Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/12/2017
-
Pruitt Seeks 'Geographical Representation' on Science Board
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears to be clarifying recent statements from his spokesman that he is seeking to add industry representatives to science advisory panels, telling a conservative talk radio host that he wants to emphasize new panelists' “geographical representation”... -
Trump’s Ties to Dow Chemical Prompt FOIA Suit
May 11, 2017 | Courthouse News Service
By Matthew Renda
Environmentalists sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court Wednesday, saying the agency refused to provide requested documents relating to the relationship between regulators and the pesticide manufacturer Dow Chemical. -
OMB Guide Seeks to Strictly Enforce Trump's Energy Independence Order
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
New guidance from the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) on implementing President Donald Trump's energy executive order indicates the administration intends to strictly enforce the order's mandates that EPA and other agencies... -
Interior Pledges to 'Suspend, Revise or Rescind' BLM Flaring/Venting Rule
May 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
After the Senate failed to repeal a rule governing flaring and venting of associated natural gas on public and tribal lands, a spokeswoman for the Department of Interior (DOI) said the department will "suspend, revise or rescind" the rule... -
Coastal Lawmakers Warn Zinke About New Leases
May 12, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
More than 100 House Democrats and Republicans urged Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke yesterday not to allow any new offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. -
Dow Unveils $4 Billion in New Projects
May 11, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
At its annual shareholders meeting this morning, Dow Chemical announced a five-year, $4 billion round of investments on the U.S. Gulf Coast and beyond. -
New York Is Threatening to Spoil Trump's Push for Fossil Fuels
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
Forget the climate warriors of California. The state best positioned to spoil Donald Trump's plan to unleash America's fossil-fuel resources may be New York. -
OPEC Projects Surge in U.S. Oil Production
May 11, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
U.S. shale drillers could pump a lot more oil than previously expected this year, OPEC said Thursday. -
Trump Signs Cybersecurity Order
May 11, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
President Trump signed a long-anticipated executive order today aimed at boosting cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, including the electric grid. -
Utilities Welcome Trump Order on Enhancing Cybersecurity
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak
The U.S. utility industry is welcoming an executive order from President Donald Trump on cybersecurity, saying it'll build on efforts to make the nation's power grid more resilient to digital attacks. -
Complaints Spur Board to Add Details on W. Va. Chemical Spill
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Changes to a U.S. Chemical Safety Board report on a 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, W.Va., include more details in response to community complaints but don't affect the agency's conclusions or expand the scope of the probe, the agency said May 11. -
Trump’s New Era of Industry Self-Regulation Begins for Oil by Rail
May 11, 2017 | DeSmog
In case you were wondering how industry-friendly the federal government is becoming, look no further than Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA), chair of the Congressional Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. -
Narrowing Scope of Waters of U.S. Will Be Hard, Attorneys Say
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven D. Cook
The Trump administration would face significant obstacles in basing a new rule governing Clean Water Act jurisdiction on a Supreme Court opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who wanted to limit the law's scope to continuously flowing waters... -
EPA Hears Competing Arguments Over Revisions to Texas Haze Air Plan
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is hearing competing arguments over whether to tighten or weaken the Obama agency's proposed emissions plan for reducing Texas' contributions to regional haze air pollution, with the state and utilities urging EPA to soften the plan while environmentalists... -
Tillerson Signs Arctic Council Statement Acknowledging Climate Change
May 12, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signed a joint statement with seven other foreign ministers at the Arctic Council on Thursday citing the Paris climate change agreement and calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases, even as President Donald Trump considers... -
Uncertainty over Trump Decision on Paris Climate Accord Clouds Arctic Meeting
May 11, 2017 | Washington Post
By Anne Gearan and Chris Mooney
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson promised nations with a stake in the Arctic that the United States would listen to their concerns about rapid climate change but offered no hint Thursday about whether the Trump administration will back away from past commitments on the issue. -
Carbon Pricing Plans Should Consider Plight of Poor, OECD Says
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Well-designed carbon pricing reforms can address both climate risks and energy affordability for low-income households, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said May 11.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Pruitt Seeks 'Geographical Representation' on Science Board
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears to be clarifying recent statements from his spokesman that he is seeking to add industry representatives to science advisory panels, telling a conservative talk radio host that he wants to emphasize new panelists' “geographical representation” as well as their scientific credentials.
“What’s really been emphasized by Congress as I went through the confirmation process is geographical representation, because you want to ensure as you’re dealing with rulemaking -- air, water, whatever rulemaking we’re doing, that the geographical uniqueness of our country as we’re patching rules is taken in consideration,” Pruitt said during a May 11 interview with talk radio host Hugh Hewitt.
The administrator's comments appear to be at odds with those of his spokesman, J.P. Freire, who told the New York Times earlier this week that Pruitt's decision not to extent the expiring terms of nine of twelve members of the agency's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a body that reviews the agency's scientific research agenda, would allow the administrator to appoint industry representatives to the panel.
“The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” he said.
While such steps are often routine by new administrations, Pruitt's action has sparked wide-ranging criticisms, including from Senate Democrats, and prompted fears that the administration will target other agency panels, such as the Science Advisory Board, whose members may also be term limited.
In his interview with Hewitt, Pruitt defended his decision and downplayed potential concerns that he was seeking to stack the panel with industry representatives, reiterating recent statements from his chief of staff that panelists whose terms were not renewed could be reappointed.
“These same individuals could very well be put back on the board. But it’s just simply a process to ensure that we have the type of representation, voices heard, so that we’re informed as we do rulemaking,” he said, though BOSC has no regulatory oversight role.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/pruitt-seeks-geographical-representation-science-board
-
Trump’s Ties to Dow Chemical Prompt FOIA Suit
May 11, 2017 | Courthouse News Service
By Matthew Renda
Environmentalists sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court Wednesday, saying the agency refused to provide requested documents relating to the relationship between regulators and the pesticide manufacturer Dow Chemical.
The Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the EPA, saying the agency is illegally withholding documents that relate to its decision not to revoke chlorpyrifos despite its scientists finding it’s a human health hazard.
“PANNA seeks these communications as part of its public education and advocacy to reverse EPA’s decision not to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances,” the organization says in the complaint. “EPA has failed to respond to PANNA’s FOIA requests within the time required by law and is unlawfully withholding the information sought by PANNA.”
The controversy over chlorpyrifos dates back to 2007, when the Natural Resources Defense Council and PANNA jointly filed a petition with the EPA asking the agency to consider banning the pesticide in light of mounting evidence it presents a hazard to human health in general and childhood development in particular.
Several studies show that even low doses of chlorpyrifos can have adverse impacts on infants’ cognitive and emotional development. Large doses can cause acute toxicity in exposed individuals, and studies demonstrate that agricultural workers with frequent exposure to the pesticide have developed serious lung ailments, including wheeze and cancer.
Since the 2007 petition, the EPA has released assessments saying the tolerance numbers from the pesticides may have to be revised, particularly as the agency fretted that exposure to children through water supply and drift was possible.
Nevertheless, the agency dragged its feet on a final decision – prompting the concerned environmental organizations to sue in 2014, asking the court to force the agency to act.
In 2015, the agency proposed revoking use of the pesticide and then recommended lower tolerance numbers the following year, but still held out on a final decision regarding the ban.
With the election of President Donald Trump and his subsequent appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, the agency’s public pronouncements regarding chlorpyrifos changed.
In March 2017, the EPA issued an order to deny the 2007 petition requesting a ban of the pesticide.
“We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,” Pruitt said. “By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.”
In the complaint, PANNA says the agency erred in considering industry costs rather than environmental considerations.
The pesticide, which was banned for home use in 2001, is one of the most widely used insecticides in the nation. It acts on the insect’s nervous system and is effective at killing pests. In 2007, when the petition was first filed, more than 10 million pounds of the chemical was applied on crops, making it the 14th most common pesticide ingredient in the United States.
Dow Chemical manufactures chlorpyrifos.
Since assuming office, Trump has enjoyed an increasingly close friendship with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris, according to the complaint. Liveris was chosen by Trump, who was president-elect at the time, to head the American Manufacturing Council.
Dow Chemical contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, according to an article in USA Today. And Liveris was present when Trump signed an executive order on regulatory reform and was handed the pen used to sign the order after the ceremony was complete.
In March, after the EPA said it would not grant the environmental organization’s petition, Dow Chemical issued a statement.
“This is the right decision for farmers who, in about 100 countries, rely on the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos to protect more than 50 crops,” the company said.
Soon after, the Associated Press reported Dow Chemical and other pesticide manufacturers had written to Trump administration cabinet members asking them to set aside studies that found a certain class of pesticides to be harmful to an array of endangered wildlife.
These things prompted PANNA’s request for documents that showed correspondence between the EPA regulators and Dow chemical over a given time period, the organization says in the complaint.
“In order to understand the full extent of outside influences on EPA’s decision-making with regard to its proposal to revoke chlorpyrifos food tolerances, PANNA submitted two FOIA requests to EPA,” the complaint says.
Specifically, PANNA asked for “any and all information received from Dow AgroSciences, and correspondence and communications (and references thereto) between EPA and Dow AgroSciences regarding the pesticide chlorpyrifos since September 2007.”
After a back-and-forth regarding the scope of the request, the EPA has not provided the requested documents and PANNA sued, according to the complaint.
PANNA seeks a declaration that it has a statutory right to the documents and to require the EPA to provide them.
The EPA has requested a copy of the complaint and has yet to comment on the lawsuit.
PANNA is represented by Kristen Boyles of Earthjustice, based in Seattle.
https://www.courthousenews.com/trumps-ties-dow-chemical-prompt-foia-suit/
-
OMB Guide Seeks to Strictly Enforce Trump's Energy Independence Order
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
New guidance from the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) on implementing President Donald Trump's energy executive order indicates the administration intends to strictly enforce the order's mandates that EPA and other agencies address potential burdens on the energy sector from their existing rules and policies.
Among other things, the OMB guidance, issued May 8, requires agencies to conduct broad reviews of their current policies, sets a high bar for agencies to win exemptions for existing policies from reviews and limits requirements for agencies to take comment on their review plans.
Such mandates are likely to draw criticisms from environmentalists, who are already slamming other Trump administration deregulatory processes for failing to allow adequate public comment.
The new OMB guidance comes just days before the May 12 deadline for agencies to submit plans to the OMB director, as well as a number of other top officials, that outline how they intend to proceed with the review of existing actions directed by the order.
The guidance is intended to help agencies comply with provisions in section 2 of Trump's executive order 13783, which directs agencies to review actions that “potentially burden” domestic energy production, with a specific focus on “oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy.”
While other sections of the order targeted a host of Obama-era climate policies, such as EPA's Clean Power Plan, section 2 requires agencies to identify rules that burden the energy sectors and then suspend, revise or rescind “those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with law.”
EPA has already indicated that some other Obama-era rules that were not specifically enumerated in the order may be subject to the review requirements, including strict new air quality standards for ozone.
Trump's executive order defines “burden” as “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs” on domestic energy production. However, it did not provide specifics on what actions would “unduly” cause such burden -- the standard for which the order would require “appropriate” suspension, revision or rescission.
Some attorneys have said the relatively vague language defining “unduly burden” could create legal vulnerability in any rule rollbacks, though they say any such litigation likely would not “hinge” on such language.
The OMB guidance does not provide any greater detail to clarify the meaning of “unduly,” though it does appear to make clear that most existing agency actions would be subject to review.
For example, the guidance suggests a wide range of agency actions qualify for review under the order, including actions that materially: “affect the design and/or location of domestic energy production”; “affect the design and/or location of drilling or mining of energy production resources”; and “limit the use of certain sources of energy, such that the development of domestically produced energy resources from a certain sector may be negatively affected.”
And it gives agency heads like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt the ability to “apply reasonable discretion in assessing which agency actions may rise to the level of potential burden on the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.”
High Exemption Bar
In addition, the guidance appears to set a high bar for agency actions to meet in order to be exempt from review, requiring that the actions are “mandated by law,” “necessary for public interest,” and “consistent with” the energy production and supply goals of the order. That includes its finding that it is “in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.”
But the strict test agency actions would have to meet in order to avoid review is likely to draw criticism from environmentalists and others, as well as provisions within the guidance that appear to suggest agencies are only required to seek public input from groups “significantly affected” by the agency actions under review. That statement could favor industry groups, which are often the regulated class, meaning they could have the opportunity to significantly impact agencies' decisions as to which actions “burden” domestic energy production and what remedies should be pursued.
Environmentalists and others are also likely to take issue with the lack of a requirement for a public comment process on agencies' draft final reports due later this summer. The OMB guidance only suggests agencies should seek public comment, but does not require it.
The OMB guidance generally details a series of steps agencies should take to develop plans for implementing and acting on their reviews.
According to the OMB guidance, the May 12 plans should describe the mechanics of how the agency will conduct the required review, including how it will “identify” the actions for review and “classify” those actions, as well as how it will seek input “from entities significantly affected by those agency actions.” The plans must also outline how the agency intends to review the actions, “including any quantitative analysis (e.g., costs, lost production) the agency plans to perform,” and how it will “develop recommendations that could alleviate or eliminate the potential burden.”
The guidance says agencies' classifications should, at a minimum, “identify the energy source potentially affected (e.g. oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewable); the type of agency action (e.g., rule, order, guidance document, policy, or other similar agency action); and whether the potential effects are direct or indirect.”
Within the plans, agencies must also identify any actions they believe are “exempt” from review because they meet all three criteria laid out in the guidance, “along with a brief explanation of the basis for this determination.”
Further, “[i]f an agency does not believe that it has any agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, then the agency should state that in a written statement to the OMB Director, along with a brief explanation of the basis for this determination.”
However, even in this case, the OMB director could still provide a “determination” that “the agency has agency actions” that require review. Only if the agency does not receive such a determination from the OMB director within 30 days of submitting its written statement will the agency “not be required to develop a plan or report.”
Agencies' Recommendations
The OMB guidance also outlines minimum requirements for agencies' draft final reports, due July 26, that consist of the results of the review of existing regulations, including identifying and classifying actions that “potentially burden” development or use of domestic energy resources and outlining how agencies intend to seek input “from entities significantly affected by” the identified actions.
The draft final reports must also include the agencies' recommendations “consistent with law, that could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency actions that burden domestic energy production or use,” an expected timeline for when such fixes could be implemented and information on how implementation will be tracked. In addition, the reports must detail “to the extent feasible, preliminary estimates by agency action of costs and cost savings, increased production, or other beneficial effects, that may be achieved by implementing each recommended action.”
The reports must also note whether any of the actions would also be part of compliance with Trump's executive orders on regulatory reform. The guidance generally encourages agencies to “coordinate” their compliance with the energy order and the regulatory reform order.
For example, OMB suggests that as part of agencies' outreach for compliance with Trump's order requiring agencies to create regulatory reform task forces that are currently conducting broad reviews of existing rules, they should “seek input specifically regarding existing agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, and recommendations for actions the agency may take to alleviate or eliminate such burden.”
In addition, according to the guidance, agencies are not required to undergo a public comment process on their draft final reports but “should consider seeking public input” on it and “should consult with OMB on appropriate means for doing so.”
After any such public comment process, should agencies choose to proceed with one, agencies will publish their final reports in the Federal Register and on their websites, according to the guidance, as well as submit copies to the OMB director, the vice president, the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Trump's economic policy and domestic policy advisers.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/omb-guide-seeks-strictly-enforce-trumps-energy-independence-order
-
Interior Pledges to 'Suspend, Revise or Rescind' BLM Flaring/Venting Rule
May 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
After the Senate failed to repeal a rule governing flaring and venting of associated natural gas on public and tribal lands, a spokeswoman for the Department of Interior (DOI) said the department will "suspend, revise or rescind" the rule, citing its impact on onshore energy development.
In a statement Wednesday, Kate MacGregor, who serves as DOI's acting assistant secretary for land and minerals, said the venting and flaring rule has been "reviewed and flagged...given its significant regulatory burden that encumbers American energy production, economic growth and job creation.
"The rule is expected to have real and harmful impacts on onshore energy development and could impact state and local jobs and revenue. Small independent oil and gas producers in states like North Dakota, Colorado and New Mexico, which account for a substantial portion of our nation's energy wealth, could be hit the hardest."
An executive order (EO) signed by President Trump on March 28 included a requirement that the DOI review, rescind or revise the rule, officially known as the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule. It promulgated by DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and unveiled in January 2016, during the Obama administration.
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled Senate narrowly failed to pass a bill calling for the rule's repeal. Lawmakers in the House of Representatives, also controlled by the GOP, had successfully invoked the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in February to introduce a bill calling for the rule's repeal, but the vote by the Senate effectively ended that strategy; under CRA rules, the Senate had until Thursday to pass the bill.
"The vote today in the Senate doesn't impact the administration's commitment to spurring investment in responsible energy development and ensuring smart regulatory protections," MacGregor said.
In the aftermath of the Senate vote Wednesday, three groups representing the oil and gas industry -- the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), the Western Energy Alliance (WEA) and the American Petroleum Institute -- pledged to work with the DOI on rescinding or revising the rule.
The IPAA and WEA filed a lawsuit against the rule last November. Montana and Wyoming filed a separate lawsuit three days later, and North Dakota and Texas subsequently joined as petitioners. The two lawsuits were combined at the end of November.
Under the final rule, to be implemented in stages, oil and gas producers would be required to use currently available technologies and processes to cut gas flaring in half at oil wells on public and tribal lands. Operators would also be required to periodically inspect their facilities for leaks and replace outdated equipment that vents large quantities of gas into the air. Other parts of the rule require operators to limit venting from storage tanks and to use best practices to limit gas losses when removing liquids from wells.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110429-interior-pledges-to-suspend-revise-or-rescind-blm-flaringventing-rule
-
Coastal Lawmakers Warn Zinke About New Leases
May 12, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
More than 100 House Democrats and Republicans urged Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke yesterday not to allow any new offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Citing the $89 billion economy generated by tourism and fishing on the East and West coasts, the lawmakers asked the secretary to reject any proposals for new leases in the protected Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelf regions.
"We do not believe that new oil and gas exploration or production activity in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS is compatible with the sustainable coastal economies on which so many of our constituents and communities depend," the members wrote in a letter yesterday.
Reps. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Anthony Brown (D-Md.), Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) and Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) coordinated the letter.
President Trump's April 28 executive order directed Interior to review offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS regions, which Obama declared off-limits under a five-year plan (Greenwire, April 28).
Oil and gas industry groups have argued that the Obama decision pre-emptively limited options for exploration and drilling, undermining the country's energy production. They support a new plan, as well as a reversal of Obama's withdrawal.
The executive order has alarmed environmentalists, coastal residents and members of Congress from both parties who represent the regions.
"Thanks to years of effort and input from coastal members of Congress, state and local governments, coastal businesses, and concerned citizens, the 2017-2022 leasing program protects the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — and the roughly $90 billion tourism and fishing industries located on those coasts — from oil and gas leasing at least until 2022," said a press release from Lowenthal's office.
"The new executive order puts all of that at risk," it said, "and could result in drilling rigs off our coasts and beaches as early as 2019."
In the letter, the lawmakers also pointed to the risk of offshore drilling accidents that endanger the environment, residents and the economy. They specifically cited the 1969 Santa Barbara blowout, which "killed thousands of birds and marine animals and blackened the beaches of Southern California."
Interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/12/stories/1060054460
-
Dow Unveils $4 Billion in New Projects
May 11, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
At its annual shareholders meeting this morning, Dow Chemical announced a five-year, $4 billion round of investments on the U.S. Gulf Coast and beyond.
The company will add two furnaces at an ethylene cracker set to open later this year in Freeport, Texas. The additional equipment will expand the cracker’s capacity by one-third to 2 million metric tons per year, making it the largest ethylene plant in the world, Dow says.
The company will also build a 600,000-metric-ton polyethylene plant on the Gulf Coast. Improvement projects at existing plants, mostly in North America, will yield another 350,000 metric tons of polyethylene capacity.
Dow is also building a 450,000-metric-ton polyolefins plant in Europe to serve the high-pressure pipe market. It will be the first new polyolefins plant Western Europe has seen since the late 2000s. In recent years, capital spending in petrochemicals has favored lower-cost regions such as North America—with feedstock derived from shale gas—and the Middle East.
Dow intends to build a catalyst plant to support its Univation polyethylene licensing business. It also plans to strengthen its polyurethanes business with investments in specialty polyols and polyurethane systems.
Some $400 million will be directed to Dow’s Midland, Mich., manufacturing operations to enhance integration with the Dow Corning silicones business, which Dow took over last year.
Dow says the new projects will be completed starting in 2020. They will bring the firm’s total U.S. capital spending to $12 billion over 10 years.
“The positive investment environment in the U.S. chemical and materials sector, driven by competitive feedstocks and a skilled workforce, is a driver for Dow to further invest in the U.S.A.,” CEO Andrew N. Liveris says.
Dow has a lot on its plate. It expects its merger with DuPont to close in August, to be followed within 18 months by a breakup into three separate firms. One of the firms, a materials science company with headquarters in Midland, will operate the petrochemical and plastics business where Dow is making most of the investments.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i20/Dow-unveils-4-billion-new.html
-
New York Is Threatening to Spoil Trump's Push for Fossil Fuels
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
Forget the climate warriors of California. The state best positioned to spoil Donald Trump's plan to unleash America's fossil-fuel resources may be New York.
In the past year, New York regulators have blocked two major natural gas pipelines—a $455 million proposal by National Fuel Gas Co. and a $925 million one from Williams Partners LP—on the grounds that they pose environmental risks. One bank's saying investors have no choice but to assign “elevated risk premiums” to energy projects in the state, National Fuel Gas is threatening to take its money elsewhere and Williams's chief executive officer said May 10 that he's in talks with the White House on how the administration can help.
What makes New York so pivotal in the fight against fossil fuels is its location, next-door to the nation's most-prolific shale gas formation. That's turned it into a crucial link in the vast U.S. network of oil and gas pipelines and a major consumer of the heating and power-plant fuel. By blocking projects, New York is testing the limits of states’ rights by running head-on against Trump's call for more energy infrastructure.
“States and cities are going to be expected to carry the load since it's apparent the federal government has backed away from that responsibility” of protecting the environment and fighting global warming, Basil Seggos, who leads New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, said by phone, acknowledging the growing rift between the state and those in Washington. “I would not dispute that New York and the federal government have different approaches on climate policy.”
While Trump is working to undo Obama-era regulations requiring power plants to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, New York is working on a plan to get half of its electricity from renewable energy sources. Its goal is to cut emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels.
“New York's recalcitrance to new pipeline infrastructure is unique versus other regions because the state has a real need for cheap natural gas and acts as a gateway to other similarly-situated areas like the Northeast,” said Brandon Barnes, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.
‘Environmentally Focused Leader’
Even before the election, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was taking great pains to distance himself from Trump and “carve out an image as a particularly progressive and environmentally focused leader,” said Katie Bays, an analyst at Height Securities LLC.
Arguably now more than ever, she said, there's “political will” in Washington “to strip New York of its permitting authority.”
Williams CEO Alan Armstrong said in an interview at Bloomberg's headquarters in New York May 10 that the pipeline giant is talking to several people within the Trump administration about moving its Constitution gas line forward after it was denied a water certificate from New York. The White House's Council on Environmental Quality has taken “serious interest” in the effort and labor unions have voiced support because of the potential for thousands of jobs, he said.
‘Purely Political’
“People really want jobs there and they don't like being denied good-paying jobs,” Armstrong said. New York's decision was “purely political,” he said, adding that he didn't know of a “more difficult place” to build a pipeline than the state.
Armstrong said he believes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could issue a permit without a certificate from New York. The White House declined to comment.
Jefferies Group LLC meanwhile described New York's regulatory environment as “ill defined, impossible to meet, and more onerous for private enterprise” than the regulations for public works projects. Investors have no choice but to assign “risk premiums” to all potential lines there, analysts at the investment bank including Christopher Sighinolfi said in a May 4 note.
It's the kind of criticism that energy companies have typically reserved for California's environmental regulations. So it's perhaps telling that New York-based National Fuel Gas said the company's now considering stepping up investments in California. At least in the Golden State, Chief Executive Officer Ronald Tanski said, it knows what to expect.
Pushing Forward
New York rejected a water quality certificate last month for National Fuel Gas's Northern Access pipeline expansion, which would've shuttled gas supplies from the Marcellus shale of the eastern U.S. to markets in New York, New England, Canada and the Midwest. Tanski told analysts in a call earlier this month that Cuomo didn't respond to repeated requests from him. Armstrong said he had a similar experience.
Cuomo said in a statement May 10 that New York will protect its natural resources and public health “in the absence of federal leadership on environmental protection.” The state is committed to “pushing forward progressive, nation-leading policies that create jobs and expand our clean energy economy,” he said.
While trade groups say New York's resistance is costing the U.S. Northeast jobs and cheap energy, the environmental group Sierra Club sees it as necessary to protect the environment in areas where the federal government no longer is.
“The states will gain more and more power under Trump to stop these projects,” said Roger Downs, conservation director of Sierra Club's Atlantic chapter. “A lot of states will finally wake up and take charge of some of their languishing environmental issues.”
New York has always led the way on environmental issues, said Seggos, the state's environmental commissioner. “We believe that a strong economy and clean environment are inseparable.”
—With assistance from Jim Polson and Justin Sink.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111212949&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111212949&jd=111212949
-
OPEC Projects Surge in U.S. Oil Production
May 11, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
U.S. shale drillers could pump a lot more oil than previously expected this year, OPEC said Thursday.
In a monthly report, the cartel said it has revised its 2017 forecast for oil production in countries outside of OPEC up by 370,000 barrels a day. More than three quarters of the increase will come from the United States – even as OPEC cuts oil production in a bid to support prices.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will gather in Vienna later this month to decide whether or not to extend the oil-production cuts that, in recent weeks, seem to have lost their oil-market luster as prices fall on new forecasts of higher U.S. shale oil output.
OPEC, which has been slower than other forecasters to acknowledge rising U.S. oil production, warned the U.S. surge could throw off its attempts to stabilize oil prices. Even though refiners are taking more oil from floating storage facilities, realigning global oil supply and demand by the end of the year would take “a collective effort by all oil producers,” the cartel said.
In February, daily U.S. oil output climbed above 9 million barrels, up half a million barrels since September. OPEC expects the nation’s oil production to rapidly increase by 614,000 barrels a day this year, while Canada and Brazil raise output a combined 430,000 barrels a day.
OPEC’s daily output decreased by 18,000 barrels to 31.7 million, independent sources said.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/11/opec-sees-surge-in-u-s-oil-production/
-
Trump Signs Cybersecurity Order
May 11, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
President Trump signed a long-anticipated executive order today aimed at boosting cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, including the electric grid.
The directive places responsibility on agency chiefs for shoring up and protecting what the White House calls "antiquated and difficult-to-defend" networks.
Under the order, agency heads must review risks to their networks and submit those findings to the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of the Office of Management and Budget by mid-August.
A key tool for assessing those systems, the order says, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
Part of the directive addresses energy, calling on Energy Secretary Rick Perry to collaborate with the Homeland Security chief and director of national intelligence, as well as state, local, tribal and territorial governments, to gauge the potential and duration of a prolonged power outage stemming from a cyberattack.
Perry's review would also determine U.S. readiness to manage the consequences of such an attack and address shortcomings in its response capabilities.
The end product, which may be classified in full or in part, must be submitted to the president through the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism program within 90 days.
The electric industry welcomed the order.
Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn said utilities are already working with the government through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC).
"We value this partnership and appreciate President Trump's support for improving the security posture of the electric power industry and, by extension, the nation," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/11/stories/1060054445
-
Utilities Welcome Trump Order on Enhancing Cybersecurity
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak
The U.S. utility industry is welcoming an executive order from President Donald Trump on cybersecurity, saying it'll build on efforts to make the nation's power grid more resilient to digital attacks.
The order that Trump signed May 11 directs agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy along with local governments to determine the vulnerabilities of electricity networks to a cyber-disruption. The order also requests an analysis of the length and scope of a prolonged power failure and the ability to recover from an incident. The Edison Electric Institute, the electric utility industry trade group, has helped facilitate coordination between government agencies and private utilities on cyber-protections.
Trump's order comes as utilities, regional grid operators and regulators alike have warned of the increasing risks of cyberattacks on the nation's power grid. The Energy Department said in a report in January that the grid faces “imminent danger.” A successful hack could cause widespread power failures, undermine national defense systems and hurt the economy, according to the review.
In December, the Burlington Electric Department said computer code that has been connected to Russian cyberattacks by U.S. intelligence agencies had been found in a laptop computer at the Vermont utility. It wasn't connected to the power grid at the time. Four years ago, a physical attack at a California substation damaged equipment, limiting power to Silicon Valley.
“Our security strategies constantly evolve and are closely coordinated with the federal government,” Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, said in a statement. “From electric company CEOs to energy grid operators, we work closely to share threat information and partner with all levels of government to mitigate, and respond to, national-level incidents or threats to electric sector critical infrastructure.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111212963&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111212963&jd=111212963
-
Complaints Spur Board to Add Details on W. Va. Chemical Spill
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Changes to a U.S. Chemical Safety Board report on a 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, W.Va., include more details in response to community complaints but don't affect the agency's conclusions or expand the scope of the probe, the agency said May 11.
The spill of methylcyclohexanemethanol, or MCHM, and other chemicals from a Freedom Industries chemical storage tank facility Jan. 9, 2014, left 300,000 Charleston-area residents without drinking water when utility West Virginia American Water Co. shut down the system.
CSB Investigator Johnnie Banks told reporters the agency “addressed virtually every concern that was raised” by public comments and a petition for correction the agency received for an update released May 11.
Some of residents’ concerns with the CSB's earlier product stem from decisions made by the agency in the early stages of the investigation more than three years ago, the agency said.
New Information
The document said CSB didn't send an investigative team to Charleston until Jan. 12, 2014, three days after the spill, and the team did not arrive until Jan. 13. By then, a Freedom Industries contractor had moved the chemicals in vacuum trucks from their original location to storage containers at a different facility.
That required CSB to partner with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to review samples OSHA collected because it was too late to take samples independently, the report said. Both the trucks and the new storage tanks were likely not cleaned first, making it possible the samples were contaminated, the board said.
OSHA's testing “was limited to compliance purposes and, as a result, did not address the identification of the unknown chemicals in the sample tested,” the report said.
The board's report provided some new information on the early stages of its investigation of Freedom Industries and the challenges that the novel case presented for the agency, including updating its estimate of the quantity of chemicals that spilled to about 11,000 gallons over six to eight hours.
The volume is among the higher estimates released since the spill, while the fairly rapid release time is less than some theories that the leak continued for 24 hours or longer. Banks said CSB fine-tuned the numbers as it obtained “more detailed information.”
Changes Fairly Limited
Still, the board's changes may not be enough to satisfy local residents, who wanted answers on broader questions like the conduct of West Virginia American Water Co. and possible health impacts of exposure to the chemicals spilled. The board also did not examine how West Virginia state laws passed in 2014, 2015 and this year modifying regulations on chemical storage tanks could affect safety in the future.
Banks said the board had to keep “our responsibility to adhere to our statutory mandate,” which is to identify the root cause of the incident.
CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland, who inherited the probe from her predecessor, former Chairperson Rafael Moure-Eraso, had instructed staff to review the document after West Virginia residents criticized the document as incomplete at a public meeting in Charleston in September 2016.
“Our findings remain unchanged,” Sutherland said. “This release occurred because of a lack of preventative maintenance and inspections.”
Because of the facility operator's inaction, Sutherland said, “The community was put at needless risk.”
Residents Disappointed
Philip Price, a Charleston resident and chemical industry consultant, told Bloomberg BNA May 11 the report was a missed opportunity for CSB.
Price, who petitioned the board to correct the earlier report, said the document remains flawed in part due to procedural problems in the investigation's early stages.
Price said CSB's decision to have its chemical samples tested at a “marginally competent” Occupational Safety and Health Administration laboratory in Salt Lake City was inappropriate because the lab was unprepared for testing of such complexity. But according to the CSB, its testing options were limited by its failure to send investigators closer to the date of the incident.
In addition, the board made only “really politically correct, general recommendations so as not to offend anyone,” Price said.
The report issued recommendations to the industry group American Water Works Association, along with American Water Works Company Inc. and Eastman Chemical Co., but not to any state or federal agencies.
Price said he hopes the CSB receives more federal funding and considers turning to outside experts for complex investigations in the future.
“I think what they do potentially is really valuable, but as a scientist I've got to tell you, it's crap if it's not done right,” Price said.
Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy shortly after the spill. Its former chief executive, Gary Southern, was sentenced to 30 days in federal prison in February 2016 in connection with the spill. Four other company officials were sentenced to probation and a fifth served one month in prison.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111212966&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111212966&jd=111212966
-
Trump’s New Era of Industry Self-Regulation Begins for Oil by Rail
May 11, 2017 | DeSmog
In case you were wondering how industry-friendly the federal government is becoming, look no further than Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA), chair of the Congressional Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. He recently opened a hearing on pipeline and rail regulations with the following sentiment:
“Regulation has grown significantly in recent years and so we are here to ask stakeholders about the impact and burden of regulation on their businesses and ways to ease the burden without compromising safety.”
Now a “stakeholder” is defined as “a person with an interest or concern in something.” Yet the only people testifying at this hearing were five people representing industry and one representing rail labor.
There was no one representing the millions of people who live near railroad tracks and pipelines that will be impacted by the easing of regulations on safety and the environment. No one to talk about possible environmental impacts. The burdens of those communities don’t appear to concern Rep. Denham.
As previously reported on DeSmog, Denham has used his position to support industry efforts to avoid oil-by-rail regulations before. His latest approach in the Trump era should not come as a surprise. In early 2015, Denham, in a hearing on implementing new safer oil tank cars, repeatedly advocated pushing back the timeline for industry being required to use a safer version of rail tank cars.
Denham made his preferred approach clear, saying, “I just want to make sure that we are all singing the same tune that we have a very safe industry and we want to work together on improving that industry.”“Allow the railroad industry to keep more of their profits”
Two years later, as the Trump administration starts rolling back regulations, Denham now is asking “stakeholders” — or, members of the industries being regulated — how regulators can ease the burden of regulation around rail and pipeline safety.
At this oil-by-rail hearing, some of those stakeholders were representatives from Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), the leading oil-by-rail company, and the American Petroleum Institute (API), an oil and gas industry lobbying group. Anyone care to guess what they recommended?
One hint comes from Rep. Bill Shuster, who advocated that government should “allow the railroad industry to keep more of their profits.”
What business doesn't want to keep more of its profits? But what those businesses do with that money is another question. Shuster’s logic is that if the rail industry gets to keep more of its profits, then those profits will — of course — be reinvested in safety.
A major problem with this concept is found in the history of the rail industry, which has been fighting against using safety measures such as modern electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes, positive train control, and speed limits. Its opposition is based on the idea that the costs of these proven safety technologies and the regulations that would require them outweigh the benefits.
ECP brakes are an excellent example of this. The rail industry lobbied against this proven safety technology in a presentation from the Association of American Railroads to federal regulators, saying, “If there were business benefits that outweighed the costs of ECP brakes, industry would have installed ECP brakes on a widespread basis.”
The rail industry has made clear that its preferred approach is only to spend money if it will make more money, which it referred to here as “business benefits.” But that isn’t how safety works. A New Era of Performance-Based Regulation
Prepare to hear a lot about “performance-based regulation” in the Trump era. Members of Congress and the industry representatives testifying before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on April 26 couldn’t use the phrase enough. And they all were in universal agreement that performance-based regulation is the preferred approach.
According to a 2002 paper from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, performance-based regulation is “when a regulation sets performance goals, and allows individuals and firms to choose how to meet them.”
Allowing firms to choose how to achieve safety and environmental “goals” sounds a lot like self-regulation. The other primary option is known as “prescriptive regulation,” which involves regulators setting specific requirements and guidelines for an activity that industry has to follow. The tone of the hearing made it clear that prescriptive regulation was a problem.
To make this point Rep. Denham lobbed the panel of industry representatives a softball question.
“I’d like to ask you all what you think the most effective approach to regulation is — performance-based regulations or prescriptive based regulations?” he said.
It would be interesting to know who wrote that question because Denham was clearly reading what would seem to be a rather simple question.
The rail industry has made clear that its preferred approach is only to spend money if it will make more money, which it referred to here as “business benefits.” But that isn’t how safety works. A New Era of Performance-Based Regulation
Prepare to hear a lot about “performance-based regulation” in the Trump era. Members of Congress and the industry representatives testifying before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on April 26 couldn’t use the phrase enough. And they all were in universal agreement that performance-based regulation is the preferred approach.
According to a 2002 paper from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, performance-based regulation is “when a regulation sets performance goals, and allows individuals and firms to choose how to meet them.”
Allowing firms to choose how to achieve safety and environmental “goals” sounds a lot like self-regulation. The other primary option is known as “prescriptive regulation,” which involves regulators setting specific requirements and guidelines for an activity that industry has to follow. The tone of the hearing made it clear that prescriptive regulation was a problem.
To make this point Rep. Denham lobbed the panel of industry representatives a softball question.
“I’d like to ask you all what you think the most effective approach to regulation is — performance-based regulations or prescriptive based regulations?” he said.
It would be interesting to know who wrote that question because Denham was clearly reading what would seem to be a rather simple question.
And it isn’t just the top job that remains vacant. In April, PHMSA Associate Director Alan Mayberry announced via email to agency staff, “We have a couple of critical positions which have remained unfilled. We are making some personnel moves to fill those positions.” But those personnel moves amounted to shuffling around existing employees, not hiring new people.
While it is clear that the Trump administration likely will weaken regulations and essentially let industry call the shots, it also is worth noting that the Obama administration wasn’t doing a great job in this area either. In 2014 PHMSA reduced its workforce by 9 percent, with a round of job cuts.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) has been trying for years to get new pipeline safety regulations from PHMSA. She has expressed her frustration with this process multiple times in Congressional testimony.
At one point she said, “The system is fundamentally broken,” and that, “PHMSA is actually a toothless kitten, a fluffy industry pet that frightens absolutely no one.”
This is one of the agencies the Trump administration and Congress want to weaken — all the while claiming safety is a top priority. Singing Industry’s Tune
Of course, this approach isn’t limited just to PHMSA. With the recent dismissal of scientists on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Board of Science Counselors, a similar pattern is emerging in which government is giving “stakeholders” a seat — if not all the seats — at the table.
J. P. Freire, spokesperson for the EPA, explained to The New York Times who would be replacing the dismissed scientists.
“The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” he said. The current EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, was a regular industry advocate (and denier of climate change science) in his previous role as Oklahoma Attorney General.
While regulatory changes take time and inevitably face legal challenges, the U.S. has entered a new era of industry self-regulation.
During the Obama administration, Rep. Denham wanted to make sure everyone was singing the same tune about the “very safe” rail industry, and Congress certainly did its best to weaken any real regulation of the oil-by-rail industry. But in the Trump era, not only will Congress be singing the same tune, but we can expect that tune to be written by the industry and its lobbyists.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/11/trump-new-era-industry-self-regulation-denham-oil-rail
-
Narrowing Scope of Waters of U.S. Will Be Hard, Attorneys Say
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven D. Cook
The Trump administration would face significant obstacles in basing a new rule governing Clean Water Act jurisdiction on a Supreme Court opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who wanted to limit the law's scope to continuously flowing waters, several water attorneys said May 11.
“My opinion is no. No, you can't,” William W. Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said at D.C. Bar Association discussion. He was referring to Scalia's minority opinion in the 2006 Clean Water Act case, Rapanos v. United States.
Scalia, joined by three other justices, said that only waters that flow continuously to relatively permanent bodies of water should be subject to Clean Water Act protections. Under this interpretation, streams that are dry part of the time—or flow only occasionally—wouldn't be protected, nor would wetlands without visible surface flow to navigable waters.
President Trump Feb. 28 issued an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to initiate rulemakings to rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule, also known as the “waters of the United States” rule, and propose revisions (82 Fed. Reg. 12,497). Trump directed the agencies to consider interpreting the term “navigable waters,” as defined in the Clean Water Act, consistent with Scalia's opinion.
Four or Five?
Buzbee said Scalia's opinion can't form the basis of a new rule because it had the support of only four justices, not the five that would constitute a majority of the Supreme Court. Only the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy had the support of five justices, he said. Kennedy said that a wetland or other water must have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to be subject to Clean Water Act requirements for point source discharge permits or dredge and fill permits.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by three other justices, wrote a dissent agreeing with Kennedy but saying Clean Water Act protections should go further, Buzbee said. With the Stevens dissent, there were five justices for Kennedy, but not that many for Scalia's interpretation alone, he said.
The Obama administration issued the Clean Water Rule to clarify which waters are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The rule was immediately challenged by states and industry groups who said it was a power grab by the EPA and the corps that created onerous new regulatory burdens.
The EPA and corps used the Kennedy opinion in Rapanos as the legal foundation for the rule.
Situation ‘Not So Clear’
Kerry McGrath, a partner with Hunton & Williams, disagreed saying the situation isn't so clear. While the Scalia and Kennedy opinions articulate different standards, “they agree on a lot,” she said. Both opinions discuss duration and frequency of flow, she said. Both opinions recognize that the term “navigable waters” has meaning and discuss it at length.
Buzbee also said that in rewriting the rule, the agencies will be constrained by science. The agencies supported the rule with a “Connectivity Report,” summarizing the available peer-reviewed science, he said. A new rule can't ignore this report. He called it, “the best evidence we have,” and said it constrains any new rulemaking.
Jon Devine, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Scalia opinion ignores science. Referring to both the Kennedy and Scalia opinions, Devine said, “one looks at upstream and downstream impacts, one does not.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt May 11 said he expects the agency to finalize a new waters rule by early 2018. Speaking on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Pruitt said, “I anticipate and hope that by the end of the year or first quarter of ’18 that we'll have a final rule.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111212974&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111212974&jd=111212974
-
EPA Hears Competing Arguments Over Revisions to Texas Haze Air Plan
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is hearing competing arguments over whether to tighten or weaken the Obama agency's proposed emissions plan for reducing Texas' contributions to regional haze air pollution, with the state and utilities urging EPA to soften the plan while environmentalists say the proposal is the minimum required and the final plan should be stricter.
The rulemaking gives the Trump EPA an early opportunity to outline its policy preferences for the regional haze program, through which states are required to craft state implementation plans (SIPs) detailing the pollution control measures they will impose in order to meet the program's goal of improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. If EPA rejects a SIP, it imposes an agency-crafted federal implementation plan (FIP) instead.
For several years states, power companies and environmentalists have battled with EPA in comments and in court over whether various haze SIPs and FIPs are too strict or too weak, though federal appeals courts have been divided over the scope of the agency's discretionary authority in deciding whether haze plans are adequate.
The Obama administration on Jan. 4 proposed a FIP to replace Texas' SIP, which it saw as inadequate to meet the haze program's goals. EPA's plan would impose source-specific controls on sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions on 29 electric generating units at 14 coal-fired power plants to satisfy best available retrofit technology (BART) emissions control mandates, in addition to particulate matter (PM) controls at several facilities.
But it would allow participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) cap-and-trade SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions reduction program to satisfy NOx-reduction mandates under the haze program.
In comments submitted ahead of a May 5 deadline for public input, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state's environmental regulator, and utility industry groups criticize the FIP.
TCEQ says in its comments posted May 8 on EPA's proposed FIP that EPA's limitation of SO2 emissions in EPA's proposed BART FIP “represents more control than is necessary to satisfy BART.” TCEQ notes that EPA's BART limits on SO2 are tougher than those that would have applied under CSAPR, had the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not remanded those CSAPR limits for “over control” of Texas emissions.
Also, EPA ignored the potential negative effects on electric grid reliability of its plan, TCEQ says. The state further questions EPA's air quality modeling that concluded Texas' emissions compromise visibility far downwind.
In its May 5 comments, American Electric Power subsidiary Southwestern Electric Power Company describes EPA's computer modeling -- which the agency relied on in crafting the federal emissions plan -- as “flawed and indefensible.”
The company favors reliance on CSAPR to satisfy haze requirements for both NOx and SO2, even though Texas fought to remove itself from the power plant emissions trading program established by CSAPR.
Utility NRG Energy's subsidiary NRG Texas Power also attacks EPA's modeling as “inconsistent and indefensible,” arguing in its comments that EPA overstated the impact on visibility of emissions from two generating units at its W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station. Under EPA's FIP, the plant would have to add emissions controls on those units.
In May 5 comments, power engineering firm Sargent and Lundy also faults EPA's modeling. The firm helped to develop aspects of EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) modeling platform, but says it has concerns that EPA inappropriately used the modeling to develop control technology cost estimates that the company fears are inaccurate.
The firm says that “the IPM cost algorithms were not developed for, nor were they intended to be used to develop unit-specific control system costs for a BART determination.”
Source-Specific BART
Environmentalists, meanwhile, insist that EPA must finalize a FIP at least as tough as the proposed version, and they argue that whatever final plan the agency issues should be even stricter.
In their May 5 comments, Earthjustice, Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association say that if anything, EPA overestimated the cost of controls such as SO2 “scrubbers” that would be required under its FIP. “EPA’s analysis overestimates the costs of new scrubbers; thus, the proposed scrubber retrofits are even more cost effective than EPA calculated,” the groups say.
Their primary arguments, however, relate to the need to impose source-specific BART controls to limit emissions, including for several still uncontrolled coal plants that have evaded controls despite lawsuits by both the Obama EPA and environmentalists seeking to force their installation.
The groups reject emissions trading programs such as CSAPR or its forerunner, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), as the basis for BART, because under emissions trading, sources can buy emissions credits to comply rather than reducing emissions. Hence sources may not install the controls necessary to improve visibility in the specific Class 1 areas that they pollute as they might instead purchase credits.
Not only does the TCEQ plan EPA disapproved rely on emissions trading, it relies on CAIR, a rule that was in effect scrapped after EPA crafted its CSAPR in response to a remand of the earlier rule by the D.C. Circuit, environmentalists say. Texas “insists that it can continue to rely on EPA’s now-defunct, and never fully-implemented, CAIR trading program as an alternative to BART. It plainly cannot,” environmentalists say.
The groups contest EPA's reliance on calculations it made in the agency's 2012 rule that found CSAPR is “better than BART” and therefore an acceptable alternative to source-specific controls.
The groups say, “Given the large number of final BART determinations made since 2012, and the significant changes to CSAPR [emissions] budgets since 2012, it is arbitrary and capricious” -- and therefore unlawful -- “to rely on the outdated assumptions about emissions which were made in the CSAPR-Better-than-BART Rule.”
The groups are litigating that rule in the D.C. Circuit suit Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), et al. v. EPA, et al., with EPA in its final March 17 brief offering a strong defense of CSAPR as a BART alternative.
While the environmental groups broadly defend EPA's proposed FIP, including its case-by-case analysis of what constitutes BART for each electrical generating unit (EGU), they say EPA wrongly abandoned this approach when evaluating what PM controls would be required.
“The agency’s analysis of PM BART arbitrarily deviates from the approach EPA took to SO2 BART, because EPA assumed -- with no supporting evidence -- that PM controls installed at the BART-subject EGUs reflect the maximum removal efficiency that is typically capable with such controls,” the groups say.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in its separate May 5 comments focuses on the SO2 limits in EPA's proposed plan. The proposed rule “would require some of the largest sources of dangerous and visibility-impairing [SO2] emissions in Texas -- and, indeed, our country -- to install modern, cost-effective, and widely-deployed pollution controls. These protections are required by the Clean Air Act and long overdue,” EDF says.
While EDF in general supports EPA's approach to calculating BART, the group faults EPA's assumptions about the control efficiency of dry sorbent injection (DSI) and its cost-effectiveness as a control method. EPA overestimates the SO2 reduction that can be achieved with DSI, which the agency in its proposal pegs at 90 percent.
We “suggest that EPA remove DSI at 90 percent control levels from its BART cost analysis to reflect that 90 percent removal of SO2 with DSI is not feasible in most cases,” EDF says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-hears-competing-arguments-over-revisions-texas-haze-air-plan
-
Tillerson Signs Arctic Council Statement Acknowledging Climate Change
May 12, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signed a joint statement with seven other foreign ministers at the Arctic Council on Thursday citing the Paris climate change agreement and calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases, even as President Donald Trump considers pulling the U.S. out of the 2015 pact.
The "Fairbanks Declaration of 2017," which Tillerson signed along with foreign ministers from Russia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland, says the Arctic Council members note "the entry into force of the Paris Agreement on climate change and its implementation," and reiterates "the need for global action to reduce both long-lived greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants," while it reaffirms "the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the need for their realization by 2030."
The Declaration includes several references to climate change, and states that the Arctic is warming at twice the global rate, posing a serious threat to biodiversity in the region and making adaptation important for both communities and the ecosystems.
Tillerson's signature stands in contrast to Energy Secretary Rick Perry's refusal at a G-7 energy ministers gathering last month to sign a joint statement that would have included references to the Paris deal.
Tillerson has been among the top administration officials urging Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris agreement, a stance that has put him at odds with chief strategist Steve Bannon and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Trump had been expected to decide on U.S. participation in the Paris agreement in advance of the G-7 summit coming up at the end of May, but a White House spokesman said this week he would decide at a later date.
Tillerson attended Thursday's meeting of the Arctic Council, a body intended to coordinate activities around the region. The U.S. had served as the president of the council for the last two years under former President Barack Obama, but rotating leadership has now passed to Finland.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/tillerson-signs-arctic-council-statement-acknowledging-climate-change-156732
-
Uncertainty over Trump Decision on Paris Climate Accord Clouds Arctic Meeting
May 11, 2017 | Washington Post
By Anne Gearan and Chris Mooney
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson promised nations with a stake in the Arctic that the United States would listen to their concerns about rapid climate change but offered no hint Thursday about whether the Trump administration will back away from past commitments on the issue.
The new U.S. administration is considering where it will come down on global warming, Tillerson said, as the United States completed a two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which had made the risks of climate change a priority under former president Barack Obama.
“We are not going to rush to make a decision. We are going to work to make the right decision for the United States,” Tillerson said.
That was mainly a reference to the upcoming decision on whether the United States will pull out of the landmark international agreement on climate change and reducing carbon emissions known as the Paris accord.
The Trump administration is in turmoil over whether to fulfill the president’s campaign pledge to pull out of the agreement and has postponed a decision until at least late this month.
Climate change is the main topic dominating discussion of the Arctic region, and questions about the future of U.S. leadership on the issue loomed over the meeting.
Other foreign ministers and representatives of indigenous groups avoided criticism of President Trump or Tillerson, although several indigenous speakers stressed the direct impact of a warming region on their lives and traditions.
Although Tillerson is among the Trump Cabinet officials and advisers arguing that the United States has more to gain than lose by remaining a part of the Paris agreement, he could not promise some of the nations most engaged on the issue that Trump will see it that way.
The eight-nation group issued a joint statement that called climate change a pressing issue in the Arctic and took note of the Paris agreement without endorsing it. That was a compromise, as Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini noted.
“The document addresses . . . the impacts of climate change and is a most welcome sign of our will to cooperate,” Soini said.
The joint declaration from the United States, Canada, Russia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland stressed “the need for global action to reduce both long-lived greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants.”
The Paris climate agreement is considered by many Arctic countries to be a vital first step toward global reckoning with the effects of climate change, and they want to see nations go further. Although that agreement seeks to hold global warming to “well below” an increase of 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the Arctic is expected to warm up far more than that, because of factors that affect sea ice at the top of the world.
The Arctic is the fastest-warming part of the planet; it is heating up roughly twice as rapidly as the rest of the globe. The repercussions include enormous ice loss from the ice sheet of Greenland, which is raising sea levels by as much as a millimeter a year; major retreats in floating sea ice; and the thawing of frozen soil, known as permafrost, which can not only destabilize infrastructure but also releases more carbon into the atmosphere as it warms up, further amplifying global warming.
A growing number of scientists suggest that the changes in the Arctic will have an impact on the globe’s far more populous mid-latitudes by predisposing the atmosphere to extreme weather events.
A working group of the Arctic Council documented signs of climate change in a just-released study, which raised projections for global sea-level rise according to the pace of Arctic melt. That study, “Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic,” was the subject of an informational display Tillerson toured Thursday.
Meanwhile, another new study found that the permafrost of Alaska is already adding substantial volumes of greenhouse gases to the planet’s atmosphere.
[NASA mission yields stunning aerial views of the Arctic]
Environmental groups and other opponents of any U.S. retreat from its commitments on climate change are trying to frame the issue as one that affects U.S. national security and economic interests. Activists marched through downtown Fairbanks on Wednesday, the day Tillerson arrived here.
“We want to tell our secretary of state and our country that Alaskans want a clean economy and we want to honor the Paris climate agreement,” the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner quoted protester Enei Begaye as saying.
The Paris accord is the latest policy decision that pits Trump’s campaign trail “America First” rhetoric against practical concerns for the new administration. If the president keeps the United States in the agreement, even with the goal of reducing its obligations, the decision will follow foreign policy reversals that included his stances on the NATO alliance and Chinese currency manipulation.
The White House postponed a much-anticipated meeting Tuesday that was expected to further air the differences between a conservative camp of administration officials — including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt — who want the United States to leave the accord, and a group including Tillerson that argues that the country will have more leverage if it stays within the agreement.
The same day, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that Trump would not reach a decision on whether to stay or go until after the Group of Seven meeting of major industrial democracies in late May, because the president “wants to make sure that he has an opportunity to continue to meet with his team to create the best strategy for this country going forward.”
Nordic countries, including Finland, which takes over leadership of the Arctic Council from the United States, issued a statement this month affirming the Paris agreement and pledging continued leadership on climate issues.
For Canada and Nordic countries deeply concerned about climate change, the Arctic Council meeting is a chance to lobby Tillerson at a moment when the U.S. decision is at a “stalemate,” said Andrew Light, a climate specialist with the World Resources Institute.
“This is an opportunity to make the case that the U.S. needs a seat at the table,” Light said.
Mooney reported from Washington.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/uncertainty-over-trump-decision-on-paris-climate-accord-clouds-arctic-meeting/2017/05/10/7e359270-35d0-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.c604b0eebe4f
-
Carbon Pricing Plans Should Consider Plight of Poor, OECD Says
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Well-designed carbon pricing reforms can address both climate risks and energy affordability for low-income households, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said May 11.
In a report from its Center for Tax Policy and Administration, the OECD said that because carbon pricing reforms increase energy prices, they particularly hit poor households, which typically spend a large share of their income on energy bills.
So the Paris-based policy body recommended addressing “affordability risks” by using some of the additional revenue from higher energy taxes to ease the pain for lower-income households.
Redistributing one-third of any additional tax revenues through cash-transfers is enough to reduce affordability risk in many countries, the OECD said.
The Paris-based policy body, whose members are mainly wealthy countries, has long argued that a core component of any policy for fighting climate change should be carbon pricing that cuts carbon dioxide emissions from energy use.
According to the International Energy Agency, energy consumption accounts for about two-thirds of carbon emissions responsible for global warming.
But in a report last year, the OECD said 80 percent of global carbon emissions from energy use are not yet subject to any carbon rate on energy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111212967&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111212967&jd=111212967
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested