Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 26/09/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Paper Industry Urges NAFTA Caution
Sep 26, 2017 | Recycling Today
Donna Harman, president and CEO of the Washington-based American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) joined other business leaders in late September 2017 at a press briefing to “underscore the importance of retaining investor protections ahead of the upcoming round of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations.” -
(ACC Mentioned) NABE Poll: Economists Doubt US Will Reach Trump's 3 Growth Goal
Sep 25, 2017 | Newsmax
America’s economic growth won’t break out into the robust 3 percent level predicted by President Donald Trump anytime soon, according to the latest survey of nearly four dozen economists by the National Association for Business Economics. -
EPA Launches Sector-Based Burden Reduction Effort
Sep 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is launching a new “smart sectors” program to develop ways to reduce regulatory burdens on a range of major industry sectors, building on a similar Bush-era program that similarly worked with select industry sectors to address regulatory burdens. -
Top Dem Seeks Probe Of Political Interference Claims
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The top Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is seeking a wide-ranging investigation into whether the Trump administration is infringing on scientific integrity policies at U.S. EPA and other agencies. -
(ACC Mentioned) Mesothelioma Awareness Day: Our Past Must Dictate the Future
Sep 25, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Charles MacGregor
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that asbestos isn’t good for you. The mineral is a known carcinogen and has been tied to thousands of deaths from mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases. -
California To List Vinylidene Chloride As A Carcinogen
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment plans to list vinylidene chloride as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. -
Canada Finds Six Acrylates Pose No Current Risk
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has published a draft screening assessment, concluding that six substances in the acrylates and methacrylates group do not pose a risk to the environment or human health as currently used. -
(ACC Mentioned) Southern Governors To Confront Nuclear, Weather Challenges
Sep 25, 2017 | E&E Engergywire
By Rod Kuckro
When the Southern States Energy Board held its annual meeting in Arkansas last year, the first presidential debate had just occurred and a federal court was hearing oral arguments over the legality of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Perry Calls For Study On Expanding Energy Infrastructure
Sep 25, 2017 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
Energy Secretary Rick Perry called for a study on how to improve the permitting process for pipelines and other energy infrastructure, saying protests against those plans were slowing economic growth. -
Analysts Say LNG Exports From Dominion's Cove Point Are Imminent
Sep 25, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Analysts say liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from Dominion's Cove Point terminal on Chesapeake Bay are imminent, as FERC prepares to make another inspection of the facility in Maryland this week. -
(ACC Mentioned) Practitioner Insights: Evaluating Trump's Environmental Policy—Nine Months In
Sep 26, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Terry F. Yosie
After nine months of much sound and some intense fury, the Trump administration continues its efforts to implement an environmental agenda based on major 2016 campaign themes while also having to address the more practical realities of governance. -
NAFTA's Environmental Impact Under Review by U.S. Administration
Sep 26, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
The environmental impact of issues linked to North American Free Trade Agreement talks will be a focus for the U.S. administration, according to an official notice. -
CPP Replacement Outlines Begin To Coalesce On Facility-Specific Targets
Sep 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA's upcoming plan to repeal and eventually replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP), expected next month, is likely to return to a facility-specific approach that is being advocated by utility and labor groups that want a replacement rather than an outright repeal of the Obama-era climate rule. -
EPA Seeks SO2 Lawsuit Stay Pending Reconsideration, 5th Circuit Ruling
Sep 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to sever and hold in abeyance a lawsuit challenging the agency's designation of parts of Texas as out of attainment with federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) air standards, pending a ruling in a related 5th Circuit and EPA's ongoing reconsideration of the designation. -
Exxon Touts New Methane Efforts As EPA Pushes Rule Delay
Sep 26, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
ExxonMobil Corp. announced plans to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas wells that would go beyond the EPA standards the Trump administration would like to eliminate.
Industry and Association News
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Paper Industry Urges NAFTA Caution
Sep 26, 2017 | Recycling Today
Donna Harman, president and CEO of the Washington-based American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) joined other business leaders in late September 2017 at a press briefing to “underscore the importance of retaining investor protections ahead of the upcoming round of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations.”
The American Petroleum Institute (API) hosted the press briefing where Harman and other participants focused on the need to retain investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) as NAFTA is renegotiated with Canada and Mexico.
“NAFTA countries account for 45 percent of forest products industry total exports, making them a hugely important market for our industry,” Harman said at the event. “Our interconnected supply chain benefits U.S. consumers and rural and urban communities across the country, where our industry directly employs 900,000 men and women. That’s why it’s critical to maintain and expand robust market access and investment protections as NAFTA is renegotiated with Mexico and Canada.”
Continued Harman, “ISDS is a strong trade enforcement mechanism that ensures U.S.-owned assets aren’t subject to unfair government investment practices by our trade partners. It is an essential part of a new and improved NAFTA for the future. She cited an example when an AF&PA member company “faced expropriation of assets by a Canadian provincial government action. The company was able to use the NAFTA ISDS provision to challenge the expropriation of its property to reach a $130 million settlement with Canada in 2010. Without ISDS, the government in Canada would have taken the asset without any compensation to the U.S.-based company.”
Regarding NAFTA overall, Harman added, “Some of our members also export paper packaging materials from their U.S. mills to converting plants in Mexico where they manufacture corrugated shipping containers. They do this to be close to their converting facilities, which serve local customers in the produce industry and other manufactured products.”
In addition to the API and the AF&PA, other organizations taking part in the press briefing were the American Chemistry Council, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Council for International Business.
AF&PA says it represents producers of pulp, paper, packaging, tissue and wood products that manufacture more than $200 billion in products annually.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/afpa-nafta-paper-containerboard-recycling/
-
(ACC Mentioned) NABE Poll: Economists Doubt US Will Reach Trump's 3 Growth Goal
Sep 25, 2017 | Newsmax
America’s economic growth won’t break out into the robust 3 percent level predicted by President Donald Trump anytime soon, according to the latest survey of nearly four dozen economists by the National Association for Business Economics.
U.S. economic growth will stay stuck in the low 2 percent range in 2017 and 2018, the NABE survey found, USA Today reported.
"Panelists continue to expect action by Congress and the Trump administration on both tax reform and infrastructure spending before the end of 2018, although the majorities holding these views are smaller than in the June survey," Kevin Swift, vice president-elect of the NABE, said in a statement accompanying the report.
The economy's estimated trajectory was unchanged from NABE's last survey in June, with economists still expecting the economy to grow 2.2% in 2017 and 2.4% next year. That's down from the latest reading of 3 percent growth in the second quarter of this year, CNBC explained.
Late last month in a speech on the economy in Missouri, Trump returned to an argument he has made many times before: The change in gross domestic product under his predecessor was abysmal, and he would fix it, The Washingont Post reported.
“In the last 10 years, our economy has grown at only around 2 percent a year,” Trump said. “We were hitting 1 percent just a number of months ago. So we’re going to change that around, folks, that I can tell you. And we’re going to change it around fast. And today, a very appropriate day that this should happen, we just announced that we hit 3 percent in GDP. Just came out. And on a yearly basis, as you know, the last administration, during an eight-year period, never hit 3 percent. So we’re really on our way.”
Trump pledged on the campaign trail that the economy would grow at 4 percent annually on his watch, the Post explained.
Although the economy has been picked up steam in recent quarters, "the weak start to the year is expected to hold the average annual GDP growth rate in 2017 to 2.2%," said Swift, who is chief economist and managing director for the American Chemistry Council.
"Panelists continue to believe that a recession is unlikely in the next two years," NABE said in a statement.
The economists placed a 25% or less probability of recession this year and nearly three out of four economists estimated the same low odds of recession an economic slowdown in 2018.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is on track to gradually raise interest rates given the recent inflation weakness is fading and the U.S. economy’s fundamentals are sound, an influential Fed policymaker said on Monday, reinforcing the central bank’s confident tone.
New York Fed President William Dudley, among the first U.S. central bankers to speak publicly since a decision last week to hold rates steady for now, cited the soft dollar and strong overseas growth among the reasons he expects slightly above-average U.S. economic activity and a long-sought rise in wages, Reuters reported.
“With a firmer import price trend and the fading of effects from a number of temporary, idiosyncratic factors, I expect inflation will rise and stabilize around the (Fed‘s) 2 percent objective over the medium term,” he told students and professors at Onondaga Community College.
“In response, the Federal Reserve will likely continue to remove monetary policy accommodation gradually,” added Dudley, a close ally of Fed Chair Janet Yellen and a permanent voter on monetary policy.
Dudley’s comments were similar to his speech earlier this month, and reinforced the growing expectation that the Fed is set to raise rates for a third time this year in December. That notion was driven home by Fed forecasts published last week, when the central bank held rates but announced the beginning of a long process of shedding bonds it accumulated to boost the economy.
Still, others at the Fed are less anxious to tighten policy in the face of price readings that have sagged since February, despite strong jobs growth. Futures traders give a December rate hike about a 55-percent probability, according to Reuters data.
For its part, the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the third quarter of 2017 was 2.2 percent on September 19, unchanged from September 15.
https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/nabe-economy-growth-trump/2017/09/25/id/815589/
-
EPA Launches Sector-Based Burden Reduction Effort
Sep 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is launching a new “smart sectors” program to develop ways to reduce regulatory burdens on a range of major industry sectors, building on a similar Bush-era program that similarly worked with select industry sectors to address regulatory burdens.
“Based on the successful EPA Sector Strategies program, EPA’s Smart Sectors program will re-examine how EPA engages with industry in order to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, create certainty and predictability, and improve the ability of both EPA and industry to conduct long-term regulatory planning while also protecting the environment and public health,” the agency says in a Federal Register notice slated for publication Sept. 26.
EPA is billing it's effort as a successor to an “EPA Sector Strategies “ initiative, launched in 2003 to pursue industry-wide environmental gains through innovative partnerships with 12 manufacturing and service sectors, according to a 2004 report on the issue.
President Donald Trump has already signed separate executive orders aimed at addressing burdens on the energyand farm sectors.
But the new EPA program, which will be overseen by policy office director Samantha Dravis, appears to go further, identifying “initially” numerous sectors, including -- aerospace; agriculture; automotive; cement and concrete; chemical manufacturing; construction; electronics and technology; forestry and paper products; iron and steel; mining; oil and gas; ports and marine; and utilities and power generation.
The list resembles, with some additions, the sectors identified in the 2003 program, which included agribusiness; metal casting; cement; metal finishing; colleges & universities; paint & coatings; construction; ports; forest products; shipbuilding & ship repair; iron and steel; and specialty-batch chemicals.
Under the program EPA pledges to designate staff-level points of contact on specific industries, to act as “liaisons among industry trade associations and companies, EPA program and regional offices, state and local governments, and other stakeholder groups.”
EPA further states that “participating industries will benefit from coordinated, cooperative, and constructive problem solving with government.” EPA will also work with trade associations and others “to find creative ways to document environmental progress and burden reductions.”
The notice says that sectors were selected based on each sector’s potential to improve the environment and public health. EPA welcomes participation from other stakeholders, it adds.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-launches-sector-based-burden-reduction-effort
-
Top Dem Seeks Probe Of Political Interference Claims
Sep 26, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The top Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is seeking a wide-ranging investigation into whether the Trump administration is infringing on scientific integrity policies at U.S. EPA and other agencies.
"I am troubled by renewed reports of interference in the funding, conduct and communication of science at some federal agencies," Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said in a letter yesterday asking the Government Accountability Office to look into whether the administration has sought to suppress federally funded science or interfered with research grant activities.
In the letter, Nelson noted some agencies' decisions to scrub climate-related information from their websites and alluded to E&E News' report last month that EPA has installed a political appointee to review all solicitations for grant applications (Greenwire, Aug. 17).
"Debate on science is healthy — in fact, it is part of the scientific process," Nelson wrote. "But, suppression or distortion of science, especially science that impacts public health, cannot be tolerated."
As part of the requested inquiry, the senator also asked GAO to examine agencies' progress in implementing scientific integrity policies and the adequacy of existing safeguards for addressing alleged violations.
GAO spokesman Chuck Young confirmed receipt of Nelson's request, which will now undergo a standard review as the congressional watchdog agency weighs whether to pursue it. As of last December, two dozen agencies throughout government had integrity policies, according to Nelson.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/09/26/stories/1060061657
-
(ACC Mentioned) Mesothelioma Awareness Day: Our Past Must Dictate the Future
Sep 25, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Charles MacGregor
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that asbestos isn’t good for you. The mineral is a known carcinogen and has been tied to thousands of deaths from mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases. On average, close to 3,000 people each year in the United States are diagnosed with mesothelioma. And for those unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with the incredibly rare disease, the results are often not good. Patients are usually given a grim prognosis averaging somewhere between 12 and 21 months.
Asbestos-related diseases are rarely quick to present themselves, often taking decades before symptoms finally show. When you breathe in or accidentally ingest the invisible fibers, they enter the lungs and may lodge themselves deep into the lung lining, known as the mesothelium. The area becomes irritated and over the years tumors begin to form. Mesothelioma is often difficult to diagnose, which means the resulting cancer is caught later and treatment options are more limited.Breaking down barriers
Armed with that kind of information, one would assume it’d be a slam dunk to phase out asbestos use in the United States. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Last year, roughly 340 tons of raw asbestos were imported into the US, primarily for use in the chlor-alkali industry. Some types of asbestos-containing materials can also be imported. The Environmental Protection Agency tried to ban asbestos use nearly three decades ago, but many of the rules established by the department were overturned in a resulting court decision two years later. Today there’s hope things could change in the coming years, including renewed interest from the EPA.
In 2016, Congress approved the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and giving the EPA more power to regulate dangerous chemicals as they are introduced in an effort to more effectively remove those posing an unnecessary risk to public health. Chemicals deemed to pose an unreasonable risk during the evaluation process will be eliminated based on safety standards, as opposed to a risk-benefit balancing standard used under the previous TSCA requirements. What this means is that under the old TSCA, an unreasonable risk would require a cost-benefit analysis and any restrictions would have to be the least burdensome to addressing the risk. Under the Lautenberg Act, the “least burdensome” requirement is removed, though the EPA still needs to take costs of other regulatory actions and feasible alternatives into consideration.
The amendment also requires the agency to perform ongoing evaluations of chemicals to determine their risk to public health. In December, asbestos was included on a list of ten priority chemicals slated for evaluation and a scoping document for the mineral was issued in June. Problem formulation documents for each of the first ten chemicals are expected in December.Drowning in red tape
Despite what the Lautenberg Act is doing to unshackle the EPA and allow it to properly regulate chemicals as it sees fit, the White House and Congress have taken actions that seem counterintuitive. For example, in January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order known as the “2-for-1 Order” forcing agencies to remove two existing rules for every new one they create. The risk here is that agencies like the EPA will have to pick which rules to enforce, creating a new series of public health concerns. When it comes to new hazards, the agency may be slower to react due to a new budget variable thrown into the mix. While it could help the agency identify rules that overlap others, it does create the risk of money taking precedence over public health.
In addition, the Senate’s recently introduced Regulatory Accountability Act, known in some circles as the ”License to Kill” Bill, poses a similar set of issues. If passed, the RAA could potentially resurrect much of the red tape that was removed by the Lautenberg Act. Once again, it would become difficult to regulate or ban chemicals in the future, despite dangers they may propose. For example, the EPA would have to prove that a full asbestos ban is the best option available to the agency compared to any other more cost-effective option. It also allows for anyone to challenge these decisions, which could delay a potential ruling for years or even halt the process entirely.
The EPA is also constrained by the people who have been appointed to several high level positions within the agency itself. Administrator Scott Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times, challenging rules he believes overstepped the agency’s boundaries. Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck, previously with the American Chemistry Council, lobbied for years against the very rules she has sworn to protect today. In 2009, Beck was criticized in a House report for attempting to undermine and create uncertainty regarding the EPA’s chemical evaluations while serving with the Office of Budget and Management for the Bush administration. The latest person nominated for an EPA position is Mike Dourson, who has, at times, proposed much less protective standards for chemicals than those in use by the federal government.Where we stand now
This Mesothelioma Awareness Day, we find ourselves one step closer to seeing asbestos banned in the US. Today, while we honor those who’ve lost their struggle against this disease, we also show support for those still fighting mesothelioma and refusing to give in.
The EPA has, once again, taken the first steps toward a potential ban, but until that day comes the need for more awareness is a never-ending battle. Mesothelioma is a misunderstood disease and asbestos isn’t something people might consider at work or at home, which is why educating others is so important. Mesothelioma is largely avoidable, but the need to remain vigilant to prevent exposure is paramount.
Asbestos exposure isn’t something that will come to a screeching halt overnight. Hundreds of thousands of homes, buildings, and schools still harbor the mineral and that is likely to be the case for years to come. But stopping the flow of raw and imported asbestos into the US is a great first step to combating the issue at large.
About the author: Charles MacGregor is a health advocate specializing in education and awareness initiatives regarding mesothelioma and asbestos exposure. To follow along with the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance and participate in a MAD Twitter chat on September 26, find them at @CancerAlliance.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/mesothelioma-awareness-day-our-past-must-dictate-the-future
-
California To List Vinylidene Chloride As A Carcinogen
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment plans to list vinylidene chloride as a carcinogen under Proposition 65.
The California law requires manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers exposed to chemicals on the list.
The state proposes making the addition through the labour code listing mechanism. This requires the listing under Prop 65 of certain substances, identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as known to cause cancer. According to its website, Iarc classifies vinylidene chloride as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B).
In a separate notice, Oehha also proposes adopting a "no significant risk level" of 0.88 micrograms per day for the substance. This means exposures under that level would not be subject to Proposition 65 reporting requirements.
Vinylidene chloride, also known as 1,1-dichloroethylene, is used as a comonomer in the polymerisation of vinyl chloride, acrylonitrile and acrylates; and in production of adhesives, fibres, refrigerants, food packaging and coating resins.
Oehha will accept comments until 6 November on both notices, but state law requires a listing for an Iarc classification.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59395/california-to-list-vinylidene-chloride-as-a-carcinogen
-
Canada Finds Six Acrylates Pose No Current Risk
Sep 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has published a draft screening assessment, concluding that six substances in the acrylates and methacrylates group do not pose a risk to the environment or human health as currently used.
The substances include:acrylic acid;methacrylic acid;n-butyl methacrylate;2-ethylhexyl acrylate;butyl acrylate; andisobornyl methacrylate.
According to a notice in the 23 September Canada Gazette, the substances "have many applications, including the manufacturing of polymers".
Comments will be accepted on the draft assessment until 22 November. The government expects to publish a final assessment in September 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59396/canada-finds-six-acrylates-pose-no-current-risk
-
(ACC Mentioned) Southern Governors To Confront Nuclear, Weather Challenges
Sep 25, 2017 | E&E Engergywire
By Rod Kuckro
When the Southern States Energy Board held its annual meeting in Arkansas last year, the first presidential debate had just occurred and a federal court was hearing oral arguments over the legality of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
"With the election and the Clean Power Plan, we could see many changes to our energy grid," Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), the SSEB's chairman, said at the time.
When the SSEB meets today and tomorrow, the focus will have shifted markedly, with states' rights, preserving nuclear power and how to respond to severe weather events at the forefront for the SSEB and its members — 16 Southern states and two territories.
"This is one of the busiest meetings that we have had the last 10 years," said Ken Nemeth, the SSEB's executive director.
"One of the reasons for that is that there's a new administration in town," he said, noting that the member states — "most of whom voted for Trump" — will be represented by governors or legislative leaders eager to figure out what their role will be under the Republican administration.
There will be two central themes to the agenda, Nemeth said, energy dominance and cooperative federalism, buzzwords popularized by the architects of the Trump administration's energy policies.
The energy dominance discussion will center on how to develop and increase energy supplies as well as boost exports of compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas to Central America and the Caribbean, among others.
As for cooperative federalism, SSEB members will consider how "states can be more in charge when it comes to regulatory matters within their borders than they have been in the past," Nemeth said.
In recent years, "it's been the states that were in charge until the federal government reviewed what's been done [by states] and then the federal government changes what they've done," he said. The result, he said, was "mitigating energy supply through regulatory measures."
"What our states are looking forward to are changes in the Clean Power Plan, the [Waters of the U.S.] rule and all of these kinds of things that you saw in the last several years of the Obama administration as the regulations began to ramp up on surface and underground mining, water resources use and offshore drilling," he said.
Two of the Trump administration's architects will address the expected crowd of roughly 200 state government executives, lawmakers and a wide range of energy industry interests.
This morning, Dan Brouillette, deputy secretary of the Energy Department, will speak about energy dominance. He is a former association executive, Ford Motor Co. vice president, DOE assistant secretary and Capitol Hill committee staffer.
The luncheon keynote address will be given by Kenneth Wagner, senior adviser on state and regional affairs to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who will talk about regulatory reform at the agency. Wagner is a longtime Pruitt friend and business associate.
Today also will feature a panel discussion by Hutchinson, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R), Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) and South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) on regional energy policy, cybersecurity and infrastructure.
The group will consider a dozen resolutions on topics ranging from expediting energy infrastructure permitting to protecting the electric grid to incentives for making coal-fired generating units more efficient in terms of cutting carbon emissions.Priorities
Yesterday afternoon, the SSEB's associate or industry members huddled to hear from experts about several pressing issues.
One is to make the construction of an Appalachian natural gas storage hub and pipeline system a priority as a way to increase jobs in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky.
Rudy Underwood, vice president of state affairs and political mobilization for the American Chemistry Council, said the gas storage facility is critical to accommodate current and anticipated investments by chemical and plastics manufacturers in new facilities, including many by overseas players.
Proponents of the Appalachian hub believe it can attract $35 billion in new industry investment, create 100,000 jobs in the region and generate $28 billion in economic output.
Tom Parker, Southern regional director for the American Petroleum Institute, walked through lessons learned in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma as to the industry's and states' preparation and response.
"There's an awful lot of waivers that are required," Parker said, chief of which are state and federal fuel waivers to help re-establish supplies.
But there are others, such as waiving rules on how long truckers can be in the driver's seat in such situations.
He urged more preparation by both EPA and state agencies and a goal of making the response to hurricanes "more regional in nature."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060061539/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Perry Calls For Study On Expanding Energy Infrastructure
Sep 25, 2017 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
Energy Secretary Rick Perry called for a study on how to improve the permitting process for pipelines and other energy infrastructure, saying protests against those plans were slowing economic growth.
Perry asked the National Petroleum Council, whose membership includes various heads of the energy industry, to conduct the study with help from the Energy Department.
While domestic oil production has steadily increased since the mid-2000s, pipelines, railways, oil storage “and related system components” needed to move fossil fuel from well to market have to be “expanded, upgraded and maintained,” Perry said.
With the rise of oil and natural gas fields in North Dakota, environmentalists have objected to major oil pipeline projects, including Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline.
“We have to ensure we have an uninterrupted flow of energy product,” Perry said. “In recent years, objections to and restrictions on the construction of needed transportation infrastructure have increased, slowing the development of new infrastructure and hindering economic growth.”
Perry also called on the NPC to study how to make carbon capture, utilization and storage infrastructure economically viable.
The event also attracted protesters, two of whom were escorted from the room after demanding Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke address climate change.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Analysts Say LNG Exports From Dominion's Cove Point Are Imminent
Sep 25, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Analysts say liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from Dominion's Cove Point terminal on Chesapeake Bay are imminent, as FERC prepares to make another inspection of the facility in Maryland this week.
During a panel discussion at the Weather & Price Tealeaves IV conference in Houston on Monday, IAF Advisors' Kyle Cooper, managing director of research, told the audience he expects Cove Point "might start shipping by November."
Eric Fell, senior natural gas analyst at Genscape Inc., added that based on internal data, Genscape expects Cove Point to begin shipping cargoes as soon October. But the facility would not be fully operational that month, as it would take "a couple of months to test cargoes and flows into the terminal."
"We have infrared monitoring at Cove Point," Fell said, adding that while Genscape has not seen nominations, it has seen "flares fire up a couple of times now. They've been short-lived. They are clearly testing," similar to what Genscape observed at Cheniere Energy Inc.'s LNG export facility in Sabine, TX.
Cheniere exported its first LNG cargo from Sabine Pass in February 2016. Earlier this month, the facility resumed loading cargo after more than a week of shut-ins in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. Analysts with IHS Markit reported at the time that LNG exports through Sabine Pass were expected to rebound from the storm.
"There has been off and on testing" at Cove Point, a sign that it is nearing startup, Fell said.
Karl Neddenien, a spokesman for Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP, told NGI on Monday that Cove Point will be completed in the fourth quarter, with an export capacity of 5.25 million metric tons per annum (mmtpa).
Inspectors with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [CP13-113] visited Cove Point last month. In a field inspection report filed last Wednesday, FERC said construction activities observed on Aug. 17 "comply with the designs and plans filed with and approved by FERC. The findings of the inspection were that no instances of noncompliance or problem areas were identified." FERC said the next construction inspection of the LNG terminal facilities was tentatively scheduled for this week.
Last month, Dominion filed a request for authorization from FERC to introduce hazardous fluids at Cove Point.
During Dominion's 2Q2017 earnings call, CEO Thomas Farrell said Cove Point was 95% complete, and that the project was on-time and on-budget. Farrell added that, at the time, more than 90% of the project's systems were in the commissioning phase.
"As we work toward commercial in-service later this year, we will bring the project to a state of ready for start-up this quarter, and construction will essentially reach complete status," Farrell said on Aug. 2.
Cove Point's marketed capacity is fully subscribed under 20-year service agreements. Pacific Summit Energy LLC, a U.S. affiliate of Japan's Sumitomo Corp.; and GAIL Global (USA) LNG LLC, a U.S. affiliate of GAIL (India) Ltd., each have contracted for half of the marketed capacity. Sumitomo has said it has agreements to serve Tokyo Gas Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.
Once the export project is complete, the facility would be bidirectional, offering import and export capability. The export facility is expected to source natural gas from the Marcellus Shale with capacity to handle 750 MMcf/d.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111854-analysts-say-lng-exports-from-dominions-cove-point-are-imminent
-
(ACC Mentioned) Practitioner Insights: Evaluating Trump's Environmental Policy—Nine Months In
Sep 26, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Terry F. Yosie
After nine months of much sound and some intense fury, the Trump administration continues its efforts to implement an environmental agenda based on major 2016 campaign themes while also having to address the more practical realities of governance. To paraphrase the late New York City Mayor Ed Koch, how is the Trump administration doing so far? After nine months in office, five major trends are discernible at this writing.
Trump appointees know what they're against, but not what they're for
Battle-tested through previous service in state and local governments, as congressional staff, in business associations, law firms, and politically conservative think tanks, many Trump appointed officials have a long list of policies, programs, and voluntary initiatives they have wished to repeal or rollback for many years. Their rationale is these environmental activities are inconsistent with the role of the federal government and, in some cases, any level of government.
In certain instances, the agenda of incoming officials also reflects their ties to specific industries, including coal, chemicals, oil and gas, that have sought to reduce their regulatory burdens. The “repeal and rollback agenda” began with an extensive set of regulations for Congress to override, executive orders. and other decisions to cancel or re-propose some existing rules, coupled with proposed budget and staff reductions and other measures designed to shrink the administrative state.
Beyond this short-term repeal and rollback agenda, there's not much else to offer the American people. Generally, one does not hear Trump officials discuss plans to expand clean air and clean water; protect vulnerable members of the population from pollution aggressively enforce current statutes; or identify new areas where regulation, economic incentives, or the convening capacity of government can be applied to improve the quality of air, land, and water resources in creative and cost-effective ways.
Instead, officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies stress the importance of reducing the size of government and implementing traditional statues (“back to the basics” is a clarion call) with less resources and fewer staff. The constant references to federalism and the importance of state environmental authority are undermined by proposed budget reductions. There also is an unwillingness to discuss certain topics such as the relationship of climate change to hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
The administration has advanced environmental goals, but they are reversible
By early July, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sought to repeal or significantly alter approximately 30 agency rulemakings. These and other proposals have not involved major statutory modifications, however. In fact, an effort to achieve congressional repeal of an Obama rulemaking (from the Department of Interior) to abolish methane flaring from oil and gas operations on federal lands failed to achieve the required number of votes on the Senate floor. Efforts to withdraw the 2015 Waters of the U.S. rulemaking are snagged in a Supreme Court decision not to pause implementation of the Obama rule even while EPA attempts to rescind and re-propose it.
The president's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and follow-up efforts to withdraw the previous administration's Clean Power Plan are being met with a flurry of opposition from environmental groups, many state and local governments, and voluntary business initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases. And Administrator Pruitt reversed an earlier decision not to implement the national ambient air quality standard for ozone following a lawsuit filed by 16 Democratic attorneys general.
Other actions the administration has taken—removing information from government websites, reorganizing government agencies, and reducing budgets and staff—also can be reversed over time. So far, Congress has been reluctant to downsize budgets for environmental agencies such as EPA by approving funds for both fiscal year 2017 and the beginning of FY 2018 close to Obama funding levels.
A vigorous anti-science agenda is being implemented
Donald Trump is the first president since Franklin Roosevelt not to appoint a science adviser. The administration's overt hostility toward the scientific community's values, principles, practices, and role in decisionmaking is widespread and unprecedented. This reflects in part an ideological approach to science held by administration officials and their external allies that exists outside the mainstream of scientific community consensus on topics such as risk assessment, stratospheric ozone depletion, second hand smoke, fine particles, and climate change.
The administration's advocates of “sound science” also adhere to a view that science-based decisions must be based on facts rather than estimates of the probability of health and environmental effects. Because such “facts” are relatively rare, even fewer regulations should be developed or maintained, they say. Such reasoning is contrary to virtually every major public health or environmental policy decision made during the past five decades as both scientists and policymakers recognized that waiting for actual documentation of facts pertaining to cancer, birth defects, asthma, and other impacts would require death or debilitating illnesses to provide the confirmatory evidence—an unethical position sui generis.
Additional manifestations of the administration's anti-science agenda include: the appointment of people with no scientific literacy to administer scientific programs, the selection of political appointees to review and approve eligibility for science grants, eliminating “climate change” as a criterion for grant eligibility, canceling a National Research Council study evaluating the health effects of common mining operations in Appalachia, the transfer or harassment of professional scientists in agencies such as the Interior Department, and the purging of scientific advisory panels.
This last set of actions involves changing the criteria for advisory panel appointments from scientific merit to representation of affected industries. Part of the administration's focus on advisory panels derives from its belief that currently serving scientists reflected an Obama administration point of view on science and environmental policies. In fact, 47 of the 53 scientists and engineers serving on the EPA's Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee at the beginning of the Trump administration were appointed by previous administrations of both parties and have advised numerous agencies.
The business community separates itself from Trump's environmental agenda
Major international corporations have much at stake in environmental policy design and implementation. Each year, corporations invest hundreds of millions of dollars in research to develop products and must submit their research data to federal agencies for review as part of product approval and marketing requirements. Widespread changes that destabilize the scientific principles and assessment processes utilized in existing regulatory reviews can lead to the loss of significant research investments.
Moreover, further weakening of public confidence of protections from health and environmental risks could undermine acceptance of company products in the marketplace. As a practical matter, major companies have seen this movie before during the 1981–1982 period of the Reagan administration when a deregulatory agenda led to significant controversies and heightened public concerns that ultimately landed at the private sector's door.
Increasingly, CEOs are directly participating in environmental policy debates, and their perspectives diverge from Trump administration positions on such issues as: remaining in the Paris Agreement; phase out of stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals; carbon taxes, calculating the social cost of carbon or other specific policies that would limit greenhouse gases; endorsing sustainable development goals and practices; energy efficiency; and public-private sector collaboration on key voluntary initiatives such as Energy Star that the administration proposed to defund.
While individual business associations continue to dance to the music of the administration's environmental agenda, they increasingly find that many of their most important member companies are following a different tune composed by their employees, customers, and the broader stakeholder community.
Environmentalists play defense in response to the Trump's policy agenda
While the public debate expands over the administration's attempts to refocus or eliminate public health and environmental policies and programs, the broad-based network of organizations that espouse environmental protection has converged on a set of anti-Trump message points and resistance to administration initiatives. Work continues to be done to organize marches, submit court briefings to stymie administration policies, prepare position papers on projected impacts of budget and personnel reductions, and estimate the public health and environmental consequences of proposed repeal and rollback decisions. These efforts will slow and, in some cases, redirect some of the administration's de-regulatory proposals. They are generally defensive in nature, however, and do not integrate the environmental conversation with other public priorities, and generally reflect Washington insider tactics and language that most citizens do not follow or comprehend.
The degree to which the Trump administration or its critics prevail on environmental policy depends heavily on their ability to develop a more strategically focused agenda. Such an agenda would more directly connect the goal of environmental protection to innovation and job creation, expanded educational opportunities, an improved quality of life, and communication of greater confidence in the future and the ability to solve important problems. Achieving such linkage depends not only on science and environmental advocacy but also must reflect cultural, economic, and geographic analyses that shape the public's thinking.
In conclusion, what remains to be seen is whether administration policymakers—having given their repeal and rollback agenda their best shot—can remain on their island if the waters of a more concerned public opinion start to rise. Alternatively, an anti-Trump agenda by itself is less likely to stir the public into broad-based and consistent engagement. Nine months in, the administration's environmental proposals meet with increased resistance even while its critics have yet to develop an effective game plan to outflank it.
Terry F. Yosie is president and chief executive officer of World Environment Center. He was director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board during the Ronald Reagan administration and served as a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council.
The opinions expressed here do not represent those of Bloomberg BNA, which welcomes other points of view.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121251807&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121251807&jd=121251807
-
NAFTA's Environmental Impact Under Review by U.S. Administration
Sep 26, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
The environmental impact of issues linked to North American Free Trade Agreement talks will be a focus for the U.S. administration, according to an official notice.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) asked for public comments on the review by Nov. 24, according to a noticescheduled for Federal Register publication Sept. 26, one day before the third NAFTA round ends in Ottawa. “Reviews are one of the tools we use to integrate environmental information and analysis into the fluid, dynamic process of trade negotiations,” the notice said,
NAFTA renegotiations aim to bring environmental obligations, currently addressed in a side agreement, into the NAFTA itself. NAFTA negotiators are scheduled to discuss environmental provisions in Ottawa Sept. 25, Sierra Club Responsible Trade Program Director Ben Beachy told Bloomberg BNA.
As for USTR's environmental review, Beachy noted that proposals in the NAFTA talks are not shared with the environmental community but that corporate insiders on trade advisory panels have access.
Environmental reviews provide support for trade negotiations and trade policies, according to information posted on USTR's website. Reviews also provide a framework for discussing the environmental impacts of trade agreements within the government and with the public.
Potential Effects
Comments are sought on the review's scope, including potential positive or negative environmental effects that might result from the trade agreement and potential implications for U.S. environmental laws and regulations. The TPSC, chaired by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, also welcomes comments on methodologies and sources of data for conducting the review.
Statutory trade promotion authority procedures guiding the negotiations require environmental reviews of trade agreements.
NAFTA modernization negotiations are taking place in Ottawa Sept. 23-27. Negotiators hope to reach a deal by the end of the year but that outcome is not assured. The next NAFTA renegotiation round will take place in the U.S.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121251797&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121251797&jd=121251797
-
CPP Replacement Outlines Begin To Coalesce On Facility-Specific Targets
Sep 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA's upcoming plan to repeal and eventually replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP), expected next month, is likely to return to a facility-specific approach that is being advocated by utility and labor groups that want a replacement rather than an outright repeal of the Obama-era climate rule.
Such an approach, which would base greenhouse gas targets on steps that can be taken at a regulated power plant, would also give states significant leeway to determine what each plant within their borders must do to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hinted at the approach in a Sept. 18 interview with the Washington Examiner and the strategy is also being articulated by seven labor groups in a Sept. 21 letter to Pruitt that calls for targets to be based on power plant efficiency improvements.
“The proposed framework strictly adheres to the statutory requirements for regulating existing sources under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act,” the letter says. “These requirements give states the primary role in regulating CO2 emissions from existing [power plants] through the establishment of CO2 performance standards.”
The letter adds that the air law limits EPA's role to establishing a procedure for states to submit a plan and develop standards that must achieve or surpass a federal target set using the agency's determination of the “best system of emission reduction.”
“Each state should have wide latitude to develop a plan that fits its individual circumstances and priorities,” the letter says. “States should have authority to establish source-specific standards based on a variety of factors, including remaining useful life of the unit, unreasonable cost of control, and physical impossibility of installing emissions control equipment.”
The letter was signed by unions representing mine workers, iron workers, boilermakers, electrical workers, machinists, pipe fitters and utility workers.
It comes days after one utility coalition urged EPA to develop a CPP replacement with scaled-back targets based on actions taken inside the fence of a facility at a Sept. 14 meeting with White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and EPA officials. At the meeting, the group circulated a white paper that outlines key details, including that it would set a deadline for plants to meet the goals in 2035.
At the same time, Pruitt told the Examiner that EPA is closely examining its section 111(d) authority, noting that nearly all prior EPA rules were based on “inside the fence” steps.
“It's always been facility-by-facility, with a focus on . . . technology and equipment that can be applied at those facilities inside the fence to achieve emission reductions in those focused areas. And so, we're going through that,” he said.
He also referred to an approach called the “Oklahoma Plan,” which similarly endorses a “unit-by-unit, inside-the-fence strategy” to EPA regulation that gives states wide discretion.
NSR Advocacy
The labor groups' approach similarly coalesces around this idea but also continues to press for concurrent changes to EPA's new source review (NSR) air permitting program because that “would enhance the prospects for investments that would create jobs while modernizing the aging coal fleet. . . . The recently announced formation of an [EPA] NSR Task Force within the agency is a positive step.”
The NSR program, contained in a separate part of the air law, requires new facilities, and major modifications to existing facilities, to install state-of-the-art pollution control equipment.
Changes to NSR were the subject of a June 26 labor meeting with OMB, where labor groups urged the administration to address NSR as part of any CPP replacement, including extending an exemption for “routine maintenance, repair and replacement” to projects undertaken to cut CO2 emissions at coal-fired utilities.
One labor observer says a key change between that earlier pitch and this one is that the groups now believe NSR needs to be done separately but concurrently with a CPP replacement.
Additionally, one significant change to the CPP replacement proposal is that the labor groups have dropped their earlier statistical approach to measuring emissions reductions from the utility sector, which had been set by looking at the emission reductions of best-performing plants in the sector.
Now, the group says the best approach is based on unit-specific concerns. The group was informed that its statistical approach -- similar to how maximum achievable control technology rules are set using the average of the top 12 percent of best performers -- was unworkable for power plant CO2 because “the industry is changing on a virtually daily basis and therefore it would be very, very difficult to come up with an accurate assessment of what the 90th percentile reduction equivalent might look like going into the future,” the observer says.
The fact that the labor groups are weighing in on a replacement rule is significant, according to the source, because the groups are advocating a climate regulation to the Trump administration, even though some of them are involved in litigation over the Obama-era CPP.
This source underscores prior expectations that EPA would adopt an argument that no new rule is needed because of the so-called “section 112 exclusion,” a provision in section 111 that some argue precludes regulation if the source category is already regulated under section 112.
The labor groups didn't take that approach “because they don't think that's where the law or policy is,” according to the source, who says the labor groups hope to meet with EPA within a month to discuss their ideas.
One concern is that the agency -- which lacks confirmed political appointees and is losing staff to buyouts -- does not have the bandwidth to address both a CPP replacement and controversial NSR changes, the source acknowledges, while adding that the recent nomination of Bill Wehrum to be air chief gives hope to the idea.
Despite the hurdles, the labor groups see the two issues as so entwined they intend to continue to make the case for both a CPP replacement and an NSR overhaul to be done concurrently, and they are working on white papers to integrate the two issues and refine their approach.
The NSR updates in particular are complex because of “constraining legal precedents” set when the George W. Bush administration sought to make significant changes to the program.
'Consistent' With Industry
Meanwhile, the labor position on the CPP replacement is now “strictly in conformity with the requirements of section 111(d),” according to the source, who says a case-by-case approach “ensures states have flexible mechanisms written into the rule. . . . The Clean Power Plan was cap-and-trade. This is not and we think, from a legal standpoint, it is bullet proof. Above all else, when EPA does come out with a replacement rule, they'll want a rule that will survive legal challenge.”
Also, the source says the core recommendations in the new letter “are highly consistent with what has been and will be recommended by a majority of coal/utility folks.”
Additionally, the National Climate Coalition -- a group of utilities and other companies -- has long been pushing the idea of NSR reform to boost utility GHG reductions, though a source there says its climate focus has shifted largely to the states, due to Trump administration posturing, though it will participate in any federal effort on NSR when the time is ripe.
In a related matter, Obama-era air chief Janet McCabe in a new backgrounder says EPA intends to issue in October a CPP repeal proposal. Along with that, she said the agency would either issue a proposed replacement that sets “inside-the-fence” GHG targets, or an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeking input on a potential replacement.
She says that EPA will face hurdles if it pursues an “inside-the-fence” rule, including that it “will need to explain . . . why it is changing its previous interpretation that setting carbon emission reduction goals for coal-fired power plants should consider fuel switching . . . as well as efficiency improvements.” She added that EPA must update the data used in the 2015 rule, change the methodology for setting the target, explain compliance timing, provide a new cost-benefit analysis and use an updated baseline that accounts for the closure of additional coal plants since 2015.
She also notes that it will take several years for the agency to complete the CPP process, “and whatever EPA does will be aggressively challenged.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/cpp-replacement-outlines-begin-coalesce-facility-specific-targets
-
EPA Seeks SO2 Lawsuit Stay Pending Reconsideration, 5th Circuit Ruling
Sep 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to sever and hold in abeyance a lawsuit challenging the agency's designation of parts of Texas as out of attainment with federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) air standards, pending a ruling in a related 5th Circuit and EPA's ongoing reconsideration of the designation.
Texas has been pressing for its case against the nonattainment designations of four parts of the state to be heard in the 5th Circuit, which some observers believe may be more amenable to the state's arguments. Texas argues that a “supplemental” rule EPA used to issue those nonattainment designations at issue in the case should be reviewed by the regional appeals court as a local matter.
But the agency so far has resisted this, arguing that Texas designations were just part of a broader set of designations across the United States, which should be treated as one rule, and therefore the case should be heard in the D.C. Circuit that reviews challenges to EPA rules that are national in scope.
EPA previously argued in 5th Circuit litigation over the issue, State of Texas v. EPA, that all designations for the 2010 SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), set at 75 parts per billion (ppb), should be adjudicated in the D.C. Circuit where the case Samuel Masias, et al. EPA, et al. challenging SO2 NAAQS designations from several states is currently pending. Otherwise, different courts may apply different criteria to determine whether areas should be found to be violating the NAAQS, resulting in an uneven playing field nationally, EPA says.
Areas designated nonattainment must impose tough pollution controls on industry, or face the ultimate prospect of withheld federal highway funding.
In the D.C. Circuit case, EPA is asking the court to sever and hold in abeyance Texas' issues, pending a ruling on the merits by the 5th Circuit, which in a preliminary ruling already found it has jurisdiction to hear Texas' case.
'Judicial Comity'
EPA in a Sept. 22 motion to govern proceedings in Samuel Masias says that the 5th Circuit should be able to finish its deliberations on the Texas issues, and further informs the court that the agency announced Sept. 21 that it is reconsidering those designations, warranting abeyance.
EPA “believes it would be contrary” to the Clean Air Act “and principles of judicial comity to litigate challenges to the same EPA action in two circuit courts at the same time. While EPA maintains its position that this Court is the exclusive venue for petitions for review of the Supplemental Rule, EPA respects the Fifth Circuit’s decision to proceed to merits briefing on the Supplemental Rule.”
The agency “therefore opposes any request to litigate petitions for review of the Supplemental Rule in this Court while merits proceedings are underway in the Fifth Circuit.”
Texas and utilities based in the state filed a Sept. 22 motion seeking transfer of their case to the 5th Circuit, and EPA says it takes no position on that request at this time but reserves the right to do so in the future.
If “the Court denies EPA’s motion to sever these petitions and hold them in abeyance, and ultimately elects to transfer” the Texas case, “EPA expressly reserves its right to renew its venue objections in the Fifth Circuit, and respectfully asks that the Court make plain in any order transferring the petition(s) that such order is without prejudice to EPA’s right to renew its venue objections in the Fifth Circuit.”
Texas petitioners in their motion say, “Transfer is necessary in light of the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit holding that proper venue for challenges to the Texas Final Rule lies 'only' in that court.” Further, “there is no basis or need for this Court to either abate proceedings on the Texas Final Rule (as requested by EPA in its motion to govern) or to set a merits briefing schedule for the Texas Final Rule (as requested by Sierra Club in its motion to govern).”
Abeyance Request
Meanwhile, EPA is also asking the D.C. Circuit to hold in abeyance some other specific challenges to nonattainment designations consolidated under Samuel Masias. The agency says because of a reconsideration proceeding launched by EPA of the “unclassifiable” designation of portions of Franklin County and St. Charles County, MO, and the Gallia County, OH, area, abeyance in claims over those designations is appropriate.
Utility Ameren in a Sept. 22 motion asks the court to dismiss Sierra Club's challenge to the Franklin and St Charles County unclassifiable designation. Environmentalists in Samuel Masias are seeking more stringent designations, in addition to defending existing nonattainment designations, but Ameren says that because of EPA's ongoing reconsideration of the Missouri designations, “nothing hinges on the outcome of Sierra Club’s petition, thus rendering this case moot.”
EPA says that it is also reviewing the Obama EPA's January denial of a reconsideration of the nonattainment designation of Williamson County, IL. Southern Illinois Power Co-operative, which operates its Marion power plant in the county, objected to the designation, but the utility's lawsuit over the issue was transferred by the 7th Circuit court of appeals to the D.C. Circuit, after the regional court in July found venue proper in the D.C. Circuit.
Meanwhile, local Colorado Springs residents including Samuel Masias in a Sept. 22 motion are asking the court for the right to file briefs separately from Sierra Club, as they seek to force EPA to classify the Colorado Springs area as nonattainment. “Colorado Springs Residents are not an environmental organization. Rather, they are individual residents of the Colorado Springs area and their only concern in this case is the EPA’s failure to designate Colorado Springs nonattainment,” they say, adding that as members of a national environmental group, Sierra Club members “presumably have broader concerns.”
Sierra Club's Sept. 22 motion “respectfully requests that the Court enter a briefing schedule at this time that moves this case toward a timely and efficient resolution,” in order to avoid further delay. The group does not object to the Colorado Springs residents' request for separate briefing.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-so2-lawsuit-stay-pending-reconsideration-5th-circuit-ruling
-
Exxon Touts New Methane Efforts As EPA Pushes Rule Delay
Sep 26, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
ExxonMobil Corp. announced plans to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas wells that would go beyond the EPA standards the Trump administration would like to eliminate.
Environmentalists are touting the company's leadership and framing the ramped up efforts to reduce emissions as a bid for greater certainty amid Trump administration efforts to delay and possibly revoke methane limits that cloud the industry's regulatory future.
The oil and gas giant Sept. 25 announced an “enhanced” program for detection and repair of methane leaks at natural gas facilities operated by its subsidiary XTO Energy Inc. The program will cover both new and existing sources across the company's production and midstream sites, a step beyond current Environmental Protection Agency controls that cover only new and modified sources.
Under the new efforts, XTO Energy will phase out within three years high-emitting devices, as well as undertake employee training and research initiatives. Exxon spokesman Bill Holbrook told Bloomberg BNA in an email that the biggest reductions will come from the leak detection and repair program and from more efficient designs for new facilities.
Holbrook said it is “too soon to tell what the estimated methane reductions will be from these initiatives.” But he said the company will collect information and “assess the program's effectiveness and determine how to move forward.”
The XTO Energy effort “really addresses itself to a key point: that the majority of emissions are coming from existing sources,” Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's climate and energy program, told Bloomberg BNA.
“You've heard ad nauseum from companies that they need regulatory certainty,” he said. Exxon's new efforts represent “an example of a company making a decision to kind of get on with it.”
EPA Rollbacks
In March, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt pulled back an Obama-era request for methane emissions data from existing oil and natural gas wells, which could have formed the basis for pollution limits on those sources.
Exxon's announcement also comes after the EPA Sept. 22 sent to the White House its final versions of rules to delay for at least two years key requirements of the methane limits for new drilling operations. Many industry trade groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, which represents ExxonMobil, strongly support the delay.
Brownstein suggested that XTO Energy's efforts could undercut the trade groups’ arguments against the EPA's methane controls. The company's push “chips away at the central argument that somehow the requirement to do this type of stuff is at odds” with producing oil and gas, he said.
Other environmental groups, however, say XTO Energy's program is good “on paper,” but that if the company is “truly dedicated to cutting methane pollution,” it would defend the EPA's methane limits.
“The oil and gas industry's history of failing to meet voluntary commitments suggests Exxon's announcement may do more harm than good,” Bruce Baizel, energy program director at Earthworks, said in a statement.
But EDF's Brownstein said he hopes XTO Energy will continue the process of improving “how it reports emissions and the granularity with which it reports.” That would lead to “real transparency, and, therefore, there could be real accountability. That's critical.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121251787&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121251787&jd=121251787
Industry and Association News
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested