Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/10/17
-
BASF and McGill Team Clash Again Over DINCH Data
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Rats exposed to the plasticiser DINCH while in the womb show apparent symptoms of reproductive toxicity, according to a study by a team from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. -
Harmonised GHS list project ‘at crossroads’
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UN project to create a global list of harmonised GHS classifications is "at a crossroads", according to an internal paper prepared for discussion by the GHS sub-committee in December. -
'Conflict of Interest' Row Flares in Advance of PFOA Discussions
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
The European Commission and the consultancy it hired to work on its draft nomination of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) to the Stockholm Convention, have both refuted claims that it was inappropriate to use the consultancy and that doing so "created a conflict of interest cloud over the proceedings". -
BNP Paribas to Stop Financing Shale, Oil Sands Projects
Oct 11, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Noemie Bisserbe and Sarah Kent
French lender BNP Paribas SA BNPQY -0.46%said Wednesday it will no longer finance shale and oil sands projects, in one of the clearest signs yet the banking industry is re-evaluating its relationship with the oil sector amid mounting pressure from investors and top financial institutions. -
Bullish U.S. LNG Export Picture Includes Small-Scale Projects, Analyst Says
Oct 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
In a bullish outlook for the growth of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports by 2024, an energy analyst with the Mizuho Securities LLC's energy research group said the expansion will include both small-scale and mega projects. -
Domestic-Bound Ethane Shipments From Mariner East Begin
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
A subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP has begun domestic shipments of Marcellus Shale ethane, in a development that could buttress the company's assertion of the need for a controversial pipeline extension. -
Atlantic Coast Backers' Bullish Construction Will Start This Year
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Atlantic Coast pipeline is on track to obtain its state and federal permits and "fully expects" to start construction this year, according to a spokesman for the project. -
Fluor Secures Petrochemical Contract
Oct 11, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Angharad Lock
Fluor Corp. has been selected by LyondellBasell to perform the engineering and procurement for its propylene oxide (PO) and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) project located at its Channelview and Bayport complexes outside of Houston, USA. Fluor booked the undisclosed contract value into backlog in the 3Q17. -
Texas Railroad Commissioners Debate Hiring Reforms for Top Post
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Three weeks after the head of Texas' oil and gas regulator resigned unexpectedly, the state board that oversees the agency appointed a temporary leader and discussed reforming its hiring and evaluation processes for top administrators. -
CSX CEO Harrison Apologizes to Rail Customers, Defends Strategy
Oct 11, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
CSX Corp's chief executive apologized to customers for months of service disruptions at the No. 3 U.S. railroad but passionately defended his operating strategy, at a hearing on Wednesday called by the top U.S. rail regulator. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Era Clean Power Plan to Be Binned
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The Trump administration has taken action to repeal President Obama’s regulation that set the first-ever limits on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, much to the chagrin of previous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrators and environmental groups, but to the apparent satisfaction of the chemical industry. -
Clean Power Plan Is Doomed. What About Its Sister Rule?
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
U.S. EPA has announced with great fanfare that it plans to kill the Clean Power Plan, but another major climate rule for power plants is still on the books. -
EPA's 4-Year Strategic Plan Does Not Mention 'Climate Change:' Report
Oct 11, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
A four-year plan for President Trump’s EPA contains no mention of the words “climate change.” -
New EPA Document Reveals Sharply Lower Estimate of the Cost of Climate Change
Oct 11, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a detailed 198-page proposed analysis of the costs and benefits of its move to repeal the Clean Power Plan, suggesting the administration plans to greatly decrease the government’s estimates of the cost of climate change. -
Delaware Challenges EPA Delay for Ozone Petition Response
Oct 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
Delaware in a new legal filing is faulting EPA for delaying a response to one of several petitions the state has filed asking the agency to directly regulate power plants in upwind states that Delaware says are partially responsible for its air quality problems, fighting EPA's argument that its delay decision is not a judicially reviewable “final action.”
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
-
BASF and McGill Team Clash Again Over DINCH Data
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Rats exposed to the plasticiser DINCH while in the womb show apparent symptoms of reproductive toxicity, according to a study by a team from McGill University in Montreal, Canada.
But toxicologists at BASF – which introduced DINCH (1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisonyl ester) to the European market in 2002 – describe the study as "flawed" and have criticised the team's data interpretation.
The European Food Safety authority (Efsa) approved DINCH'S use in food contact applications in 2006. The chemical is also found in inks, adhesives, lubricants, toys and medical devices. It is widely seen as a safe alternative to phthalates, which have been identified as endocrine disruptors.
DINCH is often used as an alternative to diethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP), a substance of very high concern, which is included in the candidate list for authorisation and has some uses restricted under REACH.
McGill lead researcher Vassilios Papadopoulos, now at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, has long worked on DEHP, examining its effects on reproduction and metabolism. However, he began to focus on DINCH following what he says were reports of DEHP metabolites falling in human blood and DINCH metabolites appearing.
The McGill researchers say they found that exposing male rats to DINCH while in the womb may affect testosterone-producing Leydig cells and cause testes to age prematurely.
Writing in the peer-reviewed Scientific Reports published by Nature, the researchers call for further studies to determine the long-term consequences of DINCH exposure.Disagreement
However, Rainer Otter and Angelika Langsch from BASF disagree. They say: "The data presented by the authors of this study perfectly confirm at low dose levels what our data, which have been reviewed by competent authorities around the world, indicate at ten times higher dose levels and significantly longer exposure times, that DINCH is a product that does not interfere with testicular function and metabolism."
Observed effects are either physiologic adaptive responses or "toxicologically not meaningful", they add.
Dr Otter and Dr Langsch also refer to a 2015 McGill study, which suggested that a DINCH metabolite called MINCH may have metabolic disrupting properties, stimulating fat cell growth in a similar way to some phthalate metabolites.
At the time, Dr Otter criticised that study's findings in a letter to the journal Environmental Research. Dr Papadopoulos and Enrico Campioli from McGill then published a detailed response and called for more mechanistic studies on DINCH.
Although, Dr Papadopoulos is calling for more research, Drs Otter and Langsch from BASF say there is enough data supporting the subtance's safety.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59935/basf-and-mcgill-team-clash-again-over-dinch-data
-
Harmonised GHS list project ‘at crossroads’
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UN project to create a global list of harmonised GHS classifications is "at a crossroads", according to an internal paper prepared for discussion by the GHS sub-committee in December.
"The time has come for the sub-committee to make the fundamental decision about whether to move forward with the development of a global list," the paper says.
Industry has been interested in the idea, which aims to aggregate and, wherever possible, harmonise GHS classifications from different regions. Early indications from a poll set up by Chemical Risk Manager indicates overwhelming support for continuing the work, which several respondents note will simplify compliance to GHS.
However, the development process has been slow and is complex. One industry source, close to the work, notes: "In theory, the concept ‘one substance, one classification’ is great, but there are major hurdles ahead before reaching it. The pilot study has shown how difficult it is to derive a harmonised GHS classification for a specific substance. Further, the downstream legal consequences of such a list must be carefully assessed. That is, when a classification on such a list is diverging from a legally binding classification in a country or region."
The European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, does not have a position on the issue.
"We are hoping for a positive outcome at the UN," says the OECD's Bob Diderich, whose team has been involved throughout the project. "I doubt that it can be picked up elsewhere. We worked at the OECD on the feasibility and the reasons for differences in classifications between countries. But we could never get our members interested in developing a harmonised list of classifications."
The next meeting of the GHS sub-committee is scheduled for 6-8 December.Regional comparison
The informal correspondence group, working on the harmonised list, is currently comparing two significant regional lists of classifications, those based on:
· Annex VI of the EU's CLP Regulation; and
· Japan's GHS list agreed by the ministries for industry, environment and labour, which trigger activities under the Industrial Safety and Health Law (ISHL), and other regulations.
None of the 89 substances common to both lists has identical sets of classifications.
The GHS provides a comprehensive framework for UN member states, but it is not directly legally binding. Member states implement new versions locally according to their own schedules, meaning that, at any one time, two states are not necessarily operating under the same version.
Furthermore, states frequently deviate from the GHS during implementation, creating local discrepancies.
If the project goes ahead, the resulting classifications would not be legally binding.
For further information visit our CRM hub.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59927/harmonised-ghs-list-project-at-crossroads
-
'Conflict of Interest' Row Flares in Advance of PFOA Discussions
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
The European Commission and the consultancy it hired to work on its draft nomination of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) to the Stockholm Convention, have both refuted claims that it was inappropriate to use the consultancy and that doing so "created a conflict of interest cloud over the proceedings".
The Commission nominated PFOA, its salts and related compounds, in 2015, and has used Munich-based consultancy BiPRO to help draft its risk management evaluation (RME).
However, 19 NGOs have written to the EU executive expressing concern. They say the consultancy is compromised because it has clients – such as 3M and Saint Gobain – that make fluorinated compounds.
The company strongly denies a conflict of interest. Alexander Potrykus, BiPRO's senior managing consultant, told Chemical Watch it is independent and works "on behalf of both public and private clients, and it is crucial for us to provide science and fact based information".
The NGO signatories, including the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Ipen, CHEM Trust, ChemSec and the Center for International Environment Law (Ciel), write: "It is not appropriate for the EU to select an industry consultancy that serves clients making and using fluorinated chemicals, to guide a process that results in global exemption recommendations for those same industries."
And the six-paged letter calls on the Commission to stop using BiPRO for any matter related to fluorinated compounds. It argues that the EU/BiPRO draft RME creates "the impression that the EU has simply hired an industry consultancy to advance its own industry's interests.
"That's a conflict of interest and not the kind of chemical safety leadership we expect from the EU."Commission response
EU sources have, however, sought to defuse the controversy, saying that BiPRO is just one of the consultancy firms that regularly provide independent services to the Commission, following a tendering procedure.
"BiPRO does not draft the risk management assessment itself, but it provides the elements on which the Commission bases its assessment," the sources say. "For the PFOA nomination, the Commission has produced a fact based, scientific assessment, taking on board the extensive comments received during the various stakeholder consultation rounds of the POPRC [POPs Review Committee] assessment process."Convention review
The row has blown up just a week before the Stockholm Convention's POPRC meets in Rome to discuss the substance's nomination.
PFOA has a wide range of applications, including as a water and oil repellent in outdoor clothing, fabrics and leather, in electric wire insulation, firefighting foam and floor waxes. The EU nominated it to be listed on the convention because it is very persistent in the environment, it bioaccumulates, is found in remote areas and is toxic, with some evidence it causes kidney and testicular cancer.
A listing on the convention results in either the elimination of, or restriction in production and use of, a substance.RME
The risk management evaluation stage of nominating a substance to the convention looks at socio-economic issues, alternatives, risk management options and possible exemptions.
It is on the last of these that much of the contention is focused. The Commission draft includes proposals for 11 exemptions to an outright ban on PFOA. These cover all the major uses of the substance, including uses in:
· electronics;
· textiles;
· water treatment;
· firefighting foams;
· medical devices;
· film photography;
· transport of intermediates; and
· pharmaceutical production.
Exemptions under the convention can be either 'time limited' or 'time-unlimited'. The former allows production and use to continue for five years with an option for renewal. The latter allows production and use to continue indefinitely for "acceptable purposes".
The basis for the EU nomination is the regulation it published earlier this year that has ten exemptions.
Seven of the proposed exemptions in the draft convention document replicate the EU regulation. But three of the proposed exemptions would be converted from time-limited to unlimited exemptions.
And the Commission document adds another exemption for the use of perfluoro iodide in the production of perfluorooctyl bromide for pharmaceutical products.Objectivity
According to Ipen's Joe Digangi: "The listing of PFOA in the Stockholm Convention will be a key decision point about whether production and use of this persistent, toxic substance will continue ... the upcoming meeting will make important recommendations that affect the lives of millions of people."
According to Dr Digangi, the Commission's use of BiPRO calls into question the objectivity of the RME, and the assessment of the need for exemptions and evaluation of alternatives.
"It is necessary for impartial POPRC members themselves or independent, unbiased consultants to prepare the RME in order to prevent conflict of interest," he says.
And, in its comments to the draft risk management evaluation, Ipen said the RME "must include an unbiased evaluation and justification for the need for each possible exemption and a full assessment of safe alternatives."
And several other commenters brought up the issue of exemptions, including Norway, which said:
"The document gives the impression that all requests for exemptions have been accepted and that no critical review of the exception requests that have come from industry or industry organisations have been made.
"It appears that most of the exceptions included in the EU Restriction are also included automatically, without a critical review of the needs for these globally. Even when alternatives are available, exemptions are suggested."
BiPRO's Mr Potrykus said it was "important to emphasise that ... we are not the drafter of the RME. The European Commission is the drafter. BiPRO assists the EU Commission in doing this according to its mandate from [them]."
It must also be noted, he added, that the draft RME was drawn up in a transparent process. "As a consequence, [it] includes information and positions from industry as well as from governments or NGOs or other interested parties and also takes due account of the views of the POPRC."
The information compiled includes the full range of options for possible exemptions, he said. This will serve as the basis for the discussions at the upcoming POPRC meeting.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59938/conflict-of-interest-row-flares-in-advance-of-pfoa-discussions
-
BNP Paribas to Stop Financing Shale, Oil Sands Projects
Oct 11, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Noemie Bisserbe and Sarah Kent
French lender BNP Paribas SA BNPQY -0.46%said Wednesday it will no longer finance shale and oil sands projects, in one of the clearest signs yet the banking industry is re-evaluating its relationship with the oil sector amid mounting pressure from investors and top financial institutions.
France’s largest listed bank said it would stop working with companies whose main business is the exploration, production, distribution or marketing of oil and gas from shale or oil sands. BNP Paribas won’t finance oil or gas projects in the Arctic region either, the bank said.
“These measures will lead us to stop financing a significant number of players that don’t further the transition toward an economy that emits less greenhouse gas,” BNP Paribas Chief Executive Jean-Laurent Bonnafé wrote in a post on LinkedIn published Wednesday.
BNP Paribas is one of the first banks to eschew parts of the oil sector. Many governments are taking steps to curb emissions and investors have been increasing pressure on companies over their environmental footprints.
“Shareholders want to invest in companies that have a sustainable business model and are resilient in the event of new climate laws and regulation,” said BNP Paribas’s global head of corporate social responsibility, Laurence Pessez.
Earlier this year, a panel of top financial institutions and companies led by Michael Bloomberg published a series of guidelines pushing for companies to disclose more about the impact of climate change on their businesses.
"I think personally the writing is on the wall over the medium term for the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels,” said Mark Lewis, a member of the panel. It is backed by the Financial Stability Board, a body that makes recommendations to the Group of 20 nations about financial regulation and policy.
“The banks will adapt like all other companies to changing economics and changing investor preference,” Mr. Lewis added.
Exxon Mobil Corp. faced a shareholder revolt this spring as investors ignored management recommendations and voted in favor of a resolution calling for more information on how climate change and regulation could affect the company.
Still, there is little sign that the industry is facing difficulty raising money. The shale oil sector has boomed over the last three years, despite a steep drop in oil prices. Most shale developments are in the U.S. where the Trump administration has rolled back tougher environmental regulation. U.S. companies also have access to a deep pool of investors and banks.
BNP Paribas has already made moves to reduce its financing of coal mines and coal-fired power plants and expand its investment in renewable energy. Earlier this year, BNP Paribas said it won’t finance coal energy sector companies that aren’t seeking to diversify their energy sources.
Weeks before the COP21 climate change conference in Paris in December 2015, the bank pledged to increase total financing for renewable energy to €15 billion ($17.7 billion) and set aside €100 million for investment in startups working on solutions for energy transition.
It is now turning its back on some of the more contentious parts of the oil sector. Oil from tar sands like those in Canada have long faced criticism because of their high carbon intensity compared with more conventional oil sources. Many large oil producers like Royal Dutch Shell PLC have sold oil sands assets in recent years as falling prices made their economics less attractive.
Extraction of shale oil and gas has also faced wide-ranging concerns about its environmental impact and the technique of extracting oil and gas by fracking has been banned in parts of Europe, including France.
A BNP Paribas spokeswoman declined to comment on the bank’s exposure to shale and oil sands projects, but analysts estimate that it is limited.
The bank’s credit risk exposure to energy excluding electricity was of €30.4 billion as of Dec. 31, 2016, according to corporate filings.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bnp-paribas-to-stop-financing-shale-oil-sands-projects-1507730419
-
Bullish U.S. LNG Export Picture Includes Small-Scale Projects, Analyst Says
Oct 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
In a bullish outlook for the growth of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports by 2024, an energy analyst with the Mizuho Securities LLC's energy research group said the expansion will include both small-scale and mega projects.
Smaller facilities are looking to drive down costs significantly, according to Mizuho analyst Tim Rezvan. U.S. LNG exports will hit a projected 53 Bcf/d, or 400 metric-tons-per-annum (mtpa), in 2024, compared to totals last year of 34 Bc/f/d, or 260 mtpa, he said.
"The United States is expected to be competitive in fighting for market share, given the deep inventory of low-cost natural gas available," Rezvan said.
Rezvan called out three small-scale projects slated for startups in the early 2020s -- Driftwood LNG, Rio Grande LNG and the re-emergence of Elba Island for an export project at an old import terminal site near Savannah, GA.
Tellurian Inc.'s Driftwood LNG project and associated Driftwood pipeline in Louisiana are slated to begin operation in 2022. Tellurian has a pending FERC filing for the project. In September, Tellurian pushedinto the upstream sector, making a deal to buy gas-laden Haynesville Shale acreage near its planned natural gas export facility in Louisiana.
NextDecade LLC's Rio Grande LNG terminal is holding U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) authorization to export natural gas to free trade agreements (FTA) nations, using a partnership to market its proposed LNG facility on the Texas Gulf Coast near Brownsville. The Woodlands, TX-based NextDecade's DOE authorization allows exports of up to 27 mtpa of LNG -- roughly equivalent to 3.6 Bcf/d -- over 30 years. NextDecade plans to build the facility on a 1,000-acre industrial site at the Port of Brownsville
In 2016, FERC approved Kinder Morgan Inc.'s (KMI) plan to add liquefaction and export capability to the Elba Island LNG Terminal near Savannah, GA, as well as make modifications to existing pipelines in support of the project.
KMI's Elba Liquefaction Co. LLC and Southern LNG Co. LLC received FERC authorization for the $2 billion Elba Liquefaction Project. The first of 10 liquefaction units is expected to be placed in service in the second quarter of 2018, with the remaining nine units coming online before the end of 2018.
The project, which is supported by a 20-year contract with Royal Dutch Shell plc, received a favorable environmental review early in 2016. When the liquefaction project is complete, the terminal will have the capability to both export and import LNG. The liquefaction project is expected to have a total capacity of 2.5 mtpa of LNG for export.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112046-bullish-us-lng-export-picture-includes-small-scale-projects-analyst-says
-
Domestic-Bound Ethane Shipments From Mariner East Begin
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
A subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP has begun domestic shipments of Marcellus Shale ethane, in a development that could buttress the company's assertion of the need for a controversial pipeline extension.
The first shipments from Sunoco Logistics Partners LP left by truck in late September from the Pennsylvania loading facility of Marcus Hook, which receives ethane from the Mariner East pipeline.
An expansion of the Mariner East system has run into problems with the state: In July, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board issued a temporary halt to construction following complaints of 61 spills at work sites. Critics say the pipeline is geared toward exports; the company maintains it is intended to spark the growth of a domestic market.
Ashley Madray, executive vice president of Sunoco Logistics, said most of the ethane being shipped out of Marcus Hook is bound for domestic use in power generation, industrial refrigeration, electronics manufacture and enhanced oil recovery (Andrew Maykuth, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 9). — DI
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/11/stories/1060063231
-
Atlantic Coast Backers' Bullish Construction Will Start This Year
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Atlantic Coast pipeline is on track to obtain its state and federal permits and "fully expects" to start construction this year, according to a spokesman for the project.
The $5.1 billion, 600-mile pipeline project, which would originate in West Virginia's shale gas fields and extend through Virginia to terminate in North Carolina, has been controversial in each of the states it runs through, with opponents pressuring lawmakers and regulators at the state level to kill the project as it has marched toward federal approval.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is expected to decide on the project this month after issuing a final environmental impact statement in July (Greenwire, July 21). In Virginia, the pipeline fight has become a hot-button issue in a close gubernatorial race where the state's power to block the pipeline is at issue (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
Last week, North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality published a notice dated in late September disapproving an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the project's transit through the Tar Heel State.
Bridget Munger, a spokeswoman for the state DEQ, said the step was not a major stumbling block for the project. Rather, it's a normal exchange in the question-and-answer process for a large, complicated project like the Atlantic Coast pipeline, which can come back to the state with the additional information that was requested.
Once a project's erosion and sedimentation control plan has been accepted as complete by the state, regulators have just 30 days in which to issue a decision on the project or it will be deemed approved — a by-default outcome that DEQ tries to avoid, Munger said.
Aaron Ruby, a spokesman for pipeline developer Dominion Energy Inc., said the project has yet to secure any of the three "Section 401" water quality permits it needs from North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, in addition to a final certificate from FERC and several other permits.
But he expressed confidence that the project is on track. "By the end of the week, we will have responded to [the North Carolina] DEQ with all of the information they requested in this letter," Ruby said. "We fully expect to receive all of our state and federal approvals this year," he said, adding that construction is expected to start on the project "by the end of this year."
The North Carolina DEQ is due to decide on the Section 401 permit by Nov. 28.
Ruby also pushed back against a report that Dominion plans to extend the pipeline into South Carolina. Late last month, the Associated Press reported that Dan Weekley, Dominion Energy's vice president and general manager of Southern pipeline operations, told attendees at an energy conference that "everybody knows" the pipeline will be continued farther south, and could bring "almost a billion cubic feet" per day of natural gas deliveries to South Carolina.
Yesterday, Ruby said Dominion "[hasn't] made any decision about any potential expansion beyond what we filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."
The proposed pipeline has just over 90 percent of its capacity subscribed under 20-year contracts, Ruby said, with deliveries to electric utilities and natural gas distributors in Virginia and North Carolina. A recent report by Oil Change International and other groups argued that projects like the Atlantic Coast pipeline that rely on off-take demand from corporate affiliates can distort pipeline markets by contracting for more need than actually exists, triggering additional gas production to keep up (Energywire, Sept. 19).
As proposed, the Atlantic Coast project can deliver a maximum capacity of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. Ruby said that amount could be raised to 2 billion cubic feet per day by increasing pressure on the line through the use of additional compressor stations without burying more pipeline along the existing route.
Ruby said the project backers have secured agreements with 75 percent of the affected landowners along the Atlantic Coast route.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/11/stories/1060063259
-
Fluor Secures Petrochemical Contract
Oct 11, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Angharad Lock
Fluor Corp. has been selected by LyondellBasell to perform the engineering and procurement for its propylene oxide (PO) and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) project located at its Channelview and Bayport complexes outside of Houston, USA. Fluor booked the undisclosed contract value into backlog in the 3Q17.
The project represents the single-largest capital investment in LyondellBasell’s history. When completed, the plant will produce 1 billion lbs/yr of PO and 2.2 billion lbs/yr of TBA. At the peak of construction, the project is expected to create up to 2500 jobs and approximately 160 permanent positions when operational.
PO is a building block of many everyday products, including bedding, furniture, carpeting, coatings, building materials and adhesives. The TBA will be converted to fuel additives that help gasoline burn cleaner and reduce automobile emissions.
“This facility is a strategic part of LyondellBasell’s organic growth plans and we are pleased to continue our partnership on this project,” said Mark Fields, president of Fluor’s Energy & Chemicals business in the Americas. “Using our Zero Base ExecutionSM approach, the LyondellBasell and Fluor team developed a fit-for-purpose solution that optimised the plant design, leveraged global procurement opportunities and implemented a cost-effective modularisation approach.”
https://www.energyglobal.com/downstream/petrochemicals/11102017/fluor-secures-petrochemical-contract/
-
Texas Railroad Commissioners Debate Hiring Reforms for Top Post
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Three weeks after the head of Texas' oil and gas regulator resigned unexpectedly, the state board that oversees the agency appointed a temporary leader and discussed reforming its hiring and evaluation processes for top administrators.
Wei Wang, who is currently the Texas Railroad Commission's chief financial officer, will serve as interim director until the three elected members of the commission choose a permanent replacement.
Meanwhile, an attorney is drafting a policy aimed in part at keeping individual commissioners from unilaterally firing staffers. Commissioner Ryan Sitton asked for the change after saying he was surprised by the departure of the previous executive director, Kim Corley.
"Something that we, the three commissioners, can improve on is be more direct about what we think the goals are," Sitton said during a meeting yesterday.
The commission oversees the oil and gas industry, pipelines, mining, and some gas utilities in Texas. The commissioners are elected statewide and oversee a staff of about 800.
In theory, it takes a majority vote of the commission to remove a staffer, and those decisions have to be made as part of a public meeting. Corley said, though, that she stepped down after a meeting with commission Chairwoman Christi Craddick, who told her she could leave voluntarily or face termination (Energywire, Sept. 20).
Sitton said the commissioners should have a more formal hiring process for the next executive director, including holding meetings to discuss candidates who are interviewed.
Once the director is hired, the commissioners should adopt a policy similar to a corporate board of directors, he said, providing a series of written goals and having regular discussions about the agency's progress.
Craddick said it was "a good idea going forward" but added that the commission already has a hiring process and the commissioners may not be able to hold regular discussions about job candidates.
Commissioner Wayne Christian said the agency may need to hire a deputy executive director, which would allow the new chief to focus on long-term goals.
"It's a heck of a big responsibility," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/11/stories/1060063245
-
CSX CEO Harrison Apologizes to Rail Customers, Defends Strategy
Oct 11, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
CSX Corp's chief executive apologized to customers for months of service disruptions at the No. 3 U.S. railroad but passionately defended his operating strategy, at a hearing on Wednesday called by the top U.S. rail regulator.
Seated before two regulators at the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) in Washington, CSX Chief Executive Hunter Harrison defended his vision for streamlining efficiency, which he calls "precision scheduled railroading."
The STB announced the public hearing in August after customers complained of service issues, including longer transit times, unreliable switching operations, inefficient car routings and poor communications with CSX customer service.
Harrison, appointed to the job amid investor fanfare in March, said his strategy was critical to his turnarounds of two Canadian railroads - Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd and Canadian National Railway Co.
Since he took over, Harrison has rapidly closed CSX rail yards, lengthened trains, mothballed locomotives, and slashed overtime pay and hundreds of jobs. He changed the way rail cars are sorted in yards and replaced "unit" trains carrying a single commodity like coal or grain to carry diverse freight.
"If I don't accomplish anything else today, I want to apologize to our valued shippers," Harrison said on Wednesday. "Whatever problems we've had, we've had internally, we've made some mistakes, this is not a failure of precision scheduled railroading."
Harrison spoke before Cargill Inc, Dow Chemical Co and seven other major rail customers were due to testify about their experiences with CSX's network.
CSX's service disruptions have created logistical headaches for companies ranging from chemical and agricultural to automotive and steel producers whose supply chains, plants and distribution channels rely on CSX's rail network across the eastern United States.
The STB's "listening session" was the first public forum for customers to air grievances and give Harrison the chance to defend his strategy. The agency has been reviewing CSX's performance weekly and talking to senior management for months.
At least three companies have withdrawn requests to testify as service has improved. Other companies due to testify on Wednesday included The Chemours Company, Kellogg Company and Murray Energy Corp, the largest private U.S. coal mining company.
An assortment of trade groups including automotive, grain, and paper lobbyists expected to speak on Wednesday have called on Congress to make it easier for shippers to file complaints and to allow other operators to use CSX track during service disruptions.
Other stakeholders have filed comments with the STB.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/11/business/11reuters-csx-disruptions.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Era Clean Power Plan to Be Binned
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The Trump administration has taken action to repeal President Obama’s regulation that set the first-ever limits on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, much to the chagrin of previous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrators and environmental groups, but to the apparent satisfaction of the chemical industry.
In its proposal to withdraw the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), the EPA argued that the regulation exceeds the agency’s statutory authority. Nixing the rule will help the development of US energy resources and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, the Trump administration claimed.
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt previewed the announcement when he addressed coal miners in Kentucky two days ago. ‘The war on coal is over,’ he told the audience, vowing to sign a proposed rule to revoke the CPP the next day. ‘The past administration was unapologetic – they were using every bit of power, every bit of authority, to use the EPA to pick winners and losers in how we generate electricity in this country.’
Finalised in August 2015, the CPP set national standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030. The emission reductions were to be phased in gradually by 2030.
However, the regulation never actually took effect because the US supreme court granted a temporary stay last year while legal challenges were heard. More than two dozen states sued the EPA over the plan, and Pruitt himself participated in legal action as the then-attorney general of Oklahoma. At the time, he and the other plaintiffs described the CPP as a power grab.
Growth warning
The chemical industry appears supportive of the EPA’s decision. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) had expressed concern that the rule could undermine growth in the chemical sector by raising costs for businesses and consumers. The trade group argued that greenhouse gas emissions have and will continue to fall thanks to market forces, as well as existing state and regional policies.
Opponents of the EPA’s action include two prominent former administrators of the agency, who argue that the biggest threat to coal plants is the rise of cheap and plentiful natural gas, not government regulation. ‘It is a bait and switch because is not going to bring coal back – coal is dying because of the low cost of natural gas,’ says Christine Todd Whitman, who ran the EPA under former Republican President George W Bush. She calls the proposal to withdraw the CPP ‘unconscionable’.
Whitman accuses the EPA of overlooking its responsibility to protect human health, noting that the agency itself found that the CPP would save lives. The EPA calculated that the rule would avoid 2700 to 6600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.
Gina McCarthy, who led the EPA under Obama, echoes Whitman. ‘Instead of fulfilling their mission to keep our air and water clean, this administration is using stall tactics to defer their legal and moral obligation to reduce pollutants that threaten American families and fuel climate change,’ McCarthy said. ‘They want to replace our plan with a weaker standard sometime in the future, if they replace it at all. Shame on them – speak out.’Regulatory uncertainty
Karen Palmer, an economist with Resources for the Future in Washington, DC, warns that these steps to repeal the CPP create ‘a lot of regulatory uncertainty’ in the industry. ‘The expectation is that there are ultimately going to need to be regulations of these emissions, since the EPA is required to do so by law, and so this introduces uncertainty about what that is going to look like,’ she says, noting that the supreme court has ruled that the EPA is obliged to regulate carbon emissions. ‘Power plants are long-lived assets, so this sector would like to have some sense of future regulatory requirements,’ Palmer asserts.
Further, she suggests that the White House used fuzzy math to arrive at a positive net benefit from repealing the existing CPP. Specifically, the Trump administration estimates that the rule’s reversal could help avoid up to $33 billion (£25 billion) in compliance costs in 2030. She says the EPA appears to have discounted the air pollution benefits associated with the CPP. ‘The benefits of reduced sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions are calculated in a way that is counter to the literature – it is not a full accounting of the benefits,’ Palmer tells Chemistry World. ‘It implies that their reduction to below certain thresholds of concentrations of fine particulates don’t provide any health benefits, and that assumption is counter to the public health literature.’
Meanwhile, key members of Congress also oppose the EPA’s action. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said President Trump and Pruitt are ‘on the wrong side of history’. He accused them of ‘creating their own reality, complete with rigged science and math, to justify doing nothing’.
In contrast, the chairman of the House science, space and technology committee, Republican congressman Lamar Smith, said it was the Obama administration that used ‘faulty, one-sided calculations’ to justify the CPP. ‘We have repeatedly found that the costs imposed on the American people vastly outweigh the rule’s marginal benefits,’ Smith stated.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/obama-era-clean-power-plan-to-be-binned-/3008118.article
-
Clean Power Plan Is Doomed. What About Its Sister Rule?
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
U.S. EPA has announced with great fanfare that it plans to kill the Clean Power Plan, but another major climate rule for power plants is still on the books.
The Obama administration's rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified coal and natural-gas-fired power plants has largely remained unnoticed as attention has focused on the Clean Power Plan regulations aimed at controlling emissions from existing power plants.
In contrast to the Clean Power Plan — which remains on hold after the Supreme Court blocked it — the new source rule is currently the law of the land. EPA is reviewing it as part of President Trump's "energy independence" executive order. A federal court case challenging the rule has been indefinitely stalled in the meantime.
An EPA spokesman stated that a team at the agency is "looking into the program and opportunities for reform" but did not offer a timeline for when that might happen. Currently, litigation over the new source rule is in indefinite abeyance, though EPA will have to provide progress reports every 90 days.
"This will be fun to watch how EPA dances around this question of what you are going to do with this new source rule," said Pat Parenteau, a professor at the Vermont Law School.
Some Clean Power Plan supporters are also worried about the fate of the new source rule.
"It doesn't appear that [EPA Administrator Scott] Pruitt has seen a significant clean air regulation that he likes, and massive rollbacks are what's there to do," said environmental attorney Sean Donahue. "I'm concerned they will go after the new source rule, as well."
But others think the rule is on firmer footing.
"They may do something with the new source rule, but they are not going to repeal it. I think they have accepted the reality that they have to do something with new and existing sources," said Parenteau.
And some suggested that attacking that rule simply won't be a priority for Pruitt, given the dearth of plans for new power plants in the United States.
"Nobody today is interested in building new coal plants anyway. There is very little industry pressure. The idea that Trump and Pruitt are going to somehow turn around the fortunes of the coal sector just runs contrary to the market," said Ben Longstreth, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate and Clean Air program.
When Pruitt signed formal plans yesterday to ax the Clean Power Plan, he did not announce whether he plans to replace the rule. "We can now assess whether further regulatory action is warranted; and, if so, what is the most appropriate path forward, consistent with the Clean Air Act and principles of cooperative federalism," Pruitt said in a statement.
Many observers expect his agency to adopt a more limited approach to emissions control. And some say the new source rule could even offer a template for doing that.
The Obama-era rule for new sources represents an "inside the fence line" approach to emissions control — something some trade associations have touted as a more appropriate and manageable way to control carbon emissions for existing power plants.
"It fully conforms to their [best standard of emissions reductions] that they have been stipulating," said Donahue, referring to the Trump team's assertions that the agency's authority is limited to specific plants.
Under the 2015 rule setting emissions rate reduction targets for new and modified power plants, individual plants could reach rate reduction targets by implementing various technological fixes. For coal plants, EPA had recommended the use of partial carbon capture and storage, a controversial technology. If the plants chose to use CCS technology, they would not have to capture 100 percent of emissions but would have to trap enough carbon to just about match the emissions rate reduction of switching to using natural gas, Longstreth said. Natural gas-fired power plants would have more modest requirements.
Whether CCS technology would be a part of the mix of any new rule EPA may develop for power plant emissions is unclear.
"It would be interesting, to say the least, if CCS retrofits would be the standard," said Andres Restrepo, a staff attorney with the Sierra Club. He noted that the same emissions reductions could be achieved much more cheaply by switching to natural gas, which was highlighted during the development of the Clean Power Plan.
"I would really be surprised if Pruitt and company looked at CCS for the 'inside the fence line' rule. That's not to say that couldn't be a method for an existing source rule," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/11/stories/1060063289
-
EPA's 4-Year Strategic Plan Does Not Mention 'Climate Change:' Report
Oct 11, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
A four-year plan for President Trump’s EPA contains no mention of the words “climate change.”
The 38-page document, released for public comment last week, does not include the phrases “climate change,” “carbon dioxide” or “greenhouse gas emissions,” according to CNN.
This is in stark contract to President Obama’s 80-page plan, which listed “Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality” as one of its central goals, and referenced climate change more than 40 times.
"Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time and it doesn't even appear in the strategic plan for this agency – that's stunning," Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manger with the Union Of Concerned Scientists, told CNN. "This wasn't an oversight; this is a deliberate strategy by this administration."
The EPA’s three core goals in this strategic plan are to focus on clean air, land and water; shift more environmental regulation responsibility to states; and enforce laws “as Congress intended,” according to CNN.
On Tuesday, EPA chief Scott Pruitt signed a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s landmark emissions regulations intended to fight climate change which were a key part of the nation’s dedication to the Paris Accord international agreement on climate change.
Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement at the start of his term, and has referred to climate change as a Chinese “hoax.”
Pruitt has also questioned humans’ role in climate change and called for public debate on the issue.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/354886-epas-four-year-strategic-plan-does-not-mention-climate-change
-
New EPA Document Reveals Sharply Lower Estimate of the Cost of Climate Change
Oct 11, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a detailed 198-page proposed analysis of the costs and benefits of its move to repeal the Clean Power Plan, suggesting the administration plans to greatly decrease the government’s estimates of the cost of climate change.
The document explains the consequences of scrapping the Clean Power Plan, a set of rules for power plants aimed at reducing U.S. contributions to climate change. In the document, the EPA calculated the cost of one ton of emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, to be between $1 and $6 in the year 2020. That’s down from the Obama administration’s central (inflation adjusted) 2020 estimate of $45 — “a reduction of 87 percent to 97 percent,” according to a comparison by the think tank Resources for the Future.
The wildly divergent numbers arise in significant part because the agency is now calculating the cost of carbon only within the United States, rather than around the globe — a key change that could be of major consequence.
The “social cost of carbon” is a very influential figure that helps policymakers weigh the value of moves aimed at stopping climate change. If the social cost of carbon is lower, that shrinks the estimated benefits of such moves, making it more likely that policymakers will find those benefits not worth the costs.
“The most important single economic concept in the economics of climate change is the social cost of carbon (SCC). At present, regulations with more than $1 trillion of benefits have been written for the United States that use the SCC in their economic analysis,” Yale University economist William Nordhaus wrote in a 2016 study.
Similar analyses could show up in other Trump administration regulatory decisions, experts said.
Critics say that in its “Regulatory Impact Analysis,” the Trump administration is manipulating the math to justify predetermined conclusions. The EPA analysis is “a radical departure from established science and economics,” charged attorney David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“My read is that the political decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan was made and then they did whatever was necessary to make the numbers work,” added Michael Greenstone, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who worked on climate policy during the Obama years.
These critics were responding to a prior leaked draft that summarized the longer impact analysis, but the new version seemed largely consistent with it.
But the EPA defended the approach Tuesday, arguing that it was the Obama administration that had done the math in a questionable way.
“The facts are that the Obama administration’s estimates and analysis of costs and benefits was, in multiple areas, highly uncertain and/or controversial,” an agency spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said by email.
“The previous administration compared domestic costs against its estimate of global climate benefits,” the spokesman continued. “The proposed repeal also presents a scenario looking specifically at domestic climate impacts. EPA is tasked with protecting the environment and human health of this nation, and our alternative analysis reflects that. This administration also returns to long-standing OMB practice by using appropriate discount rates to compare apples to apples when estimating the current value of future scenarios.”
The new EPA document is a proposal, rather than a final analysis. And it presents a variety of scenarios and assumptions, broadly explaining the uncertainties involved in such complex calculations and citing the need for “transparency” in its analysis. Still, critics say the way the analyses are built involves a considerable departure.
The EPA’s changes — which could become central to ongoing litigation over how the agency addresses climate change — reflect a long, complicated debate over how the government justifies regulatory decisions, particularly with respect to climate change.
In 2009, the Obama administration created the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, a panel designed to assess the economic damages from climate change. The body proceeded to use a complex brew of economic and scientific analyses to figure out the toll, in dollar terms, of a ton of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere.
That estimate — which varies based on a variety of assumptions, but was recently put at $45 dollars (adjusted for inflation) in 2020 in one central scenario — then fed into regulatory analyses that helped Barack Obama’s EPA conclude that the benefits of the Clean Power Plan would greatly exceed its costs.
But the EPA’s approach has long been the target of conservative critics, and shortly after Trump’s election, the new administration moved to reverse it. In a March executive order, Trump disbanded the working group and said that its reports and findings “shall be withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy.”
Now, the EPA appears to have begun to unveil a different way of calculating the social cost of carbon and other aspects of its cost-benefit calculations related to pollution — one that could have sweeping implications.
Damages where?
Where Obama’s EPA said that it considered the cost of a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across the entire globe, Pruitt’s EPA said that it will “[shift] the focus to the domestic (rather than global) social cost of carbon.” Damages within the United States from climate change will naturally be smaller — making it harder to justify cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
But critics say this approach ignores the fact that climate change is a global problem and that emissions from other countries hurt us, just as our emissions hurt them. “The new proposal claims to count only the domestic U.S. impacts of carbon pollution, even though this pollution causes worldwide harm,” charged the Environmental Defense Fund in a recent rebuttal to the EPA’s analysis.
The National Academy of Sciences, in its latest report evaluating the social cost of carbon methodology, found that the calculation isn’t as simple as stopping at U.S. borders. “Climate change in other regions of the world could affect the United States through such pathways as global migration, economic destabilization, and political destabilization,” the body noted.
“The Academy finding was that you can’t just do some simple percentage of global damages to get at an estimate of the U.S. damages; you have to take into account how damages incurred outside the U.S. feed back into the U.S.,” said Rutgers climate scientist Robert Kopp, one of the members of the committee who drafted the report.
Discounting the future?
The EPA also appears to have changed how it is thinking about a key factor called the “discount rate,” which is central in calculating the social cost of carbon. The discount rate is “meant to represent the opportunity cost” of spending society’s dollars on fighting climate change, “rather than what those resources would have otherwise been invested in,” said economist Richard Newell, who co-chaired the National Academy’s report and is president of Resources for the Future.
The standard Obama era practice had been to apply a 2.5, 3, and 5 percent annual discount rate in the climate change context. But Pruitt’s EPA has instead considered, for the social cost of carbon, 3 percent and 7 percent. (It did later consider 2.5 percent in an appendix to the new document.)
Using 7 percent in particular — a rate meant to reflect a return on investment, say in the stock market — has long been advocated by allies of the administration’s environmental and regulatory policies, such as the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“The EPA/[Interagency Working Group] settled on 3 percent as the best choice, but its omission of 7 percent was glaring to those who follow this regulatory issue,” wrote the foundation’s David Kreutzer, who served on the EPA’s transition team, last year.
The 7 percent rate yields a considerably lower social cost of carbon. But “there’s good reasons to think that such a high discount rate is inappropriate for use in estimating the social cost of carbon,” Newell said. He explained that when it comes to the impacts of climate change, those generally affect individual consumers where a rate of 3 percent is more appropriate.
“This is a case where we have specific information which points to the use of a consumption rate of interest, and in that case, the use of the 7 percent rate is simply conceptually inappropriate,” Newell said.
Air pollution damages?
The EPA also has introduced new parameters for assessing the value of cutting air pollution. Emissions of fine particulate matter from fossil fuel burning can be deadly, but the EPA considers two scenarios in which the risk of death “falls to zero” at certain low concentrations of fine particulates in the air.
“These analyses are designed to increase transparency rather than imply a specific lower bound on the size of the health co-benefits,” the agency said.
In one of them, the agency assumes there’s no more risk below the levels currently required by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particles, technically known as PM2.5.
But critics say it’s not justifiable to exclude the dangers of particles at low concentrations.
“If you’re an area that is at 11, and the Clean Power Plan will push you to 9, under that assumption it says there are no health benefits,” said Jonathan Buonocore, an environmental health researcher at Harvard. “There’s no evidence this is true. Time and time again … we keep finding health benefits when air quality gets better, even in areas that are in attainment with the rules.”
So in sum, the EPA is changing its analysis in multiple ways — and this new analytical framework could now be applied in other decisions made by the federal government, experts said.
“Now that they have constructed it, it seems naive to assume that they will put it in a closet,” Greenstone said. “My best guess is that it will be used to revisit other environmental rules and that the last several decades of environmental gains are at risk, with the payoff coming in lower costs for polluters.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/11/new-epa-document-reveals-sharply-lower-estimate-of-the-cost-of-climate-change/?utm_term=.627242aede16
-
Delaware Challenges EPA Delay for Ozone Petition Response
Oct 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
Delaware in a new legal filing is faulting EPA for delaying a response to one of several petitions the state has filed asking the agency to directly regulate power plants in upwind states that Delaware says are partially responsible for its air quality problems, fighting EPA's argument that its delay decision is not a judicially reviewable “final action.”
Echoing Delaware's complaint, Maryland has also argued that upwind emissions compromise its ability to meet federal air quality standards. Maryland and a coalition of environmental groups recently issued EPA with notices of intent to sue the agency in federal district court for its failure to respond to the state's petition for EPA to directly regulate air emissions from 36 electric generating units at power plants in five upwind states.
Delaware also has several such petitions, filed under Clean Air Act section 126, outstanding at EPA. Maryland waited to threaten litigation until after EPA's six-month extension of the statutory 60-day deadline for the agency to respond to its petition lapsed, but Delaware filed suit in federal appeals court earlier in the process to challenge not just EPA's failure to respond, but its Jan. 23 decision to extend response deadlines by six months. EPA still has not answered Delaware's petition, even though EPA's extended deadline has now also lapsed.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit case State of Delaware v. EPA, Delaware is challenging EPA's failure to respond to its December petition to directly regulate emissions from the Conemaugh Generating Station, located in Indiana County, PA, which it says is compromising the state's ability to meet federal ozone standards.
In its opening brief filed Sept. 26 in, Delaware maintains that venue is proper in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit because EPA's response -- or lack of response -- to its petition is a “locally or regionally applicable” issue. The state says the court has jurisdiction because EPA's decision to defer its response is a judicially reviewable “final agency action.”
A parallel case in the D.C. Circuit, also styled State of Delaware v. EPA, is on hold pending resolution of the venue and jurisdiction questions in the 3rd Circuit.
Delaware further says that EPA unlawfully flouted Clean Air Act procedural requirements by directly extending a statutory deadline without first issuing a proposal to do so. By acting as it did, the agency stalled Delaware's ability to bring a “deadline” lawsuit in federal district court to actually compel a response to its petition, the state argues.
The air law “expressly conditions EPA's authority to defer a statutory deadline by 6-months on EPA first issuing a proposed rule,” Delaware says.
Delaware also has outstanding section 126 petitions against the Homer City and Brunner Island power plants in Pennsylvania, and the Harrison Power Station near Hayward, WV. Connecticut has filed suit against EPA to force a response to its similar petition against the Brunner Island plant, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut suit State of Connecticut v. Pruitt, yet to enter the briefing phase.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/delaware-challenges-epa-delay-ozone-petition-response
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