Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/30/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Chemical Growth Stocks Worth Betting on Right Now
Jun 30, 2017 | Zacks
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry is back on track after a long detour. Continued strength in the automotive sector and a rebound in non-residential construction and housing markets have helped pull the industry out of its limbo, notwithstanding a persistently challenging operating environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) NWRA Names Darrell K. Smith as New President and CEO
Jun 30, 2017 | Waste 360
By David Bodamer
The National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) has appointed Dr. Darrell K. Smith as its new president and CEO. -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Issues Final Framework Rules for New Chemical Evaluation Regulatory Program
Jun 30, 2017 | Lexology
By Samuel B. Boxerman and Judah Prero
On June 22, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took historic action under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended last year by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act of 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) ICCA Calls for Modernisation of UN POPs Convention
Jun 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The process for evaluating substances under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) needs to be modernised, says the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA). -
Energy Bill Shakes Up GOP Calendar
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
Energy policy legislation is poised to make an unexpected breakthrough in an otherwise slow-moving agenda for congressional Republicans. -
Lawmakers Release Flurry of Bills Before Recess
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
Lawmakers in the House and Senate unveiled a bevy of energy bills this week as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a comprehensive energy reform package similar to one that passed the Senate by a large margin last year. -
Trump's Energy Promises? Some Already Exist
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden, Brittany Patterson, Umair Irfan, and Benjamin Hulac
President Trump announced a slate of initiatives yesterday to ramp up U.S. energy development and exports as part of a mission to make America "energy dominant." -
Pruitt Will Launch Program to 'Critique' Climate Science
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science using a "back-and-forth critique" by government-recruited experts, according to a senior administration official. -
How Moving Away from Fossil Fuels Can Save Lives and Lead to Expanded Health Coverage
Jun 30, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Arkush
This week, as the Senate considered legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the White House declared “Energy Week” and is touting its efforts to promote fossil fuels. -
Natural Gas and Electric Grid Reliability
Jun 23, 2017 | Energy Tomorrow (via Real Clear Energy)
By Mark Green
Natural gas is unique among energy sources to supply needed attributes that ensure the future reliability of the U.S. power grid, a new study finds. -
Lake Charles LNG Gains Federal OK to Export More Natural Gas
Jun 30, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Two long-term applications to export an additional 0.33 Bcf/d of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the already approved Lake Charles LNG Liquefaction Project in Louisiana were given a green light Thursday by the Department of Energy (DOE). -
South Korean Trade Pacts to Send More U.S. Natural Gas Overseas
Jun 30, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Energy conglomerate SK Group this week advanced a long-term strategy to secure more U.S. natural gas for South Korea under a couple of agreements, including one with Continental Resources Inc. (CLR) and General Electric (GE). Korea Gas Corp. (Kogas) also signaled it would expand its U.S. gas export holdings from the Gulf Coast to Alaska. -
Cyberattack Masked as 'Ransomware' was 'Extremely Dangerous'
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The "ransomware" pandemic originally called "Petya" that locked up thousands of computers across the world this week was not what it seemed, security researchers say. -
Calif. Utility Fined $2M for Worker's Death
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Southern California Edison Co. must pay $2.01 million for safety failings that led to the electrocution of a contract worker, the California Public Utilities Commission said yesterday. -
Former Obama EPA Counsel Shenkman Talks WOTUS Repeal
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
This week, the Trump administration released a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Water Rule, known as WOTUS. What are the next steps that this proposal triggers, and how is the legal landscape for the rule shaping up? During today's OnPoint, Ethan Shenkman — a partner at Arnold & Porter, the former deputy general counsel at U.S. EPA and, prior to that, deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division — explains how EPA might handle a new rule and what the repeal means for the business community. -
Repeal Supporters Mum on House Rider
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Industry groups supporting the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Water Rule are largely keeping quiet about a provision in a House bill to exempt the repeal from the Administrative Procedure Act.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Chemical Growth Stocks Worth Betting on Right Now
Jun 30, 2017 | Zacks
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry is back on track after a long detour. Continued strength in the automotive sector and a rebound in non-residential construction and housing markets have helped pull the industry out of its limbo, notwithstanding a persistently challenging operating environment.
The bullish Zacks Industry Rank of 23 carried by the Zacks categorized Chemicals-Diversified industry is a testimony to the fact that the chemical industry is back in favor. An impressive rank places the industry in the top 9% of the 250+ groups enlisted.
The Chemicals-Diversified industry has also outperformed the broader market over the past year. The industry has gained 22.8% over this period, higher than S&P 500’s corresponding return of 15.9%.
Despite a spate of headwinds, the highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in the March quarter. We note that a number of companies in the space came up with better-than-expected earnings in the first quarter. The outperformance was driven by continued strength across automotive and housing markets -- two major end-use markets for chemicals -- as well as strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions.
The automotive sector continues its healthy run, backed by an improving job market, low fuel prices and attractive financing options. Chemical makers continue to see healthy demand from this key end market. A recovery across housing and commercial construction markets has been another tailwind for the chemical industry.
While the chemical industry still remains saddled by several challenges, its healthy momentum is expected to continue through the remainder of 2017. Strategic initiatives including continued focus on cost and productivity, operational efficiency improvement and expansion of scale through acquisitions should help chemical makers weather the macroeconomic and industry-specific headwinds.
In particular, the U.S. chemical industry is set for solid growth this year and the next. The outlook for the American chemical industry paints an encouraging picture. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, envisions accelerated growth for the domestic chemical industry on the back of an improving global economy and a surge in shale-linked capital investment.
The shale gas bounty is expected to drive investment on plants and equipment in the U.S. Chemical makers are ratcheting up investment on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample and affordable natural gas supplies.
Per an ACC report, 310 new chemical projects have been already announced by chemical makers worth around $185 billion that are under construction or planned. Such investments are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
4 Chemical Growth Plays
The chemical industry’s upturn is expected to continue this year on continued momentum across major end-markets. Amid such a backdrop, it would be a prudent idea to invest in chemical stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio.
Growth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for healthy growth. With the help of our style score system, we have picked 4 stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns.
Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Scores of ‘A’ or ‘B’ when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
The Chemours Company (CC - Free Report)
Delaware-based Chemours sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'A.' The company has expected earnings growth of 228.4% for 2017. It delivered average positive earnings surprise of 39.8% over the trailing four quarters. Chemours also has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 15.5%.
Annual estimates for Chemours have also moved north over the past 60 days, reflecting analysts’ confidence on the stock. Over this period, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2017 and 2018 for Chemours have increased by around 16% and 13%, respectively
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (KRO - Free Report)
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Kronos is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'B.' The company has expected earnings growth of 354.8% for 2017. It delivered average positive earnings surprise of 64.1% over the trailing four quarters.
Moreover, the estimates for 2017 and 2018 for Kronos have increased by 28% and 20%, respectively, over the last 60 days.
KMG Chemicals, Inc. (KMG - Free Report)
Our next pick in the space is Texas-based KMG Chemicals, armed with a Zacks Rank #2 and Growth Score 'A.' The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for KMG for fiscal 2017 is currently pegged at $2.09, reflecting an expected year-over-year growth of 29.8%. The company delivered a positive average earnings surprise of 12.5% over the trailing four quarters. The estimates for both fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018 for KMG have also increased by around 3% over the last 60 days.
BASF SE (BASFY - Free Report)
Germany-based BASF has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score 'B.' The company has expected earnings growth of 19.1% for 2017. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8.8%. The estimates for 2017 and 2018 for BASF have also increased by around 5% and 3%, respectively, over the last 60 days.
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/266187/4-chemical-growth-stocks-worth-betting-on-right-now
-
(ACC Mentioned) NWRA Names Darrell K. Smith as New President and CEO
Jun 30, 2017 | Waste 360
By David Bodamer
The National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) has appointed Dr. Darrell K. Smith as its new president and CEO.
The NWRA’s board of trustees announced Smith’s selection after an extensive search and cited his selection as giving the group “a leader who understands the invaluable contributions the waste and recycling industry makes for America, who can position the organization as an advocacy powerhouse on the national, state and local stage, and who can provide direction, motivation and new energy to the mission of the trade group.”
Smith’s start date with the group has not yet been set.
The NWRA also pointed to Smith’s skill set as making him an ideal fit, which includes “public policy advocacy for heavy industry, grassroots activation, trade association management and growth, public relations and a technical background in safety and environmental processes.”
“The waste and recycling industry is profoundly important to the functioning of society, and the complexities and challenges faced by the industry are rarely appreciated,” Smith said in a statement. “I am proud to have been trusted with the management of the industry’s trade association, and I am ready to play a role in reenergizing staff, focusing our mission and driving industry growth with the promotion of solutions-driven public policies.”
Smith comes to the NWRA from the Industrial Minerals Association—North America (IMA-NA), which is part of the mining industry. He is currently the group’s executive vice president. He previously served as an industry advocate for the petroleum and chemical industries. Before working in the public policy sector, Smith worked in several industries include hazardous waste.
Smith has a bachelor’s degree from The Citadel and a master’s degree in environmental science from the University of South Carolina and a doctoral degree from George Mason University in environmental conflict and public policy. He currently resides in Washington, D.C. with his wife Jill Crissman.
“We were looking for a proven association leader, and we have found such a person in Darrell,” NWRA Board of Trustees Chair Ben Harvey said in a statement. “We are particularly pleased that he has worked previously in the waste industry, has a proven track record in association membership growth, is experienced in local community engagement and that he possesses exceptional skills in strategic thinking and team building. We also recognized the value of his safety background.”
Smith is executive vice president of the Industrial Minerals Association - North America (IMA-NA), the National Industrial Sand Association (NISA) and the International Diatomite Producers Association (IDPA). According to his LinkedIn profile, he also represented the petroleum industry as president of the National Association of Shell Marketers and the chemical industry as director of the public health team for the American Chemistry Council.
Smith takes over from NWRA Vice President and General Counsel Kevin Kraushaar, who had been serving as acting president and CEO since last November when the association’s previous head, Sharon Kneiss, resigned the post.
http://www.waste360.com/national-waste-recycling-association/nwra-names-darrell-k-smith-new-president-and-ceo
-
Jun 30, 2017 | Lexology
By Samuel B. Boxerman and Judah Prero
On June 22, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took historic action under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended last year by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act of 2016. First, EPA promulgated three final rules that will guide a new TSCA program to identify and evaluate chemicals in the United States by establishing (1) the procedures to “reset” the TSCA chemical inventory; (2) the procedures to prioritize the chemicals that will be evaluated; and (3) the methodology EPA will use for conducting chemical risk evaluations. Second, EPA released guidancefor interested parties to submit their own risk evaluations. Last, EPA released their scope of work for the first chemicals that EPA will evaluate.
These new rules and regulatory actions will almost immediately affect those who manufacture chemicals and those who use products that contain chemicals. All companies that manufacture, use, process, import, export or sell products containing chemicals need to understand the new regulatory regime and the new obligations and hurdles that will result. While each of the actions EPA took is detailed and the various provisions may have significant ramifications, there are specific elements that warrant particular attention:
Inventory reset: Only chemicals listed on the Active TSCA Inventory are legal for use in the United States. Under the new inventory reset rule, chemical manufacturers will have to identify the chemicals they manufacture that are currently in commerce. If a chemical is not identified as active, it will be listed as “inactive” and may not be used. This has implications across the economy. Any company that has any chemicals in its products will need to know those chemicals so it can be sure they have been properly identified to EPA and included in the inventory.
Prioritization: EPA will determine that a chemical is either a high or a low priority for further evaluation. When EPA makes that determination, it will look at all uses of that chemical. Thus, even if many uses of a chemical present little risk, EPA may determine that the chemical is a high priority for evaluation if there are other uses that present a concern. Manufacturers should therefore seek to learn other uses of the chemicals they use in their products in order to gauge the risk it faces of having EPA designate an important product component a “high priority” and subject to a risk evaluation.
Risk Evaluation: One of the first steps in the TSCA risk evaluation process will be EPA’s establishment of a “scope” identifying the uses that EPA will study in the evaluation. EPA will base the scope in large part on information the agency receives in response to the proposed priority designation of a chemical. Manufacturers should participate in this process by providing EPA with safety, use and exposure information to ensure EPA is informed of the actual risk associated with the use of a chemical or product, as appropriate. EPA will need to have sufficient information to reach conclusions, whether it be on the necessity of a risk evaluation for certain uses or findings concerning safety at the end of the risk evaluation itself.
Draft evaluations: EPA has issued guidance to help interested persons develop and submit draft risk evaluations to EPA. The guidance describes science standards, data quality considerations and the steps of the risk evaluation process that external parties should follow when developing draft TSCA risk evaluations. A manufacturer or consortium might have information, studies or evaluations that meet the guidance criteria. A manufacturer or consortium might desire to generate its own evaluation to understand any potential risks before EPA takes action or to help EPA conclude the evaluation more expeditiously.
Scoping: The scoping documents for the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluation illustrate the approach EPA will likely take in future evaluations. Although EPA will generally focus on intended, occurring and reasonably foreseeable uses of a chemical, the agency may consider background exposures from legacy uses, associated disposal and legacy disposal to more fully evaluate the risk of exposures resulting from nonlegacy uses. Manufacturers will want to understand how the chemicals they use have been handled in the past, even for discontinued uses, as those actions could have a bearing on the conclusion in the risk evaluation.
The inventory reset rule is effective immediately and chemical manufacturers will have 180 days to comply.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=51475473-9855-4b8d-b19b-a399d443e1b6
-
(ACC Mentioned) ICCA Calls for Modernisation of UN POPs Convention
Jun 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The process for evaluating substances under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) needs to be modernised, says the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA).
Speaking for the organisation, Rob Simon told Chemical Watch that the Convention now considers industrial chemicals, such as PFOS and PFOA. These, he said, have very different use patterns and environmental fate characteristics than the initial 12 POPs.
"Many are in active commercial use, have multiple applications, are integrated in global supply chains, and are more difficult to substitute. It would not be appropriate to use the same assumptions, criteria, and environmental fate models to assess these substances," said Mr Simon, who is vice president of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council.
Under the Convention, substances proposed must meet screening criteria set out in its Annex D. This considers information on a substance's persistence in the environment, bio-accumulation, potential for long-range environmental transport and adverse effects.
But, Mr Simon said, the science for assessing and identifying POPs and persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT) substances has evolved since the Convention's 2004 ratification. These advances, he said, should be "embraced to facilitate a more scientifically rigorous identification process".
For example, he said, the Persistent Organic Pollutants review committee (POPRC) has not consistently assessed whether the potential for an adverse outcome from a compound is of sufficient impact to warrant global action. The committee has generally relied almost exclusively on bioconcentration factor screening criteria (BCF) for assessing persistence and bioaccumulation, coupled with presence in remote regions, as the basis for a POP listing, he added.
"It is rare that evidence of adverse outcomes of sufficient impact to warrant global action is rigorously considered even though the convention explicitly encourages the assessment of this information when it is available."
In addition, Mr Simon said, the committee needs to give full consideration to country and industry input that informs the evaluation of candidate substances. It must also engage downstream users of the chemicals that are under review earlier in the process. This, he argued, would ensure that proposed risk management recommendations are fully considered.
Comprehensive process
However, Joe Digangi, senior scientist at the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), said the current evaluation process is modern, comprehensive and reflects the global consensus agreement of 181 government parties.
"The industry decided it did not like the evaluation process after governments started nominating currently used chemicals for global elimination because they met all convention criteria."
He added that governments have so far agreed to list all the chemicals evaluated by the expert committee because the process is rigorous and meets convention obligations.
"One of the Stockholm Convention's most important features is that it is a living treaty. That means it should ban living chemicals, not just dead ones."
Mr Digangi said the chemical industry should have never produced POPs and should take responsibility to assess their own substances for POP properties and proactively phase them out. He added that once one of their substances is listed, the chemical industry should internalise its costs by paying for global monitoring and cleanup.
At last month's eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in Geneva, all three of the substances that had been nominated were listed – decaBDE and SCCPs in Annex A (elimination) and hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) in Annex C (unintentional production).
https://chemicalwatch.com/57264/icca-calls-for-modernisation-of-un-pops-convention
-
Energy Bill Shakes Up GOP Calendar
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
Energy policy legislation is poised to make an unexpected breakthrough in an otherwise slow-moving agenda for congressional Republicans.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) hope to advance S. 1460 before the August recess. They spent months negotiating revisions with the hope of finding a legislative opening for quick action.
That could happen after next week's Independence Day break. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is hoping to vote on legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but there may be floor time to burn as negotiations on the troubled bill continue.
House plans to move its own energy package are less defined, but Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has been in touch with Murkowski on energy.
Furthermore, it's easier for the House to compile various components from different committees into a package and bring it to the floor than the Senate.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) has jurisdiction over several provisions in Murkowski's bill and was key in failed negotiations last year on a bicameral compromise.
He said yesterday, "My portion of it, I don't know how much of it is included or not included, but that doesn't matter, send it over, we'd be happy to work with them on it."
Nominations
The Senate next month may also attempt to confirm some of the pending nominations to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which currently lacks a voting quorum.
Murkowski's committee cleared two GOP picks weeks ago: Pennsylvania regulator Robert Powelson and McConnell aide Neil Chatterjee.
President Trump's announcement this week that he intends to nominate Senate Democratic aide Richard Glick to fill the seat vacated by outgoing Commissioner Colette Honorable, a Democrat, may help get FERC back to a voting quorum.
In a statement yesterday, Consumer Energy Alliance President David Holt said Trump's decision "to nominate another well-respected individual to serve at FERC shows why we need swift action from the Senate to set a quorum at the Commission to break the logjam of permitting and project reviews."
Holt said, "For the good of the country, it's time to put aside partisanship and stop stalling action."
The first order of business when the Senate returns is confirming Neomi Rao to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Environment and Public Works panel is also moving forward with U.S. EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission picks.
Fiscal challenges
Aside from health and energy legislation, lawmakers will focus on fiscal matters when they return to work July 10, including settling a fiscal 2018 budget, moving spending bills and laying the framework for a tax overhaul this year.
"We're still on schedule and on track with our agenda. As we've said, tax reform is later in the year, in the fall. So we still have the summer here to work on health care. So we think we're perfectly on time with our schedule," Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters yesterday.
Ryan, however, did not directly address negotiations on the budget resolution. Disagreements remain among moderates and conservatives, who want deep cuts in mandatory spending.
Adopting a budget, which sets overall spending levels, is not necessary but would make it easier for the House to move its 12 appropriations bills.
"I want to see us pass through committee all 12 bills at least and let leadership decide whether they want to try an omnibus or a couple of minibuses or whatever," said Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), a senior appropriator.
House GOP leaders are eyeing moving an omnibus spending bill package before August recess. But so far, only three of the 12 bills have cleared the Appropriations Committee, although several others, including the energy and water, agriculture, and Commerce-Justice-science bills, have moved through subcommittee.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) earlier this week said GOP budget divisions have left the House "way behind schedule."
He said appropriators are being forced to move spending bills "without any context" as to whether they will require cuts elsewhere.
Tax reform
Senate appropriators have yet to mark up any spending bills but are likely to pick up their pace in July. The chamber traditionally waits for the House to move first on funding measures.
House Republicans want to dispense with the appropriations bills to focus on a legislative priority for the party — the first top-to-bottom rewrite of the federal tax code in more than three decades.
Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said "good progress" is being made in ongoing talks about the shape of that tax plan between the White House and bicameral leaders.
"I am convinced in the weeks ahead the time spent getting to a unified tax reform plan will help us ultimately deliver tax reform in 2017," Brady told reporters.
Brady said he was pleased with work on including tax reform provisions in the budget resolution, a move that would allow any tax bill to eventually pass the Senate with a simple majority.
Brady downplayed suggestions that conservatives might try to strip language from the budget that calls for a border adjustment tax. The controversial BAT is central to the House GOP plan. It would tax all U.S. imports by 20 percent in exchange for lowering business and individual rates.
GOP Senate Finance Committee members said this week they are eager to move onto tax reform but for now noted they are focused on the health care overhaul.
"I think we want to take a run at [health care], and our members realize we want to get to yes," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a party leader and Finance member, deflecting a question about whether the issue would slow down tax work.
Ryan added of the competing GOP priorities, "We are going to walk and chew gum at the same time."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056847
-
Lawmakers Release Flurry of Bills Before Recess
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
Lawmakers in the House and Senate unveiled a bevy of energy bills this week as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a comprehensive energy reform package similar to one that passed the Senate by a large margin last year.
Some of the bills may signal provisions that lawmakers want to see as part of a final energy compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has agreed to send the Murkowski bill straight to the floor (E&E News PM, June 29).
The bills:
H.R. 3161, from Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), to make biomass heating appliances eligible for tax credits. A pro-biomass provision from last year does not appear to be in the latest version of Murkowski's proposal.
H.R. 3107, from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), to reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. The Senate is moving forward with its version (E&E Daily, June 28).
H.R. 3143, from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), to make certain energy infrastructure projects eligible for loan guarantees.
S. 1455, from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), to direct the secretary of Energy to establish new energy storage goals and work on energy storage demonstration projects.
S. 1457, also from Flake, to direct the secretary of Energy to carry out demonstration projects relating to advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
S. 1465, from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), to remove restrictions on natural gas exports and imports. Several bills have already surfaced on this issue (E&E Daily, June 23).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056887
-
Trump's Energy Promises? Some Already Exist
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden, Brittany Patterson, Umair Irfan, and Benjamin Hulac
President Trump announced a slate of initiatives yesterday to ramp up U.S. energy development and exports as part of a mission to make America "energy dominant."
Trump told a room full of industry executives at the Energy Department headquarters that he wants to boost nuclear power, export more gas and coal, and expand oil and gas drilling offshore and on public lands.
The announcements marked the climax of the administration's "Energy Week," which was focused on "unleashing" American fuel sources (E&E News PM, June 29).
But many of the efforts are already underway. Others, including his nuclear review, came with few details about what they could achieve.
Help for nuclear
"We will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector — which I'm so happy about — which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy," Trump said. "A complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource."
It's unclear how much Trump could do to help nuclear plants compete against cheaper natural gas and renewable power. Some have suggested the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could step in to encourage markets to favor the zero-carbon benefits of nuclear. States are seeming more likely, however, to rescue at-risk reactors with subsidies.
Trump was light on details, although some expect the review to focus on four areas: boosting the domestic fleet, streamlining licensing for reactor designs, exporting technology for advanced nuclear power and settling on how to dispose of spent fuel (Climatewire, June 29).
Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry have both emphasized that nuclear power is emissions-free, even though they have questioned how much burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change.
Jay Faison, the businessman who founded the conservative clean energy group ClearPath Foundation, said policymakers can talk about reducing emissions without explicitly mentioning climate change.
"We don't have to agree as long as the technologies are right and they're cheap and clean," he said. "I'm a business guy, and you've got to play the hand you're dealt. In business and in politics, you don't always agree on everything, I guess."
Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., which is struggling to build nuclear generation in the face of the Westinghouse Electric Co. bankruptcy, said he is pleased with Trump's efforts on the power source.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) called Trump's speech a "breath of fresh air" and noted that his panel yesterday voted to advance the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada (Greenwire, June 28).
Walden acknowledged that speeding reviews for reactor technology while maintaining safety and security standards may require congressional action.
But Donald Hoffman, the CEO of Excel Services Corp., who helped with nuclear issues for the presidential transition team, said he's focused on keeping plants online at the state level. He's been talking with governors about finding ways to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different fuels in writing energy policies.
"We can't always let the markets fix it," he said.
Hoffman said, however, that states won't pay attention unless the federal government is on board. Perry should coordinate with governors, he said.
More drilling
Trump said the Interior Department will officially launch the process to rewrite the five-year plan that dictates what areas of the outer continental shelf can be leased for offshore oil and gas development.
"We're opening it up, the right areas, but we're opening it up — we're creating a new offshore oil and gas leasing program," Trump said. "America will be allowed to access the vast energy wealth located right off our shores. And this is all just the beginning — believe me."
Of all Trump's news yesterday, Christopher Guith, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute, said the drilling announcement could have the most impact.
"It doesn't happen overnight, and it happens methodical," he said, but significant portions of land and water could be opened up for development.
The move was first announced in an April 28 executive order signed by the president (Climatewire, April 28).
In a press release yesterday, Interior said it intends to publish a request for information in the Federal Register on Monday that will kick off a 45-day public comment period for the revised plan. It will propose lease sales between 2019 and 2024.
The current five-year plan, crafted and carried out by Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, covers 2017 to 2022 and offers 11 lease sales, 10 in the Gulf of Mexico and one in the Cook Inlet of Alaska.
Lease sales from the current five-year plan will continue until the new program is complete.
Industry groups praised the move. Dan Naatz, senior vice president of government relations and political affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said in a statement that the move "gives confidence for the future that this administration recognizes the benefits to be gained from safe, responsible development of America's abundant natural resources."
Environmental groups promised to mobilize coastal communities that oppose offshore drilling. The Obama administration initially offered the Atlantic coast for drilling in the 2017 to 2022 five-year plan but pulled the region out after intense opposition from coastal communities.
"Trump just planted a big 'for sale' sign in America's oceans. But oil executives who think they'll have a free pass to drill at will need to know that coastal communities are fighting back," said Kristen Monsell, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Selling off our seas for short-term profits is a bad deal for Americans, wildlife and our changing climate."
The public comment period closes Aug. 17.
Sending natural gas abroad
Trump announced that DOE is approving more exports of liquefied natural gas, continuing policies started under President Obama.
Countries that participate in free-trade agreements with the United States go through a pro forma approval process to receive U.S. natural gas, but exports to countries that are not part of these treaties require a national interest determination.
The Obama administration condensed this export process, and Trump is now capitalizing on it. The Department of Energy, which signs off on LNG exports, announced yesterday that it had approved two long-term export applications from the Lake Charles LNG project in Louisiana.
"Among other factors, the Department considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts, including macroeconomic studies that showed positive benefits to the U.S. economy in scenarios with LNG exports up to 28 [billion cubic feet per day]," DOE wrote in a press release.
However, some industries are concerned that exports will drive up domestic prices for natural gas.
"According to the DOE, total LNG export approvals to free trade agreement (FTA) and non-free trade agreement (NFTA) countries now equals a stunning 71.2 percent of U.S. 2016 natural gas demand," wrote Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, in a press release. "This breathtaking amount of natural gas is committed under agreements for 20 to 30 years to foreign countries and has exceedingly large negative potential implications for the U.S. economy, especially given the relatively small economic gains due to potential LNG exports."
Others in the industry argue that studies have shown price increases in the United States would be short-lived and minor.
Trump noted that Sempra Energy signed an agreement to begin negotiations to sell American gas to South Korea, whose leader is meeting with the president this week.
Perry, during a panel at DOE yesterday, said many countries are seeking to import U.S. natural gas.
If the United States can get liquefied natural gas to Ukraine, he said, the country won't have to depend on Russia for coal.
Exporting coal and coal technologies
Trump said the Treasury Department would evaluate "barriers" to loans for "highly efficient, overseas coal energy plants."
Ukraine and "many other places" need coal, he said. "And we want to sell it to them, and to everyone else all over the globe who need it," he said.
The president may have conflated barriers against coal exports with barriers against coal financing.
During the Obama administration, Treasury announced rules for development banks that curtailed federal funding for new coal plants abroad, then updated that lending policy in 2013.
Still, that policy leaves broad exceptions in two cases: plants for poor countries and plants that use carbon capture hardware.
Alex Doukas, senior campaigner at Oil Change International, said the United States does not have any significant policy hurdles preventing exports of coal. The president seemed unfamiliar with American coal lending, he said.
"It sounds like Trump stuck his foot in his mouth and doesn't know what he's talking about," Doukas said.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a development bank led by China, has no more coal projects in its loan portfolio, a senior AIIB official said earlier this month.
"Trump wants to drag the U.S. back far, far behind the curve from where even China is," Doukas said.
Exports make up a fraction of the U.S. coal market. Of the 764 million tons mined in 2016, roughly 60 million tons was sold through the export market, according to EIA data.
Metallurgical coal, used in steel production, accounted for roughly two-thirds of U.S. shipments abroad last year. A cutback in Chinese production and a series of storms that knocked out rail service to Australian mines have prompted an uptick in the price of metallurgical coal (Climatewire, June 6).
They have also spurred the opening of three new metallurgical mines in the United States, including the Corsa Coal Corp. facility in Pennsylvania cited by Trump on Tuesday.
U.S. coal mining companies have had more difficulty boosting shipments of steam coal used in electricity production. A series of proposed coal terminals along the West Coast have floundered in the face of local opposition and challenging economics of shipping coal across the Pacific Ocean.
American mining firms have found it difficult to compete in Asia's largest markets against Australian, Indonesian and Chinese coal firms, which boast shorter shipping distances to market.
U.S. steam coal exports to Europe are relatively modest. The Netherlands was the top foreign market for American coal in 2016, consuming 6 million tons, according to EIA figures.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056864
-
Pruitt Will Launch Program to 'Critique' Climate Science
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science using a "back-and-forth critique" by government-recruited experts, according to a senior administration official.
The program will use "red team, blue team" exercises to conduct an "at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science," the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations.
"The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals ... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," the source said.
"We are in fact very excited about this initiative," the official added. "Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing."
The disclosure follows the administration's suggestions over several days that it supports reviewing climate science outside the normal peer-review process used by scientists. This is the first time agency officials acknowledged that Pruitt has begun that process. The source said Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favors the review.
Executives in the coal industry interpret the move as a step toward challenging the endangerment finding, the agency's legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other sources. Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., said Pruitt assured him yesterday that he plans to begin reviewing the endangerment finding within months.
"We talked about that, and they're going to start addressing it later this year," Murray said in an interview. "They're going to start getting a lot of scientific people in to give both sides of the issue."
But another person attending the meeting said Pruitt resisted committing to a full-scale challenge of the 2009 finding. The administration source also said Pruitt "did not promise to try to rescind the endangerment finding."
Climate scientists express concern that the "red team, blue team" concept could politicize scientific research and disproportionately elevate the views of a relatively small number of experts who disagree with mainstream scientists (Climatewire, June 29).
Pruitt told about 30 people attending a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity yesterday morning that he's establishing a "specific process" to review climate science, the administration official said. Murray and two other people in the room interpreted Pruitt as saying he would challenge the endangerment finding.
Challenging the endangerment finding would be enormously difficult, according to many lawyers. The finding is built on an array of scientific material establishing that human health and welfare is endangered by a handful of greenhouse gases emitted by industry, power plants and cars. It stems from a Supreme Court ruling in 2007.
If Pruitt somehow succeeded in rolling back the finding — an outcome that many Republicans say is far-fetched — the federal government would no longer be required to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.
Power companies have told Pruitt they don't want him to wade into a protracted and public legal battle that he would likely lose. Many have said that if EPA rescinds its carbon standards for power plants — the Clean Power Plan — the agency should write a substitute rule and try to avoid court fights that might confuse their efforts to make long-term business plans (Climatewire, June 22).
Murray yesterday commended President Trump's announcement that he would try to boost some coal exports, but he said that ultimately what the sector needs is for EPA to nix the endangerment finding.
Perry also has touted carbon capture and sequestration technologies for coal plants, even as he questions whether climate science is settled.
Murray said carbon capture won't help, either.
"Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,'" Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all."
Murray acknowledged that the legal fight over the endangerment finding would be "tough." He thinks that's because climate activists and renewable power producers want to keep making money off climate change.
"All these people will be jumping on this on the other side because it's all about money, but it is not about America. America needs reliable, low-cost electricity, and that is a mix of different fuels," he said.
Murray also wants Perry to use emergency authority to stop coal and nuclear plant closures, although lawyers have said that is unlikely to happen (Energywire, June 19).
Still, Murray, who is close with the president, said he thinks Trump would be "receptive" to the idea.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056858
-
How Moving Away from Fossil Fuels Can Save Lives and Lead to Expanded Health Coverage
Jun 30, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Arkush
This week, as the Senate considered legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the White House declared “Energy Week” and is touting its efforts to promote fossil fuels. Despite the apparent disconnect, health and energy policy have something important in common: In each area, Trump is pressing policies that would kill tens of thousands of Americans each year. It’s fitting to discuss them together.
During the original debate over ObamaCare, researchers at Harvard Medical School published a staggering finding: Each year, 45,000 people died prematurely in the U.S. due to the lack of health insurance. This study formed part of the moral basis for extending health insurance to millions of Americans. Now, as congressional Republicans work to undo that law, we are rightfully reminded of similar stakes. “There will be deaths,” said Atul Gawande, discussing a literature review he recently published. Gawande and his colleagues found that roughly one life is saved for every 300 to 800 people who get insurance. The Harvard researchers have updated their study, and they estimate that if 22 million Americans lose health insurance, 29,000 additional people will die each year.
Shocking as these figures are, the body count from Trump’s energy policy could easily rival them. A 2013 study found that air pollution causes 200,000 premature U.S. deaths each year. If air pollution were a proximate cause of death, it would occupy the third position on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s list of leading causes. Instead, it contributes to four of the top five: heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke (accidents rank fourth).
The estimate of 200,000 deaths is based on one type of air pollution, ground-level ozone and particulate matter from burning fossil fuels, commonly known as smog. It does not include deaths from greenhouse gas pollution, which are growing in number. A recent study found that 30 percent of people worldwide are already subject to lethal heat waves for at least 20 days a year. By 2100 the number will rise to 74 percent. In addition to dangerous heat and sea-level rise, climate change threatens a combination of economic loss, starvation, disease, mass migration, and violence that could prove catastrophic and destabilizing even for developed nations as soon as the second half of this century.
Far from mitigating these harms, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are working to exacerbate them. They are rolling back air pollution rules, particularly those affecting the two leading culprits: automobiles and power plants. Trump is also trying to boost fossil fuel production and reverse virtually every federal program that supports renewable energy, combats climate change, or merely contributes to our knowledge on those topics.
What is most surprising about killing ourselves with fossil fuels is that we get so little in return. With existing technology, we could phase them out within 20 years, if not sooner. Researchers disagree whether existing technology can get us all the way to 100 percent renewable energy. But virtually all agree we can get very close, which means we can launch the effort now with confidence that we’ll solve the remaining problems along the way. Experts also agree that it won’t cost much. Rather, it would quickly start paying for itself. We would save not only the $875 billion that Americans currently spend on fossil fuels each year, but also several hundred billion more in annual medical costs.
Which returns us to the other Republican obsession—repealing ObamaCare. Far from cutting existing health coverage, we could easily expand it with the money we waste on fossil fuels. And we would need less medical care in the first place.
Unquestionably, we should ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality care. We should also stop poisoning ourselves.
David Arkush is Managing Director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/340219-how-moving-away-from-fossil-fuels-can-save-lives-and
-
Natural Gas and Electric Grid Reliability
Jun 23, 2017 | Energy Tomorrow (via Real Clear Energy)
By Mark Green
Natural gas is unique among energy sources to supply needed attributes that ensure the future reliability of the U.S. power grid, a new study finds.
The study by The Brattle Group for API asserts that specific attributes – including dispatchability, ramp rates, frequency response and others – are fundamental to grid reliability, especially as more variable energy sources such as wind and solar come on to the grid. From the study:
Over the last decade, reliance on non-dispatchable generation from wind and solar facilities has grown rapidly. At the same time, falling natural gas prices and more stringent environmental regulations have led natural gas generation to replace output from coal, and, to some extent, retired nuclear resources. Because their output varies based on wind speed and solar insolation, wind and solar generators are sometimes described as “intermittent” or “variable energy” resources. Large variations in output from such resources happen with regularity. At high penetration levels even relatively predictable output variations, such as solar output falling at night, can strain the grid operator’s ability to manage the system.
State-level environmental policies, federal tax incentives, technology advances and other factors make it likely variable energy generators will shoulder more of U.S. power generation in the future. The Brattle study urges restructured electric jurisdictions to consider market approaches to procure the various attributes needed for grid reliability. The study notes two important principles for market designers and system planners:
Variable generation resources can create additional reliability needs for the system.
Resources with reliability attributes that meet these needs should be appropriately valued.
Enter natural gas. The study identifies 10 key reliability attributes for grid system health:
Generation capacity.
Dispatchability – The ability to change output or consumption levels in response to an order by the system operator.
Security of fuel supply – Dependability of a resource’s energy inputs or fuel.
Start times and ramp rates – The speed at which resources can respond to a system operator’s orders to increase and decrease electricity delivered to the grid.
Inertia and frequency response capability – Resource attributes that help the system maintain required frequency stability.
Reactive power capability – The ability to deliver reactive power is needed to maintain voltage within certain limits to prevent generator malfunctions or, in the worst case, cascading blackouts.
Minimum load level – The lowest level of electrical output an energy resource can continuously send to the grid.
Black start capability – The ability of power plant to restart without relying on the transmission network to deliver power.
Storage capability – The ability to store electricity helps meet multiple demand requirements.
Proximity to load – The ability to site resources close to load helps the system meet bulk demand and maintain voltages.
That’s a long, somewhat technical list – yet all support grid reliability that’s essential to modern, every-day life. The matrix below shows how various energy resources support those attributes:
It doesn’t take a scientist to see that natural gas is strong across the board. This isn’t an argument against other energy sources. Rather, it’s a signal that the reliability of the electricity grid that everyone benefits from depends on an array of factors – which natural gas uniquely supports.
API Chief Economist Erica Bowman discussed the study with a group of reporters this week, stressing that natural gas’ importance increases as intermittent energies grow their share of power generation. (We’ve posted before on intermittency – that wind and solar need a partner for when there’s no wind or sunshine, and that natural gas supplies that help.) “Natural gas ensures the reliability of the grid,” Bowman said.
There’s a market argument for natural gas as well. “We advocate free markets,” Bowman said. “When we allow free markets to determine the penetration” of a fuel source, natural gas comes to the fore. One more passage from the Brattle study:
For a variety of reasons related to both policy and economics, the shift towards variable energy resources will likely continue. This change to the system will require the restructured markets and the regulated states to rethink the way they value the different reliability attributes of resources. … [A]s the penetration of variable energy resources increases, more work will be needed in rethinking the traditional way resources’ contributions to reliability are valued. In both markets and regulated states, ensuring reliability will depend on rules that recognize two important reliability principles. First, integrating variable generation resources can increase the need for resources with the reliability attributes discussed in this paper. Second, reliability attributes should be valued in an economically efficient way.
http://energytomorrow.org/blog/2017/06/23/natural-gas-and-electric-grid-reliabil
-
Lake Charles LNG Gains Federal OK to Export More Natural Gas
Jun 30, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Two long-term applications to export an additional 0.33 Bcf/d of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the already approved Lake Charles LNG Liquefaction Project in Louisiana were given a green light Thursday by the Department of Energy (DOE).
The two nonadditive authorizations were issued to Lake Charles Exports LLC and Lake Charles LNG Export Co. to export gas to any country in the world not prohibited by U. S. law or policy. The DOE previously authorized exports of up to 2 Bcf/d worldwide.
With further engineering of the planned project, additional design capacity has been realized, DOE said.
According to the Lake Charles companies, construction would provide thousands of jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs. The announcement initially was made by President Trump Thursday as he highlighted U.S. energy dominance.
To date, DOE said it has authorized a total of 21.33 Bcf/d for exports worldwide from planned facilities in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Maryland and the Gulf of Mexico.
Officials conducted an extensive review of the Lake Charles applications and considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts, including macroeconomic studies that showed positive benefits to the U.S. economy in scenarios with LNG exports up to 28 Bcf/d. The Lake Charles project is owned jointly by Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) and Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Earlier on Thursday, an ETP subsidiary and Shell secured a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with South Korea’s Korea Gas Corp. (Kogas) to consider participating in the Lake Charles project. Kogas already has a 20-year sales and purchase agreement with Cheniere Energy Inc. for LNG supplies from the Sabine Pass Liquefaction facility in Louisiana.
The nonbinding MOU would allow the parties to study the project’s economics, a potential engineering, procurement and construction agreement, and the feasibility of sourcing/marketing U.S. LNG.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110956-lake-charles-lng-gains-federal-ok-to-export-more-natural-gas
-
South Korean Trade Pacts to Send More U.S. Natural Gas Overseas
Jun 30, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Energy conglomerate SK Group this week advanced a long-term strategy to secure more U.S. natural gas for South Korea under a couple of agreements, including one with Continental Resources Inc. (CLR) and General Electric (GE). Korea Gas Corp. (Kogas) also signaled it would expand its U.S. gas export holdings from the Gulf Coast to Alaska.
South Korea-based SK said it plans to invest $1.6 billion in the United States over the next five years to build its portfolio of domestic gas projects. As part of its strategy, subsidiary SK E&S expanded a joint development agreement (JDA) with CLR, and SK obtained a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with GE to bring more gas to South Korea, the second largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) importer in the world.
SK plans to not only to import more U.S. gas but also sell the gas to other countries.
“The agreement signed by South Korean company SK and U.S. companies GE and Continental is significant as it is a base for a high level global partnering model of which not only businesses from the two countries but also governments could benefit from shale gas development in U.S.,” said SK Group chairman Chey Tae-won.
The agreement was signed in Washington, DC, by SK E&S President Yu Jeong-joon, GE Vice Chairman John Rice and CLR CEO Harold Hamm.
Three years ago SK E&S agreed to buy almost half (49.9%) of CLR’s 44,000 net acres in the Cana Woodford Shale area of the Anadarko Basin. The JDA today controls about 100,000 net mineral acres.
Continental is running five drilling rigs today in the northwestern part of Cana, and the revised JDA would add more rigs, Hamm, an energy adviser to President Trump, told CNBC on Wednesday.
"When Continental adds a new rig in October, that's an additional 100 new jobs in Oklahoma," Hamm said in the interview. "This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of jobs. Permits that were delayed under the former administration for years are now being approved…”
SK has “the capital to develop resources here and has a market for this supply of natural gas,” he said. "By 2019 the United States will expand our exports 500%. In the U.S. we are currently exporting 2.5 Bcf and will increase to 11 Bcf by 2019. If we keep permits coming through on facilities, we can grow that amount of gas around the globe to 30 Bcf by 2025, 2030. This creates jobs and opportunity for everybody."
The expanded JDA would give CLR “further entry into Asia,” he said. “SK is set up to sell and trade LNG from America to other countries, not just South Korea. Trade in America is very important to them. This signing is more than symbolic. It's the future of America's energy expansion."
Under the MOU with GE, SK would supply LNG and liquefied petroleum gas, while GE would provide power generation equipment. The companies also agreed to collaborate on renewable energy development in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
The MOU was signed ahead of a planned summit in Washington, DC, between South Korea President Moon Jae-in and President Trump. The investment should help the United States narrow the trade gap between the two countries, according to SK officials.
Meanwhile, an Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) subsidiary secured an MOU with Kogas to consider participating in the Lake Charles LNG Liquefaction Project. Houston-based BG LNG Services LLC, a Royal Dutch Shell plc subsidiary, also is studying the project now underway in Lake Charles, LA. Kogas already has a 20-year sales and purchase agreement with Cheniere Energy Inc. for LNG supplies from the Sabine Pass Liquefaction facility in Louisiana.
As designed, Lake Charles LNG would use ETP’s existing regasification import facility to accommodate a liquefaction project.
The nonbinding MOU would allow the parties to study the project’s economics, a potential engineering, procurement and construction agreement, and the feasibility of sourcing/marketing U.S. LNG. The 440-acre site is connected to ETP’s Trunkline Gas Pipeline System, a system that runs 2,200-plus miles and interconnects with more than a dozen interstate and intrastate pipelines.
Kogas on Thursday also signed an MOU with a Sempra Energy unit and Woodside Petroleum Ltd. for the Port Arthur, TX, LNG project that would be sited along the Houston Ship Channel. In mid-2015, Port Arthur LNG LLC was granted authorizationto export gas worldwide from the terminal.
And this week the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. (AGDC) secured an MOU with Kogas for a framework to cooperate in several areas of Alaska LNG, including project investment, development, operations and other arrangements.
Alaska LNG is an integrated gas pipeline and LNG infrastructure project that would provide a link between gas resource on Alaska's North Slope with the growing LNG markets in Asia.
The MOU “lays the groundwork for a significant relationship between the State of Alaska and the Republic of Korea," said AGDC President Keith Meyer.
The MOU establishes a joint committee with decisionmaking authority and sets the framework for Kogas to potentially participate in developing Alaska LNG.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110955-south-korean-trade-pacts-to-send-more-us-natural-gas-overseas
-
Cyberattack Masked as 'Ransomware' was 'Extremely Dangerous'
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The "ransomware" pandemic originally called "Petya" that locked up thousands of computers across the world this week was not what it seemed, security researchers say.
Experts agree the rapidly spreading and crippling impact of the hacking tool bodes ill for global cybersecurity. Analysts at multiple cybersecurity firms examining the destructive malware traced early infections back to Ukraine, where hackers leveraged a popular piece of Ukrainian tax software to plant inside banks, government networks and even Windows systems at the Chernobyl nuclear cleanup site (Energywire, June 28).
At first, it walked and talked like ransomware — appearing to encrypt computer files and demanding a $300 payment through the digital currency Bitcoin to unscramble them. But researchers soon discovered the variant worming its way through Ukraine overwrote the "master boot record," a crucial component for a functioning Windows machine, with no real method to fix it.
"The goal of a wiper is to destroy and damage. The goal of a ransomware is to make money," Matt Suiche, founder of United Arab Emirates-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, noted in a blog post Wednesday. "Different intent. Different motive. Different narrative."
"NotPetya" — as the attack is now being called — has a penchant for destruction. Russia-based cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab estimated that half of NotPetya's hits were industrial organizations, with victims cropping up primarily in Ukraine and Russia, but also France, Italy and Poland.
Kaspersky called the attack "extremely dangerous" for critical infrastructures and industrial companies because it could potentially find its way into control systems. "Such an attack could affect not only business production and finances, but also human safety," it said.
The cybersecurity company added in a blog post that "while there were examples of actual industrial control systems being affected," in most cases only business networks had been locked up by NotPetya.
Unpacking the mayhem
That's still enough to wreak havoc. The American pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co Inc. reportedly saw its U.S. offices swept up in the attack this week, with recovery still set to take days. The Danish shipping conglomorate A.P. Moller-Maersk Group was also victimized by NotPetya, with information technology failures tied to traffic jams at some of its shipping terminals. The Russian state-run oil firm Rosneft OAO reported having to switch much of its production to backup control systems as a result of the "massive hacker attack."
At least five electric utilities in Ukraine were also reportedly affected by the malware, though grid operations apparently stayed intact.
NotPetya spread so quickly due to a potent cocktail of infection techniques, according to experts. Much like the devastating "WannaCry" ransomware outbreak in May, NotPetya's authors took advantage of a flaw in Microsoft Corp.'s implementation of the Server Message Block protocol. That glaring vulnerability was exposed earlier this year when a mysterious hacking group leaked a trove of National Security Agency attack tools. While Microsoft has offered a fix, not all organizations have applied it.
But digital forensics expert Lesley Carhart described what she sees as "much more sinister" methods for moving the malware from network to network — hijacking built-in administrative tools (with names like PsExec and WMI) that are not likely to trigger alerts from popular security monitoring programs. Carhart said in an email she finds that precedent "much scarier than a single Windows exploit," in part because "poor security architecture" can be trickier and costlier to fix.
Carhart placed both WannaCry and the more recent NotPetya malware samples into a new category of "pseudo-ransomware," noting the behavior of both hacker or hackers behind the campaigns "doesn't line up with moneymaking."
In NotPetya's case, there was only a single email address dedicated to coordinating the ransom payment, which was quickly shut down.
Carhart said the use of a ransomware disguise could have been an attempt to sow confusion.
But also, "ransomware just works," she noted. "It plays on our deep emotional connection to our digital data and devices. That's why it's such a great criminal business model. The same distress and despair make for great sabotage and demoralization."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056852
-
Calif. Utility Fined $2M for Worker's Death
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Southern California Edison Co. must pay $2.01 million for safety failings that led to the electrocution of a contract worker, the California Public Utilities Commission said yesterday.
The agency fined the Los Angeles County-based utility for the Sept. 30, 2013, death of Brandon Orozco, an employee of Southern California Edison's (SCE) subcontractor. He died after he "inadvertently removed an energized dead-break elbow while he was preparing the underground cables for testing" at the utility's Huntington Beach underground vault, according to the CPUC investigation.
CPUC said the large fine was appropriate because "by ordering this fine of $2.01 million, we deter future similar safety violations and incentivize SCE and other utilities to work more diligently to ensure that a similar incident does not recur. Second, we cannot ignore the fact that the fine is accompanied by other significant settlement terms such as the various safety enhancements to SCE's Contractor Safety Program which promotes public interest. "
Settlement of the case was negotiated by the utility and the agency. SCE agreed to pay the fine and to improve its safety practices and procedures.
SCE also had to make several admissions including that the utility did not manage or oversee the work performed by the subcontractor; SCE "did not evaluate Orozco's qualifications to perform work in accordance with accepted, safe practices"; SCE did not evaluate Orozco's familiarity with the utility's electric facilities; and it did not give specific instructions to him on how "he should safely perform work he was doing at the time the incident occurred."
SCE did not expressly admit that it is responsible for "ensuring" contractor safety.
"But because the Settlement Agreement is a compromise of the parties' positions to avoid a lengthy litigation, we accept SCE's general admissions of the underlying facts to be adequate here instead of insisting express admissions that it is responsible for 'ensuring' contractor safety or finding that SCE's conduct related to this incident violated specific laws," the agency said in the proposed order that was approved yesterday.
The fine will be paid to the state's general fund.
CPUC's order said that "we can infer significant financial impacts to the family of the decedent which may be under litigation."
SCE in a statement said that "in the aftermath of the 2013 contractor fatality that occurred in Huntington Beach, SCE has worked with its contractors to develop safety standards and practices for their employees and subcontractors that reflect SCE's standards."
The utility said that it's also "worked collaboratively with the CPUC's Safety and Enforcement Division to address the contractor safety issues raised by this incident."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056850
-
Former Obama EPA Counsel Shenkman Talks WOTUS Repeal
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
This week, the Trump administration released a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Water Rule, known as WOTUS. What are the next steps that this proposal triggers, and how is the legal landscape for the rule shaping up? During today's OnPoint, Ethan Shenkman — a partner at Arnold & Porter, the former deputy general counsel at U.S. EPA and, prior to that, deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division — explains how EPA might handle a new rule and what the repeal means for the business community.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Ethan Shenkman, a partner at Arnold & Porter and the former deputy general counsel at U.S. EPA, prior to that, deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division. Ethan, it's great to have you here.
Ethan Shenkman: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you. Thank you for coming on the show. So this week, the Trump administration released a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Water Rule that we all call WOTUS. It's a move that was expected, but it now triggers next steps from both sides. What does the proposal do, and how does it fit into this bigger, broader push to do away with WOTUS completely?
Ethan Shenkman: Right. Well, the first thing that this proposal does is rescinds the Obama administration's Waters of the United States rule, which defined waters of the United States for purposes of the Clean Water Act. But interestingly, it doesn't just rescind it; it replaces it, and it replaces it with the rule that had existed for decades previously, and that actually was the rule that everybody had complained led to a lot of confusion and uncertainty. So in some sense, we're back to that world of some degree of uncertainty while the administration decides whether to take the next step of issuing its own new interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
Monica Trauzzi: So this essentially buys the administration some time. Is the expectation that there will be a new rule proposed?
Ethan Shenkman: Well, the proposal says that it's temporary, so that is what they're saying, but there's no requirement that they move on to Step 2. There's no time frame in which they have to do so, and so it will be interesting to see how quickly they can move. I think they're going to be interested in not only trying to get a new rule proposed, but also finalized and defended within the time period of this presidential term, and whether they can do that, we'll see.
Monica Trauzzi: That could be a heavy lift.
Ethan Shenkman: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: So how does going back to the old rule change the playing field for the business community?
Ethan Shenkman: Well, you know, this takes us back to 2006 when the Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Water Act in the Rapanos decision and did it with a divided opinion, with Justice Scalia writing a plurality opinion, Justice Kennedy writing a concurrence and then four dissenters, so it was a 4-1-4 split decision, which left a lot of uncertainty about how that decision should be construed and applied. And then there was just a ton of litigation in the district courts and the courts of appeals and with the courts coming out in a variety of different ways. And by re-enacting the previous rule, we're back to that same situation where the lower courts will have to decide how to interpret and apply Rapanos, and interestingly, this proposal also said that the agencies will continue to apply a guidance that they put out in 2008 where the agencies gave their interpretation of Rapanos.
Monica Trauzzi: So we could potentially see a new definition come out of the Trump administration. Do we have any sense of what that could look like?
Ethan Shenkman: Well, President Trump issued an executive order earlier this year where he strongly suggested that the agencies should consider adopting Justice Scalia's test. That was one of the opinions that came out in Rapanos. But whether that would be — whether that's something that the agencies decide to do, whether they decide that that can be supportable by the science and by the record and whether they think that doing that would be defensible, because it will certainly be challenged, is another question. So we really don't know. They could go in many different directions. And they can also — they could do something that's comprehensive or they could decide to address certain subissues and just address those.
Monica Trauzzi: What's the legal landscape ahead? I imagine that it's not going to stop here.
Ethan Shenkman: No, certainly not. I mean, the first question is whether those who are supportive of the Obama administration's 2015 rule will challenge this proposal if it's finalized. And it'll be interesting to see whether they do and what their argument is. They may argue that the science that was put into the record to support that rule was so strong that there's no going back and that to go back to the previous rule is arbitrary and capricious. So even before we get to whether the administration will issue a new rule, there's potentially going to be litigation over this interim step.
Monica Trauzzi: And in its proposal, the administration, the Trump administration, focuses on the economics of the rule and it makes policy arguments against the Obama rule. What does the administration gain by doing this and not by engaging in a discussion on the technical document that the Obama administration had released?
Ethan Shenkman: Well, like you said, I think they — they're buying some time and they're attempting to sort of define the rules of the road that will apply during the interim. There's another twist to this, which is that the Supreme Court is going to decide a case in the fall that has to do with which courts have jurisdiction to decide challenges to these rules, whether those have to be filed in the courts of appeals in the first instance or whether they can be filed in the district court, and it's possible that, depending on how that Supreme Court case comes out, it could create even more jurisdictional uncertainty, and so I think the administration wanted to come out and at least have some clear rules of the road that will apply during this interim period.
Monica Trauzzi: It's a really interesting one to watch. We'll end it there. Thank you so much for your time. Thanks for coming on the show.
Ethan Shenkman: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2235/transcript
-
Repeal Supporters Mum on House Rider
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Industry groups supporting the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Water Rule are largely keeping quiet about a provision in a House bill to exempt the repeal from the Administrative Procedure Act.
The 2015 regulation seeks to clarify which wetlands and small waterways are given protection under the Clean Water Act, but was met with stark opposition from farmers, land developers and energy companies saying it amounted to government overreach.
Those industries have celebrated the Trump administration's taking the first step toward repealing the regulation, also known as the Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule, this week. But they have remained relatively quiet on a provision in a House spending bill released Tuesday saying U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers "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."
The National Mining Association, National Pork Producers Council, American Petroleum Institute and National Farmers Union all put out statements praising the regulation's repeal, but declined to comment on the House provision. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not respond to requests for comment.
Scott Yager, environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, disputed that the provision would actually exempt the repeal from the APA.
"I read it as just giving EPA and Army Corps a thumbs-up," he said, adding he had not yet looked at it closely.
But legal experts agree that the provision, if passed, would allow the administration to avoid notice-and-comment procedures required under the APA, expediting efforts to write a replacement regulation. The House rider would also make it easier for the Trump administration to ignore the scientific justifications Obama's EPA relied on to write the rule, and could even eliminate legal standing for environmental groups hoping to sue the administration to prevent a rollback (E&E Daily, June 29).
The implications of the rider was not lost on Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Parrish, who said he was only disappointed that the proposed rule repealing WOTUS did not provide a more full-throated attack of the Obama regulation, said he thinks the House provision was "a really good approach."
"We would very much broadly support that, and I think it could save resources," he said. "The language would reduce litigation around this rule, and for us that is a home run."
National Association of Home Builders Environmental Policy Program Manager Owen McDonough called the legislation a "backstop for protections against potential litigation."
"We are supportive of that," he said. "If there's one thing that we know about the WOTUS issue, it's that it's a magnet for litigation."
The House provision, which could retroactively squash lawsuits, has a long way to go before it becomes law. The legislation, which was advanced by a subcommittee this week, has yet to be considered by the full committee. It remains to be seen whether Senate appropriators include a similar provision in their version of the energy and water spending bill.
Jon Devine, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who strongly opposes the repeal, said that while the rider is "terrible," there is a silver lining for environmentalists supporting the Obama-era regulation.
"It is revealing to me because it indicates that the proponents of that measure are concerned that the agencies can't come up with a very good reason to get rid of the rule."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056878
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