Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 18/8/17
-
Walmart Chemicals Update Shows Volumes down but Usage Rates Persist
Aug 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Walmart continues to reduce volumes of chemicals of concern in products even while their ubiquity remains largely flat, according to its recently released annual sustainable chemistry policy report. -
EPA Eyes 2018 for Release of National Air Toxics Assessment
Aug 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is planning to release in 2018 the latest version of its National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) that compiles data on air toxics from across the United States, according to an agency staffer who says the NATA will be based on data collected in 2014 and contain several improvements compared to earlier versions of the assessment. -
Can You Sweat Out Toxins?
Aug 18, 2017 | The New York Times
By Karen Weintraub
Q. Is there any validity to the popular claim that one can “sweat out toxins?” If so, what “toxins” can the body sweat out? -
EU Member States Begin RMOAs of New Substances
Aug 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
EU member states are starting risk management option analyses (RMOAs) of two new substances under Echa’s public activities coordination tool (PACT), which also assesses hazards. -
The Golden Age of Natural Gas
Aug 18, 2017 | The American Interest
By Jamie Horgan and Agnia Grigas
Thanks to the American shale boom and a newly globalized market, natural gas is changing geopolitics around the globe. -
La. Pipeline Hub Becoming Worldwide LNG Benchmark
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
An unassuming network of pipelines in southern Louisiana is helping to set natural gas prices around the world. -
‘Great American Eclipse’ Begets Hype, Rock-and-Roll, and Test of Back-Up NatGas Resources
Aug 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
America's first solar eclipse visible across the Lower 48 states since 1979 will be seen most intensely in 14 states on Monday, and it promises to shine new light on natural gas capacity, foreshadowing what energy planners see as a future dominated increasingly by renewable energy resources. -
Trump Axes Infrastructure Council
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Camille von Kaenel
President Trump's planned advisory panel on infrastructure "will not move forward," a White House spokeswoman said. -
Economists, Legal Experts Challenge Trump on Carbon Pricing
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
A group of economists and lawyers is arguing that the current calculation of the societal cost of greenhouse gas emissions is the best estimate available, despite President Trump's decision to withdraw the metric and disband the interagency working group that developed it. -
Senate Dems Want Probe of Trump Hiring at EPA, CEQ
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Two Senate Democrats are seeking a Government Accountability Office investigation into the Trump administration's hiring of political appointees at U.S. EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Walmart Chemicals Update Shows Volumes down but Usage Rates Persist
Aug 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Walmart continues to reduce volumes of chemicals of concern in products even while their ubiquity remains largely flat, according to its recently released annual sustainable chemistry policy report.
The 2016 annual report tracks the progress the company has made since launching its sustainable chemistry policy in 2013. The US retail giant reports not only the volume of chemicals of concern used in products, but their ubiquity – how many suppliers use them, and the number of products that contain them.
According to the latest update, in the past two years, Walmart has reduced by 96% – some 23m lbs – the volume by weight of eight ‘high priority chemicals’ (HPCs) in products covered by its policy.
But even as the use of these substances has drastically declined, it has only seen a 5% reduction in the number of products containing HPCs, with the number of suppliers using them dropping by just 1.5%.
The results are largely similar for a broader group of ‘priority chemicals’ (PCs), identified by Walmart based on authoritative and regulatory lists.
For these, the retailer has nearly halved their volume since 2014 in the more than 90,000 cleaning, personal care, paper, pet and baby products covered by its programme.
But it reports a reduction of just 0.2% in the number of products containing priority chemicals, and a 0.1% drop in suppliers using them, during the same timeframe.
Boma Brown-West of the NGO Environmental Defense Fund told Chemical Watch that in order to leverage the success Walmart has seen in reducing the weight of HPCs, it should "escalate its encouragement of the adoption of existing safer alternatives and disruptive innovation where those may not exist".
A good example of encouraging such innovation, she said, is Walmart’s sponsorship of the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) challenge, which seeks to identify new and safer preservative ingredients.
Ms Brown-West also said the second year results show that a concerted effort to reduce a select set of priority chemicals drives results faster, exhibited by Walmart’s HPCs dropping at a faster weight than its overall priority chemicals.
She said that the EDF would like to see the company "replicate this strong approach on a broader set of HPCs and also to begin to tackle more product categories", as it continues to implement its chemistry programme.Chemical Footprint Project
Recently, Walmart became the first retailer to respond to the Chemical Footprint Project survey, which benchmarks how effectively companies are managing chemicals in their products and supply chains.
Zach Freeze, Walmart’s senior director for sustainability, told Chemical Watch that the company took part to perform data benchmarking and gap analysis – both of which "are critical for us to understand where our company and our suppliers are on the journey to more sustainable chemicals".
He said the company was also hopeful that it would "encourage industry collaboration and increase trust in Walmart’s brand".
The retailer also joined pharmacy chain CVS Health and office supplier Staples as signatories to the CFP. Organisations include NGOs, investors and purchasers aiming to encourage manufacturers in the supply chain to take action on chemicals of concern.
Walmart is the first company to be both a CFP signatory and survey responder.
Mark Rossi, co-founder of Clean Production Action – an NGO behind the CFP – told Chemical Watch that retailers serve a unique role in being both purchasers and suppliers of products, as well as manufacturers of store brands. "We hope to have more retailers sign on as both signatories and as responders to the survey," he said of the company’s move.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58051/walmart-chemicals-update-shows-volumes-down-but-usage-rates-persist
-
EPA Eyes 2018 for Release of National Air Toxics Assessment
Aug 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is planning to release in 2018 the latest version of its National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) that compiles data on air toxics from across the United States, according to an agency staffer who says the NATA will be based on data collected in 2014 and contain several improvements compared to earlier versions of the assessment.
Madeleine Strum of the agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards told EPA's 2017 International Emissions Inventory Conference in Baltimore, MD, on Aug. 15 that the upcoming NATA will have better emissions inventory data including improved mobile source emissions estimates, and also better “spatial allocation” that will see the study organized according to counties and grid cells within those counties, rather than counties and census tracts as was the case in the last NATA -- helping regulators to target air toxics in their jurisdictions.
The NATA is an influential study on the state of air toxics emissions across the country that many state regulators rely on to guide their decisions. It identifies the relative cancer and non-cancer health risks presented by various pollutants in specific areas. EPA last issued one in December of 2015, based on 2011 emissions data, and Strum said that the agency is preparing to sometime next year release the NATA using 2014 data.
Strum cautioned against comparisons of health risks between the 2015 NATA and that scheduled for 2018 release, because methodological differences render direct comparisons impossible.
Also, users of the NATA should not compare risks in one state to risks in another, again because of differences in the underlying methods used and data supplied by states to EPA.
While EPA routinely cautions against using the NATA as the basis for regulatory decisionmaking, the agency and Louisiana air regulators in 2016 took the novel step of using air pollution data from the assessment to scrutinize toxic emissions from an industrial facility and push for voluntary pollution cuts. Observers at the same said the move could encourage other states to use the data to target industry air toxics.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-eyes-2018-release-national-air-toxics-assessment
-
Aug 18, 2017 | The New York Times
By Karen Weintraub
Q. Is there any validity to the popular claim that one can “sweat out toxins?” If so, what “toxins” can the body sweat out?
A. The body does appear to sweat out toxic materials — heavy metals and bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in plastics, for instance, have been detected in sweat. But there’s no evidence that sweating out such toxins improves health.
“The claims for the benefits of saunas and other sweat-inducing treatments are not backed by science,” said Dr. Harriet Hall, a retired family physician and former Air Force flight surgeon, who edits the website Science-Based Medicine and is a co-author of “Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions.”
The concentration of metals detected in sweat are extremely low. Sweat is 99 percent water. The liver and kidneys remove far more toxins than sweat glands.
People who have dangerously high levels of heavy metals in their body will need prescription medication, not sweating, to get rid of them, Dr. Hall noted. For everyone else, “we can rely on our liver and kidneys to do all the ‘detoxifying’ our body usually needs.”
It’s also unclear whether the minuscule amounts of toxins that can be measured in sweat actually indicate a health concern.
No one will ever be able to conduct a large enough study to link such low levels of chemicals with health problems, said Joe Schwarcz, a professor of chemistry at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not figure-outable,” he said.
And removing tiny quantities of toxins doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any health benefit.
Dr. Schwarcz compared it to someone sitting in a bathtub worrying about drowning. Removing a dropper-full of water from the tub will theoretically reduce the risk — because the chance of drowning is lower in less water — but getting rid of so little water will be effectively meaningless.
So does it matter that people excrete small amounts of toxins in their sweat? “The fact is, nobody really knows,” Dr. Schwarcz said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/well/live/can-you-sweat-out-toxins.html?_r=0
-
EU Member States Begin RMOAs of New Substances
Aug 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
EU member states are starting risk management option analyses (RMOAs) of two new substances under Echa’s public activities coordination tool (PACT), which also assesses hazards.
France is assessing bisphenol A (BPA), which is suspected of being carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) and having endocrine disrupting properties.
The Netherlands is carrying out analysis on penta-1,3-diene, with concerns relating to the environment and human health.
Meanwhile, Germany has listed its intention to conduct an RMOA on decamethylcyclopentasiloxane and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, both of which it says could be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances; and Denmark also to assess perfluorobutanoic acid and its salts and precursors for their suspected PBT and CMR properties.
Further updates to PACT include Sweden’s notification that it will not initiate further regulatory risk management action, following an RMOA on the suspected sensitisers (1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis[oxy(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl)] diacrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate; and the Netherlands the same for cobalt titanite green spinel, which it assessed because of concerns with properties affecting human health and the environment.
In July, member states started RMOAs on five other substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58282/eu-member-states-begin-rmoas-of-new-substances
-
Aug 18, 2017 | The American Interest
By Jamie Horgan and Agnia Grigas
Jamie Horgan: I’m here with Agnia Grigas, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of the new book, The New Geopolitics of Natural Gas. Agnia, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today.
Agnia Grigas: Thank you, Jamie. It’s a pleasure to be here.
JH: In your book, you look at the transition to a new era of gas that you characterize as “a golden age.” What were the characteristics of the old era of gas, and what’s changed?
AG: Throughout the 20th century, natural gas was a much more localized commodity than oil, due to the difficulties of transporting it over long distances and across seas and oceans. It was also a much more politicized commodity, precisely because it was so difficult to transport. Oftentimes, gas-exporting and gas-importing countries had to forge long-lasting trade relationships with each other, co-investing in land-based infrastructure.
But within the past decade, things have changed. First, trade in LNG (liquefied natural gas) has grown, because it is easy to transport across the sea—and it’s now at its highest level in history. Second, the market has become much more liquid, largely due to the U.S. shale revolution flooding it with supplies. In addition, American exporters support flexible gas trade, which means more spot and short-term trading rather than the traditional long-term, oil-linked contracts.
Meanwhile, countries around the world have built up their gas infrastructure—and in Europe especially. Of course, we can’t forget the greater appetite for natural gas, now perceived as a cleaner commodity, due to climate-change goals.
JH: Natural gas being a cleaner option than coal, both in terms of local air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.
AG: Yes, and in comparison to oil.
JH: To go back to the United States, we are now exporting LNG, but only a decade ago we were still building import terminals. The shale boom has completely remade our domestic natural gas landscape, but how is it affecting the global market?
AG: U.S. LNG exports, which began just this past year, have traveled pretty much across the globe. Before 2016, experts debated furiously over what would happen if such exports were legalized—would they go only to Asia, where at the time there was a significant gas price differential, or perhaps also to Latin America due to its proximity? But in fact they even went to Europe—and this past June, to Poland. It was a wakeup call for the global gas markets and traditional gas exporters like Russia.
The overall implications are very significant, especially for Europe, where natural gas exports have long been dominated by Russia. Europe has spent the past twenty years trying to come up with strategies to diversify its gas imports, and with U.S. LNG making it to the Continent, and the greater supply in the global gas market overall, European importers have many more options to choose from. The same goes for China. Beijing is hungry to meet its vast energy needs, and is particularly concerned with obtaining cleaner sources like natural gas due to its significant pollution problem. The Chinese had been eyeing Russia, but now they also have the option of importing U.S. LNG.
JH: We’ll come back to Europe and Asia soon, but sticking with the United States, where do we stand in the global ranking of LNG exporters? Alongside Qatar and Australia? And what does our growth outlook look like?
AG: As U.S. LNG exports increase, America’s rank is changing fast. In 2016, the United States was 16th in the world in terms of LNG export volumes and accounted for just over 1 percent of the total market. However, it is expected to become one of the leading LNG exporters in the coming decade alongside Qatar and Australia, which currently account for nearly 30 percent and 17 percent of the market respectively. By 2020, the United States is expected to add about 20 percent of the total LNG volumes traded globally in 2014 to the international gas market.
JH: You talk in the book about the potential strategic use of U.S. LNG to support our allies overseas, and also to win over new allies. But if private companies are selling these cargoes, how much control can Washington actually exert over them?
AG: That’s a very good point. U.S. energy markets, and indeed our energy industries, are quite different from those in many other parts of the energy-producing world. The United States has private energy companies, as you say, not state companies like Gazprom or those in the Middle East. But there is still room for strategic vision and diplomacy on Washington’s part—and even legislative decisions. For example, the United States lifted its decades-long ban on oil exports at the end of 2015. Another example: The U.S. government is actually quite supportive of U.S. LNG exports and readily grants various licensing rights to domestic LNG-exporting terminals.
JH: For the time being, however, Louisiana’s Cheniere terminal is our only LNG export facility. How many more are slated to come online and how could the Trump Administration do more to support U.S. LNG?
AG: In addition to Cheniere, the United States has the long-standing Kenai plant in Alaska. But soon half a dozen new terminals could start operations, including the Freeport in Texas, the Cameron in Louisiana, and the Dominion Cove Point in Maryland.
In terms of the Trump Administration, it should keep a steady course and support the great work going on right now rather than make any great shifts. Both American exporters and our gas-importing allies welcome Trump’s political backing of U.S. LNG exports. One note of caution, however: Analysts and experts worry that if, for example, natural gas prices were to rise, American industries that have been enjoying cheap gas might push to stop LNG exports. While that would certainly provide some temporary benefits to these industries, over the long term it wouldn’t be a wise course for U.S. policy.
Right now, the United States has a first-mover advantage, due to its shale boom, which has not been replicated anywhere else in the world. Thus, it can rapidly expand into natural gas markets almost everywhere—Europe, Asia, and so forth. Other countries don’t want to stand on the sidelines for too long, however, and a number of them are pursuing their own shale gas development programs—China in particular.
JH: China has the world’s largest reserves of shale gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
AG: Yes, and China has already fracked successfully and produced natural gas from shale. Yet its program is still in its infancy and as of now not producing significant commercial volumes. But like other countries, it is gearing up, and it’s only a matter of time before it starts replicating America’s shale success. The United States should make the most of its first-mover advantage while it has the chance.
JH: Your book is about the intersection of this new natural gas market and geopolitics, and we can’t discuss natural gas and geopolitics without mentioning Russia and Europe. European countries have long hoped to reduce their dependence on Gazprom gas supplies, given the strings attached to them. Is LNG going to be their savior?
AG: I wouldn’t say that LNG is going to be Europe’s savior, but it will be one important element of their overall strategy. The European countries have pursued a fairly comprehensive energy program over the past 10-15 years and the pieces of that program are starting to come together. This strategy involves reducing overall consumption of fossil fuels, increasing the use of renewables, and improving energy efficiency. It also includes the regulation of energy monopolies, such as through its “Third Energy Package” for gas and electricity markets and the “unbundling” of Gazprom’s gas assets in Europe.
Another crucial element of this strategy is the search for new sources of gas imports, including LNG, for which Europe intends to build additional infrastructure. They also aim to build new pipelines to bring Caspian gas into Europe, and to increase the gas transport infrastructure that connects European countries to each other, in hopes of producing a vibrant and viable European domestic gas market.
The current developments in the natural gas markets are very favorable to Europe’s energy strategy. The greater liquidity, the rise of LNG trade, and the increase in American LNG exports all further Europe’s goals.
JH: You mentioned that Poland just received its first cargo of U.S. LNG—possibly a historic moment. Back in April, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller was gloating about his company’s comfortable position in Europe, saying that pipeline gas is winning against LNG and will continue to do so in the future. Do you agree that Gazprom is on the ascent in Europe, and that it will continue to be one of the most important exporters into the region?
AG: First, I would say that Miller is putting on a brave face. If you look at Russia’s official energy strategy, it explicitly says that demand for their gas is declining in the European market, and it is not expected to grow again. Indeed, in order to compensate for its anticipated losses in Europe, Russia’s leaders decided to turn to Asia, because that’s where they see a future. Furthermore, if they were so confident in pipeline gas trade, they wouldn’t be as worried about boosting their own LNG exports. Russia is quite behind in that area, especially given its historical position in natural gas markets.
At the same time, Russian gas will continue to play an important role in Europe’s energy mix, simply due to geography. Russia is a significant gas exporter; the European Union is the largest natural gas importer. Plus, the gas pipeline infrastructure is already in place. However, Gazprom won’t have the same kind of monopolistic position that it used to have in many European countries, which will have many more choices in the current market.
JH: That does seem to be the defining characteristic of this new era of gas—that there are a lot more choices for importers.
AG: Absolutely—choices, liquidity, and flexibility. It’s a buyers’ market.
JH: In Europe, Gazprom is trying to increase its own options for pipeline routes. You have the TurkStream pipeline that’s been on and off, and now there’s increasing interest in NordStream II, which recently secured financing from a consortium of European countries. Will Gazprom’s pursuit of these two entryways into Europe slow the transition to a more global market? Or is this simply more evidence of Europe gaining more choices?
AG: I see the NordStream II and TurkStream pipelines as Gazprom’s last stand, a desperate attempt to hold onto the European market. Turkey is a very important market for the Russians; it’s their second-largest import market in Europe. The pursuit of TurkStream is also key to their effort to hold onto southeast Europe, where Russia still has a monopolist position in a number of countries. Meanwhile, NordStream II is about maintaining Russia’s relationship with Germany, its number one gas import market, and about eliminating Ukraine from the transit corridor. Of course, as you note, both pipelines would also provide Russia with greater flexibility and more buyers for their exports.
Germany would like to see NordStream II come online so it can establish itself as a gas hub in Europe. In my opinion, given the current gas markets, Germany has so many more choices today that it shouldn’t be so fixated on the pipeline. Whether or not these two pipelines are built, Europe is still going to be in a much better position in the current natural gas markets than before.
JH: As you point out in the book, the increase of interconnectivity within the European gas market dilutes Gazprom’s power over the Continent.
AG: Yes, and we’ve already seen that with Ukraine. During the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kyiv, Gazprom tried to shut off the gas in Ukraine and hike prices to exorbitant levels. But today Ukraine gets the same Russian gas it always did, only from European countries via alterative pipeline routes rather than directly from Russia.
JH: Again, that takes us right back to the choices. Speaking of which, those two potential Russian routes aren’t the only ones in the cards. Israel inked a preliminary deal earlier this year to construct one of the world’s longest and deepest underwater pipelines, which would transport its offshore findings in the Leviathan field via Cyprus and Greece to Italy and the rest of the European market. Do you see this as another opportunity for Europe to diversify away from Russian gas?
AG: Yes, the east Mediterranean gas reserves are another option for Europe. It’s more of a long-term option, however. There are a number of issues regarding security, Israel’s own energy needs, and the natural gas needs of its neighbors that must first be resolved. Furthermore, the infrastructure will be extremely costly and complex.
Meanwhile, depending on how things unfold, Iran’s natural gas resources could be another alternative for Europe in the future, most likely in the form of LNG.
JH: Let’s switch to Asia. For decades, Asian countries paid a premium for liquefied natural gas and natural gas. How is that changing with the advent of the global gas market, and what does it mean for Asian countries, especially for those like Japan that are so energy-resource poor?
AG: As for Europe, the changes mean good news for Asian importers. We’ve certainly seen the price differential contract. This is again because of the increase in liquidity and flexibility in the natural gas markets. The various Asian countries are in different positions, however. Japan and South Korea historically have been LNG importers, and they don’t have any natural gas pipelines enabling imports. (Interestingly, Russia has been trying to pitch a gas pipeline project to Japan.)
China and India are two up-and-coming juggernauts with vast appetites. While recently their demand hasn’t increased as fast as anticipated, they will still be the most energy-hungry countries in the world going forward. By contrast, in Europe gas demand and overall energy demand is decreasing, or at least plateauing.
In this new era of gas, China has a very smart strategy. It is focusing on full diversification—not only diversification of its source countries, but also diversification of means. It is pursuing pipeline construction and LNG imports at the same time, as well as its own domestic natural gas program, including, as noted, a shale program.
JH: A few years back, Russia and China inked a landmark $400 billion-dollar pipeline deal, which has since failed to materialize. What is the current status of that relationship?
AG: Initially, there were plans for two pipelines to deliver Russia gas to China, the Power of Altai and the Power of Siberia. As of now, it seems that only the Power of Altai—China’s preferred route—will go forward, albeit after a delay.
When examining this emerging commercial relationship, it becomes immediately apparent that China has the upper hand. It has a vast market and understands well the power of its demand, putting it in a strong negotiating position. It can also access many alternative sources—pipeline gas from Central Asia, Myanmar, and soon Russia, as well as LNG from a variety of countries. For China, Russia will be just one of many options. For Russia, because of the pushback it has faced in Europe, China and Asia are much more important for maintaining its robust position in the global gas markets.
JH: As we mentioned before, China has a lot of shale gas—the world’s largest reserves, according to the EIA. What are the chances that China can start commercially producing it in sufficient quantities to put a dent in their own demand for foreign natural gas supplies?
AG: This a big debate. Some experts say that any other country would have trouble replicating the American achievement in the shale revolution. Such success has many prerequisites—the availability of financing, an entrepreneurial culture in the country, access to the latest and best technologies, and so on. China lacks a number of those advantages—sometimes companies even lack access to water, which is crucial for fracking.
JH: Or even roads into the sites.
AG: Indeed, not to mention the infrastructure needed to move the gas efficiently throughout the country.
Yet looking at the scale of Chinese spending on its shale program, it’s clear this has become almost a political project for Beijing. Furthermore, China is one of only four countries (including the United States, Canada, and Argentina) that have successfully fracked. As I said earlier, it is only a matter of time. We shouldn’t expect it in the near or even medium term, but eventually China will start producing significant quantities of shale gas to meet its vast energy needs.
JH: What is this new era of gas going to mean for the Caucasus and Central Asia? They’re gas-rich regions that have been isolated in the past.
AG: In Caucasus, Azerbaijan is starting to break out of its isolation and access gas import markets, with an eye toward Europe. The same has happened with Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Previously these countries were dependent on Russian infrastructure to export their natural gas resources, which would travel from Central Asia, through Russia, and then onward to Europe. Since the 2000s, however, they’ve started exporting directly to China, and they could eventually reach Europe as well through Azerbaijan, via the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline system.
However, as landlocked countries they can’t export their natural gas resources as LNG by themselves. That limits their participation in the natural gas markets. In the future, however, I expect them to work around this limitation, given their recent success in accessing new markets via pipelines. They have strong geopolitical reasons for doing so.
JH: Stepping back a little bit, what would be the wild cards to look out for in the global gas market? What might be disruptive?
AG: Technological breakthroughs are always potential wildcards. I think we can expect more, though it is difficult to predict when they will come. Indeed, the shale boom we’re seeing today is itself a wildcard. Companies were exploring fracking techniques decades before we began seeing real results in the 2000s. Going forward we can expect more trade in CNG (compressed natural gas) and in smaller volumes of LNG, for example, as well as the increasing substitution of gas for gasoline.
An environmental disaster involving the shipping of LNG or fracking would count as a negative wildcard. That could really put a damper on the current industry and lead to a reassessment of its operations. Since the United States is the current leader in shale production and a rising leader in LNG trade, we are in a way responsible for modeling best practices.
JH: Speaking of being responsible, what does this new global gas market mean for greenhouse gas emissions? Do you see it as a net positive or a negative in the international fight to mitigate climate change?
AG: The debate over this is fierce. Some argue that natural gas is indeed a positive force for climate change goals, as a cleaner fossil fuel that will help reduce overall emissions. Others counter that the process of fracking has significant environmental costs. Also, the greater use of natural gas, due to its low prices, may offset any gains from its lower emissions.
JH: Finally, who would you say are the biggest winners in this paradigm shift in the gas market? Following that, who would be the biggest losers?
AG: The biggest winner today is the United States, which has emerged as the largest natural gas producer in the world. It’s also now the world’s largest producer of oil and petroleum products and a rising LNG exporter. The United States finds itself in a rather unique position as an energy superpower, and the full implications of this new-found energy strength are not yet fully grasped. Europe is another winner, after decades of searching for ways to diversify and improve their energy security. China is going to be a big winner as well. It has vast demands for cleaner energy to maintain its economic growth, so the abundance of natural gas is really to its benefit.
The biggest losers are traditional energy producers like Russia and the countries in the Middle East. Ukraine, as one of the key gas transit countries in Europe, is an interesting case. Over time it will be find itself bypassed, in part due to Russia’s actions, and in part because Europe now has alternative routes for importing gas. In the short term this may be a negative development, but in the long run it will benefit tremendously. Once it is no longer dependent on Russian gas transit revenues and prey to the corruption that comes along with them, Ukraine will have the opportunity to rebuild itself as a modern state.
JH: It’s interesting that as the global gas market becomes more like the global oil market, it’s also producing winners and losers similar to those that the cheaper crude in today’s oil market is also producing
AG: Yes, that is a broader story of the U.S. shale boom; it is having a similar impact on both the oil and gas markets.
JH: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today.
AG: Thank you so much for having me.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/08/18/golden-age-natural-gas/
-
La. Pipeline Hub Becoming Worldwide LNG Benchmark
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
An unassuming network of pipelines in southern Louisiana is helping to set natural gas prices around the world.
The Henry Hub long has been the standard-bearer for domestic shale markets, but it is now doing the same for a wave of U.S. exports to Europe and Asia.
The first half of 2017 saw a more than 30 percent increase in natural gas futures for Henry Hub traded outside of U.S. daytime trading hours, indicating that foreign traders are increasingly looking at the benchmark area.
Natural gas markets historically have been heavily regional, but that is quickly changing as the United States pushes to become a swing supplier of the resource.
"The U.S. is going to be the price setter for the majority of the freely traded market," said Peter Keavey, global head of energy at CME Group Inc., a financial market company. "You're exporting the Henry Hub benchmark to the rest of the world" (Sider/Matthews, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 17). — NS
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/18/stories/1060058908
-
‘Great American Eclipse’ Begets Hype, Rock-and-Roll, and Test of Back-Up NatGas Resources
Aug 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
America's first solar eclipse visible across the Lower 48 states since 1979 will be seen most intensely in 14 states on Monday, and it promises to shine new light on natural gas capacity, foreshadowing what energy planners see as a future dominated increasingly by renewable energy resources.
The energy angle, however, pales compared to a larger socio-economic sidelight in which millions of people are expected to travel to areas across the country where viewing will be best. The anticipation has reached a frenzy in some prime-viewing locations, driving up lodging and food costs to celestial levels.
Throughout the nation, the “Great American Eclipse,” so named because so many millions of Americans should be able to view it, albeit with safety eyewear or indirectly, will test a combination of natural gas, hydro, conservation and technology in maintaining energy flows during the period of diminished solar sources.
The full focus of the eclipse is limited to a 70-mile-wide corridor from Oregon to South Carolina. While the hype is full-blown for the public, utility experts view the event as a glimpse of the future transformed U.S. electricity grid and the back-up, balancing role for natural gas-fired generation and other resources.
Earlier this year, the North American Electricity Reliability Corp. (NERC) published a white paper on the eclipse, drawing on an assessment of the 2015 solar eclipse in Europe. NERC noted that the more diversity of power sources on the grid, the more impact an eclipse can have.
The overall amount of solar on the North American grid had grown in 2016 to 42,619 MW from 5 MW in 2000.
The European eclipse in 2015, said NERC, demonstrated "a great deviation in the amount of solar generation that was available before, during, and post eclipse which caused the need for far more advanced coordination of primary, secondary, and tertiary reserves across Europe within a reduced time frame (10-15 minute intervals)."
During the eclipse, "making up the difference will be a balancing act of high-tension electricity choreography conducted by grid operators across the country,” according to an official with the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which expects to see the biggest impact from the solar event.
“They have to make sure that power plants aren't down for maintenance, for example, and that pressure in natural gas feeder lines remains constant to prevent hiccups in other power generation units."
Perhaps nowhere is the impact more intensely anticipated than in California, which relies on an abundance of renewable generation, including solar resources. California’s goal is to have half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, and with solar capacity now approaching 10,000 MW, the state is a litmus test.
CAISO CEO Steve Berberich earlier this month expressed confidence in the state's technology and grid, and "the abilities of our staff to manage operational challenges associated with the eclipse. We are learning much about emerging shifts in operations that will define the electric system of tomorrow."
Monday is hyped as the latest lesson for CAISO management, and power will continue to flow in the nation's most populous state, he said. CAISO’s Nancy Traweek, executive director of system operations, said the lessons learned also would be used to prepare for the next North American solar eclipse scheduled to occur in 2024.
There is fun and business nationwide mixed in with the event. CAISO has invited media to its Folsom headquarters to watch the eclipse and see first-hand how grid operators work to balance resources on the largest solar powered high-voltage grid in the nation. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Energy Upgrade California are joining with the City of San Francisco for a viewing at the civic center plaza.
San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has been preparing for the eclipse for more than a year and expects no impact to its customer electric service. To reduce the potential effects, PG&E’s energy grid operators have a plan that includes: Halting all nonessential maintenance work on generation-related infrastructure to ensure abundant resources are available; Using the grid technology to reroute generation and distribution as necessary; and Coordinating with the CAISO to access other “fast-ramping” sources of power, including natural gas, to replace solar generation.
“Solar eclipses are rare but we deal with the equivalent of a total eclipse every night when the sun goes down,” PG&E CEO Nick Stavropoulos said. “Even with so much of California’s energy now coming from solar, PG&E has a diverse supply of resources that allow us to meet customers’ needs for safe and reliable energy around the clock.”
In PG&E’s service area, the eclipse would reduce the sun’s power by 85% in the northern region, 75% in the San Francisco Bay Area and 65% along the Central Coast and in the Central Valley, according to staff meteorologists. PG&E forecasts the eclipse would create a potential drop-off of 2,600 MW of solar energy supply across its service area.
More than 300,000 of PG&E’s customers use rooftop solar, which is 25% of all rooftop solar in the nation. Customers may lose some rooftop solar generation during the eclipse, but customers “won’t see any impact to their electric service due to the reliability and flexibility of the electric grid,” the utility said.
Meanwhile, Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) is prepared for a nearly 60% blockage of the sun, which could result in a loss of up to 500 MW of solar-generated electricity, or about 14% of its power supplies. SDG&E COO Caroline Winn said even with significantly less solar, the combination utility has secured enough resources to meet customer needs following months of planning.
Nationally, estimates vary on how much of the growing reliance on solar-generated megawatts would be temporarily blocked by the eclipse, but even conservative guesses envision several thousand megawatts, perhaps up to 10,000 MW, eliminated during daylight hours across the country. Estimates in California attributed to CAISO run as high as 6,000 MW.
"It would be difficult to speculate about how the resource mix will end up on eclipse day as our market will award lowest-cost bids and then dispatch accordingly in the day-ahead time frame with any incremental energy needed made up in the real-time market," said CAISO spokesperson Steven Greenlee, who noted the two principal replacements for solar are natural gas and hydroelectric.
Natural gas supplies 53% of California’s capacity.
"We feel anecdotally that as the dominant fuel, natural gas, will be in the mix, but to what degree is unknown," Greenlee told NGI last Monday. "We expect hydropower will also bid in as well as other renewables,” including biofuel and geothermal, which “may have some capacity above their normal schedules. And then there is the unknown regarding wind."
Although CAISO is forecasting clear skies, cloud cover on Monday also could play a role, Greenlee said.
"It could be that some clouds reduce the loss of forecasted solar output, and if that is the case, then it, too, could affect what resources are awarded bids” on the grid, he said. In sum, CAISO officials wouldn't speculate how much extra gas supplies may be needed.
Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) this week said it expects the region to experience a 58-76% partial solar eclipse from 9 a.m. to noon, with the effect of a cloudy or overcast day as opposed to a "darkened sky." SCE gets about 10% of its power supplies from solar, a spokesperson said.
"SCE expects no operational issues with our system due to the eclipse, and we have accounted for the anticipated reductions in solar production in our forecasts and planning for the day," said Vice President Paul Grigaux, who handles transmission operations.
California could face a shortfall of up to 6,000 MW for a period of time, he said, and "to compensate, CAISO and the utilities will balance the state's energy needs by adding power generated by hydroelectric and natural gas plants and customers should not notice any effect during the eclipse." SCE's transmission/distribution operations should see "minimal" effects from the eclipse.
For the CPUC, CAISO, and the California Energy Commission, the eclipse has been treated as "an opportunity to highlight California's large and growing adoption of solar power, and the new opportunities for conservation this energy source presents," a CPUC spokesperson told NGI.
The state energy agencies backed efforts by nonprofit Energy Upgrade to encourage consumers to conserve power during the prime time for the eclipse in the state, 9-11 a.m.
"We lead the nation in energy efficiency, but we can all do more," said CPUC President Michael Picker, adding that when the moon comes between the earth and sun, it is good time to increase conservation efforts.
Rock and roll fans who also want to share in the excitement can join the Royal Caribbean cruise, where passengers will witness Bonnie Tyler singing her hit, “Total Eclipse of the Heart” in an outdoor theater on the ship Oasis, as part of its “Total Eclipse Cruise.” The cruise ship was to depart from Florida for the Caribbean on Sunday and be positioned in the path of totality for the pivotal moment on Monday, which is to last less than three minutes.
For those unable to join the cruise or find solar eyewear, television news stations plan to broadcast coverage of the event. ABC at 1 p.m. ET is presenting “The Great American Eclipse,” a two-hour special, from Charleston, SC.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111442-great-american-eclipse-begets-hype-rock-and-roll-and-test-of-back-up-natgas-resources
-
Trump Axes Infrastructure Council
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Camille von Kaenel
President Trump's planned advisory panel on infrastructure "will not move forward," a White House spokeswoman said.
The Advisory Council on Infrastructure, chaired by New York developers Richard LeFrak and Steven Roth, would have helped Trump develop a plan to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure spending.
The cancellation follows Trump's announcement he is disbanding two other advisory panels. Business leaders had started quitting the American Manufacturing Council and Strategic and Policy Forum in protest after Trump's comments on white supremacists and the weekend's violence in Charlottesville, Va.
Trump first announced that LeFrak and Roth, whom he described as friends, would advise him on infrastructure in January and set up the advisory council in an executive order July 19 (E&E Daily, July 20). The 15 members of the council would have been tasked with reporting on the "funding, support and delivery of infrastructure projects," including as they relate to environmental policy.
Environmental group Food & Water Watch accused Trump in a lawsuit July 25 of violating sunshine laws by not opening meetings of the council to the public (Greenwire, July 26).
Trump this week signed an executive order seeking to speed infrastructure development by setting a two-year goal for completion of the permitting process and rolling back environmental rules. The White House is also working on a legislative proposal to spur more state, local and private spending, but officials have not yet agreed how to pay for the $200 billion boost in federal cash, and the chances of getting a bill through Congress this year are dimming.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/18/stories/1060058947
-
Economists, Legal Experts Challenge Trump on Carbon Pricing
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
A group of economists and lawyers is arguing that the current calculation of the societal cost of greenhouse gas emissions is the best estimate available, despite President Trump's decision to withdraw the metric and disband the interagency working group that developed it.
The social cost of carbon, which currently sets the price of CO2 at $50 per ton emitted, has been used in cost-benefit analyses of more than 150 proposed and final rules. Its intended purpose is to help regulators draft rules that will ultimately reduce emissions associated with global warming, and it was first adopted by an Obama administration interagency working group in 2010.
When Trump assumed office, he instructed federal agencies to stop using the calculation and instead individually monetize climate damage. The group of analysts and experts is arguing the move is a mistake.
In a letter published today in the journal Science, a number of prominent scholars urge both government and the private sector to continue using the metric.
They write that the calculation reflects peer-reviewed scientific and economic models, noting that many state and federal policies use the metric.
Among the experts signing the letter is Michael Greenstone, economics professor and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. Greenstone also co-led the original development of the working group under President Obama.
Richard Revesz, professor and dean emeritus at New York University School of Law and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, also signed the letter.
In March, Trump asked agencies to reconsider two specific elements of the social cost of carbon: the discount rates and the domestic versus global impacts.
The discount rate allows regulators to convert future costs and benefits into current values. Obama's working group used values ranging from 2.5 percent to 5 percent, while critics say that rate is too low, pushing for a 7 percent value.
The letter writers said a higher rate would place less value on avoiding future damage. It would impose higher costs on future generation, they said, noting that the higher rate has gained little support in the economic community.
"The National Academies of Sciences and the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers strongly support a 3% or lower discount rate for intergenerational effects. A 7% rate based on private capital returns is considered inappropriate because the risk profiles of climate effects differ from private investments," they wrote.
Critics of Obama's domestic versus global impact calculations argue that current regulatory policy states that damage and benefits should be considered in rulemaking only if they are national, not international. The letter authors counter that climate change is a global phenomenon and that United States' emissions contribute to global damage.
Each ton of carbon emitted outside the U.S. has national consequences. The authors wrote that, therefore, estimating the damage of U.S. emissions reinforces "reciprocal climate policies in other countries." They also note that "current models cannot accurately estimate a domestic-only share of the social cost of greenhouse gases."
The letter was also signed by Michael Hanemann, a professor of environmental and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley; Thomas Sterner, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden; Michael Livermore, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law; Jason Schwartz, the legal director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law; Peter Howard, the institute's economics director; and Denise Grab, a senior attorney at the institute.
Key Republican senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee have questioned the use of the social cost of carbon, saying it suffers from "procedural flaws" and "troubling substantive assumptions."
"We request EPA re-evaluate any rules that relied on those metrics to justify regulatory impact," Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and seven committee members wrote in a letter to EPA (E&E Daily, May 16).
The Department of Energy has incorporated the SCC in rulemaking at least twice. Last year, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the agency's use of the metric (Greenwire, Aug. 9, 2016).
And even though the president disbanded the working group, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not abandoned the calculation and is working quietly on updating it (Greenwire, June 15).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/18/stories/1060058953
-
Senate Dems Want Probe of Trump Hiring at EPA, CEQ
Aug 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Two Senate Democrats are seeking a Government Accountability Office investigation into the Trump administration's hiring of political appointees at U.S. EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
In a letter today to GAO, Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island charged that the administration is using various hiring authorities to skirt compliance with ethics requirements laid out by President Trump in a January executive order. They also voiced concern that some appointees "may not be complying with the ethics requirements that do apply to them in a timely or complete manner."
They asked GAO to "examine the authorities, policies, practices, entities involved and compliance with applicable ethics requirements that EPA and CEQ have followed" in hiring political appointees for posts that do not need Senate confirmation.
Carper is the ranking Democrat on the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Whitehouse occupies the comparable position on the panel's Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.
In their letter, they singled out a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows EPA to fill up to 30 jobs in engineering and other professional fields without following federal civil service requirements. The agency has used that authority to place a number of appointees in supervisory positions and roles "that raise ethical questions," they said without elaborating.
Written requests to EPA for specific information on appointees have gotten almost no response, the two added, while inquiries to the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Government Ethics have often yielded "unclear answers."
As part of their request, they asked GAO to also look at past administrations' hiring of "non-Senate-confirmed political appointees," including the roles such employees have performed and how long they served.
In an email this afternoon, GAO spokesman Chuck Young confirmed receipt of the request and said it will undergo a standard review that typically takes a few weeks before any decisions are made.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/18/stories/1060058955
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested