Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Test (12/6/17)
-
(ACC Blog) Chemical Industry Achieves Record-Setting Process Safety Gains
Jun 12, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
This week, June 12-18, marks the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s (OSHA) inaugural Safe & Sound Week, a nationwide effort to help workers and managers understand the valuable role that occupational safety and health programs can play in helping to prevent workplace accidents. -
(ACC Blog) Neocon: Spotlight on High Performing Materials in Interior Design
Jun 12, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ameircna Chemistry
Neocon bound? Designers heading to Chicago for Neocon this week will see the newest products and prototypes expected to transform spaces in commercial interior design. -
(ACC Mentioned) IG Investigating Possible Collusion in EPA's Glyphosate Review
Jun 12, 2017 | Financial Times
By Andrew Ward
Ineos is to invest €2bn expanding its European petrochemicals capacity in a sign of the benefits of cheap US shale gas spreading across the Atlantic. -
For Kids, Good Hygiene Can Come with a Dose of Toxic Triclosan
Jun 12, 2017 | Envronmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzls
It goes without saying that it is important children and all people brush their teeth and wash their hands. However, depending on what type of toothpaste or soap you’re using, you and your family could be exposing yourselves to toxic, hormone-disrupting triclosan. -
US EPA Received 44 PMNs in March
Jun 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By The Editors
The US EPA received 44 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in March. Of these, 37 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI). -
Harold Hamm: Natural Gas from the USA Is Going to Have a 'World Impact'
Jun 12, 2017 | CNBC
By Lori Ann LaRocco
The price of oil keeps sliding as an abundance of supply keeps a ceiling on the price — despite the rising tensions in the Middle East — and natural gas is sharply lower over the last 30 days well. -
Fracking Says "You're Welcome, America" For Low Gasoline Prices
Jun 12, 2017 | Forbes
By David Blackmon
The late spring and early summer months have traditionally been sort of a silly season for the oil and gas industry when it comes to public policy action in Washington D.C. -
Former Officials Slam Trump Admin's 'Cynical' Legal Position
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gillmer
A bipartisan group of former Interior Department officials is urging a federal court to continue weighing a legal dispute over the federal government's hydraulic fracturing authority. -
Fatal Explosion Threatens More Upheaval over Drilling in Colo.
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Critics of oil and gas drilling are redoubling their efforts to stop development in the wake of an oil-field-related explosion that killed two people in April. -
Even Republican Mayors Are Rejecting Trump’s Energy Policies
Jun 12, 2017 | The Nation
By Jimmy Tobias
Greg Lemons is the staunchly Republican mayor of Abita Springs, a bite-size town in rural Louisiana that both draws its water and gets its name from the famous and pristine aquifer that flows beneath its soil. -
EPA Delays Chemical Safety Rule until 2019
Jun 12, 2017 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will delay implementation of an Obama-era chemical safety rule for nearly two years while it reassesses the necessity of the regulation. -
Local Governments Step up Fight with Trump on Climate
Jun 12, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Puerto Rico, a dozen states and hundreds of municipalities have stepped up to fight climate change in response to President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. -
Details Emerge about Trump's Planned Rollback
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Trump administration will use a central argument from legal challengers of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan to rescind the Obama-era climate standards. -
U.S. Left as 'Footnote' in G7 Climate Talks
Jun 12, 2017 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
Rifts between the United States and its leading industrial allies over climate change deepened on Monday when Washington refused to subscribe fully to a Group of Seven statement on the environment. -
Is NSR next on the Trump Deregulatory Agenda?
Jun 12, 2017 | InsideEPA
By The Editors
The Commerce Department is slated to issue its report later this week targeting EPA and other agencies' rules that burden manufacturers, a document that is expected to focus heavily on EPA's new source review (NSR) permit program that many industry groups strongly criticized in their comments. -
Lawmakers Float Bill to Curb Potent GHGs
Jun 12, 2017 | InsideEPA
By The Editors
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is floating legislation that would create an interagency task force that includes EPA and other agencies to improve efforts to curb emissions of short-lived but potent greenhouse gases, with the lawmakers touting the move as part of a growing bipartisan push to address climate change even as the Trump administration scraps federal climate measures.
Industry and Association News
LCSA - There are no clips to report
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Chemical Industry Achieves Record-Setting Process Safety Gains
Jun 12, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
This week, June 12-18, marks the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s (OSHA) inaugural Safe & Sound Week, a nationwide effort to help workers and managers understand the valuable role that occupational safety and health programs can play in helping to prevent workplace accidents.
As a Safe & Sound Week Partner, ACC joins OSHA and hundreds of other event partners to showcase the benefits of successful safety and health programs that identify and manage workplace hazards before they can cause injury or illness, improving sustainability and the company’s bottom line.
For nearly 30 years, Responsible Care® has embodied the U.S. chemical industry’s commitment to environmental, health, safety and security performance excellence. Under Responsible Care, ACC member companies report out their progress on a variety of process safety-related performance measures each year, and ACC makes this information available to the public.
Responsible Care companies have a long record of worker safety gains that far outstrips the U.S. manufacturing sector as a whole – five times better, on average – and almost three times better than the U.S. business of chemistry overall.
But while ACC Responsible Care companies are proud of their safety performance, they also recognize that the job is never done and that they need to constantly stay focused on identifying and addressing potential workplace hazards.
Emphasizing safety at all levels, including engagement from the board room can significantly move the needle. After reviewing industry progress over the past five years and identifying a plateau in process safety performance, the ACC Board of Directors implemented a series of approaches throughout 2016 to further promote performance improvement across member facilities. This included conducting forums and enhancing regional networks to share safety information and promote new metrics that enable a deeper understanding of process and occupational safety incidences.
These new initiatives, combined with a heightened engagement, focus and commitment to process safety, has resulted in significant improvements:For the 2016 calendar year, the ACC overall total recordable injury rate fell to 0.7, or less than 1 injury/illness per 100 full-time employees, an all-time low for Responsible Care companies.In the same time frame, the ACC Lost Work Day Case Rate (LWDCR) also reached an all-time low of 0.17, or less than one-quarter day of lost work per 100 full-time employees.In the area of process safety, member companies reported 212 process safety incidents in 2016, which is the lowest level in more than 10 years and represents approximately 50 fewer incidents than in 2015. An analysis of this data shows that only 7 process safety incidents were Category 1 (most severe), while 115 fell into either Category 4 (least severe) or the “negligible” category.
A complete summary of ACC member company occupational and process safety performance is accessible on the Responsible Care section of the ACC website.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/06/chemical-industry-achieves-record-setting-process-safety-gains/
-
(ACC Blog) Neocon: Spotlight on High Performing Materials in Interior Design
Jun 12, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ameircna Chemistry
Neocon bound?
Designers heading to Chicago for Neocon this week will see the newest products and prototypes expected to transform spaces in commercial interior design.
Interior designers can learn more about how chemistry contributes to these latest materials – whether it is in Sustainable surfaces and countertops made from a composite blend of epoxies, recycled glass, and other often discarded post-consumer materials; durable, comfortable, eye-catching office furniture; or energy-efficient lighting.
To learn more about the chemistry used in building and design materials, visit BuildingwithChemistry.org.
Chemical manufacturing companies and interior design firms also make great collaborators, working on projects that build on the latest material science innovations to create inspirational work environments.
To learn more, visit the BuildingwithChemistry.org’s new Chemistry in Interior Design.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/06/neocon-spotlight-on-high-performing-materials-in-interior-design/
-
(ACC Mentioned) IG Investigating Possible Collusion in EPA's Glyphosate Review
Jun 12, 2017 | Financial Times
By Andrew Ward
Ineos is to invest €2bn expanding its European petrochemicals capacity in a sign of the benefits of cheap US shale gas spreading across the Atlantic.
The privately owned UK group said it planned to build a new plant, probably in Belgium, to produce propylene — a raw material used in many plastics and other chemical products — using US gas as a feedstock.
Ineos also intends to expand existing ethylene plants at Grangemouth in Scotland and Rafnes in Norway, which are already using imported US gas.
The plans follow a wave of similar investments by US manufacturers, taking advantage of cheap natural gas as a feedstock for chemicals.
Jim Ratcliffe, the multi-billionaire founder and chairman of Ineos, is aiming to extend the trend to Europe by establishing a “virtual pipeline” for US gas exportsacross the Atlantic.
Ineos is building a fleet of tankers to transport US ethane and propane — byproducts of natural gas — to its European plants. The first shipment arrived at Grangemouth last September.
“These projects represent the first substantial investments in the European chemicals industry for many years,” Mr Ratcliffe said on Monday. “It has only been made possible because of . . . our Dragon Ships programme which allows us to import ethane and LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] from the US in huge quantities.”
The investments will make Ineos more self-sufficient in ethylene and propylene, which it currently imports in large volumes from outside Europe for use in manufacturing other chemical products.
“Europe is an importer of propylene, mostly from the Middle East, so if you can make it cheaply in Europe there should be a competitive advantage,” said Patrick Lambert, chemicals analyst at Raymond James. “Ineos is making a bet that gas prices will remain weak because there’s so much of it available.”
Ineos said it was considering sites across Europe, including Antwerp in Belgium, where the group already has operations, for its planned Propane Dehydrogenation, or PDH, plant. The facility would produce 750,000 tonnes per annum of propylene.
The investments highlight the widening impact of the US shale revolution, which has already revived the competitiveness of US chemicals manufacturing against Middle Eastern and Asian rivals.
Since 2010, $85bn worth of petrochemicals projects have been completed or started construction in the US, with about a further $100bn proposed, according to the American Chemistry Council.
Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Total are among the companies which have built new US plants or are planning to do so.
As well as its impact on the chemicals sector, the ripples from surging US shale gas production are also spreading across global energy markets. The first shipments of US liquefied natural gas to northern Europe arrived last week in the Netherlands and Poland, helping reduce the region’s dependence on Russia, the Middle East and declining North Sea resources.
https://www.ft.com/content/66c9b43a-4f62-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb
-
For Kids, Good Hygiene Can Come with a Dose of Toxic Triclosan
Jun 12, 2017 | Envronmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzls
“Did you brush your teeth? Did you wash your hands?”
My wife and I probably utter those questions easily 10 times a day to our two kids. For our 6-year-old, Jack, it can take 20 asks just on the dental hygiene.
It goes without saying that it is important children and all people brush their teeth and wash their hands. However, depending on what type of toothpaste or soap you’re using, you and your family could be exposing yourselves to toxic, hormone-disrupting triclosan.
The chemical was once widely used in these and other personal care products as an antimicrobial agent. Many companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Proctor & Gamble, have removed it from products in recent years. Last year, the federal Food and Drug Administration finally banned triclosan from hand soap, an action for which EWG has long been advocating. But it is still allowed as an ingredient in toothpaste and other consumer products. Colgate continues to use it unnecessarily in its toothpaste.
A study by Brown University researchers, published in May in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, provided some startling evidence about just how much of the chemical can wind up in the bodies of pregnant women, babies and young children.
Scientists tested urine samples of 389 mothers and their children – mothers were tested three times during pregnancy and children were tested periodically between the ages of 1 and 8. The results show that the levels of triclosan in children’s bodies increased as they got older, almost certainly from increased use of both toothpaste and hand soap. Children who washed their hands more than five times a day had levels of triclosan in their urine that were four times higher than those of children who reported washing their hands once a day.
Children who had their urine tested within a day of brushing their teeth had levels 2.5 times higher than those who did not.
In 2008, EWG found triclosan and 15 other toxic chemicals in the blood and urine of 20 teen girls from eight states and the District of Columbia. In a separate report from the same year, EWG assembled a list of all the products in which triclosan was approved for use.
-
US EPA Received 44 PMNs in March
Jun 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By The Editors
The US EPA received 44 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in March. Of these, 37 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
These include several intermediates, a flame retardant, substances for use in coatings and paints and a variety of polymers.
The agency also received 12 notices of commencement (NOCs) during this period.
-
Harold Hamm: Natural Gas from the USA Is Going to Have a 'World Impact'
Jun 12, 2017 | CNBC
By Lori Ann LaRocco
The price of oil keeps sliding as an abundance of supply keeps a ceiling on the price — despite the rising tensions in the Middle East — and natural gas is sharply lower over the last 30 days well.
In a phone interview with CNBC, Harold Hamm, chairman and CEO of Continental Resources, talked about turmoil between Qatar and its neighbors, the price of liquid natural gas and oil, and the latest on the United States' first LNG exports to Northern and Central Europe.
CNBC: Last Thursday, the White House announced LNG shipments to the Netherlands and Poland — the first American LNG exports into northern and central Europe. You have said in the past that U.S. exports of natural gas to Europe would shake up the geopolitical landscape, because it would relieve Europe from being beholden to Russian natural gas.
Hamm: Yes. The world impact news you are talking about is a huge thing, because Poland has been subservient to Russia, because Russia could hold things over Poland's head to get what they want. Now it won't be possible. These exports are also a part of the larger picture of U.S. energy independence. We are now past the point of the U.S. being energy-independent with natural gas. We are shipping around the world, and now with infrastructure being built and put into place, we will continue to export even more through time. This is just the beginning."We have the cleanest fuel in the world, and yet it is being delayed to the consumer. It can offset the pollution of coal, wood."CNBC: Let's turn to regulations. LNG facilities needs permits.
Hamm: Yes, and it does not make sense! Why do we need a special permit for LNG? You don't need a permit for gasoline or oil. To unleash LNG's potential, we can't have this permit slowdown! Our company is bullish on natural gas, and this permitting process is putting LNG exploration and production on the sidelines. There is no reason why LNG can't be exported like crude oil.I have had talks with Secretary Rick Perry at the Department of Energy, and the length of time it takes to get permits approved is one of the things he said he will get fixed. There is no reason to have this long permitting delay. Government just needs to go down the boxes and check them, make sure safety measures are in place, and permits should be given. Some of the first permits for LNG facilities took five years to pass. Some permits took seven years! The Obama administration held them up. That certainly needs to be remedied. We have the cleanest fuel in the world, and yet it is being delayed to the consumer. It can offset the pollution of coal, wood.
CNBC: How does this change the landscape of energy exports and what does this mean for Qatar, which is the world's largest exporter of natural gas?
Hamm: The Qatar situation certainly brings up the delicate situations that are involved in doing business over there in the Middle East Region. All those tribal factions in Qatar are now coming into play. The fact Iran has been so involved with them is what has brought this about. But this conflict provides opportunity for the United States in exporting our natural gas. We are a neutral nation. Other countries like China or other Qatar customers would not have to worry about anything if they wanted to import U.S. LNG.CNBC: The U.S. is in the early innings of LNG exports. The first shipment of U.S. LNG from the lower 48 states left in February 2016. As infrastructure continues to be built out, what kind of LNG export capacity will we be expecting?
Hamm: It does takes time to build out. With the proposed facilities to be built and facilities already permitted, you can be looking at 11 billion cubic feet a day in the next two years.
CNBC: Where do you see nat gas prices going?
Hamm: We are in for very moderate pricing for nat gas for a lot of years going forward. I feel prices are in a fair range. I think we will be north of the average $3.50 by the end of the year. In 2018, I expect the same. Who knows about where prices go after that? I think we have adequate supply for a hundred years. I think north of three dollars may be the new normal. With the quantities of gas that we produce it would give us a good rate of return at Continental from the plays in which we are involved.CNBC: Oil prices have tumbled to their lowest levels this year amid those tensions between Qatar and its neighbors — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Do you see a ceiling on oil prices at this moment?
Hamm: I don't think we speculate on where it will go. Look what has happened to the market. OPEC decided to flood the market in 2014 and it was a big mistake. OPEC saw shale as a threat and tried to quash it. They failed. It was not the wisest thing they did. They now realize it was a mistake. Last time they killed the market was in the 1980's and it took a while to turn things around. They decided in January to cut back production. But you have to remember, you need more than 120 days to turn around the impact of the cuts. We are now more than 120 days in, and we are seeing fundamentals changing. Inventories are on a downward trend, but sporadic week to week.CNBC: You said last month in your May 9 shareholder meeting that you saw about a 1 million barrels per day draw-down on oil inventories. How long do you see this playing out to get rid of this overhang in supplies?
Hamm: The biggest challenge is 60 percent of refineries don't participate in announcing inventories. Only 40 percent participate. It's an inaccurate mechanism from the start. One week versus another, there's going to be a huge variance. Two inventories that everyone looks at are API (American Petroleum Institute) and EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), and those two last week showed a 2-million barrel difference (between one another). They don't even jibe. The fact is, this is a choppy situation, but I believe fundamentals are in place. Demand is slightly outpacing supply. Ultimately the production cuts take effect.
CNBC: The EIA is predicting U.S. oil production could rise to a new high record of around 10 million barrels a day. At the pace U.S. shale production is going, when do you see that record being shattered?
Hamm: It all depends on price. Continental has been disciplined. Operators across the U.S. have been also. Across the U.S., fields have not been turned on. Seventy-five percent of rigs have been laid down in the industry. Entire fields have gone undrilled, waiting on better product prices. Four hundred thousand people were laid off in the industry, so it's going to take a while to get them back. Every operator has a lot of levers to pull and options. It all depends on price.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/harold-hamm-usa-natural-gas-prices-will-have-a-world-impact.html
-
Fracking Says "You're Welcome, America" For Low Gasoline Prices
Jun 12, 2017 | Forbes
By David Blackmon
The late spring and early summer months have traditionally been sort of a silly season for the oil and gas industry when it comes to public policy action in Washington D.C. It is the season during which U.S. refineries are required by federal regulations to switch over from creating "winter blends" of gasoline to "summer blends" in ongoing efforts address ozone and other Clean Air Act considerations.
This activity has in years past resulted in significant increases in gasoline prices at the pump just as the summer driving season is getting underway. The reason is that there are many dozens of different summer blends that are designed to address clean air concerns in many specific geographic areas of the country. This buffet of blends first requires hundreds of refiners to create each specific gasoline recipe in the right quantities, which in turn requires truck, rail and pipeline distributors to deliver specific quantities of each and every blend to thousands of specific wholesalers and retailers in specific locations all across the country at specific times.
It is, in other words, a massive logistical nightmare which inevitably results in bottlenecks, delays, shortages, overages and other kinds of interruptions. All of that in turn inevitably results in rising costs of transportation, which in turn, at the end of the day, get passed along to the consumer at the pump.
In previous years, the public outcry from moms and dads about rising gasoline costs right when they're getting ready to drive the family out to Yellowstone or down to Key West has been loud and long, and that outcry inevitably makes its way to their members of congress. Those members of congress tend to want to respond to such public outcries, if for no other reason than to slow the numbers of emails, phone calls and faxes flooding into their district and national offices. The quickest and easiest way for them to respond is to hold a hearing.
Guess what happens when a congressional committee calls a hearing on gasoline prices? In many past years, what happens is that CEOs of major refining and producing companies start receiving "invitations" to come testify. If the CEOs turn down such "invitations", they then start receiving subpoenas, which they tend to honor.
To put it mildly, such past hearings tend to go pretty badly for the oil company CEOs. Why? Two reasons:First, as you have seen above in this piece, this is not a matter that can be easily described in 25 words or less, which is pretty much all the attention span you're going to get from a mom or dad who is ticked off that the cost of their planned vacation just went up $100 due to higher gasoline prices or from a politician who is tired of hearing from those moms and dads; andSecond, well, politicians just love to demagogue this issue, even the ones who know better. Because the oil and gas industry is just about the easiest target they'll ever come across. It's huge, it has a terrible public image, it does a terrible job of defending itself, and it produces a product that the public has no choice but to consume.
Indeed, some past hearings have rivaled the 1950s-era House Committee on Un-American Activites hearings for their witch-hunt nature. I was personally involved in trying to prepare CEOs for a couple of such hearings during my career in the industry, and they were very tense and unrewarding times, to say the least.
But this year has been different. This year, the industry caught a break, or to put it more accurately, this year the industry created its own break. Because this year, the industry has very predictably responded to the higher oil prices from late 2016 by activating more than 250 additional drilling rigs, mostly to drill horizontal, hydraulically-fractured wells in the large oil shale plays, and all of that drilling and fracking has very predictably resulted in the industry drilling itself into a lower price paradigm.
Since December, the price for crude has dropped by more than 15% , as rising U.S. oil production has more and more significantly offset lower exports by the OPEC member countries and Russia. That drop in crude prices has more than offset the higher costs generated by the requirements to produce "summer blends" of gasoline, which means that this year, drivers are getting a break at the pump just as they start to hit the road.
Last Friday, the New York Times published a report on the lower gasoline price titled "Drivers Head Into Summer With A Gift At The Gas Pump". When I saw that report I facetiously Tweeted it out with a caption that said "Fracking says, 'You're Welcome, America!'".
While that caption may have been facetious, it also had the side benefit of actually being true. Because without the advent of the ability to produce what has now evolved into many millions of barrels of oil each day from oil shale formations via the use of hydraulic fracturing, the U.S. would still be importing the overwhelming majority of its oil from OPEC, Russia and other exporting countries, as we were before the shale oil boom began in 2009.
Without all the new U.S. production facilitated by Fracking, global oil would be in short supply instead of persistent surplus, and the price of crude would almost certainly still be in the $100/bbl range or higher. $100 oil would mean gasoline prices in the $4/gallon range rather than the $2.30/gallon range.
So Fracking says "You're Welcome, America!" and it hopes you all enjoy your much less expensive vacations. And hey, no need to say "thanks", because Fracking knows that none will be forthcoming. That is Fracking's lot in life.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/06/12/fracking-says-youre-welcome-america-for-low-gasoline-prices/#4f301e86ac0f
-
Former Officials Slam Trump Admin's 'Cynical' Legal Position
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gillmer
A bipartisan group of former Interior Department officials is urging a federal court to continue weighing a legal dispute over the federal government's hydraulic fracturing authority.
In a brief to be filed today, officials from the Obama, Clinton and both Bush administrations argue that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should hear oral arguments over Interior's fracking rule and reverse a lower court's conclusion that the government has no authority to regulate the oil and gas extraction process, which is used on 90 percent of wells on public lands.
"If there's no authority to regulate them, it's open season for oil and gas companies to do whatever they want," said David Hayes, deputy secretary under Presidents Obama and Clinton, who signed on to today's friend-of-the-court brief.
The filing is part of the latest round of legal wrangling over the Obama-era fracking rule, which was struck down by a district court in Wyoming last year. The government appealed the ruling and was set to argue its case at the 10th Circuit earlier this year when the Trump administration announced plans to rethink the rule.
"The district court's erroneous ruling is also almost surely having a negative effect right now on BLM's rulemaking processes and day-to-day supervision of public lands, and will continue to do so as long as it is allowed to stand," the former officials said in today's brief.
In addition to Hayes, the group includes Lynn Scarlett, deputy secretary for Interior under George W. Bush; James Caswell, Bureau of Land Management director under Bush; and Michael Dombeck, BLM acting director under Clinton and special assistant and science adviser under George H.W. Bush.
The Trump administration submitted its own brief last month, defending its authority over fracking but recommending that the appeal be paused while Interior considers revising or scrapping the regulation (Energywire, May 8).
Hayes called the agency's position "cynical and irresponsible."
"To me, that shows an irresponsible approach here that would leave the question open about whether there's any regulatory authority over fracking and invite the new administration to simply rescind the fracking regulations and leave that fundamental question open — even though the administration forthrightly states that there is such regulatory authority," he said.
The main players in the case — industry groups, states, environmental groups and the Ute Indian Tribe — made their own arguments in briefs last Monday. States, industry and the Utes want the 10th Circuit to pause the case, while environmentalists want it to move forward (Energywire, June 6).
Today's friend-of-the-court brief from the former officials argues that the 10th Circuit appeal focuses only on the fundamental question of authority, not the mechanics of the fracking rule, so the question remains ripe for review even as the Trump administration reconsiders the rule.
"And the district court's erroneous conclusion does not only implicate the rule under review, but all federal agency actions that purport to regulate hydraulic fracturing," the brief says.
The officials filed an initial amicus brief at the 10th Circuit last summer before the case was sidetracked by the Trump administration. Other groups and individuals who weighed in on the case last year are also expected to file supplemental briefs today.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/12/stories/1060055868
-
Fatal Explosion Threatens More Upheaval over Drilling in Colo.
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Critics of oil and gas drilling are redoubling their efforts to stop development in the wake of an oil-field-related explosion that killed two people in April.
Broomfield, a fast-growing suburb about 20 miles north of Denver, exemplifies some of the trend. A group of residents is collecting signatures on a referendum that could ultimately make it harder to drill in the city. Meanwhile, a task force appointed by the City Council is wrapping up months of negotiations that could result in regulations requiring state-of-the-art technology to reduce the impact of drilling on surrounding residents. At the same time, a recall election is underway for one of the City Council members, largely because of his stance on oil and gas development.
Similar politicking has been going on for years in cities and counties across Colorado's Front Range. Many of the new neighborhoods were built alongside, and often in the middle of, existing oil and gas fields in the Niobrara Shale, and the oil industry has seen a resurgence thanks to advances in hydraulic fracturing and other technology.
The conflicts have intensified since the explosion in Firestone, a few miles up the road from Broomfield.
Now, instead of worrying about long-term threats like air and water pollution, cities and counties have to ponder whether Colorado's unusual mix of oil fields and rapid residential growth is endangering people's lives.
"The attitude a few months ago was 'All these things can happen,'" said Laurie Anderson, who is helping to organize the recall election. "Now they are happening."
Other cities and counties in the area are already talking about tightening their drilling regulations. The Legislature come close to passing a bill in response to the explosion at the end of its session in May, and many observers believe the impact could continue into the 2018 legislative session and the midterm elections.
In the new environment, the oil industry's normal arguments about the economic necessity of oil and gas development may be a harder sell, particularly in affluent suburbs like Broomfield, said Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver.
"It's hard for the energy industry to argue that regulations are killing jobs when the economy is so strong in many communities," he said.
Drilling in the suburbs
The April 17 explosion happened in Firestone's Oak Meadows neighborhood, a new subdivision that was built adjacent to a group of gas wells drilled in the 1980s and 1990s. Investigators determined that a pipeline serving one of the wells was improperly cut off, just a few feet from a house built in 2015.
The pipeline was still connected to a nearby gas well and allowed gas from the well to seep into the home's basement. The owners, Mark and Erin Martinez, were in the house when the gas exploded. Mark Martinez and his brother-in-law Joey Irwin were killed, and Erin Martinez was flown to a hospital after a construction crew and other bystanders rescued her from the burning wreckage.
The accident highlighted how the Front Range's population growth has pushed residential development into the oil patch. The population of Weld County, which includes Firestone, grew 17 percent between 2010 and 2016, to about 295,000. Its oil production grew almost fivefold during the same time, to 282,000 barrels a day.
Similar trends have been happening in adjacent counties, including Broomfield, which is both a city and county; Adams County; Arapahoe County; and parts of Boulder County. And it has led to pushback from residents and local officials who are concerned about living and working so close to oil and gas wells.
While the Firestone explosion involved older wells that were drilled decades ago, the shale boom has been a primary driver of the strife.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process used to break up rock formations with a pressurized mix of water, sand and chemicals. It has revitalized the oil industry across the United States, but it has also led to complaints about air and water pollution and other impacts such as noise, dust and truck traffic.
In 2012, voters in the city of Longmont approved a ballot measure that banned hydraulic fracturing. The Colorado Oil & Gas Association promptly sued the city (Energywire, Dec. 12, 2012).
Over the next few years, other communities passed temporary and permanent bans, either at the ballot box or in local ordinances. Broomfield's five-year ban passed in a referendum in 2013; the vote was so close, it took more than a week to determine whether the ban had been approved (Greenwire, Nov. 15, 2013).
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), along with the oil industry, argued that local communities can't block oil and gas development, and that the state has primary authority over energy regulation.
In 2016, the state Supreme Court agreed, striking down the bans in Longmont and other cities and counties. The court said the state government has an overriding interest in promoting oil production, and that banning oil and gas development would infringe on people who own mineral rights in Colorado (Greenwire, May 2).
Demonstrating better drilling
The City Council in Broomfield, a relatively wealthy community that features big homes on large lots, has been wrestling with an oil company's drilling proposal for more than a year.
Extraction Oil & Gas, based in Denver, was formed in 2012 and began buying acreage throughout the Front Range. While the company says most of its drill sites are in rural areas, it has become a specialist in urban drilling, with sites in Broomfield, Greeley and Windsor.
The company bought its acreage in Broomfield from another company, Sovereign Operating Co. LLC, that had already negotiated an agreement to drill at least 31 wells on 10 sites in the city. Extraction Oil & Gas offered to reduce the number of sites, but sought permission to dramatically increase the number of wells to 139.
When news of the proposal hit in 2016, neighborhood groups protested and called for the city to pass another moratorium on fracking. In January, the City Council voted down the moratorium and set up the citizens task force to write tighter drilling regulations.
Extraction joined the negotiations willingly. The company wants to use its project in Broomfield as a demonstration project of urban drilling done with the latest technology to lessen its impact. The idea is to develop a track record and gain political capital that will make it easier to drill in other communities, Vice President Eric Jacobsen said in an interview.
The company originally wanted to drill 139 wells inside Broomfield, and it wanted to apply for state drilling permits in May. The company has acquired a fifth pad site just outside Broomfield, which allowed it to cut the number of wells in the city to 99. And it agreed to delay its permits for the four in-town pads until the end of the summer, Jacobsen said.
During a May 23 meeting to discuss the task force's progress, Extraction appeared to have won over both the task force members and most of the City Council. The company plans to drill with an electric-powered rig, sound walls and specially designed equipment to reduce the normally thunderous sound of the fracking process. The sites will be screened by earthen berms, landscaping and fences.
It plans to pipe oil, gas and waste products to a central processing plant, which would reduce the emissions from the pad sites and allow the company to eliminate most of the tanks and other storage equipment from the sites.
And perhaps most importantly, in the wake of the Firestone explosion, Extraction plans to shut down 41 vertical wells that are interspersed with Broomfield's neighborhoods. Some of the old wells are less than 200 feet from the surrounding homes, and many of them date from the same era as the wells in Firestone.
The negotiations have gotten tougher since the Firestone explosion, said Pat Quinn, a former mayor of Bloomfield who's part of the drilling task force.
"It just adds a seriousness to it," he said.
The recall election was underway before the Firestone incident, but it, too, has gotten more intense. Two candidates joined the race in late May.
Anderson, who helped gather signatures to force the election, said her experience has been typical of a lot of drilling critics. She and her husband bought a home in Broomfield about two years ago and didn't realize how much the oil and gas industry was expanding. Suddenly, the city was considering allowing dozens of wells on a site near her home that previously had only one well.
"It's just a surprise that something like this could even happen," she said.
The referendum to change the city charter was also inspired by the explosion, said Kim McNaughton, one of the organizers. The petition wouldn't ban drilling; instead, it would allow drilling "to only occur in a manner that does not adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of Broomfield's residents."
At least two of the Broomfield residents who filed the petition live in Anthem Highlands, one of the neighborhoods that would be affected by Extraction's drilling plan, according to a news release.
"Why wouldn't we want to give local government the authority to preserve our safety?" McNaughton said in an interview.
The proposal still has to undergo a legal review, and the group will have to collect 2,435 signatures in order to force the petition onto the election ballot in November, according to the city election department.
The petition is asking Broomfield to adopt a similar legal standard to one that arose out of a statewide court case. The suit, Martinez v. Colorado, challenged the state's historic approach of balancing the oil and gas production against the impact on human health and safety.
A trial court rejected the argument, but a state appeals court sided with the plaintiffs. Hickenlooper, under pressure from local governments, urged the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) not to appeal the decision. Last month, the state's Republican attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, opted to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court (Energywire, May 19).
Gap in oversight
The COGCC, whose members are appointed by the governor, has argued that the Firestone explosion was caused by a rare combination of circumstances and is unlikely to happen again.
But the explosion pointed out a gap in the state's oversight. The COGCC has good information on oil and gas wells, but it doesn't have accurate records of the type of pipeline linked to the explosion, known as a flow line (Energywire, May 3).
The COGCC ordered companies to take an inventory of their flow lines by the end of May, and check them for leaks by the end of June. Preliminary information shows that there are more than 16,000 wells statewide with flow lines that are within 1,000 feet of nearby homes (Energywire, June 5).
There's been more negative news for the oil industry in the last few weeks.
Soil tests found a second underground pipeline leak in the Oak Meadows neighborhood in Firestone, according to the COGCC. The line was a branch of the same pipeline that was cut off near the Martinez home. It, too, had been improperly cut off and left uncapped, although regulators said it didn't pose a danger to nearby residents (Energywire, May 30).
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which owns the wells involved in the Firestone explosion, said it will permanently close three wells near the Oak Meadows neighborhood and has provided gas detectors for nearby residents. The company has shut down 3,000 similar wells temporarily while it conducts safety checks, and it has disconnected all of its flow lines that are similar to the one involved in the explosion.
On May 30, Anadarko had another accident at a site in the nearby town of Mead. The incident was apparently unrelated to the Firestone explosion, but a maintenance worker was killed, and three other workers were injured (Greenwire, May 30).
A spokesman for Anadarko, which is the biggest oil and gas producer in Colorado, declined to comment for this story.
Ultimately, the explosion could persuade some communities to challenge the state's primacy over drilling regulations, said Mike Freeman, an attorney for Earthjustice who has worked with local governments.
"What the Firestone explosion really casts in sharp relief is the contrast between all the promises the state has been making in recent years that it is protecting the public and that local governments and counties need to back off," he said. "When people's houses start exploding, it makes it a lot harder for local governments to just defer to the state."
Legislators are already staking out their positions, with Republicans urging a cautious approach and Democrats pushing for tighter regulation.
State Rep. Cole Wist, a Republican from Arapahoe County who is the assistant House minority leader, said legislators and local governments need to wait for the results of the state investigation.
"Before you design public policy, you need to understand the nature of the problem," he said. "At the end of the day, I think we can do it safely."
Mike Foote, a Democratic representative from Boulder County who sponsored the pipeline mapping bill in the recent session, said the oil industry needs to acknowledge that many people simply don't want to see drilling close to neighborhoods, even if it means that some oil and gas can't be developed.
"It doesn't make sense to put a heavy industrial operation in the middle of a neighborhood," he said.
John Straayer, a political science professor at Colorado State University who recently retired after watching the state Legislature for 50 years, said the fallout from the explosion could ultimately widen the polarization in the state.
"That divide isn't going to go away," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060055846
-
Even Republican Mayors Are Rejecting Trump’s Energy Policies
Jun 12, 2017 | The Nation
By Jimmy Tobias
Greg Lemons is the staunchly Republican mayor of Abita Springs, a bite-size town in rural Louisiana that both draws its water and gets its name from the famous and pristine aquifer that flows beneath its soil. A chatty and cheerful fellow, Lemons like to think of himself as a pragmatic leader, the sort of person who strives to fix problems instead of fight about them. Nevertheless, in late 2014, he found himself in a legal brawl.
It was autumn of that year when he first heard that the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources had approved an exploratory drilling permit for a proposed fracking project just outside of town. The project, which had been approved despite the mayor’s protests, didn’t sit well with him. He feared it would degrade the community’s environment, disrupt its quality of life, and ruin its reputation.
“We are very sensitive about our water here,” says Lemons, adding that much of his town’s economic activity, including the locally based Abita Brewing Company, is based on the renowned quality of its aquifer. “I was not content to stay silent about it.”
In late December 2014, he sued, arguing in state court that the drilling permit violated local zoning ordinances. Though Abita Springs quickly lost its legal case and exploratory drilling commenced, the fracking project ultimately folded for financial reasons. In the meantime, Lemons learned some important lessons.
While he fought the frackers, with their noxious chemicals and earth-shattering drills, the mayor started reading up on alternatives to oil, gas, and coal. He educated himself about solar panels and wind farms, about energy-efficient lighting and electrical vehicles. He learned about the jobs that these technologies could help create and the budget savings they might enable. Being a business-minded member of the GOP, he liked what he saw. Soon enough, he was enamored with the economic and environmental promise of green energy.
“It convinced me that we need to develop sustainable energy sources and we need to start now,” he says. “We should have started a long time ago.”
So, alongside other residents in his town of 2,500, he set to work. He formed a committee to research and develop renewable energy plans for the city. He started replacing all the town’s light bulbs with energy-efficient alternatives. He initiated talks with local electricity providers, hoping to obtain solar-powered street lights, install solar panels on municipal buildings, and perhaps even develop a solar farm outside of town in the months and years ahead. He crafted a plan to bring electric vehicle charging stations to Abita Springs. And in March of this year, in order to signal an official commitment to these lofty goals, Mayor Lemons joined the Sierra Club’s Ready for 100 campaign, announcing that his town will strive to run on 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.
Little Abita Springs, in other words, is putting the Trump administration to shame. And it’s not alone. As the White House withdraws from the Paris climate agreement, as it capitulates to the reactionary agenda of fossil fuel interests, small towns and large cities alike are stepping into the breach.
The very day Trump turned his back on Paris, 285 mayors across the country announced that they would still uphold the agreement’s goals. Thirty cities, meanwhile, have joined the Sierra Club’s Ready for 100 campaign, committing themselvesentirely to renewable energy in the coming decades. And though large progressive centers like San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, often get the most attention, it’s tiny towns and small cities above all that have acted quickly—and with strong commitment—to reshape their energy economies to save money, create jobs, and combat climate change. From Abita Springs to Georgetown, Texas and Greensburg, Kanas, little communities laboring out of the spotlight are walking away from fossil fuels, and fast.
“There is a really diverse set of cities that have pledged to do this,” says Shane Levy, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club’s Ready for 100 campaign. “Some cities, like San Francisco, Madison, Boulder, which are more progressive, might be making the commitment out of concern for climate change. But a lot of it has to do with cost and autonomy, and some of the more rural and conservative cities are among the leaders in actually following up and making the transition.”
Take, for example, Greensburg, Kansas, a tiny heartland town of 700 people that was nearly wiped off the map by a massive tornado back in 2007. After its harrowing run in with the weather, residents decided to rebuild the community around green energy. Just months after the tornado, the city council adopted a “sustainable comprehensive plan” that charted the course for obtaining renewable power. Five years later, Greensburg started getting every bit of its electricity from solar and geothermal sources as well as a 12.5 Megawatt wind farm that sits outside the town’s borders. Oil, gas, and coal have been cut out entirely.
Consider Georgetown, Texas too. Its transition to renewable energy started in 2010, when students at locally based Southwestern University convinced officials there to work with the city-owned utility, Georgetown Utility Systems, to derive all the campus’s electricity needs from wind and solar sources. Seeing the budgetary stability that decades-long, fixed-rate renewable energy contracts offered the school, the city soon followed suit and signed up for long-term renewable energy contracts of its own.
“It was originally a business decision,” says the city’s conservative Republican mayor, Dale Ross. “Our main mission was to mitigate two kinds of risk: the first was price volatility in the energy market and the second was regulatory risk from government policies. That was the challenge and we found the solution in wind and solar.”
“But then if you want to get philosophical,” he adds, “don’t we have moral and ethical obligation to leave the planet in a better condition than we found it?”
This year, Georgetown, which sits in the center of Texas oil-and-gas country, started getting all of its energy from wind and solar farms around the region. And, increasingly, it’s in good company.
Small cities like Burlington, Vermont and Aspen, Colorado also boast a 100 percent renewable status, while many others are close behind. Grand Rapids, Michigan, for instance, currently gets 27 percent of its energy from green sources and aims torun on 100 percent renewable energy by 2025. This past January, Bowling Green, Ohio, a town of 31,0000, unveiled the largest solar farm in the state, a 20 Megawatt public-private partnership that will power roughly 3,000 homes.
“We have had a sense that the environment and energy are nonpartisan issues here at the local level,” says Bowling Green Councilman Daniel Gordon, a Democrat, who supported the project. “We don’t have debates about whether climate change is real, everyone agrees that it is.”
Then there are towns and cities like Moab, Utah, Pueblo, Colorado and, yes, Abita Springs that are just getting started.
LeAnn Pinniger Magee, who chairs the mayor’s Abita Committee for Energy Sustainability, says the town’s first step is to install solar panels on its big electric welcome sign and also install an electric vehicle charging station on site. The project, she estimates, will be completed this summer, and shortly afterwards the town plans to launch a solar-powered street light pilot program that, if successful, could save it $20,000 a year in electricity costs.
“We are just three months into this,” she says “but we have so much support from the community that we are confident that we can make some big changes within the next five years.”
Mayor Lemons, for his part, likens Abita Springs’ renewable energy dreams to eating an elephant.
“You take one bite at a time,” he says.
It will take a lot of small bites to make up for the Trump administration’s decision to skip the meal altogether. Then again, there are a lot of committed people at the table, and more are joining every day.
On June 2, the day after Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement, the mayor of Pittsburgh announced his city’s intention to generate all of its electricity from renewable energy by 2035. Santa Barbara, California soon followed suit, declaring on June 6 that it would like to run entirely on renewable energy by 2030. Later this month, meanwhile, the non-partisan US Conference of Mayors will vote on a resolution that would declare its support for 100 percent renewable energy in cities nationwide.
“It’s up to us as leaders to creatively implement clean energy solutions for our cities across the nation,” said Steve Benjamin, Mayor of Columbia, South Carolina and Vice President of the US Conference of Mayors, in a recent statement about the proposed resolution. “It’s not merely an option now; it’s imperative.”
Indeed, whether or not the fossil fuel lobbyists and their friends in the Trump administration want it, the clean and renewable energy revolution is well underway—and it’s urban.
https://www.thenation.com/article/even-republican-mayors-are-rejecting-trumps-energy-policies/
-
EPA Delays Chemical Safety Rule until 2019
Jun 12, 2017 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will delay implementation of an Obama-era chemical safety rule for nearly two years while it reassesses the necessity of the regulation.
The EPA announced on Monday that Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a directive last Friday delaying the chemical plant safety standards until at least Feb. 20, 2019.
The move comes after the EPA delayed the regulation in March amid discussions over the rule’s impact on businesses.
“We are seeking additional time to review the program, so that we can fully evaluate the public comments raised by multiple petitioners and consider other issues that may benefit from additional public input," Pruitt said in a statement.
Obama regulators in December finalized a rule beefing up safety standards at chemical production plants, calling for new emergency requirements for manufacturers regulated by the EPA.
Officials moved to overhaul chemical safety standards after a 2013 explosion at a chemical plant in Texas killed 15 people. Their rule would require companies to better prepare for accidents and expand the EPA's investigative and auditing powers.
But chemical companies wrote in a letter to Pruitt shortly after his February confirmation that the rule would raise “significant security concerns and compliance issues that will cause irreparable harm."
The EPA sought public comment in March on a proposal to delay the rule while considering those objections. The agency said it received 54,117 comments before Pruitt formally moved to delay the rule.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/337410-epa-delays-chemical-safety-rule-until-2019
-
Local Governments Step up Fight with Trump on Climate
Jun 12, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Puerto Rico, a dozen states and hundreds of municipalities have stepped up to fight climate change in response to President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.
Through formal and informal initiatives, the non-federal government bodies are seeking to work directly with foreign governments to reduce emissions. They see Trump’s decision to abandon the climate pact as an opportunity to play their part on global warming while seeking new opportunities in clean energy.
The efforts, led mostly by Democrats, are bringing forth more aggressive localized climate action plans than likely would have happened if the United States had stayed with the Paris pact.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the states and cities will make real pledges that go beyond political statements. Even supporters concede that they cannot replace the strong federal actions that Trump is unwilling to take.
Nonetheless, they see the non-federal commitments as a way to keep the anti-Trump, pro-climate momentum going.
“It’s the silver lining from what happened last week. It’s really encouraging, and it may be that, ironically, the decision to vacate Paris energizes the pro-climate movement,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told The Hill.
“I don’t think it’s a substitute for international policy. But to get more renewable energy online is mostly a local decision. It’s made by public utility commissions, it’s made by governors and mayors and utility companies, and so, the fight goes local.”
Hawaii was one of the more aggressive actors last week on climate policy. Spurred by Trump’s election and his decision on Paris, Gov. David Ige (D) signed legislation into law that formally aligns Hawaii with the goals of the Paris agreement.
Like many of the states and localities rolling out new climate initiatives, Hawaii has been at the forefront of fighting global warming. It previously committed to getting 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2045.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has also taken a high-profile role.
He went to China days after Trump’s announcement and used the trip to highlight California’s independence on climate change.
“President Trump’s announced withdrawal [from the accord] has heightened the focus on this fundamental existential threat called global warming, called habitat destruction, called species extinction,” Brown said in a speech in Beijing, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We have to wake up our countrymen — in fact, the world.”
Chinese officials were uncharacteristically candid during Brown’s visit about their displeasure with Trump’s decision.
“I am so deeply disappointed at the announcement of President Trump,” said Xie Zhenhua, China’s lead climate negotiator, according to the Times.
David Hart, a professor of policy and government at George Mason University, said the state and local climate pledges can be an important caveat to Trump’s Paris pullout.
“I think it can make a difference,” Hart said, adding that the commitments “can help send a message of reassurance to the rest of the world, especially if it can be done in a concerted, organized way.”
Hart said he’s keeping an eye on an effort being led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to organize non-federal climate commitments — including those by businesses and universities — into a new submission to the Paris agreement.
It would act as an alternative to Trump’s position. But the United Nations currently has no mechanism for a contribution from entities other than a nation’s national government.
“Americans don't need Washington to meet our Paris commitments, and Americans are not going to let Washington stand in the way of fulfilling it,” Bloomberg said this week in France after meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, two strong proponents of the agreement.
“I want the world to know that the U.S. will meet its Paris commitments and that through partnerships among cities, states and businesses we will seek to remain part of the Paris agreement process,” Bloomberg said.
Nick Loris, a fellow at the right-wing Heritage Foundation who pushed for Trump to exit the pact, questioned the usefulness of the state and local pledges.
“States and cities committing to climate plans that regulate affordable, dependable power sources out of existence or subsidize uncompetitive energy technologies is a harmful to families, businesses and taxpayers in those respective areas,” he said, referring to fossil fuels.
But at the same time, conservatives’ main request was that the federal government get out of Paris, and they got their wish.
If states and cities want to buck that, they’re free to do so, Loris said, even if he doesn’t think it’s smart.
“States are laboratories of democracy. As expensive and ineffective as the regulations may be, it’s their right to do it,” he said. “Voters and businesses suffering the consequences of these policies will ultimately determine the fate of the politicians championing these policies.”
-
Details Emerge about Trump's Planned Rollback
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Trump administration will use a central argument from legal challengers of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan to rescind the Obama-era climate standards.
EPA chief Scott Pruitt will argue that the agency went too far in setting carbon reduction goals by looking at what the broader power system could achieve instead of focusing solely on improvements at coal plants, an administration official told E&E News.
Obama's EPA contended that it made sense to accelerate a market trend away from coal and toward lower-carbon natural gas and renewable power. Critics said the agency exceeded its authority by trying to regulate the entire sector.
States and industry groups brought that challenge, along with a slate of others, in September to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Pruitt was among them as Oklahoma's attorney general.
The decision to focus on the legal argument is expected. But it also signals that EPA might not, as of now, try to fight the science behind the rule.
Environmental advocates say they will contest the reversal of the Clean Power Plan once Trump's EPA makes it final. The agency recently sent a draft to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review (Greenwire, June 9).
"We'll wait and see what actually emerges," said Sean Donahue, a lawyer representing a coalition of environmental groups in the litigation. "I'm sure that the many organizations and states that supported the Clean Power Plan and that support climate action would challenge any rescission on whatever ground."
Donahue said he would not be surprised if EPA relied on a legal rationale, "because it takes a lot less work than a factual one." An industry lawyer said that even if the agency thinks the regulation is illegal for several reasons, officials only need to use the strongest one to revoke the Clean Power Plan.
The rulemaking to rescind the Clean Power Plan is far shorter than the regulation itself, which was hundreds of pages. It comes with a regulatory impact analysis that will consider the societal benefits of reducing carbon in the United States, but not the rest of the world, according to the source.
That assessment will also count the benefits of energy efficiency differently.
Those changes would greatly increase the projected cost of the regulation and could be meant to strengthen political arguments that it would do economic harm.Court fights are certain
The Clean Power Plan was core to America's international pledges to curb climate change under the Paris Agreement, which Trump has said he will exit. Court battles about the regulation could drag out for years, potentially determining how future administrations act on climate.
After OMB finishes with the rulemaking, EPA will publish the draft and take comments. Then the agency will issue a final version, which is when environmental groups and green states are preparing to sue.
They also will challenge the federal government if EPA rescinds the Clean Power Plan and then never replaces it with alternative standards.
They say EPA's prior finding that carbon is a danger to public health requires it to regulate sources of emissions.
Climate advocates could bring an "unreasonable delay" case, although there is not a specific deadline for EPA to take action on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Trump administration could also decide to fight the endangerment finding, which would be a huge undertaking.
The Clean Power Plan is currently on hold, following a stay from the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit has agreed to halt its consideration of legal challenges until at least the end of June while the Trump administration decides how to handle the regulation. The court could issue a decision or give EPA more time to finalize its proposal.
EPA spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060055877
-
U.S. Left as 'Footnote' in G7 Climate Talks
Jun 12, 2017 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
Rifts between the United States and its leading industrial allies over climate change deepened on Monday when Washington refused to subscribe fully to a Group of Seven statement on the environment.
The U.S. said it would not sign up to a pledge by Italy, Canada, Japan, France, Britain and Germany which called the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change "irreversible" and key for the "security and prosperity of our planet".
As a consequence, Washington formally refused to back multilateral development banks -- bodies designed to finance poorer nations and help them reduce their pollution emissions.
U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris deal earlier this month and the U.S. position was laid out in a brief note at the bottom of a general communique following a meeting of G7 environment ministers in this northern Italian city.
"The U.S. is now left as a footnote to climate action and that's very sad," said Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna. "Everyone expressed their deep disappointment with the U.S. decision," she said.
The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, only attended the first day of the meeting on Sunday, held as an early summer heatwave settled over Italy, before flying back to Washington.
In a statement on Monday, he defended the U.S. position.
"We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress," he wrote.
Environment ministers and officials met in a luxury hotel, sitting around a table covered in lush grass, to discuss issues ranging from climate change to sustainable development and litter at sea.
Trump, who has in the past dismissed climate change as a hoax, says the Paris accord would undermine the U.S. economy, cost jobs, and put his country at a disadvantage to its competitors.
McKenna said the Paris agreement could create economic opportunities worth "in the tens of trillions of dollars".
The 2015 accord, backed by nearly 200 countries, aims to limit global warming to 2 degrees or less by 2100, mainly through pledges to cut carbon dioxide and emissions.
When announcing the U.S. was pulling out of the Paris accord Trump said his administration would begin negotiations either to re-enter the deal or set up a new agreement on "terms that are fair to the United States".
Under the pact, the United States - the world's second biggest carbon emitter behind China - had committed to reduce its emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Italian Environment Minister Gian Luca Galletti said a dialogue had been kept open with the U.S. to see if there were the conditions for Washington to reenter the Paris accord.
"But one thing is clear, the accord is irreversible non- negotiable and the only instrument for fighting climate change," he told reporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/12/world/europe/12reuters-g7-environment.html?_r=0
-
Is NSR next on the Trump Deregulatory Agenda?
Jun 12, 2017 | InsideEPA
By The Editors
The Commerce Department is slated to issue its report later this week targeting EPA and other agencies' rules that burden manufacturers, a document that is expected to focus heavily on EPA's new source review (NSR) permit program that many industry groups strongly criticized in their comments.
Reuters reports that the department's “regulations 'hit list' recommendations follow more than three months of study and consultation with industry on ways to streamline regulations and ease burdens on manufacturing firms.”
Echoing recent comments by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last month, the news service, citing an administration official with knowledge of the report, said EPA's “complex permitting rules will be a key focus."
As Inside EPA first reported, “a wide range of domestic producers, including agriculture, aircraft, auto, energy, chemical, forest and paper, metals, and others,” urged administration officials to overhaul EPA's controversial NSR program, “providing some of the loudest calls for programs to reform under a presidential memo to reduce burdens on manufacturers.”
In their comments to the department, the industry groups charged the NSR program is one of the biggest hurdles to constructing new domestic manufacturing facilities and bolstering associated employment benefits.
“The [Clean Air Act] permit process must be streamlined and simplified to provide incentives for companies to build plants in the U.S. rather than abroad,” the National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), a coalition representing a wide range of industry groups, said in its March 31 comments.
But which portions of the program will be targeted remain to be seen. As Inside EPA's Stuart Parker reported recently, the Trump administration continues to aggressively enforce the program, mirroring stances taken by the Obama administration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nsr-next-trump-deregulatory-agenda
-
Lawmakers Float Bill to Curb Potent GHGs
Jun 12, 2017 | InsideEPA
By The Editors
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is floating legislation that would create an interagency task force that includes EPA and other agencies to improve efforts to curb emissions of short-lived but potent greenhouse gases, with the lawmakers touting the move as part of a growing bipartisan push to address climate change even as the Trump administration scraps federal climate measures.
The bill, H.R. 2858, introduced June 8, would create a “Task Force on Super Pollutants” that would coordinate and improve efforts at the federal and state levels to cut emissions of such GHGs, which include methane, black carbon and refrigerants known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
The task force would include representatives from a range of federal agencies, including EPA and the Energy Department; White House offices; state and local government; academic or nonprofits; and industry groups.
The legislation would require the group to create a report within 18 months that identifies existing efforts to curb the potent GHGs; recommends activities to consolidate or new programs to fill “gaps” in efforts; highlights innovation or job creation benefits of programs; and compiles best practices.
The bill notes a range of existing federal programs to curb HFCs -- including several EPA rules -- and the recently finalized Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty established to limit substances that deplete the ozone layer.
The Trump administration has been largely mum regarding the HFC regulations and the Kigali Amendment, and it is unclear whether the White House plans to move forward with implementing the global deal, which has strong industry support. The Kigali deal would likely have to be ratified by the Senate, and the White House would have to submit the deal to the chamber for approval.
The recently introduced bill says that though agencies have several programs to “reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, . . . these programs are scattered across multiple agencies and there is insufficient coordination to maximize reductions of these pollutants.”
The bill is similar to prior efforts in the Senate that have also attracted support from lawmakers in both parties.
Lead co-sponsors of the measure are Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL). Additional co-sponsors include Reps. Mike Coffman (R-CO), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), John Delaney (D-MD), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA).
In a statement, Peters says the move comes just one week after President Donald Trump announced his plan to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, a move roundly denounced by most Democrats, environmentalists, businesses and a few Republican lawmakers.
This bill “demonstrates the growing bipartisan will in Congress to act on climate,” he said.
However, the bill might face an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled Congress as many Republicans have supported Trump's move on Paris and his broader efforts to roll back federal climate policies.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/lawmakers-float-bill-curb-potent-ghgs
Industry and Association News
LCSA - There are no clips to report
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested