises. In Congress, we have worked to overturn a number of Obama-era regulations, including the unworkable rewrite of the stream buffer rule, which would have led to the loss of thousands of good-paying coal jobs in Appalachia and across the nation. The president has also taken important steps in addressing the Obama administration’s executive overreach by halting the controversial Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rule.
It is important that Congress continues to pursue further reform to limit and reduce the regulatory bureaucracy. One particularly contentious issue is misuse of the previous administration’s environmental models and metrics in rulemaking. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies have increasingly used an ambiguous metric, the “social cost of carbon,” to justify their environmental rulemaking. This complex metric has been used to “validate” many of the air environmental regulations that targeted the direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions from various sources.
However, there are many flaws in applying the social cost of carbon and other social costs of greenhouse gas metrics. Unsurprisingly, the previous administration ignored longstanding precedent in its cost-benefit analyses. For one, it calculated the global benefits while only estimating the domestic costs, leading to a significantly higher estimate per ton of carbon. It also disregarded Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance regarding the application of appropriate discount rates to its estimates, which skews the dollar amount dramatically higher.
Discount rates are used to estimate the actual value of actions taken today on the economy of the future. Because of inflation and other factors, one dollar’s worth of benefit today is worth less than that same dollar’s worth of benefit 10, 20 or 50 years from now. The OMB’s Circular A-4 explicitly states that “a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis.” The Obama administration, however, ignored this directive and instead opted to use the lower discount rates of 2.5, 3 and 5 percent. The reason is simple: Using a 7 percent discount rate would lead to far smaller — or even negative — values for the social cost of carbon. By using the 7 percent discount rate, the calculated “benefits” of reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly diminished and would not fit the Obama administration’s messaging.
Since its first use of the social cost of carbon, the Obama administration regularly recalculated the models, often increasing the supposed cost of small increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and thus the purported monetary benefits derived from reducing those emissions.There are other problems inherent to the social cost of carbon, including the use of climate modeling that likely overstates the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to increased carbon dioxide emissions, the use of “co-benefits” of reductions of criteria pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter in climate policies, and failure to account for the economic benefits resulting from the use of the energy leading to the governed carbon emissions.
While the last administration used these metrics to claim lower costs and higher benefits to the economy in its rulemaking, the reality of these regulations has been economic devastation to entire regions and industries. This is witnessed by the loss of tens of thousands of good-paying energy jobs in states across the country over the past five years. I was very glad to see that the Supreme Court also took issue with the costs of runaway rulemaking when it put the brakes on the Clean Power Plan. The court’s hold reaffirmed what I have witnessed in my state of West Virginia: crippling unemployment, higher deficits and entire communities devastated.
Trump took an important step by disbanding the Interagency Working Group that concocted the metrics, and he halted the use of social cost of greenhouse gases in the rulemaking process. It is imperative that Congress also act to provide legislative certainty on these measures.
Last Congress, I introduced legislation that would prohibit the EPA and Department of Energy from using the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane as justifications for their rules. We had support from dozens of other members of Congress, and I will reintroduce my legislation in the 115th Congress soon. It’s time to put an end to the abuse of this practice and stand up for a transparent process and sound science in our environmental rules and regulations.
Jenkins represents West Virginia’s 3rd District and is a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/331820-undoing-the-damage-caused-by-the-flawed-social-cost-of
-
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA has sent its proposal for repealing the Obama administration's controversial water rule to the White House for interagency review.
An EPA spokeswoman confirmed that the rule sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Tuesday is a proposal to repeal the Waters of the U.S. rule. It is the first step in a two step process the Trump administration is planning to undo and replace WOTUS.
EPA staffers told groups representing state and local officials that the proposed rule would rescind the Obama administration rule and formally put back in place the 1986 guidance that has long governed the federal government's decisions about which streams and wetlands receive federal protection under the Clean Water Act.
The Obama administration rule only briefly went into effect in 2015 before being put on hold by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, there is debate about whether the 6th Circuit is the place where court challenges are supposed to be heard, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the question later this year. If justices decide the 6th Circuit is the wrong venue, the current hold would be dissolved and the Obama administration rule could go into effect — unless the Trump administration rescinds it first.
Trump's EPA has indicated it plans to move swiftly to repeal and replace the Obama administration rule, with ideas and comments from state and local officials on the issue due to EPA June 19.
WHAT'S NEXT: The White House OMB will review the proposed rule before it is published in the Federal Register, triggering a public comment period. In the meantime, the agency is working on a new rule to define the scope of federal water protections keying off a different legal standard.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Philadelphia, D.C. Ozone Decisions Overdue, Advocates Say
May 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Environmental advocates want a federal judge to impose firm deadlines on the EPA to decide whether the greater Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., regions meet air quality standards for ozone.
The Environmental Protection Agency missed Clean Air Act deadlines to determine whether the two cities have met the standards, the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Environmental Health said a May 3 lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Pruitt, D.D.C., No. 1:17-cv-818, 5/3/17).
The EPA, in an April proposal, said the greater Philadelphia region is in compliance with the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion. The agency has not yet proposed any determination for Washington, D.C.
While seeking to impose a deadline on the EPA to complete that process, the environmental groups are also likely to challenge the agency's determination that Philadelphia has met those standards, Robert Ukeiley, the Boulder, Colo.-based attorney for the groups, told Bloomberg BNA.
Air officials in Delaware, which is also part of the Philadelphia nonattainment region, have also questioned the EPA's conclusion, which is based on air monitoring data from 2013 through 2015. Delaware's top air regulator previously told Bloomberg BNA that the area wouldn't meet the standards based on more recent data.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110673436&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110673436&jd=110673436
-
Climate of Unintended Consequences
May 4, 2017 | New York Times
By Bret Stephens
“Converting biomass feedstocks to biofuels is an environmentally friendly process. So is using biofuels for transportation. When we use bioethanol instead of gasoline, we help reduce atmospheric CO2.”
These confident assurances come from “Biofuels: A Solution for Climate Change,” a paper published in 1999 by the Clinton administration’s Department of Energy. Feels a little dated in its scientific assumptions, doesn’t it?
I raise the subject of biofuels since the subject of science — what we know as opposed to what we think we know about it — has been on my mind in recent days. I’ve been accused of obscurantism, closet climate denialism and willful misdirection — all for the crime of insufficiently attesting to the dangers of a warming trend I do not deny.
I plead guilty to trying to maintain some historical perspective.
So let’s talk about ethanol and other biofuels, a subject some climate-change activists might prefer to forget. In 2007, George W. Bush used his State of the Union speech to call for huge increases in the production of renewable and alternative fuels such as ethanol. Democrats were firmly on board, and President Barack Obama pursued a largely similar course in his first years in office.Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSJPM 44 minutes ago
Bioethanol from corn was always a phony solution to climate change and I opposed it from day 1. Coming from the Bush administration, it was...gregjones 44 minutes ago
He did it again, for the third time in a week. The question behind this is the track record of climate scientists. He starts by noting how...Mike 44 minutes ago
what about a-moral or im-moral self-regard? is self-regard ever moral?SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
It seemed so obvious. Flex-fuel engines, which mix gasoline and ethanol, were advertised as the motors of the future. Brazil, with one of the most developed markets for biofuel production and consumption, was touted as a country of the future. Dramatic advances in biofuels tech, we were told, were just around the corner. And biofuels would help us gain energy independence and hence greater security from terrorism.
Wrong on pretty much every count.
Since 2007, ethanol production has more than doubled. Yet motor gasoline consumption is at an all-time high. The United States does have appreciably greater energy security, but that’s thanks mostly to fracking, not ethanol. And greenhouse emissions are down, but not much on account of biofuels. For that, we can thank some combination of the long recession, the switch from coal to gas, and the turn to wind and solar energy.
But perhaps none of this would have mattered much if biofuels had simply been a bit less successful than promised. In fact, they were actively harmful.
In Brazil, the ethanol industry was built on an underbelly of hundreds of thousands of workers laboring as “ethanol slaves.” Using corn for fuel rather than food caused a worldwide spike in food prices with grievous effects on the world’s poorest. Scientists figured out that, far from being clean burning, cars that run on ethanol emit vast quantities of acetaldehyde, which reacts with sunlight to form ozone, a constituent of smog.
And there was this: “By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change,” Timothy Searchinger of Princeton and other researchers reported in 2008, “we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.”
In other words, the three central claims made in the Department of Energy paper quoted at the top of this column were misleading or wrong. Factually wrong. Wrong for the environment. Wrong for taxpayers. Wrong for the allocation of government funding and scientific research. Wrong for our energy mix. Wrong politically: Whatever else we conclude about ethanol, the one thing that won’t soon go away soon is the biofuel lobby in Washington.
And wrong for the reputation of climate science.
In recent years, some climate activists — Al Gore notably among them — have owned up to their biofuels mistake. More recently, we’ve seen some acknowledgment of other errors, having more to do with policy than science.
Thus, today there’s a keener appreciation that cap-and-trade regimes such as Europe’s ambitious Emissions Trading System have been costly failures, with one study suggesting the E.T.S. had “limited benefits and embarrassing consequences” in terms of emissions — at an estimated cost to consumers of some $280 billion.
There’s also been some acknowledgment that Germany’s Energiewende — the uber-ambitious “energy turn” embarked upon by Angela Merkel in 2010 — has been less than a model for others. The country is producing record levels of energy from wind and solar power, but emissions are almost exactly what they were in 2009. Meanwhile, German households pay nearly the highest electricity bills in Europe, all for what amounts to an illusion of ecological virtue.
Still, what acknowledgment there’s been has generally been belated, grudging and rarely self-reflective. What’s missing is an understanding of the harm that can be done when do-something impulses and eco-cure boosterism become turbocharged by government power and subsidized business.
I’m not for a second suggesting that we shouldn’t continue to pursue and increase fundamental research and investment in clean tech, at least if we can do it without having the government pick winners and losers. A majority of Americans favor that, on a bipartisan basis. There’s room for agreement, or at least productive disagreement — and compromise.
The lessons are legion but, more often than not, unlearned. We need to make policy choices based less on moral self-regard and more on attention to real-world results.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/opinion/climate-policy-ethanol.html?_r=0
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested