Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/23/17
-
Trump Calls For Cutting Budget By 30%, Slashing 3,200 Jobs
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus,
President Trump has proposed a dramatic downsizing of U.S. EPA. -
Trump Plan Reverses Obama Energy And Environment Policies
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink
President Trump today released a fiscal 2018 budget that amounts to a sharp rebuke of the energy and environmental policies pushed for the past eight years by the Obama administration. -
Lawmakers Seek To Open EPA Scientific Integrity Meeting
May 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
Two House lawmakers are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to open the agency's planned, invitation-only scientific integrity stakeholder meeting next month to the public after discovering that the agency had not provided industry and state representatives with adequate representation at the meeting. -
PlasticsEurope Files Action Against Echa’s BPA SVHC Listing
May 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Trade association PlasticsEurope has taken Echa to court over its decision to include bisphenol A (BPA) on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs. It says that the vast majority of uses are as an intermediate, which is excluded from REACH. -
Green Groups, Town Challenge LNG Megaproject
May 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska's proposal to build an 800-mile natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export project is being challenged by three environmental groups and the city of Valdez, each of which has filed requests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to intervene in the agency's review of the venture. -
Dow Chemical Restarts Texas LHC No. 7 steam Cracker: Sources
May 23, 2017 | Platts
By Nida Qureshi
US petrochemicals producer Dow Chemical restarted over the weekend the 680,000 mt/year No. 7 light hydrocarbon cracking unit at its Freeport, Texas, complex, sources said Monday. -
Court Sides With FERC In Fight Over Natural Gas Project
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges today tossed another environmental challenge to an East Coast pipeline project. -
Cyber Raises Threat Against America's Energy Backbone
May 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak, Hannah Northey and Peter Behr,
Five years ago, an attack on nearly two dozen U.S. natural gas utilities set off alarm bells in the U.S. intelligence community. A hacker using the nickname UglyGorilla stole troves of sensitive data from gas pipeline companies, breaching the nation's 300,000-mile web of steel that's a critical backbone for the nation's economy. -
States, Industry Squabble Over Crude-By-Rail Safety
May 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Top lawyers from six states are calling on the Trump administration to tighten safety standards for transporting crude oil. -
Why Environmental Regulations Can’t Compete With the Market
May 23, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jason Bordoff
Energy markets are in the midst of profound transformation—from a historic shale boom and oil-price collapse to rapidly falling renewable costs and new innovations. -
Budget Cuts Would 'Devastate' Air Programs, Survey Says
May 23, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
State and local air officials today are outlining how they think people could suffer if President Trump's budget proposal goes into effect. -
Fights For Climate Rules Mount Within State, Against Trump
May 23, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn and Anne C. Mulkern
California officials pushed back yesterday against attacks on climate and other environmental policies, both within the Golden State and from the Trump administration. -
GOP Senators Roll Out Resolution Urging U.S. Exit
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and five fellow Republican senators introduced a resolution yesterday calling on President Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
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
-
Trump Calls For Cutting Budget By 30%, Slashing 3,200 Jobs
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus,
President Trump has proposed a dramatic downsizing of U.S. EPA.
The White House released its "fat" budget proposal for fiscal 2018 today, expanding on its plans for massive spending cuts at the agency.
Overall, Trump wants to slash EPA's budget by about 30 percent, taking spending down from more than $8 billion in fiscal 2017 to $5.7 billion for fiscal 2018.
The president would cut about a fifth of EPA's workforce. The budget envisions roughly 11,600 employees working at the agency, down from more than 15,000 today.
The proposed worker drawdown seems to surpass the administration's "skinny" budget released in March. Back then, the White House said the agency would have 3,200 fewer jobs in fiscal 2018. Today's budget proposes about 3,800 fewer positions.
The spending blueprint follows the administration's mantra of returning the agency to its core mission and retreating from functions that states could manage in EPA's place.
"The President's budget respects the American taxpayer," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in a statement. "This budget supports EPA's highest priorities with federal funding for priority work in infrastructure, air and water quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace."
Congressional Democrats were quick to slam the plan for EPA. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the proposal revealed "empty promises" from Trump and his team.
"He's told us he would work to promote clean air and clean water. He's claimed that protecting Americans is important to him and said repeatedly that he wants to rebuild our country's infrastructure. But his budget proposal makes it abundantly clear that those were nothing more than empty promises," Carper said in the statement.
The budget would reduce or eliminate several major EPA programs. Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, however, have indicated the president's plan is pretty much dead on arrival.
The budget targets EPA's categorical grants, which are doled out to state environmental regulators to help enforce laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.
The president has proposed a nearly 45 percent or or a White House-estimated $482 million cut to those grants, requesting $597 million for fiscal 2018.
The White House said it wanted to eliminate or reduce federal spending on state actions that go beyond EPA's requirements under law.
To make up the difference, states can prioritize programs or find other funding sources, including fees, the budget plan said.
Trump's budget would eliminate funding for popular EPA programs like Energy Star, which certifies products as energy efficient, as well as other voluntary efforts related to energy and climate change. The administration estimates that would result in savings of $66 million
Documents said the administration "is committed to returning EPA to its core work," arguing there is no need for the agency to run programs that can be taken on by industry associations and consumer groups.
The budget would zero out EPA's geographic programs, despite fierce pushback from lawmakers. Efforts to help clean up the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound would be no more, with the White House estimating a cut of $427 million.Climate and air
President Trump has indicated he sees spending on climate change programs as money down the drain, and the budget reflects Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney's assertion that it's "a waste of your money" (E&E News PM, March 16).
The blueprint would provide about $1.8 billion for agency environmental programs and management in fiscal 2018, a decrease of more than $800 million compared with the $2.6 billion lawmakers approved for this year. That includes a total of $310 million for Clean Air Act and climate change regulatory activities.
Within EPA's budget narrative, the words "climate change" are not explicitly mentioned. The document refers to a "market-based approach" to reducing emissions of air pollutants permitted under the Clean Air Act.
"The EPA will work with states and sources to implement the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to obtain high quality data in a cost-effective manner," the document said.
Mulvaney today referred to a "climate change musical" by the National Science Foundation when asked about climate science funding at a White House briefing.
"What I think you saw happen during the previous administration is the pendulum went too far to one side, where we were spending too much of your money on climate change and not very efficiently," Mulvaney said.
"We don't get rid of it here," he added, "Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean that we are anti-science? Absolutely not."
The budget would discontinue funding of the Clean Power Plan, climate change research and partnership programs.
Federal support for air quality management, a category that includes EPA's air toxics program and support for development of state implementation plans, would be chopped 24 percent, from $132 million to $100.4 million.
The clean air allowance trading program would be cut by more than 22 percent, from $23.9 million to $18.5 million. Opponents are already bracing for a fight.
"The clean air program, including budget and legislative and regulatory provisions, are under attack," Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an interview yesterday. "We're at the time where it's important to stop the bleeding."Transportation
The budget includes $76 million for the federal vehicle and fuels standards certification program. The National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory would see a 25 percent cut, from around $108 million in 2017 to $80 million.
An internal EPA budget memo leaked earlier in the year had proposed cutting the lab's operations by $48 million, or 90 percent, and halving its staff.
A 25 percent cut could still seriously hamper the lab, which has been expanding its testing program following the discoveries that Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler diesel vehicles polluted more than allowed.
The budget envisions the lab focusing "on certification decisions." It would continue to "perform its compliance oversight functions on priority matters".
It would also "conduct, at a reduced level, testing activities for pre-certification confirmatory testing for emissions and fuel economy for passenger cars."Superfund
Funding for cleaning up the country's most polluted sites would be cut by $330 million under the budget, despite Pruitt calling it one of his top priorities (Greenwire, May 11).
"In FY 2018, the agency will prioritize its efforts on the most significant sites in terms of environmental impact and potential cost liability to the government," EPA said.
The agency said it plans to "maximize" this amount by reducing administrative costs, identifying efficiencies and prioritizing the cleanup of sites with existing funding.
EPA also plans to merge the federal facilities enforcement program with the Superfund program to "optimize resources" between the two. The Superfund enforcement budget would be cut by almost $56 million.
Just yesterday Pruitt announced the creation of a Superfund Task Force to provide recommendations on how to "streamline and improve" the program (see related story).
Funding for the brownfields program would also drop about $9 million to $16 million.Enforcement
The budget would impose an almost 24 percent cut on programs under the umbrella of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, reducing them from $548 million this year to $419 million in fiscal 2018.
By way of justification, the administration describes environmental enforcement as "a shared effort" between states and the federal government.
The budget would allow EPA "to maintain a core enforcement oversight role to ensure a consistent and effective program, but eliminates duplication of enforcement actions carried out by the states, and focuses federal enforcement efforts in those states that do not have delegated authority," the document says.
Funding for criminal enforcement would fall almost 17 percent from $53.3 million to $44.5 million. Spending on overall civil enforcement activities would be sliced 21 percent from $174.1 million to $143.3 million.
Funding for the environmental justice program, set at $6.7 million this year, would be eliminated. Mustafa Ali, the program's associate assistant administrator, had quit in March out of concern over the White House's plans.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054996
-
Trump Plan Reverses Obama Energy And Environment Policies
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink
President Trump today released a fiscal 2018 budget that amounts to a sharp rebuke of the energy and environmental policies pushed for the past eight years by the Obama administration.
The $4.1 trillion budget request would slash spending for non-defense domestic programs by $54 billion, cutting U.S. EPA by nearly one-third (see related story), reducing Interior by about 11 percent (see related story) and decreasing the Energy Department by 6 percent (see related story). The savings would instead go toward increased Defense Department spending and avoid cuts to the main Social Security and Medicare programs.
All told, non-defense discretionary spending would be slashed by $1.6 trillion over the next decade, while defense discretionary accounts would be boosted by $489 billion. It's a marked reversal from President Obama's budgets, where domestic priorities, including climate research, environmental protection and conservation programs, were favored over the Pentagon.
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney defended the cuts in climate change funding, saying the administration wants to avoid the "crazy things" the Obama administration had done related to global warming. He specifically cited a musical on climate change funded by a National Science Foundation grant, a popular talking point with conservatives.
"During the previous administration the pendulum went too far to one side where we were spending too much of your money on climate change and not very efficiently. We don't get rid of it here. Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean we are anti-science? Absolutely not," Mulvaney told reporters earlier today.
While the budget would show a $440 billion deficit for fiscal 2018, it would eventually balance in 10 years. The red ink would be erased by reducing all domestic programs by 2 percent annually for the next 10 years and through optimistic projections for economic growth that will lead to increased revenues from federal taxes and other sources.
A good chunk of revenue Trump would need over the next decade would come from proposals for what seem likely to be controversial changes to energy-related projects.
The administration forecasts $1.8 billion in revenue by opening up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; saving $3.6 billion by ending federal revenue sharing with Gulf Coast states generated by offshore drilling; and earning $16.6 billion by selling off half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Greenwire, May 22).
Mulvaney said the SPR could be sold off because of increases in domestic oil production due in part to advances in hydraulic fracturing. He said he did not expect the sales of the reserves to affect global oil prices because they would be carefully telegraphed over a long time.
"I don't need to take this much of your money and to bury it in the ground out in western Texas someplace for domestic security and national security reasons when we have domestic surpluses like we do," he added.
Other spending priorities for Trump include:$1 trillion for public infrastructure over 10 years, which would mix public dollars with incentives for private-sector investments. Some of the funding would come by selling off the Bonneville Power Administration.$2.6 billion for border security in fiscal 2018, which would include $1.6 billion to build new and replace existing fences and barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trump does not offer any new details on plans for a Republican overhaul of the federal tax code. The White House does assume that whatever deal Congress can reach on taxes will not add to the federal deficit over the next decade.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054991
-
Lawmakers Seek To Open EPA Scientific Integrity Meeting
May 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
Two House lawmakers are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to open the agency's planned, invitation-only scientific integrity stakeholder meeting next month to the public after discovering that the agency had not provided industry and state representatives with adequate representation at the meeting.
“We can think of no scientific or policy-based rationale for limiting invitations to a meeting on EPA Scientific Integrity to a relatively small number of individuals and organizations whose overall mix skews decidedly toward pro-regulation environmental activism,” Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House science committee, and Andy Biggs (R-AZ), chairman of the committee's environment panel, said in a May 22 letter to Pruitt.
The letter comes in response to 45 invitations sent by Dr. Francesca Grifo, EPA's Scientific Integrity Officer, for a private meeting billed as EPA's Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting, where agency officials would answer questions and brief participants on current and future scientific integrity plans at the agency.
According to the letter, the invitations were sent to “only one organization that is readily identifiable as representing the views and interests of industries impacted by agency decisions underpinned by EPA's scientific programs.”
In addition, no state environmental or scientific officials received invitations.
By contrast, the letter says, “a significant number of environmental and left-leaning activist organizations apparently have received invitations,” several of which received more than one invitation. For example, the letter notes that three officials at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), where Grifo previously worked, received invitations; Public Citizen and Natural Resources Defense Council were each asked to send two representatives, the letter adds.
While it is not clear which industry organization has been invited, press reports have also indicated that officials at academic institutions such as George Washington University and researchers at the American Chemical Society have also been invited.
The letter renews the committee's concerns that Obama-era officials at EPA worked closely with environmental groups, providing them with draft rules and other policies and coordinating strategy.
“Dr. Grifo's affinity [for UCS] can perhaps be explained by the fact that she was employed by the Union of Concerned Scientists prior to joining EPA,” the letter says.
Smith and Biggs ask that Pruitt open the meeting to the public so that all those who wish to may attend and learn about EPA's ongoing protocols and programs.
But they say that if Pruitt is unable to open the meeting to the public, they ask him to ensure the invitation list “is balanced and truly representative of those with an interest in scientific integrity at your agency.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/lawmakers-seek-open-epa-scientific-integrity-meeting
-
PlasticsEurope Files Action Against Echa’s BPA SVHC Listing
May 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Trade association PlasticsEurope has taken Echa to court over its decision to include bisphenol A (BPA) on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs. It says that the vast majority of uses are as an intermediate, which is excluded from REACH.
In an action brought to the European Court of Justice on 21 May, the association also argues that BPA’s inclusion on the list breaches the principles of proportionality as it "exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary" to attain the objective of the Regulation.
Furthermore, it says Echa committed "a manifest error of assessment" by failing to take into consideration information about the substance’s intermediate uses.
BPA was added to the candidate list on 12 January because of its reprotoxic properties, as set out in a proposal from the French authorities last August. And at its next meeting in June, Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC) will discuss a proposal to identify the substance as an endocrine disruptor in humans.
BPA is one of the highest volume chemicals produced worldwide. BPA-based plastic is used in many common consumer goods, such as:water bottles;sports equipment; andCDs and DVDs.
Epoxy resins containing it are used to line water pipes and as coatings on the inside of many food andbeverage cans.
In October, the European Parliament called for a complete ban on its use in food packaging. A ban in Europe on thermal paper containing the substance takes effect in 2020.
However, producers claim that its identification as an SVHC and any potential future authorisation has no direct implications for the majority of its uses. Antonello Romano, senior EU policy adviser at PlasticsEurope, says the court action aims to improve legal certainty and clarify the implementation of the proportionality principle.Scepticism
NGOs are sceptical about the court action. ClientEarth lawyer Alice Bernard says PlasticsEurope "does not contest" Echa's assessment that led to the identification of BPA as a SVHC. The move may be "a strategy to discourage or delay" additional classification as an endocrine disruptor, Ms Bernard adds.
CHEM Trust’s Michael Warhurst said the plastic industry needs to accept the reality of the toxicity of some of the chemicals it uses and move to safer alternatives, "rather than trying to find legal loopholes which delay action and waste regulatory resources".
According to PlasticsEurope, a court hearing on the case is likely to begin next year, or at the end of this, at the earliest.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56048/plasticseurope-files-action-against-echas-bpa-svhc-listing
-
Green Groups, Town Challenge LNG Megaproject
May 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska's proposal to build an 800-mile natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export project is being challenged by three environmental groups and the city of Valdez, each of which has filed requests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to intervene in the agency's review of the venture.
In its motion to FERC, the Center for Biological Diversity charged that pipeline construction would impair the state's North Slope polar bear habitat as well as the Cook Inlet waters that are home to endangered beluga whales and North Pacific right whales.
The group also criticized the state for seeking fast-track approval for the project from FERC and for petitioning the Trump administration to roll back dozens of environmental mandates.
In its petition to FERC, the Sierra Club charged that the state gas line project will cause air and water pollution; will impact wildlife; and will increase the risks of fire, explosions and other accidents at the project sites.
In another filing, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center warned that construction of the Alaska LNG project could affect outdoor recreation and subsistence activities along the pipeline route.
At issue is the state's effort to commercialize Alaska's 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by building a North Slope gas treatment plant, a natural gas pipeline, a liquefaction plant and an LNG export terminal along the Cook Inlet. The Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state-owned corporation that's managing the proposed LNG project, has estimated the total price tag for the project at between $40 billion and $45 billion.
The Alaska LNG venture was initially developed by a partnership among the state, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Alaska and ConocoPhillips Co. But late last year, the oil companies backed out of the endeavour, citing low gas prices and a glut of fuel on the world market.
In a March letter to the White House, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) asked for the project to be exempted from key air, water and wetlands protection regulations, and sought to rescind U.S. EPA's veto authority over the project. The state is seeking FERC approval of the project by the end of 2018 and aims to begin LNG exports in 2024 (Energywire, March 7).
Center for Biological Diversity attorney Kristen Monsell said that the Alaska gas venture "threatens some of the rarest animals on Earth. Exempting the country's largest LNG project ever from environmental protections so that Alaska can send gas abroad is ridiculous."
"Expanding drilling and fracking in the Arctic is incredibly dangerous," Monsell said in a statement. "And this polluting plan is likely to be an economically disastrous boondoggle."
The state's effort to fast-track federal oversight and approval of the Alaska LNG venture has come under criticism from some state lawmakers and energy experts. Larry Persily, special assistant to the Kenai Peninsula Borough mayor's office, said AGDC's effort to avoid environmental review gave "raw meat" to the green groups that are battling pipeline projects throughout the U.S.
"I don't believe it served the state's purpose at all to send a wish list to the president a couple of months ago saying we want exemptions from all these things so that we can build our project," said Persily, former head of the federal Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects.
"The motion from the Center for Biological Diversity, I fear, is just the first of the opposition to the project. We didn't have this [opposition] before. We don't need it now."Valdez challenges pipeline route
Meanwhile, the city of Valdez is challenging the state's plans to route the natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Kenai Peninsula town of Nikiski rather than to the port of Valdez. As a result, Valdez would not gain an economic benefit from construction of the multibillion-dollar liquefaction plant and LNG export terminal.
In its petition to FERC, the city of Valdez argues that the state's plan would "increase project risk, project costs, and environmental degradation associated with construction and operation" of the Alaska LNG project.
The current route would also prevent Valdez and other communities along the Richardson Highway from gaining access to the inexpensive natural gas from the Alaska LNG project. In contrast, Nikiski and other towns in the Kenai Peninsula are already able to buy natural gas from companies extracting fuel in the Cook Inlet.
"[E]nsuring that regional partners along the Valdez Alternative have access to inexpensive natural gas will positively impact regional economics and improve air quality in areas with exceptionally poor air quality including Fairbanks, Alaska," the city petition said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054933
-
Dow Chemical Restarts Texas LHC No. 7 steam Cracker: Sources
May 23, 2017 | Platts
By Nida Qureshi
US petrochemicals producer Dow Chemical restarted over the weekend the 680,000 mt/year No. 7 light hydrocarbon cracking unit at its Freeport, Texas, complex, sources said Monday.
Three out of five furnaces have been restarted, with another expected to start up by end of the week, followed by the last one in mid-June, a source with knowledge of operations said.
A company spokesman could not be reached for confirmation.
The unit was shut on May 2 after it had reported an unexpected process upset, Dow said in a filing with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
US ethylene was last assessed Friday at 28.75-29.25 cents/lb FD USG for May and June deliveries, up 0.75 cent day on day.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/dow-chemical-restarts-texas-lhc-no-7-steam-cracker-21803181
-
Court Sides With FERC In Fight Over Natural Gas Project
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges today tossed another environmental challenge to an East Coast pipeline project.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out arguments from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental group that sued over federal approvals for the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project in Pennsylvania.
The now-complete TransContinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC (Transco) proposal was constructed to increase natural gas transport capacity in the region.
The three-judge panel hearing the case ruled that, contrary to the environmental group's allegations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission complied with federal laws when it granted the project a conditional certificate while a state Clean Water Act permit was still pending. The court noted that the certificate did not authorize any activities that required a CWA permit.
"Here, the record indicates that the Certificate Order did not authorize any activity that could result in a discharge," Senior Judge Harry Edwards wrote.
"Instead," he said, "the conditional Certificate Order was merely a first step for Transco to take in the complex procedure to actually obtaining construction approval."
The court declined to consider the Delaware Riverkeeper Network's alternative argument that FERC improperly approved discrete construction activities, including tree felling, while the state permit was pending, ruling that the group had not properly raised those complaints before the commission.
The panel also rejected the network's contention that FERC improperly relied on a 2014 environmental assessment's conclusions regarding wetlands impacts even after Pennsylvania regulators determined the project would affect far more "exceptional" wetlands than FERC had considered.
After oral arguments last month, Delaware Riverkeeper Network attorney Aaron Stemplewicz argued that FERC's approach resulted in an inaccurate baseline for mitigation measures (Energywire, April 5).
Edwards, a Carter appointee, wrote that FERC adequately explained its own wetlands classification system, and "it seems clear here that FERC took the requisite 'hard look' at the impact of the Leidy Project on the environment."
Joining Edwards in the opinion were Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The group could ask the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054988
-
Cyber Raises Threat Against America's Energy Backbone
May 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak, Hannah Northey and Peter Behr,
Five years ago, an attack on nearly two dozen U.S. natural gas utilities set off alarm bells in the U.S. intelligence community. A hacker using the nickname UglyGorilla stole troves of sensitive data from gas pipeline companies, breaching the nation's 300,000-mile web of steel that's a critical backbone for the nation's economy.
News of the hacks trickled out in May 2012. Homeland security officials scrambled to schedule classified briefings with U.S. pipeline operators, and the wheels of law enforcement started building the case.
Two years later, the Justice Department unveiled charges against five members of an elite cyber division of China's military, outing People's Liberation Army officer Wang Dong as UglyGorilla and throwing light on a wide-ranging, "sophisticated" campaign of cyber theft dating back to 2006.
Wang's pipeline hacking spree peaked between December 2011 and June 2012, according to multiple sources. Since then, increased reliance on natural gas for power generation has made the gas transmission system one of the most consequential hacking targets in the country. Today, Wang and his team likely hold some of the blueprints needed to launch a cyberattack that could plunge parts of the nation into darkness for days, if not a lot longer, experts say.
Many gas companies say they have shored up security since then. But the sector's overall cyber readiness is a black box even to those charged with overseeing it, an Energywire investigation found. The Transportation Security Administration, better known and better funded for its role in aviation security, is tasked with ensuring the nation's biggest gas transmission companies stay at least a step ahead of hackers. Yet TSA's pipeline security office remains critically understaffed to tackle cybersecurity.
Meanwhile, the number of "advanced, persistent threats" going after U.S. energy systems has only grown since Wang's alleged series of intrusions. "There appears to be an increasing level of activity, sophistication and maturity of threat actors, in particular nation state actors, that wish to disrupt the U.S. bulk power system and the U.S. gas transmission or distribution system," gas and electric utility holding company Dominion Energy Inc. noted in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, echoing similar disclosures from many of its publicly traded peers in the industry.
The Department of Homeland Security considers the threat of disruption to be low. But the impact could be enormous. William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said in March that a briefing from energy officials on the pipeline threat "really scared me."
He noted that "if we have a cyberattack from one of our adversaries, and they hit the power grid in the East Coast," federal authorities have a good handle on the amount of time it would take to recover. "If the natural gas is shut off ... [there's] not even an estimate," he said.Gas or bust
Until the mid-2000s, coal had supplied half the fuel to produce power in the United States, which was more than twice natural gas' share.
Then U.S. gas production soared by a startling 34 percent between 2007 and 2015, driven by hydraulic fracturing technology that pries open shale rock to release huge volumes of trapped gas. The drilling bonanza transformed electric generation. Natural-gas-fueled power production climbed steadily past coal's share, supplying 34 percent of U.S. electric power compared with coal's 30 percent last year.
Some regions' dependence on gas-fired generation is particularly concerning, according to the grid's security monitor, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. NERC's latest estimate is that 69 percent of on-peak generation capacity in and around Florida will come from gas by 2021, followed by California at 68 percent, Texas at 63 percent and New England at 52 percent.
"Within a relatively short time, a major [gas pipeline] failure could result in a loss of electric generating capacity that could exceed the electric reserves available to compensate for these losses," NERC observed in 2013. In other words, cutting off a major interstate gas pipeline could black out regions where there are too few other sources of electricity to pull from.
The likelihood of catastrophic pipeline failures was extremely low, NERC was quick to add, but that reassurance didn't take cyberattacks into account.
"Undercutting the gas supply is certainly a threat to the electric system. It's not just one among many resources," said NERC President and CEO Gerry Cauley in a recent interview. "It's become one that we're really very heavily dependent on."
He said NERC is planning for multiple scenarios, from a cold snap like the one that snarled natural gas delivery in the Southwest in 2011 to an equipment breakdown at a pivotal gas pipeline or storage facility. A massive natural gas leak at a Sempra Energy storage facility in Aliso Canyon, Calif., in late 2015 left grid reliability on a knife's edge throughout the following summer, as regional power producers struggled to come up with alternate gas supplies. Five years earlier, an explosion along a Pacific, Gas & Electric Co. gas transmission line killed eight people and demonstrated the kind of damage that can occur without any control system intrusion.
Natural gas pipeline explosions, while devastating and often deadly, aren't the biggest worry for the power sector.
Instead, multiple sources described how outages at crucial gas compressor stations could sever gas supplies to power generators. Low gas pressure could force power plants to burn through emergency fuel. If compressor stations — those often-unstaffed, gas-pushing workhorses that dot major pipeline routes — exhausted their own diesel backups for generating electricity, both industries could find themselves in a chicken-and-egg dilemma. The compressor stations couldn't resume pumping gas until power was restored, and electric utilities couldn't restore power without natural gas to fuel the generators.
"Because [hacking] is an intentional act, we would potentially have to look at multiple gas facilities being taken out concurrently, which is something we haven't really studied," Cauley said.'One-stop shop'
Energy executives are tight-lipped about the online threats and vulnerabilities they face, not wanting to draw unwanted attention or offer a blueprint to saboteurs. There are no requirements for major gas pipeline operators to report hacking incidents to authorities, unless attackers wreak enough havoc to trigger safety or environmental rules.
Publicly traded firms often discuss their cyber risk in general terms in SEC filings. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners LP, a major gas transmission firm, warned in a recent financial disclosure that "certain cyber incidents may remain undetected for an extended period," adding that "our insurance coverage for cyberattacks may not be sufficient to cover all the losses we may experience" as threats continue to evolve.
Enterprise Products Partners LP, based in Houston, has cited the possibility that "one or more facilities or electronic systems that we own or that deliver products to us" could be damaged by a cyberattack, severe weather or other disruption.
"These interruptions could involve significant damage to people, property or the environment, and repairs could take from a week or less for a minor incident to six months or more for a major interruption," the company concluded.
The documents are meant to warn investors of risks and don't speak to the likelihood of any particular attack. But multiple companies alluded to government warnings "that indicate that energy assets might be specific targets of cybersecurity threats."
Industry groups have warned about publicly accessible tools that could be used by saboteurs to build a dossier of potential U.S. pipeline targets. The National Pipeline Mapping System, a resource offered by the Department of Transportation, offers anyone with an internet connection the chance to see where gas transmission lines run, and how close they are to homes, schools and businesses.
"A 'one-stop shop' increases the ability for adversaries targeting our nation's infrastructure to pick the most disruptive targets," noted Danika Yeager, vice president for regulated business at Enterprise Products, in a public meeting to discuss potential changes to the mapping system in 2014.
Today, the public version of the site limits users to a zoomed-out look at transmission pipelines and allows them to view only one county at a time. Yeager noted in her 2014 presentation that "information housed in a password-protected site still remains susceptible to attacks and security breaches."
"The security of specific pipeline attributes on a segmented basis remains a critical concern, especially those that could underscore potential high consequence targets," she wrote in a slideshow.
t's one thing to map out and home in on weak points in the pipeline system. It's quite another to remotely hack into those points and disrupt operations, according to cybersecurity experts and energy industry professionals.
Natural gas networks rely on a two-way stream of data channeled through "supervisory control and data acquisition" (SCADA) systems. These gather data sent up from "remote terminal units," staged at valve stations along the pipeline, to keep tabs on the health of the overall network. SCADA controls can also pull signals from automation equipment at compressor stations and other facilities along thousands of miles of pipe.
The far-flung U.S. power grid relies on a similar web of interconnected devices and control systems. But its counterpart in gas transmission is fundamentally less vulnerable to a crippling cyberattack, according to Terry Boss, senior vice president for operations, safety, environment and security at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Electric power races at near light speed across tightly synchronized paths programmed to disconnect when damaging instability occurs. Gas comparatively crawls along at 20 miles an hour through the pipeline matrix, giving operators more time to react, Boss said. "The natural gas pipeline business was built before they had computers. We are essentially a mechanical system."
The SCADA system may sit on top, but operators can go back and turn on valves by hand if necessary, he added. "If somebody wanted to attack the infrastructure in the U.S. and make a big impact, we would not be a good target."
But pipelines' defensive advantage is steadily eroding as more automated monitoring and control systems are installed, widening exposure to cyberattacks, industry officials and analysts agree.
Sempra Energy said in a recent SEC filing that "deployment of new business technologies represents a new and large-scale opportunity for attacks on our information systems and confidential customer information, as well as on the integrity of the energy grid and the natural gas infrastructure."
Schneider Electric, a major vendor for the electricity sector, has warned that pipeline control systems are becoming more sophisticated and connected, and thus more vulnerable to attack. Sensors and controllers are increasingly linked to utility networks, and even the internet, to make operations more convenient and efficient. "This convenience, however, is not without substantial risk," the company noted in a blog this year.
The ubiquity of "smart" technology provides attackers with a new avenue for disruption, said Bill Lawrence, senior director at NERC. "Disable enough connected devices — even minor ones — and a hacker could force critical infrastructure operators back to a pre-internet era where few are still comfortable."
One DHS official, not speaking for attribution, described the potential for malware that simply floods a pipeline's control network, overwhelming the limited computing capacity of devices that make it work. Other experts worry about massive denial-of-service cyberattacks designed to disable utilities' daily scheduling of gas deliveries. Utilities with gas generators are often last in line for gas deliveries and would be particularly vulnerable to such disruptions.
"Ransomware" is another constant cause for concern. Earlier this month, Spanish energy giant Gas Natural Fenosa reported being hit by the "WannaCry" malware, which locks up digital files and holds the key to unlock them hostage. While the WannaCry attack did not affect operations, any control system linked to a corporate network could, at least in theory, be paralyzed by a similar attack.Technical nightmares
Adding to the concern have been the ups and downs of the gas business. The shale gas boom that started around 2007 and expanded through the end of 2014 set off mergers and acquisitions across the industry. Experts say that might be making matters worse on the security front.
Taking over a new SCADA system "is not exactly a cookie cutter," said Marco Ayala, senior principal specialist for industrial control system/SCADA security at the Houston-based consultancy aeSolutions. Systems aren't identical and can rely on a number of modes of communication to send and receive data, including satellites, radio, phone lines and wireless networks.
When pipeline companies merge, that might mean increasing their security posture, Ayala said. "But some companies may not have a very strong security practice, or they're just looking at turning a coin," he said. "In other words, 'let's get something in there, let's rock and roll with it for a couple years, and then turn it around and sell it.'"
Quick fixes can leave pipeline equipment accessible online. Hackers can conduct tailored searches, perhaps modeled after the Shodan tool, to locate parts to attack en masse (Energywire, Aug. 15, 2014). If enough pieces of equipment are brought down simultaneously at gas pipeline compressor stations, the result could be a catastrophic loss of pressure.
The Department of Homeland Security has cooperated with Shodan's founder to drag particularly sensitive equipment offline. But with thousands of control systems still accessible, theirs is a Sisyphean task. New smart devices pop up on the internet every day as companies patch over connectivity problems, and they may stay visible online for years, with none the wiser.
"No one knows what [internet] access is out there," said Jim Guinn, who leads the energy, mining, chemicals and utilities cybersecurity practice at the consulting firm Accenture. "Everyone knows their little piece of the woods, but nobody knows what's in the resident forest."
Guinn seconded Ayala's concerns about the cybersecurity side effects of multibillion-dollar takeovers. "It becomes a technical nightmare to ensure that whatever cyber disease company A has, that when you tie these networks, you don't move that cyber disease to the other company," he said. When compared with hashing out financial details in boardrooms or on golf courses, he said, "That's a bigger problem."'It's not magic'
Sandy Rice knows firsthand how painstaking it can be to boost cybersecurity in a SCADA system.
Rice, industrial control system security architect at gas transmission and distribution company Atmos Energy Corp., has led a decadelong crusade to improve his own organization's security practices.
"At first, I wanted to fix everything — and I wanted to do it now," Rice said. "But if you've ever worked in a control system environment, you know that no matter how hard you move, things just don't move fast."
Atmos, headquartered in Dallas, operates major pipelines that crisscross gas-reliant Texas and parts of Louisiana, among other states.
When Rice attended his first SCADA cybersecurity conference in 2009, hacking critical infrastructure was still widely viewed as a theoretical threat. Since then, several online attacks, including two that damaged parts of Ukraine's power grid, have shown how even seemingly isolated computer systems can be vulnerable to hackers.
"Things are coming around at the upper levels, at the C-suite level, where there is some awareness now, which is a big help," Rice said. "But for a long time, I don't think that there was a general awareness of how vulnerable we are as a society to cyberintrusion or cyberattacks."
Rice, speaking on the sidelines of an industrial cybersecurity conference in March, said he has directed his own team to "focus on the basics and do all those right," while counting on the IT department to provide a first line of defense on Atmos' corporate network.
"Frankly, we've been lucky," he said. "You know, luck favors the prepared, right?"
Not all natural gas companies have been fortunate.
Mark Bristow, deputy division director of DHS's Hunt and Incident Response Team (HIRT), recounted one case where "a number of pipeline operators" were intruded upon by a so-called APT actor — short for "advanced, persistent threats" like those from Russia or China.
"The actor never got into the control systems, at least that I can prove," Bristow said. "But what they did was they stole really sensitive information about control systems operations from the corporate networks," scanning computers for all signs of the term "SCADA."
Bristow did not identify China as the prime suspect, but his description fits with other experts' comments about UglyGorilla's activity five years ago.
Still other hacking groups have made it clear that pipeline operators are prime targets. One example, Bristow noted, included a nation-state actor that in one instance snaked his way through a system, breaking through the organization's firewall, stealing login credentials and reaching the boundary of the control system.
"The adversary had been in there for almost a year and a half at that point in time," Bristow said.
"You can't suddenly go, 'Oh, I've had an incident,' and recreate everything that happened in your environment," Bristow said. Preparation is critical.
Multiple sources have said larger energy companies have invested heavily in cybersecurity since the early 2010s. Accenture's Guinn noted that he has "not worked with a major company yet where this is not on the top of their list of priorities."
But small- to midsized firms, even if executives are on board with the need for online defenses, can face staffing and technical challenges where the rubber hits the road.
DHS statistics suggest many infrastructure operators still aren't recording what happens on their networks.
In fiscal 2016, DHS's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team heard of about 290 control system cyberincidents. Of those, ICS-CERT attributed 134 to advanced persistent threats, or nation-states. Other threats came from competitors, company insiders and "hacktivist" groups like Anonymous.
But 90 cases were classified as "unknown," marking times the digital trail ran cold.
"A lot of times, we don't know what the root cause is, we don't know the intrusion vector. That's because we don't have any information," Bristow said. "Our team's really good, but they can't make something out of nothing. It's not magic."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054924
-
States, Industry Squabble Over Crude-By-Rail Safety
May 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Top lawyers from six states are calling on the Trump administration to tighten safety standards for transporting crude oil.
Led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), the group late last week urged the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to set a national cap on the vapor pressure of crude oil in transit. The states say the move will protect against explosions and fire dangers from trains carrying oil from the Bakken Shale and other places.
"Because of a regulatory loophole, these trains can carry crude oil through some of our most densely populated areas without any limit on explosiveness or flammability — creating ticking time bombs that jeopardize the safety of countless New Yorkers and Americans," Schneiderman said in a statement yesterday. "It's time for the federal government to put New Yorkers' safety first and take immediate action to close this dangerous and nonsensical loophole."
The comments come in response to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking from PHMSA, which is considering revising regulations for hazardous materials to address concerns about the volatility of crude oil transported by rail (Energywire, Jan. 13). New York petitioned for the rule last year, pointing to high-profile accidents involving trains carrying oil in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, and Mosier, Ore., and noting that an ongoing Sandia National Laboratories assessment of crude oil volatility may take years to complete.
Democratic attorneys general from California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland and Washington joined Schneiderman in the comments, calling on PHMSA to set vapor pressure limits below 9 pounds per square inch (psi). They argue that setting a cap would protect against fires and explosions that can accompany train derailments.
A 2015 PHMSA rule responded to concerns about derailments and explosions by imposing operational restrictions on trains carrying crude oil and tightening requirements for the tank cars used. The states' comments, submitted Friday, say that rule was a step in the right direction but did nothing to address concerns about the high volatility and flammability of Bakken crude.
Oil and gas industry representatives have pushed back on New York's 9 psi proposal, arguing that the standard would not actually have any safety benefits. The North Dakota Petroleum Council, Independent Petroleum Association of America, American Petroleum Institute and others filed their own comments last week opposing the promulgation of a new rule.
NDPC Vice President Kari Cutting wrote in a letter that "there is no evidence that vapor pressure is linked in any meaningful way with the severity or consequences of a crude oil railcar derailment." API officials agreed, noting that "our members do not believe this proposal will enhance safety in transportation."
"Our collective focus should be on preventing accidents," the industry group said. "The product being transported has no part in the causes of accidents. New unilateral vapor pressure limits during transportation will not mitigate or reduce the severity of accidents; it could, however, put upward pressure on prices and could hamper domestic production, job creation, and tax revenue to communities."
Oil train traffic has dropped significantly in recent years, partly due to sunken oil prices and new pipeline development. Schneiderman and others say stricter safety standards remain critical because crude-by-rail transport is likely to rebound.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054945
-
Why Environmental Regulations Can’t Compete With the Market
May 23, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jason Bordoff
Jason Bordoff (@JasonBordoff), a former energy adviser to President Obama, is a professor of professional practice in international and public affairs and founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
Energy markets are in the midst of profound transformation—from a historic shale boom and oil-price collapse to rapidly falling renewable costs and new innovations. These shifts have brightened the U.S. energy outlook in many respects, but also caused hardship for some. From 2011 to 2016, employment in Mingo County, West Virginia, the heart of coal country, fell by nearly half. The Houston metro region lost more than 81,000 jobs during the oil-price downturn.
President Trump has promised relief by reversing his predecessor’s regulatory agenda. “I am going to lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities,” he said.
In reality, however, the outlook for U.S. energy production will be determined far more by market forces than by rolling back environmental regulations.
Consider the outlook for coal. In signing an executive order to ease environmental rules, President Trump told coal miners, “You’re going back to work.” But undoing rules like the Clean Power Plan will not bring the coal jobs back, as a recent study I coauthored demonstrated.
Coal employment has been in structural decline for decades, falling from a peak of more than 800,000 in the 1920s to 130,000 in 2011 to just over 70,000 today. By the end of 2015, U.S. coal production was down more than 20% from its 2011 level, and the combined value of the top four U.S. coal firms fell from $33 billion to $150 million. That collapse is explained almost entirely by market forces. We found that increased competition from cheap natural gas is responsible for 49% of the decline in domestic coal consumption; lower-than-expected electricity demand is responsible for 26%; and the growth in renewable energy accounts for 18%. Environmental regulations explain around 3-5% of the decline.
China has been a key factor, too. More than half of the decline in U.S. coal company revenue between 2011 and 2015 was due to international factors, notably the slowdown in Chinese demand that cratered the market for high-value metallurgical coal.
If all of the proposed actions in President Trump’s recent executive order were implemented to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations, coal output may stabilize rather than continue its gradual decline—but that’s only if natural-gas prices rise above their current low levels and renewable costs fall more gradually than they have been. If gas remains cheap and renewable costs keep dropping sharply, coal’s decline can’t be stopped.
The predominance of market forces is true elsewhere as well. The Trump administration has promised to ease rules regulating oil and gas production, like those for methane emissions or shale development on federal lands. But U.S. oil output is already set to rise by nearly 1 million barrels a day (mbd) over the course of 2017, to 9.7-9.8 mbd, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is because oil prices have recovered modestly, and especially because of dramatic technology and productivity improvements that allow U.S. producers to develop shale oil at a much lower cost. That outlook is largely unchanged by the proposed policy reforms.
Opening up the Arctic to drilling only boosts U.S. production if companies bid on leases and develop the resource. In today’s depressed oil market, few if any companies are lining up to drill in the challenging environment of the Alaskan Arctic. That is especially true when there are so many promising low-cost opportunities to develop shale oil onshore in the lower-48 states. Indeed, major oil and gas companies have slashed their deepwater exploration budgets globally during the current oil price downturn. At best, including Alaska in the government’s offshore leasing program gives firms the option to develop those resources in the future if and when market conditions warrant.
The same is true for lifting the temporary moratorium the Obama administration had put on coal leases on federal lands. Companies were not expected to need access to new reserves in the next few years, and current leases are sufficient to meet the nation’s coal needs for the next 20 years.
Finally, expediting the permitting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals is unlikely to lead to more investments in LNG export facilities any time soon. The global LNG market is oversupplied, as new sources of LNG from Australia and elsewhere come to market, and the U.S. ramps up its LNG export capacity over the next several years. Moreover, the oil price collapse along with increased competition have caused natural gas prices to fall sharply around the world—by two-thirds in Asia and by half in Europe since 2013. Less new LNG capacity was sanctioned last year than in any year since 2008.
To be very clear, this is not to say that policy does not matter. Protectionist policies, like a border tax adjustment or scrapping Nafta, could undermine parts of the U.S. energy sector. On the flip side, debottlenecking pipeline infrastructure constraints can help bring new supply to market. But the impacts of easing regulation are dwarfed by market forces.
Much more important is that sensible, cost-effective regulations not only impose costs, but can also deliver much larger benefits by protecting air and water, not to mention bolstering the industry’s social license to operate.
While market forces, namely substitution of cheap shale gas for coal, have helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, markets alone do not account for social costs, like pollution. Much stronger policy will be needed to come anywhere close to meeting the climate change goals agreed to by nearly all nations in Paris.
As for the impact of this administration’s regulatory agenda, however, markets will trump policy in determining the outlook for U.S. domestic energy production.
https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/05/23/why-environmental-regulations-cant-compete-with-the-market/
-
Budget Cuts Would 'Devastate' Air Programs, Survey Says
May 23, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
State and local air officials today are outlining how they think people could suffer if President Trump's budget proposal goes into effect.
A report from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies includes anonymous quotes from members around the country. Most said public health would decline.
Trump would cut U.S. EPA's spending 31 percent and reduce categorical grants that states use to carry out federal environmental laws by 45 percent, according to NACAA calculations.
"Without question, a cut of 31 percent to the already-reduced funding levels would devastate our program," one official said.
For one jurisdiction, the cuts would mean a 72 percent reduction in the office's overall budget. Between seven and 10 full-time employees would manage a six-county area.
"At this level, we will not be able to meet the core requirements of the state contract and federal grants," the source said. Another person said the cuts might mean an air quality monitoring network that doesn't meet federal requirements. One agency would no longer do any air toxics work at all.
Some air offices, like in Virginia for example, are asked to help scope out climate plans (Climatewire, May 17). It's possible that work could fall to the backburner with less money.
"If the Governor requests it, the agency will likely find the money-but it may have to come from some other important initiative," NACAA Executive Director Bill Becker said in an email.
Outside of air and climate issues, other services could decrease.
One agency has five employees to inspect buildings for asbestos, a carcinogen. Right now, that covers 8 percent of structures. Budget cuts would mean a further drop.
Enforcement of violations would fall, "reduced to only the most serious cases," one said.
Environmental groups would likely bring lawsuits, which the jurisdiction would have to defend against at taxpayers' expense, according to one quote.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054931
-
Fights For Climate Rules Mount Within State, Against Trump
May 23, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn and Anne C. Mulkern
California officials pushed back yesterday against attacks on climate and other environmental policies, both within the Golden State and from the Trump administration.
The state's top air regulator, speaking at a climate law conference at UCLA, defended California's existing greenhouse gas trading system against lawmakers' proposed tweaks.
"We're dealing with a Legislature that has no experience with this program and is trying hard and with very good will, I think, to do something useful and important and to put their mark on the program, but unfortunately, it's complicated," California Air Resources Board (ARB) Chairwoman Mary Nichols said. "It's just really complicated."
Currently, California's goal is to cut emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. But due to the legal uncertainty of the cap-and-trade program's validity after 2020, lawmakers have significant sway over the methods the state will use to meet its 2030 target.
The Legislature already has introduced bills to dramatically reshape the existing program. One, introduced earlier this month by Senate Environmental Quality Chairman Bob Wieckowski (D), S.B. 775, would end the current program after 2020, including its current and pending links to other governments' markets. It has alarmed businesses that were hoping to carry over cheap allowances and other compliance tactics to the post-2020 era, when the statewide cap will tighten significantly on the way to 2030 (Climatewire, May 10).
Sen. Henry Stern (D), also speaking at the conference, said he was optimistic "about our chances of getting a bipartisan climate vote this year."
He didn't specifically say that would be cap and trade. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has highlighted the need to extend cap and trade beyond 2020 with a two-thirds majority. He believes that will enshrine it as law and push back future legal challenges.
Stern said there's a unique situation now because regulated industries see extension of cap and trade as their "most urgent priority." The Western States Petroleum Association, an oil trade group, is pushing to retain the system, preferring it to other options such as requirements that refineries reduce greenhouse gas emissions on-site (Climatewire, Feb. 13).
Industry, Stern said, "really needs that reauthorization with that two-thirds vote to avail themselves of that market-based option." He added that there's momentum because the "Chamber of Commerce is coming in and actively lobbying. Oil companies and manufacturers are saying to Republicans, 'You have to do something. Sitting on your hands isn't an option.'"Understanding the system
Nichols said it is difficult to keep elected officials abreast of the intricate mechanics of a greenhouse gas market that requires a "group of bureaucrats" to operate.
"The political problem is one of, I think, continued need to make sure that people in decisionmaking positions understand enough about how the regulatory system works, so that when they hear complaints and when charges arise, they understand what's real and what isn't, what's a problem and what isn't," she said.
An example of a non-problem, she said, was a gasoline price spike two years ago that coincided with the expansion of the cap-and-trade system to include transportation fuels. While some called for antitrust investigations and loosening of environmental standards, she said, Brown remained calm and realized that "there is very little you can do on a short-term basis that will make any difference."
"It was so helpful that he had been around long enough to have seen these kinds of episodes in the past," she said. "My big issue here really is one of wanting to make sure that our political leaders, that we find a way to give them enough information so they feel secure that we're not going to see sudden increases in the price of gasoline, and that they are able to put in enough safeguards so that they can point to something to make themselves feel like they've accomplished that goal."
Nichols said she is "agnostic" about the choice of emissions-control policies but that the existing cap-and-trade program is exportable and cost-effective. S.B. 775 would create a price collar to keep allowance prices from rising above a certain level. It also contains language to help in-state businesses retain their competitiveness by subjecting imports to a border adjustment tax.
"If we were to abandon the kind of program we have now and move towards something that looks more like a carbon tax, where revenue is more important, we run some very great risks of not being able to export those programs or of hurting our own economy," she said. "It's very difficult for a single state to operate a program which is based on taxing only within its own borders and not to run afoul of others."
State officials also said they were still committed to Obama-era regulations that the Trump administration has begun to roll back. ARB Deputy Executive Officer Edie Chang conceded that continuing to plan for the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants may seem "quaint," but that the need to take action on climate change is not.
"There's a huge body of evidence that supports the need for those requirements," she said. "To the extent that there are federal requirements out there, California is moving forward."Pro tip: Even rolling back regs takes work
Stern and others said California and other states need to push forward as the Trump administration guts environmental protections. State actions include lawsuits challenging the federal moves and boosting state rules.
"That's always been what we've done, to play offense. That's always the best defense," Stern said. "We hope that other states around the country will follow suit."
Kassie Siegel, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, said that group will continue filing lawsuits against the Trump administration to challenge attempts to lessen environmental protections. CBD also will fight attempts to expand oil and natural gas drilling. That's needed, she said, to limit emissions and global temperature increase.
"On the federal level, we have to resist these policies with everything we can," Siegel said. "I don't think that Trump became president because of any kind of backlash against climate or environmental protection."
Craig Segall, senior counsel at the ARB, said reversing some federal rules would be difficult because they were approved after years of gathering facts on their value in terms of health, utility rates and the economy.
"We're really no longer in a place where it is legally viable for the federal administration to ignore the effects of climate change or to shirk climate mitigation," Segall said, adding that requirements for acting are embedded in federal law. "As the president is discovering ... actually eroding those protections requires evidence-based work."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054954
-
GOP Senators Roll Out Resolution Urging U.S. Exit
May 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and five fellow Republican senators introduced a resolution yesterday calling on President Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
The measure, S.Con.Res. 17, comes days before Trump is set to meet with the Group of Seven countries. Those nations have been discussing how to navigate international climate progress, with the United States seen as likely to take a step back. Leaders of key countries and some major U.S. corporations have urged the White House to stay in the deal.
Paul argued yesterday in a Fox News op-ed that Trump has a duty to follow through on his campaign trail promise to exit Paris.
The resolution asserts that the emissions reduction goals set by the Obama administration under the agreement "cannot be met without the global development and deployment of new technologies that are not currently in commercial existence or economically viable."
GOP co-sponsors are Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Jim Risch of Idaho, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) introduced companion legislation last week (Greenwire, May 19).
Other Republicans on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, have recommended that Trump stay in the deal and renegotiate some of its terms.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/23/stories/1060054959
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