Preview Newsletter
PM ACC test 20/6/17
-
(ACC Blog) Chemical Activity Barometer Remains Steady
Jun 20, 2017 | American Chemistry Council
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was flat in June following a 0.2 percent gain in May, and a 0.3 percent gain in April. -
REACH Data Quality Comes under Renewed Fire
Jun 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Having a complete picture of which substances must be risk managed, and which measures are most appropriate, will only be achieved once REACH registration dossier have high quality, complete data on hazards and risks and up to date information on a substance’s uses, experts say. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Business Council Working to Bolster Infrastructure to Advance Petrochemical Projects
Jun 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Another group with varying business interests in the Appalachian Basin has been working quietly since late last year to identify weaknesses in regional infrastructure so that it's ready to support the growth expected from petrochemical and other shale-related development in the region. -
Shell: Falcon Pipeline to Employ up to 1,000 during Construction
Jun 20, 2017 | The Times (Pittsburgh)
By Jared Stonesifer
The Falcon Ethane Pipeline being built by Shell will employ about 1,000 workers across the region when construction starts in 2019, an official overseeing the project said. -
Texas Urged to Bolster Fracking Research
Jun 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
As energy companies step up their oil production in the Southwest's Permian Basin, a Texas-based scientific consortium is recommending additional research on the potential negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and wastewater treatment and disposal supplies. -
EQT Promises Efficiencies in Creating U.S.'s Largest Producer
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
EQT Corp. yesterday announced plans to buy Rice Energy Inc. for $8.2 billion, in a deal that highlights the transformation of the Marcellus Shale's industry as a company that once focused on local natural gas distribution cements its role as a dominant player in exploration and production. -
Can the World Run on Clean Power? Scientists Clash
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Can we power the world with just wind, water and sunlight? Yes, scientists say. Should we? That's the more contentious question. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senator Whitehouse and Environmental Advocates Tell Industry: We Need Less Plastic
Jun 20, 2017 | RI Future
By Steve Ahlquist
Before Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave the keynote address this morning at an American Chemistry Council (ACC) sponsored conference at the swanky Viking Hotel in Newport, Rhode Island he met briefly with demonstrators representing the Break Free From Plastic movement. -
Exxon Mobil Lends Its Support to a Carbon Tax Proposal
Jun 20, 2017 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Exxon Mobil, other oil companies and a number of other corporate giants will announce on Tuesday that they are supporting a plan to tax carbon emissions that was put forth this year by a group of Republican elder statesmen. -
Trump Regulators Trigger Pollution Fight
Jun 20, 2017 | The Hill E2 Blog
By Devin Henry
The fight over former President Barack Obama’s methane agenda has moved to the courts. -
Meet the Potential Deputy. 'Moderate' or a Hand of 'Evil'?
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Robin Bravender and Niina Heikkinen
An air chief from the George W. Bush administration could become second in command at U.S. EPA, raising objections from conservatives who find him too moderate and worrying environmentalists about the presence of a skilled navigator who could advance a weak climate agenda. -
PHMSA Will Delay Enforcement of Some Gas-Storage Rules
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Federal pipeline regulators won't enforce parts of their newly written regulations on natural gas storage facilities while they consider a petition to change the rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Chemical Security News
-
(ACC Blog) Chemical Activity Barometer Remains Steady
Jun 20, 2017 | American Chemistry Council
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was flat in June following a 0.2 percent gain in May, and a 0.3 percent gain in April. This marks a slowing from the average 0.5 percent first quarter monthly gain. Compared to a year earlier, the CAB is up 4.3 percent year-over-year, a modest yet continued slowing. All data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA).
On an unadjusted basis the CAB marked a 0.1 percent decline in June. On a year-over-year basis, the unadjusted CAB is up 3.6 percent, also an easing from the previous five months.
The Chemical Activity Barometer has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
In June, three of the four broad categories improved, as did the diffusion index (number of positive contributors relative to total indicators monitored), which rose to 65 percent from 53 percent in May. Production-related indicators were mixed to positive along with positive equity prices and inventory. Input and product prices were mixed to negative.
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1912, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to fourteen months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2012 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve’s Industrial Production Index.
The CAB comprises indicators relating to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders). Each month, ACC provides a barometer number, which reflects activity data for the current month, as well as a three-month moving average. The CAB was developed by the economics department at the American Chemistry Council.
The next CAB is currently planned for: July 25, 2017 | 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/Chemical-Activity-Barometer-Remains-Steady.html
-
REACH Data Quality Comes under Renewed Fire
Jun 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Having a complete picture of which substances must be risk managed, and which measures are most appropriate, will only be achieved once REACH registration dossier have high quality, complete data on hazards and risks and up to date information on a substance’s uses, experts say.
In her article in this month’s Global Business Briefing entitled: REACH revolution at a crossroads, Chemical Watch CEO Mamta Patel says the "inescapable conclusion" is that many companies have done a poor job in providing adequate safety data.
The article quotes Echa head Geert Dancet’s recent comments at Echa’s tenth anniversary celebrations that "the detailed work of member 8states and Echa can only really begin when we have all the data. Only then can regulators judge whether a substance is of concern or not...At the moment this is not easy to do."
Echa says it lacks the information to decide what risks are posed by 3,000 of the 4,500 substances manufactured or imported by companies in volumes above 100 tonnes per year or notified under the previous EU new chemicals regime. And for 2,000 of these, their registration dossiers suggest some exposure is likely but the hazard properties are unclear.REACH principles not applied
At the same event, head of the European Environmental Bureau Jeremy Wates warned that "there are very real problems with the slow pace of roll-out of REACH." When companies are awarded a registration number - whether or not they have complied with the data requirements - key principles of REACH, such as ‘no data, no market’ and ‘reversing the burden of proof’, are not, he said, being applied.
This situation, in turn, causes delays in other processes, such as substance evaluation, says ClientEarth’s Vito Buonsante,. When member state authorities select substances to examine, they see the holes in the data and instead send the dossiers to Echa for compliance checking.
The way REACH is implemented "gives perverse incentives to companies to drag their feet...companies are rewarded for having submitted poor data by winning more time to comply,"Registrants faced big challenges
Cefic’s Erwin Annys agrees there is a data quality gap but says companies faced significant challenges in meeting the 2010 registration deadline. Many companies, says the chemical industry, lack the resources, motivation or in-house expertise of some multinationals.
Consequently, most dossiers have never been updated, as required by the Regulation. This will only happen, says Rainer Otter, head of regulatory affairs for BASF’s industrial petrochemicals business, when a legal obligation to do so is inserted into the REACH legal text.
Bjorn Hansen, head of DG Environment’s chemicals unit, says Echa should view dossiers with inadequate data as non-compliant rather than poor quality, and use its legal powers to bring them into compliance. He has suggested to Echa that it could speed things by conducting compliance checks at the same time as substance evaluations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57000/reach-data-quality-comes-under-renewed-fire
-
Jun 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Another group with varying business interests in the Appalachian Basin has been working quietly since late last year to identify weaknesses in regional infrastructure so that it's ready to support the growth expected from petrochemical and other shale-related development in the region.
The TriState Infrastructure Council (TSIC) brought together 21 members, including FirstEnergy Corp., Nova Chemicals Corp. and JPMorgan Chase. The group has been meeting monthly since last year with public and private sector leaders to identify gaps in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia's electric transmission, barge loading facilities, rail networks, bridges and roads, among other infrastructure.
Members have been thinking about how the region should "prioritize what is going to stand between us and getting full realization of the new potential opportunities from the petrochemical industry," said Kathryn Klaber, managing director of the Klaber Group. She is leading the council's work.
Klaber said TSIC has identified five priorities that require more attention from both the private and public sectors: development-ready sites, more funding for locks and dams, more natural gas liquids (NGL) pipelines and storage, housing for more workers and the region's regulatory climate.
"This is really a benchmark against what the Gulf Coast has," Klaber said of the desperate need for more NGL storage in the region. "It's the biggest, most daunting task for us here. It's a little bit of the chicken and egg. We need to have a reliable ethane and propane supply in order to have the reliable operation of major petrochemical facilities, but you're not going to build all that storage until you have the use for it."
Klaber made her comments on Monday before about 400 people at the Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction conference in Pittsburgh. About 30 miles northwest of the city, a unit of Royal Dutch Shell plc is nearly finished with the two-year process of preparing a 400-acre site in Western Pennsylvania, where it plans to move forward later this year with constructing a multi-billion dollar ethylene cracker. The facility would consume about 100,000 b/d of ethane and produce 3.5 million pounds/year of polyethylene.
Shell's Anca Rusa, project director of Pennsylvania Chemicals, said the company has removed two hills; 7 million cubic feet of dirt; installed utilities; relocated power lines and moved more than a mile of state highway to make room for the cracker on what was formerly the site of a zinc smelting plant. Primary construction is expected to take five years, with service expected sometime in the early 2020s.
TSIC's work is part of a broader effort to capitalize on Shell's investment. Pennsylvania commissioned a study released earlier this year that found the Marcellus and Utica shales hold enough ethane to accommodate up to four additional ethylene crackers.
Antero Resources Corp., Chevron Corp., XTO Energy Inc. and several other companies matched a $100,000 grant from the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation to investigate the basin's NGL storage potential. Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers from the region have introduced legislation to study the feasibility of a storage hub, provide funding and expedite the permitting process.
The American Chemistry Council also released a study last month that found if five ethane crackers and two propane dehydrogenation facilities were built in the region, it could attract $36 billion in capital investment. Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia have signed a cooperative agreement aimed at creating policies to promote the region's shale resources to boost the regional economy. Other groups, like Shale Crescent USA, have formed to brand the region as a low-cost business destination.
TSIC developed a geographic information systems database of an 82-county region spanning all three states. While geographic information system, or GIS, data for infrastructure already exists at the state level, the council's tool identifies gaps and prioritizes needs on a regional level.
In the coming months, the council plans to present its priorities to stakeholders that include public officials, business groups, investors and the general public. It also wants to create funding mechanisms such as public/private partnerships to match project needs.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110836-appalachian-business-council-working-to-bolster-infrastructure-to-advance-petrochemical-projects
-
Shell: Falcon Pipeline to Employ up to 1,000 during Construction
Jun 20, 2017 | The Times (Pittsburgh)
By Jared Stonesifer
The Falcon Ethane Pipeline being built by Shell will employ about 1,000 workers across the region when construction starts in 2019, an official overseeing the project said.
Doug Scott, the major projects manager for Shell Pipeline, said Tuesday morning that it will take a significant local workforce not only to build the 97-mile pipeline, but also to monitor it for leaks and for security reasons.
The Falcon pipeline will transport more than 100,000 barrels of ethane daily to Shell’s $6 billion cracker plant being built along the Ohio River in Potter Township. While the cracker plant won’t become operational for another five years or so, the pipeline is expected to be complete some time in 2020.
Speaking to about 200 people at the Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction conference in Pittsburgh, Scott said that Shell Pipeline officials have approached 455 landowners across southwestern Pennsylvania for land easements and rights of way.
Because the pipeline is a private project being undertaken by Shell, the company could not utilize eminent domain to secure the necessary land. It instead must negotiate individually with each landowner.
So far, the company has secured about 40 easements from Beaver County landowners, mostly in the southwestern portion of the county.
Scott told the audience Tuesday morning that Shell Pipeline is “right on track” in terms of securing easements from landowners and said the project is on schedule to start construction in 2019.
“We’ve had very good support from landowners,” he said.
Scott also gave the crowd a glimpse of Shell’s thought process when it came to selecting the route for the pipeline, which will have two legs. One leg will see a pipeline being built from Houston, Pa., to Potter Township, while the other leg will run through eastern Ohio and West Virginia before cutting into southwestern Beaver County.
Shell Pipeline hired at least six outside contractors and environmental groups to help map out the pipeline’s routes. Of most importance, Scott said, was avoiding population centers and environmentally sensitive areas in southwestern Pennsylvania.
The pipeline will be covered by at least four feet of soil, Scott said, meaning it will be “pretty much unseen and out of mind.”
Scott said Shell Pipeline has engaged with local and state governments, local school districts and an abundance of landowners in an effort to be transparent about its plans.
“It’s very important for Shell to be a good neighbor,” Scott said.
Once complete, Scott said the Falcon Ethane Pipeline will be monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week from a remote “state of the art” facility in Houston, Pa. The pipeline system will be continuously monitored for leaks and for security purposes, he said.
Scott said the Falcon construction will have a significant impact on the regional economy. He noted that with so many local firms already hired to offer consulting advice, the project has already had a positive affect.
“There’s been quite a bit of an economic impact already,” he said.
http://www.timesonline.com/news/shellcracker/shell-falcon-pipeline-to-employ-up-to-during-construction/article_121e66a6-55ca-11e7-a488-7316d9ebf7f6.html
-
Texas Urged to Bolster Fracking Research
Jun 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
As energy companies step up their oil production in the Southwest's Permian Basin, a Texas-based scientific consortium is recommending additional research on the potential negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and wastewater treatment and disposal supplies.
The study, “Environmental and Community Impacts of Shale Development in Texas,” conducted by the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST), concludes that “some of the most significant public concerns surrounding the application of hydraulic fracturing operations regards possible effects on both the available supply of water and possible effects on water quality.”
Among those concerns: although water used in fracking represents less than 1 percent of total water use statewide in Texas, “in some regions and locales, water used in hydraulic fracturing represents a significantly larger proportion of local water sources”; brackish groundwater and produced water for fracking can reduce freshwater use but that can lead to an increase in impacts to land and water due to spills and leaks; surface spills and well casing leaks near the surface are the most likely pathways for oil and gas activities to lead to contamination of drinking water sources; and that “information on spills and leaks from oil and gas activities in Texas is less accessible and detailed than in some states, potentially limiting the ability to identify sources and root causes.”
The researchers recommended “additional research to evaluate potential negative impacts” of treating produced water “for uses that have minimal quality requirements, such as for hydraulic fracturing.”
And the researchers make a host of recommendations for additional research areas in water availability and supply -- suggesting that research on “life-cycle risks related to water management decisions” should be conducted, that data “relevant to communication between water-bearing and producing strata -- including non-commercial flow zones” should be shared, and that statewide leak and spill reporting requirements for produced water “should be considered.”
The study was spurred in part by the projection that production from Texas' portion of Permian basin will be over 10 million barrels per day at some point in 2018.
Although the study was conducted by Texas researchers on shale resources and their effects in the state, the researchers say they hope “that other U.S. States and nations around the world that are in the midst of debate and discussion about shale resources likewise will find it informative and useful,” writes Task Force Chair Christine Ehlig-Economides, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/texas-urged-bolster-fracking-research
-
EQT Promises Efficiencies in Creating U.S.'s Largest Producer
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
EQT Corp. yesterday announced plans to buy Rice Energy Inc. for $8.2 billion, in a deal that highlights the transformation of the Marcellus Shale's industry as a company that once focused on local natural gas distribution cements its role as a dominant player in exploration and production.
Pittsburgh-based EQT said the deal, in which it will pay $6.7 billion in cash and $1.5 billion to cover Canonsburg, Pa.-based Rice's debt, will make it the largest natural gas producer in the U.S. The combined company would have a total sales volume of 3.6 billion cubic feet equivalent per day.
"This transaction brings together two of the top Marcellus and Utica producers to form a natural gas operating position that will be unmatched in the industry," EQT President and CEO Steve Schlotterbeck said in a statement on the deal.
Schlotterbeck stressed the synergy between the two companies' assets in describing how it would add value to EQT. "Rice has built an outstanding company with an acreage footprint that is largely contiguous to our existing acreage," he said, noting that the combination would allow EQT to drill longer underground wells and put more wells on a single drilling pad, providing higher production per site. The company expects to be able to drill wells that reach 50 percent farther laterally from the well pad in certain Pennsylvania counties once the deal closes.
Those kinds of efficiency improvements are important for producers as the Mid-Atlantic industry faces intense competition and prices that have stayed low, largely below $3 per million British thermal units, over the past few years.
EQT describes itself as an industry leader in "environmental conscientiousness" and said the combination of two companies that are among the country's "largest, lowest-cost, and most responsible natural gas producers creates an unparalleled leader in shale gas development that will benefit the environment and our shareholders for many decades to come."
The transfer of Rice's pipeline assets also holds promise for EQT as the Appalachian region's takeaway infrastructure gradually catches up with potential production and prepares to serve new natural gas export facilities being built in Maryland, Georgia and along the Gulf Coast.
Several new pipelines being proposed to boost regional takeaway capacity have attracted strong opposition from environmentalists and local groups (Energywire, March 28).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/20/stories/1060056261
-
Can the World Run on Clean Power? Scientists Clash
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Can we power the world with just wind, water and sunlight?
Yes, scientists say.
Should we?
That's the more contentious question.
There are many ways to fight climate change, but the one that seems to get the most attention and generate the most controversy is the idea of shifting toward 100 percent renewable energy.
From Hollywood actors like Leonardo DiCaprio to lawmakers on Capitol Hill like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), many have endorsed the prospect of switching to a solely renewable-energy-based economy.
However, some researchers don't think this is the best way to address climbing temperatures, and their disagreements are aired in the pages of a prestigious scientific journal.
In a new report published yesterday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 scientists took a sledgehammer to the groundwork for moving the world to solely hydroelectric, wind and solar energy.
Lead author Christopher Clack, a former electricity grid researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, explained that the new study undermines research by Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson. He was referring specifically to a 2015 paper that modeled a renewable energy scenario in the United States where no "natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed."
Jacobson has been studying how the United States and the rest of the world can switch to renewables. He co-founded the Solutions Project, an advocacy group that makes a policy case for this transition (Climatewire, June 2, 2016).
"I was actually very excited when that paper came out," said Clack, who is now CEO of Vibrant Clean Energy LLC, a firm that does modeling for high renewable energy levels on the power grid. "I was excited to see what they had done."
The seminal 2015 paper simulated how the United States could run entirely on wind, water and sunlight by 2050, powering not only the electrical grid but the whole transportation system, all heating needs and the entire range of industrial demand.
The electricity sector is only 20 percent of the United States' total energy use and a fraction of its greenhouse gas footprint, so Jacobson's study describes an aggressive decarbonization across the whole economy.
Jacobson and his co-authors modeled energy demand, power sources and climate variables and concluded that the United States could reliably power itself using only wind, water and solar energy at an affordable price.
Clack, however, found flaws in Jacobson's study and mustered 20 other co-authors in formulating his response.
"The one that I found most painful is the claim that they don't increase hydroelectric power at all in their model," said Clack.Don't publish that paper
The 2015 paper shows a maximum output from U.S. hydroelectric plants of 145.26 gigawatts, about 50 percent more than the installed capacity today. However, the model shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW, nearly an order of magnitude above the projected maximum output.
Clack said this is a significant modeling error that throws off conclusions about the affordability and feasibility of switching to solely renewable energy.
Another issue Clack and his collaborators found was that Jacobson's study didn't adequately account for the transmission infrastructure needed to route power from intermittent renewable energy resources across the United States from windy and sunny regions to the still and shady.
In his own study last year, Clack found that the United States could decarbonize its electricity system by 80 percent below 1990 levels, drawing on renewables and high-voltage direct-current transmission (Climatewire, Jan. 26, 2016). However, this only modeled the electricity system and not the entire economy.
The new report also criticizes "implausible assumptions" about new energy technologies. Strategies like underground thermal energy storage, concentrating solar power and hydrogen-powered aircraft are used in Jacobson's study, but Clack said these technologies are in their infancy today. And betting on cost and performance improvements to anchor projections extrapolates too much from too little, he argues.
The overall conclusion is that Jacobson and his co-authors make extraordinary claims but do not provide the evidence to back them up.
The authors wrote that Jacobson's 2015 paper "can, at best, be described as a poorly executed exploration of an interesting hypothesis."
"It should not have been published, in our opinion," Clack said.
In a response letter, Jacobson and his team defended their findings and criticized their critics, writing that "Clack et al.'s analysis is riddled with errors and has no impact on Jacobson et al.'s conclusions."
"There's not a single factually correct statement in their whole paper," Jacobson said. "This is basically put together by nuclear advocates and fossil fuel advocates."
The hydropower numbers, Jacobson explained, are not the result of a modeling error, but an assumption baked into the analysis.
"For the study, we assumed that the discharge rate of hydro would be increased as needed by adding turbines + generators + transformers in the hydro stations thereby increasing the discharge rate," Jacobson wrote in an email to Clack last year.
That suggests Jacobson's assessment holds the number of hydropower plants steady but increases their peak output. He acknowledged that this fact was obscured in the paper but said that these assumptions were laid out in the computer model used in the study.
"I did neglect to clarify that we increased the number of generators/turbines for each hydro plant (without increasing the dam capacity) and neglected to include the additional cost for turbines/generators," Jacobson wrote to Clack, adding that the costs were minor.Insults and exaggerations
Jacobson said he is open to debating the premises of his paper but bristled at the suggestion that his conclusion is founded on a mistake.
"To say that's a bad assumption, I would be OK with that," he said. "They are saying that it's a modeling error, when it was very clear that it was an assumption by us."
Jacobson noted that there are already commercial concentrating solar power installations, and nations like Denmark already use a form of underground thermal energy storage. He also said several startup companies are developing aircraft powered by batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.
He described Clack's paper as an agenda-driven polemic that doesn't introduce any new science, as peer-reviewed papers are often required to do. Jacobson added that Clack wants attention for his own work, noting that Clack tweeted to DiCaprio after the actor sent out a tweet citing Jacobson's work.
"It's not a scientific paper, it's a letter to the editor," Jacobson said of the new study.
This academic pugilism is unusual, observers say, but the fight over whether 100 percent renewable energy is feasible has drawn a high profile and could have real-world consequences.
"No, it's not common," said David Keith, a physics professor at Harvard University who was not involved in either study. "It's happened here because Jacobson has been outspoken. He's been able to get a lot of attention."
Keith said that he's skeptical of Jacobson's oeuvre on energy modeling. "Jacobson just exaggerates, not just on this, but most topics," he said.
However, Keith counseled humility about making projections about the future. He noted that the price of solar energy is declining so fast that it has forced modelers back to the drawing board to reformulate low-carbon scenarios to use less nuclear power and carbon capture and storage.
"Folks like me were wrong about being as skeptical as we were 10 years ago," Keith said.
Regarding Jacobson's analysis, Keith said that deep decarbonization of the economy is a laudable goal, but relying solely on renewables while ruling out other options would make the transition unnecessarily difficult.
"Unless you have a religious reason to do it, it doesn't make sense," Keith said.
His own studies show that it is possible to dramatically increase renewable energy if the grid includes some dispatchable power, whether that's natural gas with carbon capture or nuclear power (Climatewire, Sept. 8, 2015).
However, beyond a certain threshold, increasing renewable energy leads to diminishing returns and other hurdles crop up, like land limitations for wind turbines or the environmental footprint of making solar panels.Common goal: Stop warming
Joe Romm, who led the Department of Energy's renewable energy division under President Clinton and is a fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said he's surprised that Clack and his team spent so much effort rebutting Jacobson's 2015 paper.
"I wouldn't have spent all this time trying to debunk it," he said. "Clean energy solutions are changing so fast in real time that most people's understanding of what's happening, if they're paying attention, is out of date within two years."
In an era when the United States is backing out of international climate commitments and the heads of DOE and U.S. EPA both say that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver behind climate change, is this debate among scientists even worth having?
On this point, everyone involved agreed that it's necessary to slug this out.
"It's important to examine these kinds of things because there is going to be a lot of movement at the state level and the city level," Clack said.
Jacobson noted that California has already set a target to power itself by 100 percent renewable energy by 2045, and there are matching proposals at the national level, so these ideas may start to be manifested. "There's a Senate bill for 100 percent clean renewable energy," he said. "There are two bills in the House."
Meanwhile, Romm said it would be worthwhile for the researchers on both sides of the fence to establish a set of common facts that would lay the foundation for further debates. "I would love to get all of these people in a room for two days to brainstorm this problem," he said.
Keith added that arguments and criticism among scientists on these issues are not likely to be resolved by a single solution, nor should they be. "I think the day that scientists present a united front is the day they stop being scientists," he said. "This mostly isn't about science; it's about economics."
But the researchers all said that keeping dangerous warming in check requires cutting humanity's greenhouse gas emissions to zero by midcentury.
"All the authors on our paper and all the authors of Jacobson's paper have the same goal: We want a low-carbon economy as quickly as possible," Clack said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/20/stories/1060056277
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senator Whitehouse and Environmental Advocates Tell Industry: We Need Less Plastic
Jun 20, 2017 | RI Future
By Steve Ahlquist
Before Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave the keynote address this morning at an American Chemistry Council (ACC) sponsored conference at the swanky Viking Hotel in Newport, Rhode Island he met briefly with demonstrators representing the Break Free From Plastic movement. Break Free From Plastic “is a rapidly-growing collaboration of over 800 nonprofit organizations united worldwide around the need for dramatic decreases in the production single-use plastic: packaging, containers, and bags produced and used globally,” according to their press release.
The demonstrators, including Jamie Rhodes from UPSTREAM, Melissa Gates from the Surfrider Foundation, Stiv Wilson from the The Story of Stuff Project and others, held a 20-foot banner that read “#breakfreefromplastic” outside the hotel. When Whitehouse arrived he met privately with the demonstrators, listened to their concerns and posed for pictures before going inside. Whitehouse held the banner with them before going inside to speak.
This reporter was denied access to the event to record Whitehouse’s keynote address. Whitehouse’s office responded to a query, saying, “Senator Whitehouse attended the conference to build support for the Save our Seas Act, his bipartisan bill aimed at ridding the oceans of plastic debris.”
According to the Break Free From Plastic press release, the American Chemistry Council is purportedly addressing plastic marine debris at the two-day event. However, the ACC, according to Break Free From Plastic, fails “to address the biggest issue of all: on plastics, there is simply too much being produced… We don’t need better cleanup, we need less plastic.
“Monday morning’s demonstration sent a powerful signal that the ACC is on the wrong side of a global movement with a unified vision for zero waste.”
Members from organizations within the Break Free From Plastic coalition were also working inside the conference to make the case “that source reduction and packaging redesign were the only viable solutions,” saying, “We must head off plastic pollution at the source.”
http://www.rifuture.org/break-free-from-plastic/
-
Exxon Mobil Lends Its Support to a Carbon Tax Proposal
Jun 20, 2017 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Exxon Mobil, other oil companies and a number of other corporate giants will announce on Tuesday that they are supporting a plan to tax carbon emissions that was put forth this year by a group of Republican elder statesmen.
The group, the Climate Leadership Council, unveiled a “conservative climate solution” in February that would fight global warming by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and returning the money to taxpayers as a “climate dividend.” The underlying idea is that, by making energy derived from fossil fuels more expensive, the free market will move more quickly and effectively toward renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions.
Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total S.A. are expected to publicly back the plan on Tuesday, and they have a number of reasons to lend their support. The plan calls for scrapping Obama-era regulations intended to fight climate change, arguing that a market-driven approach will have the same effect in reducing emissions as the regulations would.
The oil giants could simply pass the cost of new taxes on to customers. And to protect American companies, the plan would introduce so-called border adjustments, intended to increase the cost of goods coming from nations that do not have a similar carbon tax.
The proposal also says companies that emit greenhouse gases should be protected from lawsuits over their contribution to climate change.
Michael B. Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and an expert on climate litigation, said there had been four suits brought against energy companies over climate change, including one brought by the eroding Arctic coastal town of Kivalina, Alaska. “None of those has gotten very far,” Mr. Gerrard said, but “there continues to be talk of more.”
Mr. Gerrard added, “If a sufficiently high carbon tax were imposed, it could accomplish a lot more for fighting climate change than liability suits.”
The Climate Leadership Council’s plan sets an initial tax of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, which would add 36 cents to the cost of each gallon of gasoline sold. The group estimates the tax would raise more than $200 billion a year, and the rate would rise over time, dampening demand for fossil fuels. The average family of four would receive approximately $2,000 in the first year as a carbon dividend, the group says.
A tax-and-dividend plan would cut American carbon pollution even as the Trump administration withdraws from the Paris climate accord, the group says.
Exxon has said for years that it supports a carbon tax, at least in the abstract, but the company had never formally endorsed a proposal. In 2009, the company’s chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, who is now secretary of state, called carbon taxes “a more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach” than a cap-and-trade proposal Congress was considering at the time.
In a statement, the current chief executive of Exxon Mobil, Darren W. Woods, said the company was “encouraged” by the climate group’s proposal, which “aligns closely with our longstanding principles.” A company spokesman said the liability component of the plan was not part of the company’s decision to endorse it.
Along with the oil companies, the corporate backers include Johnson & Johnson, Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Ted Halstead, the chief executive of the Climate Leadership Council, said the group did not accept corporate contributions.
Environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute, are also endorsing the plan. Individual supporters include the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking; Steven Chu, a secretary of energy under President Barack Obama; Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor; and the Indian industrialist Ratan Tata.
The plan’s Republican authors include James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, both former secretaries of state, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury.
Along with the oil companies, the corporate backers include Johnson & Johnson, Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Ted Halstead, the chief executive of the Climate Leadership Council, said the group did not accept corporate contributions.
Environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute, are also endorsing the plan. Individual supporters include the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking; Steven Chu, a secretary of energy under President Barack Obama; Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor; and the Indian industrialist Ratan Tata.
The plan’s Republican authors include James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, both former secretaries of state, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/science/exxon-carbon-tax.html?_r=0
-
Trump Regulators Trigger Pollution Fight
Jun 20, 2017 | The Hill E2 Blog
By Devin Henry
The fight over former President Barack Obama’s methane agenda has moved to the courts.
The Trump administration last week took two major steps toward wiping a pair of Obama-era methane pollution rules off the books.
Environmental groups have sued to stop President Trump from nixing the rules, though the oil and gas industry has stepped up to defend the administration’s actions.
Taken together, observers expect a raucous, lengthy legal fight over the standards, which were a key part of Obama’s climate change agenda.
“I expect at every step, we’ll be sued by the environmental groups,” said Kathleen Sgamma, the president of the industry-funded Western Energy Alliance, which wants to end the methane regulations.
Two agencies with jurisdiction over methane pollution said this week that they would delay the standards established by the Obama administration while they move to reconsider — and likely rewrite or repeal — the rules.
On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed delaying several aspects of its methane emissions rule for two years while reconsidering the measure, which sets emissions standards at drilling sites.
The next day, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said it would propose delaying compliance dates for its methane rule, which is due to impact drillers operating on federal lands by next January.
Green groups have already sued over the EPA’s decision, and lawyers say they expect to file suit against Interior as well.
Rewriting the methane rules was a key component of Trump’s energy platform during his presidential campaign, and an executive order in March directed the agencies to begin the process.
Environmentalists have dug in, vowing they will fight any effort to overturn the strict limits Obama set on methane leaks and flaring.
But the first legal skirmish over the methane regulations is relatively narrow, focused simply on keeping the measures on the books while the rewrite process moves forward.
In their suit against the EPA, filed last week, environmental opponents said the agency couldn’t legally justify its decision to delay implementation of the methane rule while reviewing it.
The agency and industry supporters like the Western Energy Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute say such a move is allowed under the law.
The EPA argued in a court filing this week that it “has broad discretion to reconsider its rules” and it “also has broad authority to issue a brief stay.”
“EPA’s decision fell well within the range of reasonable outcomes that were available to it,” the agency wrote.
But environmentalists say the regulation should stay in effect so that its predicted benefits — fewer leaks of a powerful greenhouse gas and other pollutants — can kick in as well.
“Those leaks are a major source of pollution and it affects communities that live nearby … and it affects the planet as a whole because methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas,” said David Doniger, the director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“The point is to stop the leaks, to zip up the leaks.”
Greens have yet to challenge the BLM’s decision, but Earthjustice associate attorney Joel Minor said, “I think I can say litigation is likely.”
The law “sets clear standards for the processes that agencies must follow when they take actions,” Minor said. “It is clear that the Trump administration, in its rush to enact whatever the oil and gas industry asks it to, is trying to find ways around those requirements.”
Obama and his administration’s regulators insisted that cutting emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas with at least 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, would be an effective way to combat climate change.
The Obama administration created a methane reduction master plan in 2014 and eventually partnered with Canada on a strategy to cut emissions at natural gas and oil drilling sites in both countries.
The EPA finalized a rule last year to cut emissions from new wells and began work on a regulation for existing wells. The BLM in November finished work on a new well rule of its own, this time governing operations on federal land.
Trump ran on a platform of deregulating the American fossil fuel sector, and in a March executive order, he rescinded Obama’s methane action plan and set the stage for repealing the individual regulations under it.
Republicans in the Senate failed to end the BLM’s rule through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) earlier this year, dealing a blow to industry groups.
But the Trump administration has moved forward with rewrites anyway: Before moving to pause the rules this week, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — who himself sued against the agency’s methane standards as Oklahoma attorney general — said he would not follow through with the existing site rule initiated by Obama.
The legal fight over the methane standards flips the script from the Obama administration.
During the Obama years, it was industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and conservative states that were suing the feds over the standards, saying they were duplicative, overly broad and carried expensive compliance costs. The groups haven’t won yet in federal court, but they are already working to make sure Trump follows through on his promise to end the rules.
“The CRA was our preferred choice. That was plan A, and now we’re engaging on plan B and C,” Sgamma said.
“We’re in court on both of those rules, so we will be supporting the administration as they consider those rules.”
Environmentalists — who once allied with Obama and his efforts to cut methane — are bracing for a long fight with the new administration, acknowledging that they’re likely to go back to court to stop any Trump-initiated changes to the rules themselves, whenever they might come.
“If they ever get around to proposing the changes they want to make, we will comment on that and almost surely challenge those moves in court, too,” Doniger said.
“Meanwhile, the existing rules are supposed to be in effect, and people are supposed to be getting the benefits of the pollution reduction.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/338496-trump-regulators-trigger-pollution-fight
-
Meet the Potential Deputy. 'Moderate' or a Hand of 'Evil'?
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Robin Bravender and Niina Heikkinen
An air chief from the George W. Bush administration could become second in command at U.S. EPA, raising objections from conservatives who find him too moderate and worrying environmentalists about the presence of a skilled navigator who could advance a weak climate agenda.
Jeff Holmstead, a partner at the firm Bracewell LLP, has represented the coal industry and fought the Obama administration's power-sector climate standards.
If chosen as deputy administrator, Holmstead could help EPA rescind the Clean Power Plan, and he may have a say in whether the agency replaces it with a far less stringent rule.
In the past, he has said EPA would be on safer legal ground if it had focused the rule on coal plant efficiency, rather than trying to achieve much more ambitious shifts away from coal to natural gas and renewable power. Holmstead has also suggested that he accepts the endangerment finding requiring the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That has drawn sharp rebukes from conservative groups.
While Holmstead was viewed as a pariah by many on the left during the Bush administration, some conservatives now see him as too moderate and have mounted an effort to keep him out of any job at EPA.
Republicans on the far right have called him "part of the swamp" and too centrist on environmental issues to fulfill the Trump agenda. One source called Holmstead a "very unpopular choice among hardcore conservatives."
That's in part because of his stance that remaining in the Paris climate agreement is "important as a political statement." In an interview with the Washington Examiner last year, he advised against a Republican president pulling out of the accord, because "you would be using up a lot of political capital on something that doesn't matter very much."
He has expressed support for a Republican pathway toward climate action that focuses on technology, innovation and basic research, "instead of spending billions and billions of dollars on subsidizing things that aren't competitive yet."
Green groups disagree with the idea that Holmstead is a centrist.
Frank O'Donnell, president of environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said, "It is a sign of how far to the extreme right the Trump administration has gone on environment that Jeff Holmstead would be considered a moderating force.
"Jeff is not somebody I would characterize as a crazy," O'Donnell added. "I think if he would come in here, his job is going to be to execute what the policies of the administration are. It's not like he's a white knight by any means."
Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, said of Holmstead, "I think there are people who think having somebody who actually knows the law is not the worst thing in the world.
"He's worked at EPA; he understands how to get done what the administration wants to get done," Becker added. "What the administration wants to do is evil, and he will help them do evil more effectively than the people who are crackpots and crazy people."
Others on the left say a potential return by Holmstead to EPA is troubling because the former air chief understands the law and the agency so well.
Joanne Spalding, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, said Holmstead is "pretty knowledgeable about the Clean Air Act and how to manipulate the statute in ways that can minimize the obligations of polluters to reduce their pollution."
John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council said there's "no reason" to think Holmstead would be a moderating force.
"In the Bush EPA, Mr. Holmstead loyally executed that administration's anti-environmental agenda — and was overturned in court more than any prior or subsequent head of EPA's air program," Walke said.
Another longtime environmental lawyer said Holmstead would be "the most effective person to implement the Trump regulatory rollback. The Trump people could not hope for a better person to effectuate their dreams of massive regulatory rollbacks on industry."
Axios first reported yesterday that Holmstead is at the top of the list to fill the No. 2 spot at EPA. Scott Segal, who works with Holmstead at Bracewell, has said the news seemed "highly premature." Holmstead is traveling and was not available to comment, although he frequently makes himself available to the media in his role at Bracewell.
Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association, is also on the list of potential EPA deputy administrators, according to one source close to EPA.Legal arguments, not ideology
Holmstead has decades of experience working in the private sector and federal government.
He was executive counsel for President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993 and later worked under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, leading EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, where he helped write mercury standards for coal plants.
He has lobbied for coal and energy industry clients while at Latham & Watkins LLP and Bracewell.
Most recently, he has worked with opponents of the Clean Power Plan.
EPA is still figuring out how to move forward on the rule. The agency earlier this month sent a rulemaking to rescind the Clean Power Plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday met with power company CEOs to discuss "possible next steps for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act," according to utility trade group the Edison Electric Institute.
Holmstead has repeatedly argued that EPA stepped outside its authority in setting state carbon standards by looking at how much companies could rely on natural gas and renewables. Pruitt agrees, although it's unclear whether he wants to replace the regulation or just rescind it and await lawsuits from environmental groups.
"EPA is trying to change the statute," Holmstead said to Science in 2015. "But what the statute has meant, and the way EPA has interpreted it for 40 years, is as the best system for controlling emissions from an individual power plant."
In February, he told Reuters that EPA used a section of the Clean Air Act that is normally meant for pollution standards at individual sources and said, "We don't think we are limited to that. ... We can order that billions of dollars of business be taken away from coal plants.
"That's a pretty remarkable assertion of authority," he said.Killing time?
Holmstead's stance was a core argument in court for opponents of the rule in September, and other industry lawyers have said Trump's EPA should not just rescind but replace the regulation.
"I have said that I think a replacement rule is the smart way to go, for multiple reasons," said Bill Bumpers, an environmental partner who focuses on clean air law at Baker Botts LLP. He added that Holmstead is "a very smart guy with good experience at EPA."
Replacing the regulation might make it harder to fight in court. Judges typically give agencies leeway in setting standards.
Howard Fox, a lawyer with Earthjustice, argues that the emissions reductions in a replacement would have to be meaningful.
"They have to point to what this means for reducing emissions," Fox said.
Christi Tezak, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners, noted that Holmstead "has firsthand experience managing a rulemaking based on a strict interpretation of the statute's wording in the past — a direction this administration seems to prefer — experience that may be very helpful to Administrator Pruitt in the deputy administrator's seat when working through this and other rulemakings under reconsideration."
She explained that while Holmstead was air administrator under George W. Bush, EPA delisted mercury under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and then promulgated a trading program under Section 110 in 2005.
The D.C. Circuit vacated that approach, and a replacement program, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, wasn't finalized until December 2011. Compliance was delayed until 2015 and 2016, following more lawsuits.
Something similar could happen with the Clean Power Plan.
If EPA writes a limited rule and the courts disagree with it, the judicial review process might continue for years. In the meantime, the power sector could see a more lenient standard than the Clean Power Plan.
Reporter Rod Kuckro contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/20/stories/1060056276
-
PHMSA Will Delay Enforcement of Some Gas-Storage Rules
Jun 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Federal pipeline regulators won't enforce parts of their newly written regulations on natural gas storage facilities while they consider a petition to change the rules.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, was scheduled to announce the change today in the Federal Register.
Companies that operate storage facilities will have to comply with reporting requirements and other parts of the rules, but PHMSA won't enforce certain other aspects, according to the Federal Register notice and a related post on PHMSA's website.
PHMSA has been working since early 2016 to write the regulations in response to a massive gas leak at the Aliso Canyon storage facility in Southern California. The agency adopted a set of interim final rules in January and planned to revise them within a year (Energywire, July 15, 2016).
The American Gas Association and other trade groups filed a petition asking the agency to reconsider the rules, saying some of the provisions created an "unnecessary burden" on the industry, the notice says, but PHMSA didn't have time to fully consider the petition. Instead, it will address both the petition to reconsider and the comments to the interim rules when it develops the final rules next year.
Aliso Canyon is an old oil field that was converted to hold natural gas for storage. An aging well at the site began leaking in late October 2015 and wasn't plugged until February 2016. It released 90,000 tons of methane, roughly equal to the greenhouse gas emissions of 500,000 cars in a year.
Congress ordered PHMSA to write regulations for the nation's roughly 400 natural gas storage facilities when it reauthorized the agency last year (E&E Daily, June 14, 2016).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/20/stories/1060056273
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Chemical Security News
Add recipients
Suggested