Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 6/27/2017
-
(ACC Blog) California Housing Market Shortage Presents Opportunity for New Builders and SPF Insulation
Jun 27, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Lee Krinzman
Research from the past several months has shown a shortage in the California housing market, with home sales down 14 percent compared to the average month across the last 30 years. -
3 BLM State Directors Removed in Reorganization — Sources
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management is reassigning the directors of the Alaska, Colorado and New Mexico state offices to positions at other federal agencies as part of an Interior Department reorganization that sources say is only beginning. -
Industrial Sector Lauds Obama-Era Chemical Regulation
Jun 27, 2017 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By Daily Report Staff
Here’s a switch: New Obama-era regulations are going into effect, and the regulated industry seems pretty happy about it. -
California to List Herbicide as Cancer-Causing; Monsanto Vows Fight
Jun 27, 2017 | Reuters
By Karl Plume
Glyphosate, an herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's popular Roundup weed killer, will be added to California's list of chemicals known to cause cancer effective July 7, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) said on Monday. -
EU Commission Opens Public Consultation on Marine Microplastics
Jun 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has opened a public consultation on policy options to reduce microplastics entering the marine environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Even Shale’s Secondary Effects Are Staggering
Jun 27, 2017 | The American Interest
Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling have given American companies access to vast new reserves of oil and gas, and have dramatically increased the production of hydrocarbons here in the United States. -
House Energy Bill Spends $3.6B More than Trump Budget
Jun 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House appropriators on Tuesday introduced a spending bill for federal energy and water departments that spends $3.65 billion more in 2018 than President Trump requested for the agencies. -
Perry Touts U.S. Energy Exports as 'Force for Peace'
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Emily Holden
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said yesterday the Trump administration wants U.S. energy production to be a "force for peace," making exports of oil, gas, coal and nuclear technology key instruments of U.S. political as well as economic power. -
Trump’s ANWR Move Could Spawn Epic Oil, Natural Gas Battle: Fuel for Thought
Jun 27, 2017 | Platts
By Bob Williams
President Trump has uncorked yet another controversy over energy vs the environment and it promises to be a heavyweight battle. -
Commentary: Reconsider Obama Fracking Rules
Jun 27, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Steve Everly
Last month, researchers published two major studies showing minimal environmental risks posed by oil and natural gas development. -
Shell Gets Wastewater Discharge Permit for Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker Ops
Jun 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has approved a key permit amendment that would allow Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC to discharge wastewater from a treatment plant that it plans to build at the site of its proposed ethane cracker... -
Nuclear Breach Opens New Chapter in Cyber Struggle
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
U.S. authorities are investigating a cyber intrusion affecting multiple nuclear power generation sites this year, E&E News has learned. -
Rule Repeal to Emerge Today — Pruitt
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration will reveal its proposal for repealing the controversial Clean Water Rule today, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee today. -
Trump EPA Moves Spur Environmentalists' Fears Of Weaker Ozone NAAQS
Jun 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The Trump EPA's recent moves on ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- including a one year delay for implementation of the 2015 ozone limit -- are spurring environmentalists' and public health groups' fears that the agency is moving toward... -
Deadline Looms for Major Cap-and-Trade Vote
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Negotiations over the future of California's cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases are coming down to the wire, with Gov. Jerry Brown (D) seeking consensus among industry, business and all stripes of environmentalists. -
EPA Rejects Petition on Washington Water Standards
Jun 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has quietly rejected a petition filed by environmentalists seeking to strengthen Washington state's water quality standards for three toxic substances, clearing the way for a substantive legal challenge to the agency's denial that will focus on the adequacy...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Jun 27, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Lee Krinzman
Research from the past several months has shown a shortage in the California housing market, with home sales down 14 percent compared to the average month across the last 30 years. It’s not just California either. In the spring, the National Association of Realtors reported the supply of homes across the United States at the lowest level since the group began keep tabs on inventory almost 20 years ago.
Fewer homes on the market creates an opportunity for builders to distinguish themselves by ensuring their new homes are energy efficient and meet the needs and desires of today’s home buyers.
Building new homes means deciding what products and materials to use in the construction. And with the latest regional trade show, PCBC, starting this week, it’s a great time to focus on the benefits of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation. With building energy codes trending toward more energy efficiency over time, it’s more important than ever to look toward building materials that can help to meet these increasingly rigorous standards.
SPF is a high quality, versatile insulation product that can be added to a new home or installed during a renovation or retrofit job. It is a multi-purpose product that insulates and acts as an air barrier. Certain types of spray foam can act as a vapor barrier, weather barrier, or even as a sound barrier. SPF has been shown to reduce energy consumption needs, help prevent allergens and some sources of moisture from entering a building where it is applied, and provide additional building strength. SPF can do all of these things while offering design creativity and flexibility.
In fact, SPF was featured in one of the winners of this year’s U.S. Department of Energy’s Race to Zero Student Design Competition. The team from Georgia Tech, the first-place winner in the small multifamily housing contest, used SPF in their design.
You can find all this information and more on our newly redesigned WhySprayFoam.org.
So as we participate in this year’s PCBC, we’ll be answering questions and raising awareness about the benefits of using SPF and encouraging our friends and colleagues to visit the revamped WhySprayFoam.org.
The Spray Foam Coalition (SFC) was formed in December 2010 under the American Chemistry Council’s Center for Polyurethanes Industry (CPI).
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/06/california-housing-market-shortage-presents-opportunity-for-new-builders-and-spf-insulation/
-
3 BLM State Directors Removed in Reorganization — Sources
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management is reassigning the directors of the Alaska, Colorado and New Mexico state offices to positions at other federal agencies as part of an Interior Department reorganization that sources say is only beginning.
Alaska Director Bud Cribley, Colorado Director Ruth Welch and New Mexico Director Amy Lueders are among as many as 50 BLM career officials notified this month that they are being transferred to different agencies or other positions within BLM, multiple sources with knowledge of the moves told E&E News.
The Senior Executive Service officials were told of the transfers earlier this month and given 15 days, or until Wednesday, to either accept the transfers, retire or resign (Greenwire, June 16). Additional transfer notices will be coming as soon as this week, sources said.
BLM and Interior Department officials have declined to provide many details about the ongoing reorganization effort, or the transfers of SES employees to other federal agencies.
But reassigning three state directors represents a major administrative change for the agency. The trio at issue oversee 94 million acres of some of the most resource-rich and environmentally sensitive lands managed by the agency.
It's not clear whether anyone has been named to replace the outgoing state directors.
Heather Swift, an Interior spokeswoman, declined to confirm that the state directors are being reassigned.
"I have no information on specific personnel matters at this time," Swift said in an email.
But sources confirmed that Cribley is being transferred from the Alaska state office to an unspecified administrative position at the Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. Cribley would have 60 days to move if he accepts the transfer, sources said.
Welch is being reassigned to an administrative position with the Bureau of Reclamation but will remain in the Denver area.
Sources also confirmed that Lueders is being transferred to an unspecified position at the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, N.M. The Washington Post first reported Lueders' transfer.
It's not clear whether the three state directors have agreed to the transfers. Only Cribley, who first joined BLM in 1975, has been with the agency long enough to retire with full benefits, sources said.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has defended the transfers in general, telling reporters last week that he wasn't firing anyone, but rather shifting people to jobs where their skills are better suited (E&E News PM, June 21).
Senior executives are required when they enter the SES to sign a form acknowledging they are subject to involuntary reassignments.
By statute, reassignments must comply with proper notification requirements of at least 15 days for a transfer to another SES job within the same agency and the same commuting area, and 60 days for a transfer outside the geographic commuting area.
"If you accept an SES position, you should be prepared to move," Zinke said.
More moves coming
BLM acting Director Mike Nedd held a June 16 teleconference with members of the agency's Executive Leadership Team to discuss the latest SES transfers and to prepare senior leadership for "one or two more rounds" of similar moves in the coming weeks, sources said.
A BLM source said a new round of agency transfers could come as early as Thursday.
Swift, in a brief email to E&E News, wrote that Zinke "has been absolutely out front" that transfers were coming since "his first-day address to all employees" in March.
They are part of an Interior agencywide reboot Zinke outlined in general terms this month that calls for reorganizing the agency under a "joint system" that would shift federal employees from Washington to the field (E&E News PM, June 8).
He has promised more details in the coming weeks.
"Personnel moves are being conducted to better serve the taxpayer and the Department's operations through matching Senior Executive skill sets with mission and operational requirements," Swift wrote.
The Trump administration's proposed fiscal 2018 budget for BLM calls for a nearly 13 percent cut in funding from current operating levels.
Nedd sent an agencywide email to all staff June 16 acknowledging that the budget cuts, if implemented, "could mean 1,000 fewer full-time equivalent employees across the Nation," according to a copy of the email obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Nedd's email says the agency can probably handle most of the reduction through attrition and retirements but adds that BLM "may also seek authority from the Office of Personnel Management to offer early retirement and voluntary separation incentives later this year."
Nedd was not involved in the decision to transfer the state directors, a source with knowledge of the reorganization told E&E News. The source said Nedd was told of the transfers about an hour before the letters were sent June 15 to the employees targeted for transfer.
Sources said the transfer decision came down the chain of command from James Cason, Interior's associate deputy secretary.
Cason, a George W. Bush-era official who served as Interior associate deputy secretary from 2001 to 2009, is co-leading an Interior rule-cutting task force (E&E News PM, April 24).
Though details are few, the transfers have sparked questions from elected leaders. New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall (D) at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week expressed concern to Zinke about losing Lueders.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), attending the Western Governors' Association annual meeting in Whitefish, Mont., told E&E News this week that he's concerned about the impacts of losing talented BLM staffers that his office has worked with on issues like greater sage grouse management.
"All I have is anecdotal information, but it sounds like people are being transferred away from their expertise and away from their traditional area of responsibility, and I do worry that we're going to lose some of the institutional memory, that kind of muscle memory that allows you to get good policy and not bad policy," Hickenlooper said.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), also attending the WGA meeting, echoed Hickenlooper. While Bullock said it's "laudable" to reorganize the agency to make it more effective, "we need to make sure in doing so we're not taking steps back."
Political payback?
Alaska, Colorado and New Mexico have all been involved in controversial energy development and natural resource issues in the past few years, and sources say Interior brass do not view the three state directors at issue as being compatible with the Trump administration's stated push to promote more oil and gas development and mining activity on federal lands.
The transfer of Cribley, who has been BLM's Alaska state director since November 2010, comes just weeks after Zinke toured the state and announced plans to open new sections of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas leasing (Energywire, June 1).
Sources said Cribley had a good relationship with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who accompanied Zinke on part of his tour through the state last month.
But Murkowski and other members of Alaska's congressional delegation have long complained about federal land-use policies that they say have limited access to mineral resources and stifled economic development.
Welch, appointed Colorado state director in June 2014, helped broker agreements throwing out already-issued oil and gas leases in the Thompson Divide portion of the White River National Forest and atop the sensitive Roan Plateau.
Welch stood next to former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell during a ceremony in Denver announcing both agreements; the leader of an industry trade group derided the ceremony as "despicable" (E&E News PM, Nov. 17, 2016).
Lueders, appointed New Mexico state director in 2015, was viewed as instrumental in helping BLM develop sweeping federal greater sage grouse conservation plans that were key in convincing the Fish and Wildlife Service not to list the bird for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Prior to her appointment as New Mexico director, she served on detail in BLM's Washington headquarters overseeing sage grouse conservation as acting assistant director for renewable resources and planning.
Zinke, a longtime critic of the federal plans, this month announced Interior will review the grouse plans to determine in part whether they are hindering energy production on public lands (Greenwire, June 7).
Lueders was also BLM Nevada director during the disastrous 2014 armed standoff with ranchers and militia groups who blocked the agency from removing hundreds of head of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy that were illegally grazing on federal land.
Other moves
Other high-ranking BLM officials are also being transferred.
Among them is Salvatore Lauro, who directs the agency's Office of Law Enforcement and Security.
Lauro is scheduled to be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service as chief of FWS's Office of Law Enforcement.
The current FWS Office of Law Enforcement chief, Bill Woody, will essentially switch places with Lauro and is scheduled to be transferred to head up BLM's Office of Law Enforcement and Security.
In addition, Janine Velasco, BLM's assistant director of business, fiscal and information resources management, is being transferred to an unspecified administrative position at FWS in Washington.
Reporter Jennifer Yachnin contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/27/stories/1060056655
-
Industrial Sector Lauds Obama-Era Chemical Regulation
Jun 27, 2017 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By Daily Report Staff
Here’s a switch: New Obama-era regulations are going into effect, and the regulated industry seems pretty happy about it.
As Business Report details in a feature from its latest issue, former President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act last summer, with both Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana—a key sponsor—looking on approvingly.
The Lautenberg Act amends the Toxic Substance Control Act. It creates clear processes, authorities and timelines to give EPA, chemical manufacturers, retailers and the public more confidence in EPA decisions about chemical safety, says Edward Flynn, vice president for health, safety and security with the Louisiana Chemical Association.
Under the Lautenberg Act, widely used chemicals will undergo safety reviews, and the EPA will have to declare new chemicals safe before they hit the market.
The process has the potential to get bogged down in bureaucracy, but Flynn is hopeful it will work as Congress intended.
“Given the complexity and importance of making sure chemicals that are brought into commerce are deemed generally safe, that’s not something that can be rushed,” he says of the nascent legislation. “I want to see the process move forward as effectively and efficiently as possible, and I believe that’s the case.”
The original act’s chemical inventory didn’t distinguish between chemicals in use and those no longer produced, Flynn says. The new law requires EPA to focus on chemicals still being sold and used.
For existing chemicals deemed “high priority,” EPA is required to do a detailed risk evaluation based on factors like environmental exposure and risk to vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. The agency might clear those chemicals for continued use, require additional safety measures—such as detailed labeling or handling instructions—or even issue an outright ban.
https://www.businessreport.com/article/industrial-sector-lauds-obama-era-chemical-regulation-2
-
California to List Herbicide as Cancer-Causing; Monsanto Vows Fight
Jun 27, 2017 | Reuters
By Karl Plume
Glyphosate, an herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's popular Roundup weed killer, will be added to California's list of chemicals known to cause cancer effective July 7, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) said on Monday.
Monsanto vowed to continue its legal fight against the designation, required under a state law known as Proposition 65, and called the decision "unwarranted on the basis of science and the law."
The listing is the latest legal setback for the seeds and chemicals company, which has faced increasing litigation over glyphosate since the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said that it is "probably carcinogenic" in a controversial ruling in 2015.
Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the scientist leading the IARC’s review knew of fresh data showing no link between glyphosate and cancer. But he never mentioned it, and the agency did not take the information into account because it had yet to be published in a scientific journal. The IARC classed glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen,” the only major health regulator to do so.
Dicamba, a weed killer designed for use with Monsanto's next generation of biotech crops, is under scrutiny in Arkansas after the state's plant board voted last week to ban the chemical.
OEHHA said the designation of glyphosate under Proposition 65 will proceed following an unsuccessful attempt by Monsanto to block the listing in trial court and after requests for stay were denied by a state appellate court and the California's Supreme Court.
Monsanto's appeal of the trial court's ruling is pending.
"This is not the final step in the process, and it has no bearing on the merits of the case. We will continue to aggressively challenge this improper decision," Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, said.
Listing glyphosate as a known carcinogen under California's Proposition 65 would require companies selling the chemical in the state to add warning labels to packaging. Warnings would also be required if glyphosate is being sprayed at levels deemed unsafe by regulators.
Users of the chemical include landscapers, golf courses, orchards, vineyards and farms.
Monsanto and other glyphosate producers would have roughly a year from the listing date to re-label products or remove them from store shelves if further legal challenges are lost.
Monsanto has not calculated the cost of any re-labeling effort and does not break out glyphosate sales data by state, Partridge said.ALSO IN HEALTH NEWSPence to join Senate Republican leaders in healthcare pushCan electroacupuncture decrease stress incontinence?
Environmental groups cheered OEHHA's move to list the chemical.
"California's decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-glyphosate-california-idUSKBN19H2K1
-
EU Commission Opens Public Consultation on Marine Microplastics
Jun 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has opened a public consultation on policy options to reduce microplastics entering the marine environment.
It has invited citizens and organisations to take part by completing an online questionnaire by 16 October. A report will be published at the end of the year, setting out conclusions and also recommendations from a study commissioned by DG Environment.
Microplastics, which are items smaller than 5mm, are widespread in the marine environment, causing concern about their potential impact on the food chain. Used directly in products, fragmenting from larger pieces, or generated from other sources, such as fibres from washing clothes, they are among the "contaminants of emerging concern", a DG Environment study has said.
Canada has banned their use in personal care products, while South Korea and Taiwan are considering similar measures. In the EU, a microplastic ban is being mulled over in some member states, includingIreland, France and the UK.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57215/eu-commission-opens-public-consultation-on-marine-microplastics
-
(ACC Mentioned) Even Shale’s Secondary Effects Are Staggering
Jun 27, 2017 | The American Interest
Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling have given American companies access to vast new reserves of oil and gas, and have dramatically increased the production of hydrocarbons here in the United States. Since 2010, the U.S. has added roughly 5 million barrels of oil per day, and natural gas production is up roughly 33 percent over that same time period.
The effects of this energy revolution have been felt the world over—they’ve brought gasoline prices down for American drivers while remaking the global oil market. But here in the U.S., they’ve been an enormous boon to an industry most Americans are likely unfamiliar with: petrochemicals. As the WSJ reports, cheap petrochemical feedstocks (a byproduct of oil and gas drilling) are pushing the U.S. petrochemical industry to new heights:
The scale of the sector’s investment is staggering: $185 billion in new U.S. petrochemical projects are in construction or planning, according to the American Chemistry Council. Last year, expenditures on chemical plants alone accounted for half of all capital investment in U.S. manufacturing, up from less than 20% in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. […]
“It’s a tectonic shift in the hemispherical balance of who makes what to essentially feed the manufacturing sector,” said Dow Chief Executive Andrew Liveris, referring to the growth of production in the U.S. His company now plans to double down on its U.S. expansion with a $4 billion investment in a handful of projects over the next five years. […]
The new investment will establish the U.S. as a major exporter of plastic and reduce its trade deficit, economists say. The American Chemistry Council predicts it will add $294 billion to U.S. economic output and 462,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2025, though analysts say direct employment at plants will be limited due to automation.
That’s a lot of money, and it’s a staggering number of jobs. This is one of the unheralded consequences of this new energy renaissance that the U.S. finds itself in, and it’s creating a rosier economic outlook for years to come.
This big win for America has also produced a number of losers, namely Middle Eastern petrostates who in years past had looked to petrochemicals as an important industry to help them diversify away from simply pumping and exporting crude oil and natural gas. But thanks to cheap shale-sourced petrochemical feedstocks, the lion’s share of new investment money in the industry is heading the United States’ way. Once again, shale is lifting the U.S. up even as it puts petrostates in peril.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/06/27/even-shales-secondary-effects-staggering/
-
House Energy Bill Spends $3.6B More than Trump Budget
Jun 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House appropriators on Tuesday introduced a spending bill for federal energy and water departments that spends $3.65 billion more in 2018 than President Trump requested for the agencies.
The bill, which funds the Department of Energy (DOE), nuclear weapons oversight, the Army Corps of Engineers and other departments, would spend $37.56 billion total in 2018, a $209 million cut from current funding levels.
But the measure is a rejection of Trump’s budget proposal, which looked to deeply slash spending for the initiatives funded by the legislation.
The House bill would cut funding for several DOE programs, including energy agencies, research, nuclear power and renewable energy programs, though few are close to the cuts proposed by the Trump administration.
Renewable energy research, for instance, is cut by $986 million over current levels, but that is $468 million less than the cuts for which Trump had aimed.
Fossil fuel research offices would receive $635 million under the bill, a $33 million cut compared to the $388 million cut President Trump had requested.
The bill increases funding for the DOE’s nuclear weapons security programs and the Army Corps of Engineers. It also contains $150 million to kickstart the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, a priority for Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, but one that has garnered opposition from Nevada officials and lawmakers.
“This bill prioritizes fulfilling our national security needs and maintaining critical investments to support American competitiveness within tight budget caps,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chair of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, said in a statement.
“It strikes a responsible balance between the modernization and safety of our nuclear weapons, advancing our national infrastructure and strategic investments in basic science and energy R&D.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/339657-house-energy-funding-bill-would-spend-36b-more-than-trump
-
Perry Touts U.S. Energy Exports as 'Force for Peace'
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Emily Holden
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said yesterday the Trump administration wants U.S. energy production to be a "force for peace," making exports of oil, gas, coal and nuclear technology key instruments of U.S. political as well as economic power.
In a kickoff to the administration's weeklong focus on energy, Perry told reporters at a White House briefing that the U.S. goal of "energy dominance" would make the country "a self-reliant, a secure nation, free from geopolitical turmoil of other nations who seek to use energy as an economic weapon." He added, "An energy-dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and influence."
Liquefied natural gas is already on its way from new U.S. export terminals to foreign markets, challenging Russia's longtime monopoly on gas shipments to Europe, which had served as a potent political weapon in the past, and pushing LNG prices in Europe and Asia sharply downward.
Global shipments of U.S. crude oil have just started flowing, after Congress, in 2015, ended a 40-year ban on crude exports imposed after OPEC's oil embargo in the 1970s. In mid-June, the U.S. averaged 9.4 million barrels a day of crude production and exported 517,000 barrels. To meet total demand, an additional 7.4 million barrels were imported.
Perry said leaders he met in China three weeks ago were interested in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies, and the president of Ukraine wants an alternative to Russian coal.
Trump met yesterday with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Perry said American LNG, coal and nuclear technology could "help India become a powerful stabilizing force in that region of the world."
As part of energy week, Trump will meet with governors tomorrow. He will speak at the Energy Department's headquarters Thursday after industry leaders attend private panels on American energy "dominance" with Perry, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
"It's very early days to judge the geopolitical impacts" of Trump's strategy and policies aimed at boosting U.S. oil and gas exports, said David Goldwyn, chairman of the Atlantic Council's Energy Advisory Group.
"We're just beginning to see the potential benefits in oil as we've lifted the ban," Goldwyn said, adding, "In the broadest sense, the more the U.S. exports oil and gas, the more competitive those markets are and the less market power the oil monopolies and oligarchies have. In the case of gas there have absolutely been economic and security benefits to the U.S."
Some GOP leaders in Congress saw U.S. crude exports as a strategic force. "We have the best technology, the best oil and over time we will drive out Russian oil, we will drive out Saudi, Iranian," Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told Bloomberg news after the 2015 vote to lift the export ban. "It puts the United States in the driver's seat of energy policy worldwide."
But former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has cautioned that U.S. oil prices are tied to global markets; and rising U.S. crude exports will not shield the United States from future price shocks and economic damage if a new oil crisis arises.
Perry ducked questions about what new initiatives President Trump will announce in the energy dominance campaign. The determination to position the U.S. as a global energy kingpin contrasts dramatically with Trump's equally assertive renunciation of a U.S. role in combating global climate change, with his decision to pull the nation out of the 195-nation Paris climate accord (Climatewire, June 2).
Goldwyn said the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement "won't be seen as 'energy dominance,' it will be remembered as unilateral disarmament in the race for energy leadership.
"'National security' debate?
Perry was also coy about the controversial report his staff is preparing on potential vulnerabilities of the U.S. high-voltage electric power networks as "baseload" coal and nuclear generation continue to lose ground against competing fuels, particularly natural gas.
Perry said the administration isn't "going to be wildly supportive of government subsidies for sectors of the energy industry."
"The market is where we're going to look to check that out," Perry said of the tight competition to supply the nation's power plants.
"Where we're headed in this is letting the market drive it as much as we can, and obviously, without subsidies, where does the wind and solar really fit?" Perry said. "That gets skewed to some degree when national security comes into play, when making sure that Americans have the lights come on, the air conditioning come on, the heat come on where there is really great strains on the system."
The remarks could be read as signaling a DOE lean toward supporting some kind of financial or regulatory support for coal-fired and nuclear generators. Perry's team could end up arguing that these kinds of generators, with their onsite fuel supplies, are more "secure" than pipeline-supplied natural gas generators, or variable wind and solar power. It's unclear what the administration might do to help nuclear plants at risk of shutting down, although Perry said he wants to focus on developing advanced nuclear reactors and small modular reactors.
But Perry has been warned by renewable power supporters in Congress not to try to tamper with the current tax support that wind and solar receive. The same spending bill that lifted the crude export ban also gave renewable power an extended phase out of tax subsidies.
Perry included coal and nuclear technology as candidates for U.S. global influence. He said the administration this week will reaffirm a "commitment to clean energy" and cited the Petra Nova coal plant in Texas that captures carbon dioxide emissions.
Wind, nukes and the coal conundrum
When a reporter questioned whether carbon capture technologies for coal-fired power plants are cost-effective, Perry blamed troubles with Mississippi's Kemper power plant on that state's regulations. In fact, the issue with Kemper also revolves around construction and technology and decisions made by the utility building it, Mississippi Power Co., and its parent, Southern Co.
Bolstering exports of coal, however, might mean investing more in technologies to capture carbon emissions, Perry acknowledged. The president's proposed fiscal 2018 budget would cut that kind of research.
Perry also said he and the president believe nuclear power is important to a "clean energy portfolio," in the United States and abroad. "If you want to see the environment and the climate that we live in affected in a positive way, you must include nuclear energy with zero emissions to your portfolio," he said.
Perry, formerly the governor of Texas, touted wind power growth in his state, saying it helped when natural gas prices were high.
At the same time, he poured water on the sector's prospects of filling the void left by closed coal and nuclear plants. He suggested that states like California that want to invest in more renewable power should be left to their own devices. Other states "would be more than happy to supply them with energy when their portfolio can't handle ... a very strong either winter or summer," Perry said.
Perry said upcoming debates about overhauling the tax code could review current incentives for renewable power, as well as possible assistance for nuclear power.
"All of that needs to be on the table, and we need to have a conversation about it," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/27/stories/1060056627
-
Trump’s ANWR Move Could Spawn Epic Oil, Natural Gas Battle: Fuel for Thought
Jun 27, 2017 | Platts
By Bob Williams
President Trump has uncorked yet another controversy over energy vs the environment and it promises to be a heavyweight battle.
The White House budget proposal includes a revenue line of almost $2 billion from selling oil and gas leases in the richly oil-prospective northeastern coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.
Until the climate change debate came along, leasing and drilling in the ANWR (pronounced an-war) Coastal Plain was arguably the most ferociously contested item on the oil and gas industry’s wish list at the national level.
First, a little background: In 1960, less than one year after Alaska became a state, Congress created the Arctic National Wildlife Range.
Twenty years later, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) expanded the Arctic Range to 18 million acres, renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, designated 8 million acres as National Wilderness, designated three rivers as National Wild Rivers, and called for wildlife studies and an oil and gas assessment of 1.5 million acres of the ANWR Coastal Plain (the 1002 area).
There is not enough space here to track the tortuous history of legal and regulatory battles and failed legislation that has marked efforts to either develop oil and gas in the ANWR Coastal Plain or to lock it up against development permanently.
Suffice to say that ANILCA granted surface and subsurface rights to the Inupiat Native Americans living near the North Slope village of Kaktovik on the ANWR Coastal Plain, seismic studies were conducted on Inupiat land, and what has been called the “the tightest hole of all time” (KIC-1) was drilled and plugged on that acreage by a group led by Chevron.
Only a handful of people have ever known the well results—and no one has spilled the beans yet.
Battles over ANWR waxed and waned over the ensuing years, and while the refuge’s 1002 area has not yet seen another drillbit, neither has that option been entirely foreclosed.
Trump’s budget cites $2 billion in potential revenues from leasing the Coastal Plain, but given the dearth of onshore elephant-scale prospects worldwide and their dwindling oil and gas reserves bases, it’s likely that major oil companies would be scrambling to throw even more money than that at ANWR leases.
Since the majors thrive on megaprojects like Kashagan, Prudhoe Bay and deepwater Gulf of Mexico, ANWR could be a perfect fit for them.
It would also be an expensive venture and that likely will keep the smaller players from making much of an impact in ANWR.
Massive oil, natural gas potential
There is little doubt of the potential for oil on the ANWR Coastal Plain. The region lies between and is geologically analogous with two of the world’s most prolific oil and gas provinces, Alaska’s North Slope and Canada’s Mackenzie Delta.
The US Geological Survey, in a 1998 estimate, reckoned that the Coastal Plain contains 4.3 billion to 11.8 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and as much as 11 Tcf of natural gas, with a mean estimate of 7.7 billion barrels and 3.5 Tcf.
Industry contends these are very conservative estimates. As much as 32 billion barrels of oil is in place.
One recent study suggested that a commercial find on the ANWR Coastal Plain could yield more daily oil production than the volume of oil the US imports from Saudi Arabia today.
Aside from making major oil companies happy—not exactly a top priority for most Americans—billions of dollars in infrastructure are at stake in developing oil and gas on the ANWR Coastal Plain.
The hundreds of billions of dollars that the oil and gas industry has invested in North Slope production, processing, and pipeline facilities could be for naught in the future if North Slope oil production drops below a certain level.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) transports a bit more than 400,000 b/d of North Slope oil.
A 2011 study by pipeline operator Alyeska concluded that a host of problems affecting TAPS operations could develop with throughput between 300,000 b/d and 600,000 b/d.
Alyeska has already addressed some of those problems, but as the throughput continues to drop, those problems become even more challenging—even posing hazards to operation.
A nonviable TAPS could strand massive US oil and gas resources in Alaska.
Of course, Trump can’t authorize ANWR development. Only Congress can do that.
Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski has already said she will take up the issue, but there is nothing concrete in the works from Congress.
However, Interior Secretary Zinke has issued a Secretarial Order calling for an update of federal resource assessments of the ANWR 1002 area and National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
It also is intended to review the currently blocked access to half the surface acreage in the NPR-A, a ban instituted under the Obama administration.
Whatever one’s stance happens to be, if you thought the battle over Keystone was big, this battle will truly be epic.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/06/26/trumps-anwe-oil-natgas-battle/
-
Commentary: Reconsider Obama Fracking Rules
Jun 27, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Steve Everly
Last month, researchers published two major studies showing minimal environmental risks posed by oil and natural gas development. These peer-reviewed studies directly contradict two of the main claims leveled by environmental activists – namely, that fracking poses a significant risk to air quality and groundwater.
You may not have heard about them, but they're certainly worth examining.
The first study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), found that fracking is not a major threat to groundwater. Examining 116 water wells in three different shale plays (the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville and Haynesville) across three states, the researchers concluded that chemicals and methane levels found in the wells were most likely naturally occurring. The researchers also declared that oil and natural gas operations "did not contribute substantial amounts of methane or benzene to the sample drinking-water wells."
This is in line with numerous other studies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's comprehensive report published last December, which presented no evidence of widespread water contamination from fracking.
The scientific finding that fracking does not pose a major risk to drinking water directly contradicts environmental campaigners. For example, Sierra Club claims on its website that "fracking has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of Americans." There is no evidence to support that claim, but the Club is so invested in its position that it tried to downplay the significance of this latest scientific finding.
In addition to not posing a major risk to groundwater, another study suggests oil and natural gas operations are even less a threat to air quality than previously thought. Led by a research scientist from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a study published in Environmental Science & Technology concluded that previous methane emissions studies relied on measurements taken during peak emissions events, which are both episodic and not reflective of average emissions rates. As a result, they may significantly overstate methane emissions from oil and natural gas development.
The NOAA findings are also noteworthy because they could undermine several of the Obama Administration's climate rules, which targeted methane emissions from oil and natural gas activities and were based in part on the very studies that the NOAA team scrutinized.
Activist groups often reference methane as a reason to ban fracking – again, basing their claims on scientifically unfounded conclusions. In its "urgent case for a ban on fracking," Food & Water Watch claims that "fracking wells release large amounts of methane gas."
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meanwhile, has credited fracking – and the increased natural gas it unlocked – as "an important reason for a reduction of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in the United States."
RELATED: Study of drilling finds pollution and connections to earthquakes
Whether you support fracking or have concerns, these studies should be seen as good news – notwithstanding the Sierra Club's desire to downplay a peer-reviewed study showing a low risk of groundwater pollution. Regulators and policymakers should also take note of the new findings.
When President Obama's EPA announced its final rules for methane emissions from oil and natural gas development, it cited "new science and data" that presumably "have shown that methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources are substantially higher than was previously understood."
Although it's just one report, the latest NOAA study is the first of a series of research papers examining previous methane research. If the scientific underpinning for a costly federal regulation is challenged by "new science and data," then EPA would be justified in taking another look at the rules.
That may already be happening. Over the protests of environmental groups, who often and ironically accuse others of denying science, President Trump's EPA recently announced it was pausing at least one of the Obama-era methane rules as part of a broader reconsideration process.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Commentary-Research-supports-EPA-s-decision-to-11230177.php
-
Shell Gets Wastewater Discharge Permit for Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker Ops
Jun 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has approved a key permit amendment that would allow Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC to discharge wastewater from a treatment plant that it plans to build at the site of its proposed ethane cracker in Beaver County.
The company is nearly finished with the two-year process of preparing the 400-acre site in Western Pennsylvania, where it plans to move forward later this year with constructing a multi-billion dollar petrochemical complex.
The DEP approved an amendment to the facility's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which authorized discharges associated with demolition, earthmoving and other site-prep construction activities. Stormwater treatment was required during the transitional phase because of legacy contamination from the zinc smelting operations.
Shell has worked to clean up the property, and the amended NPDES permit would allow it to discharge treated wastewater into the Ohio River and two streams once the cracker is operational, which is expected sometime in the early 2020s. The facility is to consume about 100,000 b/d of ethane and produce 3.5 million pounds/year of polyethylene.
Earlier this year, the company received a local conditional-use permit that allows it to move forward with plant construction. The air quality permit it received from the DEP in 2015 was modified and approved in December.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110913-shell-gets-wastewater-discharge-permit-for-pennsylvania-ethane-cracker-ops
-
Nuclear Breach Opens New Chapter in Cyber Struggle
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
U.S. authorities are investigating a cyber intrusion affecting multiple nuclear power generation sites this year, E&E News has learned.
There is no evidence that the nuclear energy industry's highly regulated safety systems were compromised. But any cybersecurity breach — targeted or not — at closely guarded U.S. nuclear reactors marks an escalation of hackers' probes into U.S. critical infrastructure.
Electricity-sector officials confirmed yesterday that they are working to unpack the significance of the secretive cyber event, code named "Nuclear 17."
Asked about the case, a representative from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) said the nonprofit grid overseer "is aware of an incident" and has shared information with its members through a secure portal.
U.S. energy utilities pass around information on the latest hacking threats and vulnerabilities through NERC's Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center. That organization "is working closely with the government to better understand any implications this incident might have for the electricity industry," NERC spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said in an emailed statement.
E&E News has reached out to nearly two dozen owners and operators of nuclear power plants for comment. None of the companies that replied by last night shared additional information on the incident, the details of which may be classified.
The case apparently was not severe enough to trigger the public safety alert systems at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those facts, paired with subsequent statements from operators, strongly indicate that the episode never put nuclear safety directly or immediately at risk.
Patrick Flynn, a spokesman for the utility operator Scana Corp., said "there has been no impact" to its main V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station, and added that two expansion units "are being designed and constructed with measures to ensure cybersecurity is protected."
Entergy Corp., which owns and operates nuclear plants across several states, from Louisiana to New York, declined to offer details about the incident, citing corporate security policy. "In keeping with our rigorous procedures to protect our computers and other information systems from cyber and physical harm, Entergy is aware of, but has not been affected by, the recent cyber incident named 'Nuclear 17,'" spokeswoman Emily Parenteau said in an emailed statement.
Omaha Public Power District, whose only nuclear asset at Fort Calhoun Station is permanently offline and undergoing decommissioning, said in a statement that it was aware of the incident but declined to share details, aside from pointing out that its facilities were not affected.
Nuclear 17 and recent threats
An incident of this kind would almost certainly attract the attention of the Department of Homeland Security and the broader intelligence community, though a DHS spokesman did not confirm whether the agency was involved yesterday. If the threat rises to a certain level, members of Congress with intelligence oversight would also be looped in. Senate staff members would not confirm if they're looking into the nuclear breach when asked for comment yesterday afternoon.
Even relatively routine cyber intrusions at sensitive facilities can trigger a high-level response from government and industry, given the potential stakes involved. In another recent nuclear breach, a South Korean state-owned utility reported losing potentially sensitive data to hackers in 2014 and 2015, though the attackers didn't get into operational systems (Energywire, July 14, 2015).
Earlier this month, however, back-to-back cybersecurity warnings from U.S. officials put grid operators on high alert.
The twin threats came from Hidden Cobra, the U.S. government's nickname for North Korean government-sponsored hackers, and Electrum, a separate group that cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc. has linked to a first-of-its-kind hacking tool designed to disrupt power grids.
NERC posted its first public alert of the year this month about that grid-focused malware, which Dragos calls "CrashOverride." Experts claim it was used last December to briefly knock out power to part of Ukraine in an attack tentatively linked to Russia-based hackers. DHS issued its own alert about CrashOverride, then followed up with a separate report on a far-reaching campaign of North Korean cyber activity hitting "critical infrastructure sectors" in the United States and globally.
It's not clear where Nuclear 17 fits into that timeline of recent cyber events. But even if it never jeopardized nuclear processes or grid reliability, a successful breach of non-safety systems at a nuclear power plant is troubling, said David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"If they are able to introduce mayhem there, what else could they do?" he said.
Nuclear plants had an extra margin of safety in their legacy controls that were "old tech" and thus harder for outsiders to penetrate. "As more and more systems are converted to digital controls, there could be more and more opportunities for problems to crop up, deliberate or inadvertent," Lochbaum said.
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry are not unaware of that threat," he added.
Even if safety systems were not apparently affected as part of Nuclear 17, malicious actions directed against comparatively less critical equipment could still have knock-on effects if hackers managed to unexpectedly disconnect a nuclear plant from the grid, experts say.
Such a sudden disruption would send a pressure "pulse" back to the reactor and turbine, which would still be generating electricity with no place to send it. The reactor would immediately "trip," setting in motion a series of planned actions designed to bring the reactor to a safe shutdown condition.
Control rods would halt the reactor chain reaction, and depending on the type of reactor, valves would open to dissipate energy and backup systems would be triggered. "It's something that has been anticipated," Lochbaum said. "Plants are designed to handle an instantaneous loss of load."
However, "that response is all predicated on all those things working right," Lochbaum added. "Even though it's highly reliable, it's not guaranteed."
It's not clear if the Nuclear 17 breach posed such a risk, and investigators are still analyzing the incident. If it does emerge that hackers were specifically targeting the nuclear sites, there will be no shortage of potential culprits.
"When it comes to nuclear, let me tell you — everyone's interested," William "Bill" Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, said at a nuclear regulatory conference earlier this year.
The scant public information so far makes it difficult to draw conclusions, noted Ralph Langner, a control system security consultant who dissected the secretive Stuxnet worm that infected Iranian nuclear centrifuges in the late 2000s.
"If it's not safety-related, we're probably not talking about a 'nuclear' incident per se," said Langner, who added that he had not heard about Nuclear 17 prior to being contacted by E&E News. "If you take the safety part away, a cyber incident in a nuclear power plant would be just like a cyber incident in any other power plant — a hydro plant, a coal-fired plant, etc."
Langner pointed to an incident last year that involved old computer viruses cropping up in a nuclear environment in Germany — "not at all" representing a serious, targeted attack on a nuclear environment, he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/27/stories/1060056628
-
Rule Repeal to Emerge Today — Pruitt
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration will reveal its proposal for repealing the controversial Clean Water Rule today, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee today.
Pruitt's comments come as appropriators in the House side release a spending bill that would allow EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to repeal the regulation without following the Administrative Procedure Act (see related story).
Pruitt said the proposal was on its way to the Federal Register, in response to a question from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), head of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, who asked him about reports that a proposed repeal was "imminent."
Pruitt responded, "It is being sent to the Federal Register as of today. That's very imminent, by the way."
The 2015 Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule, drew fire from farmers, land developers and energy companies that say it amounts to government overreach.
Pruitt, along with a variety of industry interests, sued the Obama administration over the regulation when he was Oklahoma's attorney general.
Though the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put WOTUS on hold, the Trump administration has made repealing and replacing the regulation a priority. A new proposal is the first major step in that effort.
EPA and the Army Corps have said they will revert to a 1986 regulation and 2008 guidance to define "waters of the United States" covered by the Clean Water Act while they work on a new definition.
Pruitt told the Senate subcommittee that he plans to "have a proposed rule on a replacement by the end of this year or the first quarter of next year."
That would be a tight timeline under the Administrative Procedure Act, which, among other things, lays out requirements for public notice and comment periods.
But the House energy and water spending bill for fiscal 2018 says the administration "may withdraw the Waters of the United States rule without regard to any provision of statute or regulation that establishes a requirement for such withdrawal."
Exempting the regulation from the APA could not only remove the requirement that it undergo certain public scrutiny, but also make it easier for the new administration to ignore the Obama team's justifications for its Clean Water Rule.
That could include the cost-benefit analysis of the 2015 regulation and an accompanying 408-page technical report, as well as a review from EPA's Science Advisory Board (Greenwire, Feb. 10).
The House appropriations bill does not include any exemptions for a regulation writing a new definition for the term "waters of the United States."
An executive order President Trump signed last month directs agencies to align Clean Water Act oversight with the views expressed by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a 2006 case. The famously messy Rapanos v. United States case ended in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
In that case, Michigan landowner John Rapanos wanted to develop a property that was designated a wetland. Because he hadn't applied for a permit, EPA sought to bring civil and criminal enforcement actions.
Scalia, who died last year, argued that the Clean Water Act applied only to "navigable waters" connected by a surface flow at least part of the year. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a concurring opinion, stating that waters must have a "significant nexus" to navigable rivers and seas, including through biological or chemical connections.
Until now, EPA and the Army Corps have followed Kennedy's "significant nexus" test in regulating clean water. Before the administration writes a new set of standards, it will first have to successfully repeal it.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/27/stories/1060056652
-
Trump EPA Moves Spur Environmentalists' Fears Of Weaker Ozone NAAQS
Jun 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The Trump EPA's recent moves on ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- including a one year delay for implementation of the 2015 ozone limit -- are spurring environmentalists' and public health groups' fears that the agency is moving toward either weakening the standard or softening implementation requirements.
During a June 19 closed doors meeting with EPA officials, representatives from a number of environmental and public health groups outlined their “concerns with early signs” about the Trump's ozone policies, according to a representative from the American Lung Association (ALA) who discussed the groups' talking points.
The representative says the groups -- which in addition to ALA included 12 other organizations -- urged the agency to adhere to “science-based policies” for the ozone NAAQS.
One such sign is EPA's announcement of a one-year delay in implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS, over which the representative says the groups expressed “deep disappointment,” citing risks to public health.
EPA will publish in the June 28 Federal Register its rule that postpones the deadline for issuing designations on which areas are either attaining or in nonattainment with the 2015 NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb). The Obama EPA in the 2015 rulemaking tightened the standard from the prior 2008 limit of 75 ppb.
In addition to the delay, EPA also announced the creation of an internal “task force” to assess possible steps to ease ozone NAAQS implementation -- although that was not discussed at the meeting.
The ALA source says that while the health groups are concerned about ozone implementation delays, “we are also very concerned about what EPA intends to do” with respect to the 2015 NAAQS itself.
EPA has yet to finalize an Obama EPA proposal issued Nov. 17 on implementation of the 2015 NAAQS, setting a host of requirements for states in crafting their plans to comply with the standard. That proposal would also revoke the 2008 limit, subject to conditions to prevent “backsliding,” or loosening of emissions controls. The ALA representative says that rule will likely not be finalized until EPA has completed its task force review of ozone issues.
Another implementation rule, for the 2008 NAAQS, is currently under litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suit South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, et al., currently scheduled for oral argument Sept. 14.
Another EPA policy move on filling its advisory boards is also prompting concern from environmentalists and public health officials about future agency efforts to weaken the ozone NAAQS.
For example, EPA has indicated its intention to not renew the terms of 12 Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) members, clearing the way for the appointment of others with perhaps more deregulatory views.
In addition, Clean Air Advisory Committee (CASAC) Chairman Ana Diez Roux is slated to end her term in September and it is unclear who will replace her. CASAC advises EPA on how to set the NAAQS for ozone and other “criteria” pollutants such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides.
In addition to ALA, the meeting with EPA included representatives from the American Public Health Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Trust for America's Health, National Medical Association, Health Care Without Harm, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Environmental Health Association, National Association of County and City Health Officials, American Thoracic Society and the March of Dimes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-moves-spur-environmentalists-fears-weaker-ozone-naaqs
-
Deadline Looms for Major Cap-and-Trade Vote
Jun 27, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Negotiations over the future of California's cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases are coming down to the wire, with Gov. Jerry Brown (D) seeking consensus among industry, business and all stripes of environmentalists.
Bill language currently taking shape in Sacramento would extend the system through 2030, but it would significantly adjust the program with a firm price ceiling and limits on carbon offsets.
Brown is seeking a two-thirds vote in order to insulate the program from legal challenges. While he has a Democratic supermajority, lawmakers are wary of voting for anything that could be tied to energy price hikes, after they approved a 12-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase in April. One freshman senator in Southern California is facing a recall campaign over his vote; that has spooked other lawmakers.
"There are going to be lots of folks who will try to say any deal here is going to translate into a gas tax, effectively," said Nico van Aelstyn, a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP who represents emitters as well as companies that have developed carbon offset projects.
Two versions of the language released last week would start the maximum allowance price at $55 and $63 per ton, respectively — far higher than lawmakers had initially proposed in May. Both versions would reduce the amount of carbon offsets that businesses can use in place of allowances, from 8 percent of their total emissions to 6 percent.
Mainstream environmentalists are disheartened by the inclusion of a firm price ceiling, which means the system could create more allowances when prices hit the highest level, potentially allowing businesses to exceed the 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels.
"We are really focused on trying to maintain the integrity of the cap and ensure that California can reach its ambitious climate targets," said Erica Morehouse, of the Environmental Defense Fund.
The language that emerged late last week would also set up a monitoring system for conventional pollutants and give the state Air Resources Board sole authority over greenhouse gases from stationary sources, rather than local air districts.
Dealing with conventional pollutants is seen as a crucial concession and is meant to win over lawmakers and environmental justice groups that argue that cap and trade has not resulted in enough direct reductions in poor neighborhoods.
Brown's office has been holding talks around the language with a wide swath of groups but is not endorsing any specific provisions.
"As part of the process during negotiations like this, language from a number of different parties is regularly circulated to see where we can find common ground," spokesman Evan Westrup said in an email. "Our goal is to reach an agreement and that means facilitating the exchange of ideas and language."
Industry and Brown's administration are hoping to reach a deal soon. The Air Resources Board had been planning to vote this week on changes to the program after 2020, including amendments that would specify how many free allowances industry can depend on through 2030. But it has delayed the vote out of deference to lawmakers.
But ARB cannot postpone indefinitely. Under state administrative law, proposed rules cannot be out for consideration longer than one year, so the agency must vote on the amendments by late August in order to avoid restarting the rulemaking process. The Legislature goes into recess July 21.
"Members of the Legislature are being pretty close to the chest right now, which tells me they're in the backroom seeing what they can get," van Aelstyn said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/27/stories/1060056630
-
EPA Rejects Petition on Washington Water Standards
Jun 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has quietly rejected a petition filed by environmentalists seeking to strengthen Washington state's water quality standards for three toxic substances, clearing the way for a substantive legal challenge to the agency's denial that will focus on the adequacy of the state's standards.
EPA's acting water chief Mike Shapiro last month denied a 2013 petition filed by Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA) seeking to an update to the state's Clean Water Act (CWA) water quality criteria for dioxin, arsenic and thallium.
“We do not believe that the use of federal rulemaking authority is the most effective or practical means at this time of addressing the concerns raised in NWEA's petition,” Shapiro wrote in a May 13 letter.
EPA's formal rejection of the petition ended a deadline suit the group filed earlier this year seeking a date certain for the agency to respond to the petition.
Judge Robert Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington June 13 dismissed without prejudice NWEA's suit after the litigants petition for dismissal as the case was moot due to EPA's response.
Under the CWA, when EPA finds that a state's water policies are inadequate to meet the law's goals it must enact a more stringent standard within 60 days.
NWEA argued in its Feb. 21 complaint that EPA and state officials had “known for years” that the Evergreen State's current limits on toxic substances failed to satisfy the law and must be updated, in part because the agency has published multiple rounds of guidance for crafting aquatic-life criteria that call for more stringent limits.
NWEA argued that even though the state recently updated its toxics criteria aimed at protecting human health, the updating of the criteria for human health did not “relieve the ongoing risk to aquatic species because for many toxic pollutants EPA's nationally recommended aquatic life criteria are far more stringent than the human health criterion.” And, the group said the updated criteria failed to address arsenic, dioxin and thallium.
But EPA, in its May 13 denial of the advocates' petition, said that it had already disapproved the state's submitted human health criteria for arsenic -- which was based on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum contaminant level -- and decided not to take action on the Washington State Department of Ecology's human health criteria submitted for thallium and dioxin, “due to scientific uncertainty.”
And, the letter states, EPA's action on November 15, 2016, approving 45 human health criteria and final rulemaking from the state as well as EPA's federal rule applicable to Washington, already “ensures that Washington has numeric human health criteria for all priority pollutants...consistent with the CWA.”
The letter also acknowledges the environmentalists argument that some pollutants have less stringent aquatic life criteria in Washington state, and that there are some cases in which the state's “applicable human health criteria are less stringent than its applicable aquatic life criteria,” but says that EPA “maintains that Washington should prioritize revisions to those criteria if those pollutants can be expected to interfere with the state's designated uses.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-rejects-petition-washington-water-standards
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested