Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 12/1/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pilot Chemical Names Pamela Butcher as CEO and President
Dec 1, 2017 | MilTech
By Rony Delucia
Pilot Chemical Company announced that Pamela Butcher has been named CEO and president, effective immediately. Butcher has served in various capacities for Pilot Chemical, including CEO, president, COO and member of the board of directors over the last seven years. She replaces former president Michael Scott. -
(ACC Mentioned) National Academies to Study Program on Senate Chopping Block
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is moving forward with a study of a U.S. EPA chemical assessment program that Senate appropriators have targeted for elimination. -
Fracking Chemical Clarity is Requested
Dec 1, 2017 | Times Leader
By Janell Hunter
A policy group has partnered with emergency management agencies across 21 states, including Ohio, to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to disclose the identities of chemicals used by oil and gas drilling companies in the hydraulic fracturing process. -
Scientists (Known Haters of Fun) Want to Ban Glitter from Our Sad World
Dec 1, 2017 | Mic
By Tim Mulkerin
Glitter, in all its shimmery, sticky glory, is a divisive little product. -
What to Look for When Buying a Crib Mattress
Dec 1, 2017 | EWG
By Olga Naidenko and Tasha Stoiber
When Dr. Brandon E. Boor and his colleagues tested 20 new and used crib mattresses purchased in 2011 or earlier, they detected two classes of chemicals associated with endocrine disruption and harm to the reproductive system and development: flame retardants and phthalates. -
Enviros Slam Latest Industry Bid to Freeze BLM Methane Reg
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen Gilmer
Environmentalists are pushing back on the oil and gas industry's latest attempt to sideline Obama-era restrictions on methane emissions. -
State DEP Advances Methane Controls for Oil and Gas
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Pennsylvania environmental regulators will move forward with a plan to control methane emissions from oil and gas production, despite skepticism from the drilling industry and some legislators. -
Delaware River Basin Commission Proposes Permanent Ban on Fracking, Other Restrictions
Dec 1, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) on Thursday proposed to permanently ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) across its four-state region and rules changes to discourage fresh water exports and wastewater imports. -
Exxon Joins Counterparts in New Call for Increased Global Methane Action, Including Regulations
Dec 1, 2017 | EDF Energy Exchange Blog
By Ben Ratner and Drew Nelson
In spite of the anti-environmental furor of the Trump administration, 2017 has been a year of encouraging commitments by a growing number of global oil and gas industry leaders – including American oil giant Exxon Mobil – that understand methane emissions is a key business challenge. -
Northeast Regulator Proposes Blocking Drilling Permanently
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Delaware River Basin Commission yesterday proposed banning hydraulic fracturing permanently, which would end a seven-year stalemate. -
Delaware River-Area Fracking Ban Aims at Industry Water Use
Dec 1, 2017 | Associated Press (in Washington Post)
By Marc Levy
A regulatory commission that oversees water quality in the Delaware River basin is taking another step toward permanently banning natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. -
Defending Renewable Energy in New England
Dec 1, 2017 | NRDC
By Bruce Ho
New England’s state renewable energy laws provide numerous benefits and are key to the region’s efforts to combat climate change. But these popular laws are under attack, as opponents seek to undermine them and prop up polluting energy instead. This week, NRDC pushed back against one such challenge. -
Pruitt 'Guaranteeing' Debate on Climate Science Soon
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The conservative Heritage Foundation might have just previewed the Trump administration's arguments against climate science.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
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) Pilot Chemical Names Pamela Butcher as CEO and President
Dec 1, 2017 | MilTech
By Rony Delucia
Pilot Chemical Company announced that Pamela Butcher has been named CEO and president, effective immediately. Butcher has served in various capacities for Pilot Chemical, including CEO, president, COO and member of the board of directors over the last seven years. She replaces former president Michael Scott.
“Pilot Chemical leadership is confident Pam Butcher’s industry and organizational knowledge will be enormous assets as she leads us toward continued success,” said Paul Morrisroe, chairman of Pilot Chemical’s board of directors.
Butcher first joined Pilot Chemical in 2010 after a successful 29-year career with the Dow Chemical Company. In addition to her roles as CEO and president, she will remain on the organization’s board of directors.
“I am excited to return to an active leadership role at Pilot Chemical,” said Butcher. “It will be great to be a part of the success that is expected to come from a continuing focus on innovation and growth.”
Butcher will lead corporate operations from the company’s headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, and will oversee seven locations and approximately 280 employees.
Pilot Chemical Company is a privately owned and independent global specialty chemical company providing high quality products and services to the disinfecting, sanitizing and cleaning; metalworking and lubricants; oil field and emulsion polymerization industries. Its proprietary core technologies involve alkylation, sulfonation, sulfation and a number of other specialty operations, including the production of biocidal quats, tertiary amine derivatives, polymers and organometallic fuel additives. Pilot, an industry leader in chemical innovation and safety, owns the most state-of-the-art continuous sulfation process in North America, is a leader in quaternary ammonium compounds, and is the world’s largest manufacturer of disulfonates. Pilot is certified under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care® program. Pilot Chemical Company is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information, visit www.pilotchemical.com.
http://www.military-technologies.net/2017/12/01/pilot-chemical-names-pamela-butcher-as-ceo-and-president-3/
-
(ACC Mentioned) National Academies to Study Program on Senate Chopping Block
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is moving forward with a study of a U.S. EPA chemical assessment program that Senate appropriators have targeted for elimination.
The Senate's Interior-EPA spending bill would zero-out funding for the Integrated Risk Information System, which is currently part of EPA's Office of Research and Development.
If the bill is enacted, chemical assessments would instead be performed under the revamped Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, a move that public health experts fear could leave EPA's chemicals research susceptible to political manipulation (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
The potential demise of IRIS, however, won't stop the National Academies from reviewing it.
"We have been charged with carrying out the study and are focused on completing the statement of task," spokeswoman Jennifer Walsh told E&E News yesterday.
The project scope, which was quietly unveiled earlier this week, calls for considering "changes that have been implemented or that are planned to be implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in response to recommendations made in previous Academies reports, such as Review of EPA's [IRIS] Process and Review of the [EPA's] Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde."
The study will be conducted by a committee chaired by Dr. Jonathan Samet, a pulmonary physician and epidemiologist who is the dean of the Colorado School of Public Health. Samet also led the National Academies' earlier studies of IRIS.
There are nine other committee members. Five also hail from academia, two are state regulators, one is a retired federal scientist and the last member is a researcher for consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble Co.
"The committee primarily will base its assessment on EPA presentations and interactive sessions," the National Academies scoping document said. Those will occur during a public workshop on Feb. 1 and 2 at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C.
The study was requested, and will be paid for, by EPA. The agency sought the review to address concerns the House Science, Space and Technology Committee has about the program, which is currently under fire for its assessment of chloroprene. IRIS found that the chemical is "likely to be carcinogenic" at levels below those already pumped out by the nation's only factory producing the synthetic rubber neoprene (Greenwire, Nov. 7).
Public health advocates, on the other hand, are concerned that congressional meddling has ground IRIS's work to a virtual standstill. The program has an annual goal of 50 assessments, which are used by EPA and state and international regulators to set safe limits for exposure to chemicals. But in 2014, it finished just one (Greenwire, Jan. 23, 2015).
Some supporters of IRIS are cautiously optimistic that the National Academies will bolster the case for keeping EPA's beleaguered chemical assessment program separate from its chemical regulatory program.
"There is a fundamental disconnect in the lack of understanding on our policymakers and the public health needs of integrated risk information for the broad audience and the national needs there and the TSCA program," said Thomas Burke, who oversaw IRIS during the Obama administration as head of research and development at EPA and is now a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"I hope that gets evaluated or addressed," Burke said. "I just see a tremendous gap in the scientific capacity of the nation if IRIS goes away."
Other IRIS backers are less hopeful that anything good will come of another review.
In recent years, "the program slowly withered into nothingness," said Rena Steinzor, an expert on chemical regulations and professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. "And it's too late to reverse that, no matter what they say."
The American Chemistry Council didn't respond to a request for comment on the study. The powerful chemicals industry trade group has argued, as Senate appropriators did, that IRIS is no longer necessary due to TSCA reform.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060067867/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Fracking Chemical Clarity is Requested
Dec 1, 2017 | Times Leader
By Janell Hunter
A policy group has partnered with emergency management agencies across 21 states, including Ohio, to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to disclose the identities of chemicals used by oil and gas drilling companies in the hydraulic fracturing process.
The policy group, The Partnership for Policy Integrity, was formed “to promote sound energy policy and to help citizens enact science-based policies that protect air quality, ecosystems and the climate. Our current work focuses on biomass energy, oil and natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing,” said Dusty Horwitt, J.D., senior counsel for the group.
Horwitt said in a release that the state of Ohio and the federal government often prevent citizens, even first responders, from knowing what chemicals are used in drilling operations because they deem their extracting process as “confidential business information.”
In a letter dated Nov. 15 and sent to U.S. EPA Director Scott Pruitt, the group, along with more than 100 first responders, health professionals and scientists from 21 states and the District of Columbia, requested thatthe EPA disclose the identities of 41 chemicals that EPA regulators reviewed between 2003 and 2014, under a program created by the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure that new chemicals are safe before they are used commercially.
“The regulators identified health concerns about each of the new chemicals ranging from lung irritation to developmental toxicity to neurotoxicity, yet allowed each of them to be used in oil and gas wells.
“In at least 30 of the 41 cases, EPA allowed the chemicals to be commercially produced without receiving health testing data from the manufacturers or requesting such data — as EPA has authority to do under the law,” Horwitt stated.
The PFPI claims evidence has shown that the 41 chemicals were likely used for hydraulic fracturing, and that chemical manufacturers have declared confidential some or all of the chemicals’ identifying information, as permitted by the TSCA.
“President Trump frequently talks about how important first responders are to protecting the public,” said Silverio Caggiano, battalion chief with the Youngstown Fire Department and deputy chief with the Mahoning County Hazardous Materials Response Agency in Mahoning County, Ohio. “Here’s something his EPA can do to protect first responders and citizens: disclose these chemical identities so that we know what kind of risks we’re likely to encounter in the event of a spill or emergency.”
Belmont County EMA Director Dave Ivan also is concerned about the unknown aspects of hazardous materials that first responders may encounter. According to Ivan, any fixed facility that uses chemicals must fill out a “Tier 2” chemical inventory report. The report is due each year by March 15 and must detail what the facility used in the previous calendar year. He also noted that many times the oil and gas industry uses outside groups that come in to do the initial fracking of the well and are only here for 30 to 60 days, and are not subject to the same regulations as the fixed facility.
“That is our biggest problem. We know they are using what may be hazardous chemicals but are not required to report it because they are only here for a short amount of time,” Ivan said. “We have talked to them in the past about getting the information before they use the chemicals so we can be prepared. In their Material Safety Data Sheets, drillers have to post whatever chemicals they have on site at the time, but they don’t need to report to EMA before they do what they are going to do. The world of hazmat in general is the great unknown. We never know what people are hauling over our roads, we just try to do our best with the information we have. Most of the time we have to shoot from the hip, but if would make life so much easier if we could know in advance what we are dealing with.”
Horwitt says he finds it “unsettling” that the EPA has identified health concerns for chemicals involved in the hydraulic fracturing process and still allows them to be used with no way for the public to find them.
“By disclosing the chemicals’ identities, EPA will help fulfill its obligation to protect public health,” Horwitt stated.
http://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2017/12/fracking-chemical-clarity-is-requested/
-
Scientists (Known Haters of Fun) Want to Ban Glitter from Our Sad World
Dec 1, 2017 | Mic
By Tim Mulkerin
Glitter, in all its shimmery, sticky glory, is a divisive little product. Maybe you love the way it embodies a carefree, childlike joy and the way it manages to fuse itself to parts of your body you didn’t even know you had. Maybe you, like other heartless people, hate it. You might’ve even weaponized glitter to ruin someone’s day.
In the second camp, apparently, are scientists, who say that glitter — the kind you buy at craft stores — is actually really dangerous. That’s because most glitter is considered a microplastic, which ravages our marine life with carcinogens and neurotoxins.
Did you hear that? That’s the sound of a million of those party blower things going flaccid all at once.
Luckily, the United States, under former President Barack Obama, already passed legislation to ban microplastics intentionally added to “rinse-off cosmetics,” like face washes and lotions. But that only covers a fraction of the microplastics that actually end up in our oceans — which brings us back, unfortunately, to glitter.
“I think all glitter should be banned, because it’s microplastic,” Dr. Trisia Farrelly, an environmental anthropologist, told the Independent.
According to scientists like Farrelly, just because glitter — like the kind you buy at craft stores — isn’t made with the intention that it’ll wash down your drain, it still often does.
As anyone who has ever come into contact with craft glitter knows, scrubbing for a few minutes under the sink is usually the only way to get it off your skin. (In fact, it’s still probably stuck to your face. You might wanna check on that.) Therefore, even though craft glitter isn’t technically a “rinse-off cosmetic,” much of it probably still winds up in our oceans anyway.
Once it gets there, fish have a tendency to mistake the little plastic flecks — filled with potential carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins — for food. Those tiny plastic bits — and all the toxic treats they contain — can potentially worm their way through a water treatment plant, too.
“You could have glitter in the glass of water you’re drinking right now,” Sherri Mason, a chemist at the State University of New York at Fredonia told Newsweek.
Because current legislation against microplastic in the U.S. and the U.K. doesn’t include craft glitter, some people are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to forgo the use of glitter on their own.
“I’ve taken the decision to stop all my nurseries ordering any more glitter, because glitter is a microplastic, just like microbeads, which are to be banned in the U.K.,” Cheryl Hadland, managing director of Tops Day Nurseries, told daynurseries.co.uk.
In the face of potential criticism from her kids’ parents, Hadland argued that the health of the environment is important, “whereas glitter is just pretty, serving no actual purpose.” (This reporter, upon reading this quote, quietly whispered, “Same.”)
Fine, science. You win this one. No more glitter.
https://mic.com/articles/186487/scientists-known-haters-of-fun-want-to-ban-glitter-from-our-sad-world#.hZ7n7oX5a
-
What to Look for When Buying a Crib Mattress
Dec 1, 2017 | EWG
By Olga Naidenko and Tasha Stoiber
When Dr. Brandon E. Boor and his colleagues tested 20 new and used crib mattresses purchased in 2011 or earlier, they detected two classes of chemicals associated with endocrine disruption and harm to the reproductive system and development: flame retardants and phthalates.
Crib mattresses usually have waterproof covers made of vinyl, a type of plastic that typically needs plasticizers to make it soft and flexible. Phthalates, chemicals that can harm the reproductive system and increase the risk of asthma and allergies, have been long used as plasticizers. Since 2009, federal regulations have prohibited the use of three harmful phthalates in children’s toys and other items children could use.
Boor’s team detected two banned phthalates in mattress covers made in 2011. Manufacturers have begun switching to alternatives, but Boor remains concerned.
“There is very little information about the replacement plasticizer chemicals used in crib mattress covers and other children’s products today, so we cannot be certain that these replacements are entirely safe for children’s health," he said. "I feel that if one phthalate or non-phthalate plasticizer is banned, a new one will be introduced for which toxicological data are limited, and the cycle would continue.”
Waterproof covers are essential for crib mattresses, as fungi can grow inside mattress and body fluids increase this problem, which Boor’s recent work highlights. He recommends that families stay away from vinyl crib mattress covers because of concerns about phthalates, and instead consider other options including polyethylene or wool covers.
“We need innovative research to come up with manufacturing practices and ingredients that put children’s health first and ensure that we don’t end up with a new toxic chemical,” Boor said.
For example, in response to public outcry about the unnecessary use of toxic flame retardants in furniture, mattresses and other everyday home items, there has been a change in how product flammability standards are met.
“There is now a real movement on the state and federal level to reduce Americans' exposure to flame retardants in furniture, foam and other items, because research shows that these chemicals accumulate in the bodies of people, increase the risk of cancer and can harm hormones,” Boor said.
Testing crib mattresses made before 2011, researchers identified two types of flame retardants: brominated pentaBDE, which is now banned because of reproductive and developmental toxicity, but is still found in older furniture and mattresses; and triphenyl phosphate, or TPP, an endocrine-disrupting chemical that is also found in nail polish. Many manufacturers are now using barriers in crib mattresses in lieu of halogenated chemicals added to the foam, as reported in 2013 by Clean and Healthy New York, a nonprofit research organization. However, some flame barriers still contain potentially harmful chemicals including boric acid, which can disrupt hormones, as well as antimony, a toxic metal.
“I would advise parents to look for products that contain no added chemical flame retardants, and demand that manufacturers clearly list this information on the label,” Boor said.
And the concern is not just flame retardants or phtalates. Boor said deciphering what chemical additives are used in crib mattresses on the market today is a difficult task.
“I think that all baby products, including crib mattresses, should be sold with a list of all chemical additives used and the rate at which they off-gas to the air – essentially a ‘Nutritional Facts’ for chemicals,” he said. “Based on my research, I believe that full transparency about chemicals used for making mattresses and any byproducts of manufacturing is essential for protecting children’s health.”
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/what-look-when-buying-crib-mattress#.WiGd64anG-s
-
Enviros Slam Latest Industry Bid to Freeze BLM Methane Reg
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen Gilmer
Environmentalists are pushing back on the oil and gas industry's latest attempt to sideline Obama-era restrictions on methane emissions.
In court filings this week, Earthjustice lawyers urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to reject industry groups' recent request for a preliminary injunction that would block certain standards for oil and gas development on public and tribal lands.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance asked for the injunction in October, arguing that drillers shouldn't be forced to comply with the Obama-era Methane and Waste Prevention Rule while the Trump administration is seeking to suspend it.
The Bureau of Land Management rule was finalized in late 2016 to set limits on venting and flaring of the potent greenhouse gas. Companies are already complying with the first phase of the rule, which took effect in January and requires operators to create waste minimization plans and reduce venting. Stricter provisions kick in in January 2018, requiring drillers to implement leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs, which can be costly.
The Trump administration is working to ice the rule, but industry groups are concerned the proposed delay won't be complete in time, so they're asking the court to step in (Energywire, Oct. 30).
Several previous efforts to sink BLM's methane rule have failed. Congress failed to kill it through the Congressional Review Act, previous agency efforts to postpone the compliance deadlines were rebuffed by a federal court in California and early industry motions to enjoin the regulation were rejected by the Wyoming court.
Environmental groups say the new injunction bid must also fail. They argue that Judge Scott Skavdahl should deny the motion because the groups are merely trying to relitigate their first injunction request, which was rejected 10 months ago.
"Rather than give credence to Industry Petitioners' attempt to waste valuable judicial resources relitigating issues that have already been decided in a full and fair proceeding, this Court should conclude that its earlier ruling, which Petitioners did not appeal, has preclusive effect, and deny Industry Petitioners' second motion for preliminary injunction," the groups told the court.
Lawyers for California and New Mexico made similar points in a brief this week, defending the Obama administration's authority to crack down on methane emissions. States opposed to the rule, meanwhile, renewed their claims that the regulation amounts to an air quality standard beyond BLM's jurisdiction.
Industry has argued that the looming deadlines for the second phase of the methane rule make the new request more urgent than the first. Environmental lawyers pushed back on that claim, countering that industry is perfectly capable of complying with the regulation and has had plenty of time to prepare.
Lawyers for BLM told the court this week that they do not oppose industry's request but maintained that an injunction is unnecessary because the agency expects to finalize its suspension of the Obama rule by the end of next week. BLM is also working on a broader proposal to "substantially revise or rescind" the measure.
A hearing on both the preliminary injunction request and the broader merits of the case is set for Dec. 18 in Casper, Wyo. Skavdahl has previously noted that he is well-aware of the impending compliance deadlines and has assured "as timely judicial review and action as necessary and possible."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/01/stories/1060067737
-
State DEP Advances Methane Controls for Oil and Gas
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Pennsylvania environmental regulators will move forward with a plan to control methane emissions from oil and gas production, despite skepticism from the drilling industry and some legislators.
The state Department of Environmental Protection has finalized plans for a new system of permits for well sites and compressor stations and plans to send them to a technical review committee this month. The new requirements could go in place by March.
Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, traps more heat than carbon dioxide when it's released to the atmosphere and has been linked to the rise in global temperatures over the last few decades. Gov. Tom Wolf (D) has made addressing climate change one of his top priorities but has said he also wants to preserve the drilling industry.
"We've done a lot of work to make sure we're balancing the environmental impacts we're attempting to manage through the regulatory and permitting process with the operational realities," DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell said on a conference call with reporters.
The plan would allow companies to apply for a standard permit, known as a general permit, for wellheads and gas compressors if they agree to check for and repair leaks. It would apply only to new facilities; the DEP hasn't set a timetable for a separate proposal to address emissions from existing wells.
If the rules are ultimately approved, Pennsylvania would join Colorado, Ohio and Wyoming in controlling natural gas emissions from the extraction industry. The Obama administration tried to impose its own standards on drilling nationwide, but U.S. EPA under President Trump has moved to roll them back (Climatewire, Nov. 16).
The permit plan, originally proposed in 2016, drew more than 10,000 public comments (Energywire, July 19).
The DEP toned down parts of the plan, removing mobile sources like drilling rigs from the requirements. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents about 220 companies that drill for natural gas in Pennsylvania, said it still questioned the need for the plan.
A study published last week and conducted by Pennsylvania State University and other researchers showed that wells and other upstream facilities in Pennsylvania leak less methane than those in other states — 0.36 percent of production.
"While we remain concerned about the use of permits to regulate a proposed methane limit that has no scientific basis, we do welcome the opportunity to work with DEP to address serious concerns our industry has with regard to permitting and regulatory certainty," Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer said in an emailed statement.
The Environmental Defense Fund and other green groups applauded the permit system, saying it will help improve air quality in Pennsylvania.
"There is much more work to be done, including finalizing these permit requirements and moving quickly to address pollution from the tens of thousands of existing oil and gas facilities in Pennsylvania. But today is a big step in the right direction," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in an emailed statement.
The plan still faces objections from the Republican-controlled Legislature. A bill that passed the state Senate during the summer would create a panel, with a majority appointed by GOP leaders in the House and Senate, to review any methane regulations.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/01/stories/1060067809
-
Delaware River Basin Commission Proposes Permanent Ban on Fracking, Other Restrictions
Dec 1, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) on Thursday proposed to permanently ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) across its four-state region and rules changes to discourage fresh water exports and wastewater imports.
The commission posted an eight-page document outlining a draft version of amendments to its regulations and comprehensive plan. Commissioners justified the HVHF ban, in part, saying they had determined the practice "poses significant, immediate and long-term risks to the development, conservation, utilization, management, and preservation of the water resources" within the basin.
Much of the Delaware River Basin acreage in New York and Pennsylvania overlaps the Marcellus Shale.
Four public hearings are scheduled in January and February to discuss the proposed changes. Two hearings are to be held in Waymart, PA, on Jan. 23, followed by two hearings in Philadelphia on Jan. 25. Registration to attend a hearing is required. The DRBC said advanced registration for the hearings would remain open until Dec. 31, and it would accept written comments until Feb. 28. A final vote on the proposed changes is expected sometime after.
Last September, the DRBC voted 3-1, with one abstention, to adopt a resolution calling for a rulemaking that could ultimately lead to an HVHF ban and other restrictions.
The DRBC is led by the governors of the four basin states -- Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York -- and the federal government, represented by the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' North Atlantic division.
The DRBC said in 2009 all gas drilling in the basin needed to be reviewed but said it would not approve any development until rules were adopted governing the industry. The agency postponed the gas development review in 2010 and failed to act on adopting new rules in 2011, leaving in place a de facto moratorium.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112601-delaware-river-basin-commission-proposes-permanent-ban-on-fracking-other-restrictions
-
Exxon Joins Counterparts in New Call for Increased Global Methane Action, Including Regulations
Dec 1, 2017 | EDF Energy Exchange Blog
By Ben Ratner and Drew Nelson
In spite of the anti-environmental furor of the Trump administration, 2017 has been a year of encouraging commitments by a growing number of global oil and gas industry leaders – including American oil giant Exxon Mobil – that understand methane emissions is a key business challenge. Methane is a fast-acting climate pollutant and unchecked emissions from the oil and gas sector undermine the credibility of natural gas in the transition to a lower carbon future.
The latest milestone is a commitment by BP, Exxon, Shell and other global energy companies to a set of principles to significantly reduce the amount of methane emitted across the natural gas supply chain. Environmental Defense Fund helped develop the foundational principles alongside the eight companies and other members including the International Energy Agency, UN Environment, the Rocky Mountain Institute and Indian non-profit group TERI.
Similar, yet distinct from other industry commitments made in connection with the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative or the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (see here and here), all of these initiatives are evidence that forward-thinkers understand the stakes and see the long-term business value in addressing methane emissions.
As the methane principles initiative moves to its critical next phase – developing the action plan – here are five ways we think this effort could break new – and valuable – ground.
1. Solidify smart policy as part of the methane solution
For years, many in industry have argued against government action to address their climate impact, touting voluntary corporate pollution reductions as a substitute for regulations. While these principles include a host of voluntary actions to continually reduce methane emissions, they also state clearly and plainly that methane policies and regulations are needed. Further, they highlight that industry must play a role in championing such policies and engaging constructively with governments and NGOs on policy development and implementation.
Done right, voluntary action is a way for leaders to raise the bar for industry’s performance, but fair competition and a healthy environment are not possible unless all companies meet the same basic standards that only sensible government regulation can achieve. The principles are grounded on this simple fact.
2. Expand reductions supply-chain-wide
Large and well-known energy producers like Exxon and Shell are closely watched by investors, regulators, and consumers for their environmental performance. But research has demonstrated that methane emissions extend throughout the entire supply-chain, not just production. These methane principles recognize the importance of reducing emissions across the natural gas supply chain, building on previous initiatives that have largely focused on upstream emissions.
3. Enhance transparency
Investor and public pressure have spurred some companies to report best estimates of methane emissions, but large data gaps still remain. Robust and credible data is critical for industry and governments to design effective mitigation strategies. Enhanced transparency can also help investors separate leaders from laggards.
Companies that signed the methane principles committed to report not just against quantitative metrics, but also “progress and challenges in methane emission management.” That creates the opportunity to take methane transparency to the next level, including providing the basis for real case studies and stories that can help decision makers act confidently.
4. Push the next frontier of methane tech
The signatories to the methane principles committed to provide financial and operational support to the development and deployment of innovative technologies and practices to reduce emissions. New technologies – whether from EDF/industry collaborations (see here and here), government programs like ARPA-E, or the broader marketplace – may allow even more efficient solutions. But industry dollars and in-kind support are vital to help these new ventures succeed.
5. Expand global industry participation
The companies that signed these principles last week know they are the original lineup, not the complete roster. For the founding members, there is as much of a responsibility for each company to help recruit new members, as there is responsibility for other companies to step up and join. Also, for maximum impact globally, these principles need to be applied across joint ventures and other cooperative production agreements.
These new methane principles, and the expanded industry leadership on global methane action, are important and well-timed. The International Energy Agency recently concluded that with current technologies the oil and gas industry can drastically reduce methane emissions by 75 percent worldwide – and that up to two thirds of those reductions can be realized at zero net cost. What’s more, the IEA finds that the zero net cost reductions would have the same climate impact in 2100 as immediately closing all the coal plants in China.
Now comes the hard work of turning these principles into concrete actions and reductions on a scale that can make a difference in the global fight on climate change. EDF is ready to help translate these principles into progress and help the industry seize its significant opportunity to quickly and cheaply drive down greenhouse gas emissions that are having an outsized impact on our climate today.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/12/01/exxon-joins-counterparts-in-new-call-for-increased-global-methane-action-including-regulations/
-
Northeast Regulator Proposes Blocking Drilling Permanently
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Delaware River Basin Commission yesterday proposed banning hydraulic fracturing permanently, which would end a seven-year stalemate.
The commission, charged with regulating the sprawling Northeast river basin, includes the Trump administration and four governors. Fracking in the region's Marcellus Shale gas formation placed the commission's regulatory role in the spotlight in 2010, when it placed a de facto ban on fracking. If the moratorium were to be lifted, drilling would likely begin only in two counties in northeastern Pennsylvania.
Still, the politics behind the proposal demonstrate some of the changes in the region and the country. The ban could also play into a lawsuit against the commission by landowners in one of those counties who favor development.
The Trump administration, whose vote on the panel is exercised by the Army Corps of Engineers, voted against a motion to draft the proposal in September. A representative of Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie voted to abstain.
The yes votes were cast by representatives of the Democratic governors of Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania.
Of the four states, industry has shown interest in exploring for gas in only New York and Pennsylvania. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) banned shale development through high-volume fracking across the state in 2014.
Fracking helped turn Pennsylvania into the second-biggest gas-producing state in the country before Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf took office. He has clashed with the industry over his support for a severance tax and stricter regulations.
But DRBC has jurisdiction in only two counties in Pennsylvania: most of Wayne and part of Pike. So lifting the moratorium would have allowed drilling only there.
When the commission last considered fracking, there were two Republican governors and two Democratic governors on the commission. President Obama controlled the fifth vote and was generally supportive of natural gas development.
At that time, the commission's proposal would have allowed fracking, but its rules would have been among the strictest in the country. New York had not yet banned fracking.
While the proposal published by DRBC yesterday would ban fracking, it would allow and regulate withdrawals of water from streams in the basin and would allow deep injection of drilling wastewater.
Because of that, environmental groups in the area such as the Delaware Riverkeeper Network are rallying against the proposal.
"It defies logic to say fracking is banned but the toxic waste it produces and the water it depletes is acceptable," the riverkeeper group states on its Facebook page.
The group is planning to air those objections at the commission's Dec. 13 meeting.
But the disappointment of green groups doesn't mean drilling supporters are happy. Tom Shepstone, a Wayne County businessman who has been pushing for drilling for years, is particularly incensed at Wolf. He says Wolf has snubbed the people in his area who would benefit from drilling.
"He's also sacrificed Pennsylvania sovereignty to a regional agency accountable to no one," Shepstone said.
The Marcellus Shale gas field lies under part of the Delaware River watershed in Pennsylvania and New York. Fracking involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water down-hole to crack open rock and release gas (Energywire, Sept. 13).
Some of that fluid comes back up with the gas, and production continues to produce wastewater from the rock formation.
Landowners and gas producers have said the commission has no authority to ban fracking, but a federal judge has sided with the commission in a lawsuit challenging the ban. The case is on appeal.
The commission is not expected to vote until after a series of four public hearings in Pennsylvania. Details of the January hearings are listed on the commission website. By then, Christie will have been replaced by Democrat Phil Murphy as governor of New Jersey.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/01/stories/1060067763
-
Delaware River-Area Fracking Ban Aims at Industry Water Use
Dec 1, 2017 | Associated Press (in Washington Post)
By Marc Levy
A regulatory commission that oversees water quality in the Delaware River basin is taking another step toward permanently banning natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
The Delaware River Basin Commission on Thursday published regulations to enact a formal ban on drilling and fracking, the technique that’s spurred a U.S. production boom in shale gas and oil. It also puts additional restrictions on the industry disposing wastewater within the watershed or using water from the river and its tributaries.
The watershed supplies Philadelphia and half of New York City with drinking water.
The commission imposed a moratorium on drilling and fracking in 2010 and voted in September to start the process of a ban. Hearings and a public comment period are to follow, with a final vote possible next year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/delaware-river-area-fracking-ban-aims-at-industry-water-use/2017/11/30/4fda600a-d61a-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html?utm_term=.a9b46a8f0226
-
Defending Renewable Energy in New England
Dec 1, 2017 | NRDC
By Bruce Ho
New England’s state renewable energy laws provide numerous benefits and are key to the region’s efforts to combat climate change. But these popular laws are under attack, as opponents seek to undermine them and prop up polluting energy instead. This week, NRDC pushed back against one such challenge.
The New England states—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have long been clean energy leaders. All six have adopted renewable portfolio standards that require growing levels of the region’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. In addition to helping cut carbon pollution to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, these policies protect public health by moving the power grid away from polluting fossil fuels, improve energy security, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth.
A lawsuit by three power companies—NextEra, NRG, and PSEG—that all own non-renewable generation in New England would undermine these benefits. The companies are asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a rule that recognizes the electricity benefits of renewable energy in a federally regulated power market, arguing that the rule is inconsistent with the Federal Power Act, which regulates such markets. The rule, which was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency charged with implementing the Federal Power Act, helps harmonize New England’s power markets with state renewable energy laws, lowers customer bills, and supports state clean energy goals; overturning it would reverse these benefits.
NRDC has submitted a friend of the court brief, together with the Conservation Law Foundation, opposing the generators’ challenge and asking the D.C. Circuit to uphold the rule and recognize the benefits of renewable energy.
Rule to Recognize Renewable Energy’s Benefits
The rule approved by FERC is simple: it ensures that when new renewable energy projects are built in accordance with the New England states’ clean energy laws, the electricity benefits of those resources will be recognized and accounted for by the region’s FERC-regulated wholesale power grid operator, ISO New England. This has two important features: (1) it promotes economic efficiency by ensuring that electricity customers receive the full benefits of the renewable energy projects being built under state laws, and (2) it prevents ISO New England from procuring unnecessary fossil fuel-fired generation in its wholesale markets.
As more renewable energy comes online, the need for polluting fossil fuels to provide electricity to our homes and businesses is declining. However, prior to FERC’s approval of the rule in question, ISO New England’s wholesale capacity market—the market that ensures the region’s grid can meet future electricity demand—was set up in a way that would effectively ignore new renewable energy projects’ ability to serve customer demand. This occurred because market pricing rules prohibited new renewable projects from accounting for support they received under state renewable policies when these projects bid into the competitive capacity market. In other words, new renewable projects were required to bid in the market at elevated prices, above what they actually needed to be financially viable. Because of this, the capacity market, which selects resources at lowest cost, was likely to select non-renewable resources, which were able to bid at lower prices, instead.
Although these pricing rules were intended to ensure competitive outcomes, free from market manipulation, they also caught up state renewable energy policies, which were enacted to incentivize pollution-free energy. This threatened to harm electricity customers by resulting in over-purchasing of unnecessary non-renewable energy in the capacity market, which would raise costs. The rules also threatened state clean energy and climate goals by potentially incentivizing new natural gas generation, when none was needed, or extending the lives of fossil fuel-fired generators that would otherwise retire.
Recognizing these harms, ISO New England proposed, and FERC approved, a rule that provides a limited exemption for new renewable energy from capacity market pricing rules. This rule enables new renewable resources, up to a 200-megawatt annual limit, to bid into the capacity market at lower prices that reflect the projects’ true economics. The exemption better enables renewable energy to participate in the capacity market. And that helps protect customers by avoiding inefficient over-procurement of fossil fuels. In its order approving the rule, FERC determined the exemption would have minimal effects on market prices and was “just and reasonable” under the Federal Power Act.
Why This Case Is Important
New England state renewable energy laws require construction of new renewable energy projects, regardless of ISO New England market rules. Under current laws, we will continue to see wind and solar energy meeting a growing share of the region’s electricity demand. Nevertheless, the lawsuit is a threat to both customers’ pocketbooks and the abilities of states to transition their electricity systems to cleaner sources of energy and to combat climate change.
States have adopted renewable energy policies at least in part because wholesale power markets are not incentivizing the clean energy resources that the states and voters in the region want. ISO New England’s markets do not put a value on the pollution-free benefits of renewable energy, nor the pollution harms from fossil fuels. State policies help fill in these gaps.
The lawsuit represents a challenge to FERC’s ability to harmonize New England’s power markets with these state policies. If the power generators succeed, the outcome will raise electricity costs for customers by forcing them to pay twice: once for renewable energy being built under state laws, and again for unnecessary, duplicative fossil fuels that will be procured by ISO New England. As owners of non-renewable generation, they might be better off, but customers would suffer. By providing more money to fossil fuels, the power grid would also be dirtier.
The Federal Power Act and court precedent are clear that states have authority to incentivize renewable energy, and FERC has an obligation to respect state policy choices. While FERC also has an important role in overseeing wholesale power markets, this role is not in conflict with respecting legitimate state interests. FERC can ensure market efficiency while also respecting state policies.
In approving the New England renewable energy rule, FERC appropriately determined that its role is not simply to protect power generators’ profits, but is instead to find a “just and reasonable” outcome that also protects and balances state interests and the interests of customers. The D.C. Circuit should uphold FERC’s decision.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/bruce-ho/defending-renewable-energy-new-england
-
Pruitt 'Guaranteeing' Debate on Climate Science Soon
Dec 1, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The conservative Heritage Foundation might have just previewed the Trump administration's arguments against climate science.
U.S. EPA appears to be close to unveiling its program to question mainstream research on global warming, referred to as a "red team" exercise, and several candidates for that role cast doubt on the extent of climate change at the Heritage Foundation yesterday.
One theme they expressed is that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels should no longer be considered a pollutant but instead an essential ingredient in maintaining a global population boom. They described potentially catastrophic impacts of human-caused warming as "alarmism."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt could announce the red team within weeks, according to Bob Murray, a key ally of the administration and the CEO of Murray Energy Corp. The coal boss said in an interview at yesterday's event that he has been personally pushing Pruitt to challenge the endangerment finding, the scientific underpinning for past and future regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Murray, who met with Pruitt last week, said the administrator told him the red-team debate is imminent. Pruitt also said the exercise is the first step toward a possible challenge to the endangerment finding, Murray told E&E News.
"They're laying groundwork for it, they want to do this red, blue study, debate on science before we get there," Murray said of the endangerment finding. "I said, 'You need to get it done; if you don't get it repealed, you're going to have this climate agenda forever. It needs to be repealed.'"
Murray added of Pruitt: "He's not guaranteeing me. He's guaranteeing to do the red-blue climate debate and then go from there."
The Trump administration has been aggressive in its efforts to rescind policies restricting greenhouse gases. It's working to reverse the Clean Power Plan, which sought to cut power-sector emissions 32 percent by 2030, and President Trump has announced a withdrawal from the global Paris climate accord.
But the administration has stopped short of promising to challenge the endangerment finding. That stands to be a major fight in the courts, and many administration officials anticipate defeat. Yet if President Trump skips that fight, he would anger staunch conservatives who see the endangerment finding as the cornerstone of future climate regulation.
"We're going to have a mess until that endangerment finding is overturned," Murray said.
The red-team, blue-team exercise is coming early next year, Pruitt said recently. It will pit a team of skeptical researchers against the findings of mainstream scientists. Critics have said the exercise could cherry-pick data in an effort to elevate doubt and give unequal weight to skeptics.
An EPA spokesman said there are "no updates" when asked about the timing of the exercise.
One panel at the Heritage Foundation event yesterday could offer a prelude to the scientific arguments that would be pursued by the red team. Several skeptical scientists picked apart the general consensus of their peers, who say humans are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace. The panelists claimed that the attention given to rising global temperatures is overwrought. Craig Idso, who founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, said the world food supply will fall short of demand by 2050 unless more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere.
Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said researchers who could be selected for the red team have met a few times in recent weeks in different cities. He said more government research needs to be conducted on the natural causes of climate change. That could be done if congressional budget appropriators divert a portion of the research funding for human-caused climate change toward research on natural causes.
"There are chaotic variations internal to the climate system, and that is something that has been totally swept under the rug," Spencer said. "The red team could look at all kinds of things, but if I'm part of the red team, that would probably be the top thing I would emphasize."
The researchers, all of whom are possible candidates for the red team, attacked the findings of mainstream science that humans are the primary cause of climate change. They criticized climate models, laughed at former Vice President Al Gore's advocacy and portrayed the vast majority of colleagues in their field who disagree with them as "alarmists."
The "smoking gun" that could undo the endangerment finding is to find flaws in the climate models, said Pat Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. He said yesterday's panel is a prelude to the red team and an attack against the endangerment determination. He cautioned EPA against using researchers with extreme positions.
"The red team members are going to have to be very carefully selected," Michaels said. "My fear is that red team will have this tinge of 'Oh, there is no such thing as global warming; there is no such thing as carbon dioxide greenhouse gas effect.' If the red team goes there, it might as well be considered that they are working for the blue team."
Scientific consensuses are often wrong, said William Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University and a contender to become Trump's science adviser. He criticized the "preening virtue signaling" of environmental groups and compared the attitude of those who craft climate policy to lawmakers who were swept up in the temperance movement before Prohibition was enacted.
"Climate models don't work; they're predicting much more warming than has been observed," Happer said.
Richard Lindzen, a retired meteorology professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, blamed "climate alarmism" on educated elites who don't want to admit their limited understanding of science. He said fossil fuels will benefit humans and that reduced Arctic sea ice will open the Northwest Passage.
After a lunch from Chick-fil-A, Murray shared the Heritage stage with Bud Brigham, who founded several successful hydraulic fracturing companies.
As Brigham sat silently, Murray largely blamed policies by the Obama administration for the decline of coal, rather than the natural gas boom associated with fracking. Murray said that despite the Trump administration's efforts, financing for coal projects is extremely hard to obtain. He said he abandoned a project last week because he failed to find funding. He blamed it on climate science, socialists and liberal policies.
"The global alarmists, the politics is still shutting us down in spite of the Trump administration's efforts. It is still getting worse; they are winning," Murray said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/01/stories/1060067811
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
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