Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/04
-
(ACC Mentioned) Film Recycling Gets a Boost at Nebraska Markets
Jan 4, 2018 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new campaign to capture more plastic wraps and bags has launched in Omaha, Neb. -
Is It Legal to Delay Lead-Paint Regulations?
Jan 4, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Cass R. Sunstein
In its first year, the Trump administration has had only modest success in eliminating existing regulations. But it has dramatically slowed the issuance of new regulations, including in the areas of safety, health and the environment. -
Trump-Pruitt EPA Moves to Kill Chemical Hazard Program, IRIS
Jan 4, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with protecting human health and the environment – it says so right in the mission statement on its “About EPA” web page. -
(ACC Mentioned) US NTP Study: Formaldehyde Cancer Mechanism Remains Elusive
Jan 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Formaldehyde does not cause cancer through mutations in the tumour suppressor gene Trp53, according to a study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). -
Industry Gets Chance to Voice Brexit Views
Jan 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A detailed picture of company expectations on the business impacts of Brexit will be compiled from a major survey, which Chemical Watch is running over the coming weeks. -
Estonian EU Council Presidency 'Good on Chemicals', NGO Says
Jan 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The Estonian presidency of the Council of the EU has done a good job of enacting controls on hazardous chemicals, NGO the European Environmental Bureau said. -
DOE Funds $30M to Crack Unconventional Energy Challenges
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The federal government is offering funds for research into tapping tough shale oil reservoirs and offshore well integrity. -
DOE Banking on Six Projects to Advance Oil, NatGas Production Techniques
Jan 4, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Six U.S. projects to test technologies for oil and natural gas development, including four in unconventional plays, have been selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive $30 million total for cost-shared research and development. -
Pa. Halts Mariner East 2 Work Amid 'Egregious' Violations
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A pipeline project designed to move natural gas products across Pennsylvania hit a major roadblock yesterday as state regulators halted construction indefinitely. -
Export Giant Enlists Bracewell to Lobby on Pipelines
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Kevin Bogardus
Cheniere Energy Inc., the nation's first exporter of natural gas, has expanded its relationship with well-known lobby firm Bracewell LLP to include federal pipeline regulatory issues. -
Trump Admin Proposes Vastly Expanded Leasing
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Rob Hotakainen
In a huge win for the oil and gas industry, the Trump administration today unveiled a new five-year plan that would allow more drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. -
Trump's Offshore Drilling Expansion, Deregulation Is Deadly Combo
Jan 4, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kristen Monsell
The Trump administration is playing a dangerous game with our oceans and coastal communities. -
GAO Finds Inconsistencies in Processing Offshore Oil Testing
Jan 4, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal regulators under the Obama administration were inconsistent in how they processed applications to conduct seismic research for offshore oil and natural gas, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found. -
NIST Kicks Off New Year with a Grim Grid Warning
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A cyberattack on the power grid could ripple across multiple sectors, "possibly stressing the fabric of our society to the point of collapse," the National Institute of Standards and Technology warned yesterday in updates to a key cybersecurity guide. -
Department of Transportation Reminds Railroads to Meet Year-End Positive Train Control Requirements
Jan 4, 2018 | Transportation Today
By Aaron Martin
Citing concerns that many of the nation’s railroads are not on pace to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) systems before a year-end deadline, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chow recently urged railroads to heed congressionally mandated milestones for implementation. -
Delaware Threatens EPA with Suit over Interstate Ozone Petitions
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
Delaware is threatening to sue EPA over the agency's failure to reply to its four outstanding petitions for direct federal regulation of power plants in upwind states that the First State says are contributing to its problems attaining the agency's ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). -
Lawyers Debate Rule at Federalist Society
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
Two well-known environmental lawyers debated the legal future of the Clean Power Plan yesterday — but wound up sounding more like junior economists by the time the event was through. -
Air Chief Says Challenging Endangerment Finding Is Possible
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
Top U.S. EPA officials are considering using a formal climate science critique to re-examine the endangerment finding that underpins greenhouse gas rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Film Recycling Gets a Boost at Nebraska Markets
Jan 4, 2018 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new campaign to capture more plastic wraps and bags has launched in Omaha, Neb.
The new initiative from the Wrap Recycling Action Program launched in December to educate consumers on how they can recycle clean and dry plastics at participating stores. Materials collected include grocery bags, produce bags, bread bags, dry cleaning bags, newspaper bags and food storage bags. Other materials accepted include plastic wraps for beverage cases and other film used to package items such diapers, bathroom tissue and paper towels. It also accepts bubble wrap and shipping film.
The Flexible Film Recycling Group of the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the First Star Fiber material recovery facility were at the launch at four Hy-Vee grocery stores in Omaha to help educate consumers.
"Omaha residents can play an important role in keeping these items out of the landfill by bringing their plastic wraps and bags to a Hy-Vee grocery store or other participating retailer for recycling. Recycling plastic wraps and bags at retail drop-off locations instead of through curbside collection programs helps ensure that this material does not damage equipment at the local MRF," said Shari Jackson, director of film recycling for ACC, in a statement.
"Moreover, recycling plastic wraps and bags at grocery and retail locations helps keep the material clean and dry, which is critical to maintaining quality for recycling," Jackson said.
The WRAP effort coincided with a promotional effort regarding the Hefty Energy Bag Program, which is diverting hard-to-recycle plastics from landfill disposal. Omaha-area residents use special orange bags to segregate those plastics, which are then used as fuel.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180104/BLOG06/180109966/film-recycling-gets-a-boost-at-nebraska-markets
-
Is It Legal to Delay Lead-Paint Regulations?
Jan 4, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Cass R. Sunstein
In its first year, the Trump administration has had only modest success in eliminating existing regulations. But it has dramatically slowed the issuance of new regulations, including in the areas of safety, health and the environment.
For 2018, and the remainder of Donald Trump’s presidency, that raises an urgent question: Will courts ever intervene and require agencies to act?
Last week, one federal court gave a resounding answer: Yes.
By a majority of 2-1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit required the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a new regulation to reduce health risks associated with exposure to lead paint. The court went so far as to impose a timetable on the agency: The EPA must propose a rule for public comments within 90 days and finalize it within a year. (A rule becomes law once it is made final.)
While acknowledging that its current lead-paint standard was insufficient, the agency had asked for four years to propose a new rule and six years to finalize it. In response, the court said that the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, requires the EPA to update its regulations so as to protect children from serious health risks, consistent with new scientific information.
To appreciate the significance of last week's decision, it is necessary to emphasize that courts are usually reluctant to compel the executive branch to act. Their reluctance makes sense. Any president must set priorities, meaning that in some areas he will order his agencies to stay their hand.
On occasion, environmental organizations, labor unions and consumer groups will be unhappy and even appalled. True, Republican administrations are more likely to show regulatory restraint than Democratic administrations. But even under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, public-interest organizations frequently took their objections to court.
Usually they lose. That is mostly because in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that agency inaction is presumed to be “unreviewable” -- meaning the courts cannot get involved. The justices emphasized that agencies, just like criminal prosecutors, have limited budgets and numerous potential targets. Courts are not in a good position to decide whether agencies have chosen the right priorities.
At the same time, the Supreme Court recognized that Congress has the final say: It is entitled to require the executive branch to act. If Congress explicitly directs the Department of Transportation to issue new fuel-economy standards in 2018, the department is not allowed to ignore that requirement. If it does, courts can require it to obey the law.
That’s an important principle, and sometimes it matters, but in most cases it turns out to be irrelevant. Congress does not usually impose deadlines -- which means that any president’s agencies, including Trump’s, seem licensed to sit on their hands.
With respect to lead paint, Congress has given no deadlines to the EPA. For that reason, the appeals court was required to invoke a widely ignored provision of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which directs judges to compel agency action that has been “unreasonably delayed.”
The court emphasized that a delay would be more likely to be found unreasonable if human health was at stake. Because the EPA itself acknowledged that the current standard is inadequate to protect the health of young children, any significant delay would present “a clear threat to human welfare,” the court said. By asking for a delay of years, rather than months, the agency greatly weakened its position and claim to be acting reasonably.
True, the court's decision was not unanimous, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the Supreme Court would side with Judge N. Randy Smith, who dissented on the ground that Congress had not tied the agency’s hands. But because the majority did not depart from established law, that’s unlikely.
In light of the risk of lead poisoning, the court’s decision is important in itself. But it is more significant still as a signal that legal challenges to agency inaction may succeed, especially when health and safety are involved.
In many contexts, it makes sense for agencies to refuse to regulate. And when agencies fail to act, courts are usually right to stand aside -- and to defer to those who have political accountability and superior expertise.
But for the executive branch in 2018 and beyond, last week’s decision is a lesson, a warning and a promise: Some delays are unreasonable, and when human health is at stake, inaction may not be a legally acceptable option.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-04/is-it-legal-to-delay-lead-paint-regulations
-
Trump-Pruitt EPA Moves to Kill Chemical Hazard Program, IRIS
Jan 4, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with protecting human health and the environment – it says so right in the mission statement on its “About EPA” web page. It even gets a bit specific: “EPA's purpose is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work”.
One of its most important programs to carry out this mission is the EPA Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS. It identifies which industrial chemical pollutants can harm us, what kinds of harm they can cause (the hazard identification assessment, such as cancers, birth defects, etc), and how much exposure can lead to how much harm (the dose-response assessment). The IRIS program is not regulatory in itself – it is science information only. This information is subsequently put together with site-specific exposure information to conduct a risk assessment and ultimately inform risk management decisions, policies, and regulations.
The polluting chemical industry has long hated this program because IRIS assessments are used by EPA’s various offices – air, water, solid waste, toxics, and others – as well as local and state governments all over the country and all over the world to set clean up levels and emissions limits for toxic chemicals (see NRDC Delay Game report). The program enjoyed a recent very favorable review from the EPA Science Advisory Board. If there was no IRIS program, it would be much harder for governments to set limits on all kinds of industrial pollution.
Now the Trump-Pruitt-Beck EPA has figured out a way to kill the IRIS program: put it under the direction and control of the chemical industry lobbyist running EPA’s Toxics Office, Nancy Beck. Beck has already demonstrated she is not qualified to run the IRIS program - earlier in her polluter-friendly career Beck authored the fatally flawed Risk Assessment Bulletin that was rejected by the Bush Administration federal agencies and the National Academies.
Since the chemical industry essentially took control of the Toxics Office, the entire program for implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been re-oriented toward enacting the preferred policies of the toxic chemical manufacturers – despite their likely illegality and their inconsistency with EPA mission (see above). This will make it easy for Trump’s political team to similarly divert and destroy the IRIS program.
The IRIS program is one of the very few independent, non-industry funded programs for analyzing the potential harm of toxic chemicals. It is for exactly that reason that the chemical manufacturers and their representatives within the Trump-Pruitt EPA are now moving to kill it. If the industry is successful in killing IRIS (and their sights are also set on a few other independent chemical assessment programs), there will be much less credible scientific evidence and analysis available for accurately assessing the dangers posed by chemicals. It won’t mean that the toxic chemicals in your toys, furniture and drinking water aren’t going to hurt you, it just means that you won’t know about it.
As detailed by my colleague, Daniel Rosenberg, under EPA Administrator Pruitt, the TSCA program is already being slated for delay, dysfunction, and demise. Although EPA had previously proposed to cancel specific uses of three highly toxic solvents—Trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC), and n-methylpyrollidone (NMP), because they pose an unreasonable risk to health, the Trump-Pruitt EPA is putting all three rules into a deep freeze from which they are unlikely to ever return. (see details in the NY Times).
Administrator Pruitt continues to aggressively work in opposition to the stated mission of his Agency and is instead walking – running – away from both the science and the policies that would provide a long-overdue measure of protection to consumers, workers, and families.
EPA is currently developing its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2019 and, and we expect it to include a transfer of the resources of the IRIS program into the TSCA budget, where both will ultimately be dealt death blows by Administrator Pruitt and the polluting chemical industries that bankroll politicians. Congress should reject this proposal when it is sent to the Hill for consideration.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/trump-pruitt-epa-moves-kill-chemical-hazard-program-iris
-
(ACC Mentioned) US NTP Study: Formaldehyde Cancer Mechanism Remains Elusive
Jan 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Formaldehyde does not cause cancer through mutations in the tumour suppressor gene Trp53, according to a study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).
Inhalation of formaldehyde is linked to nasal cancer and leukaemia in humans.
And previous studies have suggested an association between mutations in Trp53 and formaldehyde-induced nasal tumours, prompting speculation that the former could be a key mechanistic event.
But the NTP says this hypothesis is not supported by its study, which used mice specially bred to carry just one copy of Trp53, instead of two, so that the role of the gene could be targeted.IRIS evaluationThe US NTP lists formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its Report on Carcinogens. Meanwhile, the substance is under assessment by the US Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme but the process is taking an unusually long time. The draft report was published in 2010 and attracted attracted strong criticism from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), as well as industry. One of the complaints concerned the possible modes of action, the sequences of key events that describe the biologic pathway from exposure to adverse outcome, in this case cancer. "Although EPA provided an exhaustive description of the studies and speculated extensively on possible modes of action, the causal determinations are not supported by the narrative provided in the draft IRIS assessment," the NAS committee said in its review. The committee recommended that the EPA revisit its arguments about causation to add transparency and validity to its conclusions. The agency held a public workshop in 2014 to discuss the scientific issues, including "mechanistic evidence relevant to formaldehyde inhalation exposure and lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukaemia and lymphomas)". But there has been no word on when the final report might be published.
Jennifer Sass at US NGO the National Resources Defence Council (NRDC) described the final IRIS report as long overdue and added: "It is being held up within the EPA, we think by [deputy assistant administrator] Nancy Beck".
Industry, meanwhile, remains concerned about the assessment process.
The IRIS programme is "severely flawed" said Sarah Scruggs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). "It also appears to be hampered by a lack of coordination among EPA programme offices regarding the chemical assessments being undertaken and how those assessments will be utilised by other EPA programmes."
She added: "For instance, it is unclear what, if any, regulatory driver exists for this or other IRIS assessments currently in the pipeline, and the IRIS website provides little information on the other EPA programme offices' needs for this information."
Formaldehyde is used in adhesives for a wide range of wood products including furniture, flooring, cabinets, bookcases and building materials, such as plywood and wood panels.
"Formaldehyde technologies contribute significantly to the dependable performance of many products and few, if any, compounds can replace formaldehyde in these products without compromising quality and performance," Ms Scruggs said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62856/us-ntp-study-formaldehyde-cancer-mechanism-remains-elusive
-
Industry Gets Chance to Voice Brexit Views
Jan 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A detailed picture of company expectations on the business impacts of Brexit will be compiled from a major survey, which Chemical Watch is running over the coming weeks.
The survey is split into different sections, according to the location and type of operation of the respondent. We will analyse and disseminate findings widely, in the next few months.
It is based on the assumption that the UK does leave the EU, and asks firms which chemicals regulatory outcome would give them the greatest confidence in being able to maintain business stability and growth.
Companies are also asked about the possible impacts of Brexit, such as leaving the UK, or creating new operations here; whether they see any competitive advantage in Brexit, and are looking for new suppliers or customers to replace those in the country.
The questions were prepared with input from the British Alliance of Chemical Associations, as well as contacts in British and EU regulatory bodies.
The survey comes at a critical time for UK policy making, in particular, regarding the chemicals regime that will apply in the UK after Brexit and its impact on standards of product safety.
UK government ministers say that REACH will be incorporated into UK law. But despite repeated warnings from trade bodies about the negative effects on the economy of withdrawal, it has failed to explain how this would be achieved or whether it would be a temporary or long-term fix.
During a House of Commons debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill on 20 December, Brexit junior minister Steve Baker dismissed as unnecessary a Labour party proposal for a new clause, designed to ensure the UK participates in REACH after Brexit. However, there will be opportunities for opposition parties to propose this and other changes, during the final stages of the bill’s progress through the Commons and its passage through the House of Lords later this year.
Meanwhile, the head of a UK chemicals trade body told Chemical Watch that a recently published government analysis of the sector is of "questionable value" and fails to grasp the significance of its regulatory framework.
Chemical Business Association chief executive, Peter Newport, said achieving regulatory 'equivalence' or 'alignment' with the EU post-Brexit was an "indisputable requirement" to maintaining access to the EU market.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62843/industry-gets-chance-to-voice-brexit-views
-
Estonian EU Council Presidency 'Good on Chemicals', NGO Says
Jan 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The Estonian presidency of the Council of the EU has done a good job of enacting controls on hazardous chemicals, NGO the European Environmental Bureau said.
The presidency rotates among EU member states every six months, during which the presidency chairs meetings at every level in the Council.
Estonia led the EU into the first conference of the parties to the MinamataConvention on Mercury in September, and also its preparations for the United Nations Environment Assembly (Unea-3) in December were considered a success, the EEB said in its regular assessment of the effectiveness of the EU presidency.
Estonia’s efforts to highlight the interface between products, waste and chemicals policy within the circular economy and to promote transparency on hazardous substances in products "were also welcome", it said.
"The Council was very good on setting a new agenda on product transparency to be used by consumers, explicitly mentioning transparency on hazardous substances in products, the plastics value chain and recycled materials," the EEB said.
The presidency also presented a concrete idea for product passports – an "important step forward" to achieving the EU's non-toxic environment goal – and organised a risk management expert meeting.
However, while it rated Estonia "positive" for its efforts on chemicals, the EEB gave the presidency a "negative" rating for environmental outcomes. It was less successful on nanomaterials – the Estonian presidency did not work on the regulatory gaps, it said, but "rather encouraged its development as a new revolutionary technology" at several events.
The EEB publishes an assessment of each outgoing presidency and sets ten "green tests" for the incoming presidency – which is Bulgaria from January.Goals for Bulgaria
The NGO has called on the new presidency to fill the regulatory gaps in chemicals during its tenure, including on nanomaterials and the mixture effects of chemicals.
Bulgaria should ensure that the Commission develops criteria for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) consistent with those of CMRs (carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction) and "protective enough to catch all EDCs to which the public and the environment are exposed," the EEB said.
Within the context of the Commission's second five-year evaluation of REACH, expected this month, the EEB called on the Commission, Echa and member states to address obstacles in implementation, "and in particular to develop effective measures to ensure the compliance, quality and reliability of the registration information".
The EEB said Bulgaria must ensure:
proper application, implementation and enforcement of REACH Article 33;
effective restriction and phase out of substances of most concern through restriction and authorisation processes, and
help create a comprehensive REACH candidate list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62854/estonian-eu-council-presidency-good-on-chemicals-ngo-says
-
DOE Funds $30M to Crack Unconventional Energy Challenges
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The federal government is offering funds for research into tapping tough shale oil reservoirs and offshore well integrity.
The Department of Energy announced yesterday that it is providing funds for six research and development projects, partnering with the private sector and academia. DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory will manage the projects.
DOE puts the government's commitment to the new R&D spending at about $30 million, with partnerships chipping in the rest. The total cost of the six projects is estimated to be about $55 million.
The projects are strictly targeting fossil fuel development through DOE's Office of Fossil Energy, namely challenging tight and shale oil fields and deepwater offshore operations. Much of the money is being devoted to unlocking shale oil plays that are not popular with the industry today given their technical complexity. Other funds will go toward developing a new type of offshore well casing cement designed to better withstand the extreme pressures and temperatures encountered in offshore oil and gas extraction.
The six projects "will address critical gaps in our understanding of reservoir behavior and optimal well-completion strategies, next-generation subsurface diagnostic technologies, and advanced offshore technologies," DOE said in its announcement.
The funds will be used to tackle challenges that have beleaguered industry scientists and engineers for years.
Nearly $10 million in funding is being directed at unlocking the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, through a partnership with the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. That shale play underlies Mississippi and northeastern Louisiana, including impoverished rural counties hoping to attract oil and gas investments. Yet the industry has mostly shied away, as companies have struggled to bring Tuscaloosa well costs down and make drilling there profitable (Energywire, Dec. 16, 2013).
DOE is also partnering with Virginia Tech to investigate the natural gas potential of "emerging unconventional reservoirs in the Nora Gas Field of southwest Virginia," with the aim of unlocking the Lower Huron Shale. That research endeavor is slated to receive over $11 million.
The agency is also diving into joint research with a Stafford, Texas, company to commercialize a "proof-of-concept hexagonal boron-nitride/cement composite." The composite would presumably be used to better secure offshore wells.
The new initiatives could be taking over from another well-organized public-private R&D partnership.
The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) was established by the George W. Bush administration to build R&D bridges between government laboratories, university researchers and the private sector. RPSEA lost its government affiliation when its 10-year writ came to a close.
Organizers have been scrambling to keep RPSEA alive as an independent nonprofit, signing a memorandum of understanding with the Society of Exploration Geophysicists last spring (Energywire, March 15, 2017).
But aside from this and work on controlling wellhead methane leaks announced in August, no new joint R&D projects have been announced or organized since active-status projects closed out in 2016, and RPSEA lists no new research proposals awaiting funding. A representative for RPSEA clarified that the organization remains actively engaged in R&D in other ways.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070067
-
DOE Banking on Six Projects to Advance Oil, NatGas Production Techniques
Jan 4, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Six U.S. projects to test technologies for oil and natural gas development, including four in unconventional plays, have been selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive $30 million total for cost-shared research and development.
The projects, selected by the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) within its Advanced Technology Solutions for Unconventional Oil and Gas Developmentfunding opportunity, are to address critical gaps in understanding reservoir behavior and optimal well-completion strategies, next-generation subsurface diagnostic technologies and advanced offshore technologies.
Field projects were solicited in emerging unconventional plays with less than 50,000 b/d of current production, including the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) and the Huron Shale in Virginia.
“The newly selected projects will help us master oil and gas development in these types of rising shales, along with bolstering DOE efforts to strengthen America’s energy dominance, protect air and water quality, position the nation as a global leader in unconventional oil and natural gas resource development technologies, and ensure the maximum value of the nation’s resource endowment is realized,” officials said.
Four of the awards are focused on U.S. onshore research. The Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) in Des Moines, IL, was awarded $7.94 million by DOE and another $12.59 million from outside sources, including oil and gas producers, to test hydraulic fracturing techniques in the Permian Basin’s Delaware sub-basin.
IGT plans to carry out multiple experiments to evaluate well completion, design optimization and environmental impact quantification using a fracture test site experimental well in West Texas targeting the Wolfcamp formation. Anadarko Production Corp. and Shell Exploration and Production Co., which jointly operate in an area of mutual interest in the Permian, agreed to host the test site on their acreage.
DOE awarded $8 million to Texas A&M University’s Engineering Experiment Station in College Station, TX, with another $2 million provided by outside sources, for the Eagle Ford Shale Laboratory. The field study is to test stimulated reservoir volume, fracture characteristics and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) potential. Technology would be tested for initial stimulation/production and enhanced recovery using refracturing and EOR methods.
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette is to receive $3.68 million from DOE and another $5.98 million from outside sources for its TMS Laboratory to enable “more cost-efficient and environmentally sound recovery” from the unconventional liquid-rich play.
“The TMS has been estimated to contain 7 billion bbl of recoverable light, sweet crude oil, while its current total average production is only about 3,000 b/d,” DOE noted. “Development of the TMS in eastern Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi could significantly impact local communities economically.
“However, over the past several decades, operators have been unsuccessful in the TMS play, in part due to its clay-rich nature which makes it sensitive to water. Improved understanding of the TMS, along with public scientific assessment of new approaches for developing the play, will expand and accelerate industry efforts to cultivate this resource with minimal environmental impact.”
The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, VA, is receiving almost $8 million in DOE funds and another $3.15 million in outside funding to advance a field laboratory for emerging stacked unconventional plays in Central Appalachia. The lab is to investigate and characterize “the resource potential for multi-play production of emerging unconventional reservoirs in the Nora gas field of southwest Virginia.”
The Nora project is to evaluate and quantify the benefits of “novel completion strategies for lateral wells in the unconventional Lower Huron Shale,” with a major objective to characterize the geology and potential deep pay zones of Cambrian-age formations. A second objective is to evaluate and quantify the potential benefits of well-completion strategies in the emerging (and technologically accessible) Lower Huron Shale.
For the offshore, the DOE also awarded funds for two major projects.
C-Crete Technologies Inc., headquartered near Houston in Stafford, is receiving $1.5 million from DOE and $375,000 in additional funds to test hexagonal boron nitride reinforced multifunctional well cement for extreme conditions -- basically a next-generation cement to prevent offshore spills and leaks.
DOE also awarded the Colorado School of Mines trustees in Golden, CO, nearly $1.5 million, while $374,000 was provided from outside sources for a study of in-situ applied coatings for mitigating gas hydrate deposition in deepwater. Research is to focus on developing and validating coatings to prevent hydrate deposits in undersea pipelines.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112950-doe-banking-on-six-projects-to-advance-oil-natgas-production-techniques
-
Pa. Halts Mariner East 2 Work Amid 'Egregious' Violations
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A pipeline project designed to move natural gas products across Pennsylvania hit a major roadblock yesterday as state regulators halted construction indefinitely.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suspended permits for the Mariner East 2 project, citing "egregious and willful" violations. The 24-page order enumerates dozens of infractions, including instances in which project backer Sunoco Pipeline LP allegedly did not obtain a permit at all for certain installation activities.
"Until Sunoco can demonstrate that the permit conditions can and will be followed, DEP has no alternative but to suspend the permits," DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell said in a statement. "We are living up to our promise to hold this project accountable to the strong protections in the permits."
Mariner East 2 would deliver natural gas liquids including propane, butane and ethane 350 miles across the southern portion of the Keystone State, sending products to eastern Pennsylvania and the Marcus Hook terminal near Philadelphia.
Sunoco has touted the pipeline as a critical link between the Utica and Marcellus Shale formations and markets in Pennsylvania and beyond. The Marcus Hook facility serves as a budding hub for exports of gas products.
For now, Pennsylvania's order will block all construction on the $2.5 billion project until Sunoco corrects violations, addresses complaints about fouled private water wells and submits a plan for avoiding future problems.
According to the order, the dozens of permit infractions represent violations of Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law and Dam Safety and Encroachments Act.
"Suspension of the permits ... is necessary to correct the egregious and willful violations herein," the order says. "Other enforcement procedures, penalties and remedies available to the Department under the Clean Streams Law and the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act would not be adequate to effect prompt or effective correction of the conditions or violations demonstrated by Sunoco's lack of ability or intention to comply."
Sunoco has 30 days to challenge the order before the state Environmental Hearing Board. The company quickly posted a response to the news on its website yesterday, noting that it plans to work swiftly to get the all-clear to restart construction.
"We intend to expeditiously submit these reports and we are confident that we will be reauthorized to commence work on this project promptly," the statement said. "We also reiterate our commitment to the highest levels of construction expertise and our dedication to preserving and protecting the environment in which we conduct our work."
Sunoco last year merged with Energy Transfer Partners LP, the developer of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, the Rover natural gas pipeline in Ohio and other contentious projects.
Pipeline critics slammed the news of the Mariner East 2 violations as evidence of reckless development practices.
"Just as in Ohio and Michigan in recent months, Energy Transfer Partners and its affiliates now in Pennsylvania continue to show a reckless disregard for the environment and communities as it rabidly builds its pipelines across the country," Oil Change International spokesman David Turnbull said in a statement.
Joanne Kilgour, head of the Sierra Club's Pennsylvania chapter, said she hoped the issues with Mariner East 2 would spur Gov. Tom Wolf (D) to take a closer look at how the state approves pipeline projects.
"DEP's decision to suspend the permits required for construction affirms that the concerns raised by these community members were valid, and that the pipeline should never have been approved in the first place," she said in a statement. "We hope the Wolf Administration will take this opportunity to reevaluate its insufficient approach to the permitting of pipeline projects and other fossil fuel projects throughout Pennsylvania."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070007
-
Export Giant Enlists Bracewell to Lobby on Pipelines
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Kevin Bogardus
Cheniere Energy Inc., the nation's first exporter of natural gas, has expanded its relationship with well-known lobby firm Bracewell LLP to include federal pipeline regulatory issues.
Cheniere, which began exporting liquefied natural gas from its Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana last year, has worked with Bracewell for years on legal and regulatory matters.
Scott Segal, head of Bracewell's Policy Resolution Group, said this week the firm filed a new registration to account for helping Cheniere with a range of issues, including regulatory reform and permitting initiatives, tax issues, and market development.
Along with Segal, the disclosure — filed with the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate — names Bracewell lobbyists Christine Wyman, Liam Donovan and Joshua Zive.
"Trade in liquefied natural gas plays a critical role in energy strategy, environmental policy, economic development, and national security policy for the United States and its allies," Segal said in a statement. "Cheniere's efforts continue to be at the forefront of LNG operations and market development."
Texas-based Cheniere already has a substantial lobbying presence in Washington, D.C., including an in-house team and through William & Jensen, a prominent K Street shop.
Records show the energy company spent $930,000 on lobbying for the first three quarters of 2017. Still, Cheniere is not on pace to match its lobbying outlay from 2016, which was $3.93 million.
Bracewell already lobbies for a number of energy clients, including the American Wind Energy Association, Duke Energy Corp., as well as the pro-coal Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.
The firm has earned $3.83 million in lobbying fees for 2017's first three quarters, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070119
-
Trump Admin Proposes Vastly Expanded Leasing
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Rob Hotakainen
In a huge win for the oil and gas industry, the Trump administration today unveiled a new five-year plan that would allow more drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans.
Ending months of speculation and igniting an outcry from critics, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced the decision in a 1 p.m. press call.
"This is a start on looking at American energy dominance," Zinke said, adding that the plan would make the U.S. "the strongest energy superpower."
He said the new plan would make more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf (OCS) open for leasing. It would allow lease sales in 25 of the 26 OCS planning areas, including off California.
The plan would schedule 47 lease sales from 2019 to 2024, including in the Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.
Zinke's move came less than a week after the Trump team proposed weakening the rules on offshore drilling safety equipment, saying they create an unnecessary burden for the industry.
The combination marked a double punch for environmental groups and other opponents of the proposal, which will replace the current five-year plan finalized last January under the Obama administration and scheduled to run through 2022.
"More drilling and less safeguards is a recipe for disaster," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director for Oceana.
Calling the new plan a "radical offshore drilling free-for-all" that ignored widespread opposition, she said: "Secretary Zinke needs to protect our coast, not sell it out to the highest bidder."
Drilling backers said changes are needed because the Obama administration made 94 percent of the outer continental shelf off-limits to development, hurting job growth.
Lori LeBlanc, executive director of the Gulf Economic Survival Team, said the plan "is a major sign of optimism for our country's potential in being the world-leader in energy production."
"With increasing OCS access, our country has the opportunity to maximize those natural resources in order to continue producing dependable energy, creating thousands of good-paying jobs and providing immense economic stability for our nation," she said.
The plan follows an April 28 executive order from President Trump that reversed an Obama administration ban on drilling in much of the Arctic Ocean and directed the Interior Department to consider allowing more offshore oil and gas leasing in other areas.
"First of all, it was expected — nobody should be surprised, and nobody's changing their opinion," said Frank Knapp, president and CEO of both the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce in Columbia, S.C., and the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast, a group backed by thousands of businesses from Maine to Florida.
Knapp said the plan had sparked "massive, universal opposition" from businesses along the East Coast. He predicted the fight will land in the courts, with the first battle over seismic tests that industry officials want to conduct to help them locate new places to drill offshore.
"If those permits are issues for seismic airgun blasting, then expect there to be innumerous lawsuits filed," Knapp said.
Opponents took credit for flooding the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management with more than a half-million comments. The list of opponents included more than 1,200 local, state and federal officials, including the governors of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, California, Oregon and Washington; more than 150 coastal municipalities; and an alliance of more than 41,000 businesses and 500,000 fishing families.
But state Rep. Stephen Goldfinch (R) of South Carolina said the drilling plan had plenty of "silent" supporters in his state who had no interest in challenging opponents in public.
Goldfinch said that while green energy may be an answer in half a century, his state needs to rely on natural gas now. And he said that more drilling could be a "golden egg" for his state, noting a study that showed the possible addition of more than 35,000 jobs in South Carolina by 2035.
Opponents vowed to step up the pressure to block the plan, noting that it still must face environmental reviews, more public hearings and scrutiny from Congress.
Michael LeVine, senior Arctic fellow with the Ocean Conservancy, said opponents will have 60 days to try to convince lawmakers that no changes should be made in the current five-year plan, which he said "reflected the voices of millions of Americans who actively and vocally rejected opening up new areas to risky drilling."
"Oceans are more than places for oil companies to increase profits, and giving companies and trade associations everything they want is neither responsible governance nor the way to sustained economic growth," he said.
And Kristen Monsell, ocean program legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "people from coast to coast must resist this shortsighted, climate-wrecking giveaway to the oil industry."
"Trump's trying to turn our oceans into oil fields," she said.
Seeking to build support for the plan, the American Petroleum Institute last year surveyed 664 North Carolina registered voters and found that 67 percent backed "increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources located here in the U.S.," while 64 percent supported "offshore drilling.
And on Capitol Hill, 36 Republican senators, including Richard Burr and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, wrote a letter to Zinke voicing support for Trump's plan.
Fearing Florida could be at risk for offshore drilling, the state's Republican governor, Rick Scott, said he had already asked "to immediately meet" with Zinke to air his concerns.
The Trump administration also will face a fight from Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson over the drilling proposal and the plan to roll back safety standards that were put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster.
When the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement announced the plan last week, Director Scott Angelle said the administration wanted to encourage "increased domestic oil and gas production while maintaining a high bar for safety and environmental sustainability."
Nelson said he will work to block the proposal by using the Congressional Review Act, a law that gives Congress the power to overturn an agency's final rule. And he said he hopes the public "starts registering some complaints."
"Almost 5 million barrels of oil spilled as a result of a defective device called a blowout preventer," Nelson said on the Senate floor yesterday. "Now, what the Interior Department and this administration is trying to do is undo the updated standards for shear rams and blowout preventers and is trying to get rid of a required third party to certify the safety mechanisms."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070137
-
Trump's Offshore Drilling Expansion, Deregulation Is Deadly Combo
Jan 4, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kristen Monsell
The Trump administration is playing a dangerous game with our oceans and coastal communities. By trying to expand offshore oil drilling while simultaneously rolling back drilling-safety standards put in place after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Trump is making more major oil spills inevitable.
If a spill happens in the Arctic Ocean — where Trump is trying to invite oil companies into federal waters that were protected by President Obama — treacherous conditions would make cleanup impossible.
But wherever the next big oil spill happens, wildlife will die and coastal communities will suffer.
The Gulf of Mexico and its coastline still haven’t recovered from 2010’s Deepwater Horizon blowout, which killed 11 workers and thousands of marine animals as it gushed more than 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf for almost three months. The country’s worst environmental disaster clearly called for new regulations to prevent it from happening again.
Yet such obvious lessons are ignored in Trump’s reckless pursuit of so-called “energy dominance.” Just as he pretends climate change isn’t real or connected to our dependence on fossil fuels, Trump acts as if the oil industry can be trusted to self-regulate.
That’s essentially what the new administration rules, announced over the holidays, mandate.
After well-blowout prevention devices suffered catastrophic failures on Deepwater Horizon, the Obama administration called for third-party inspections of safety equipment. It was a measured, reasonable response to such an epic industry failure – one called for by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon that investigated the causes and lessons of the disaster.
But it’s a requirement Trump is revoking.
And that’s just one of several safety-rule changes the oil industry has requested and Trump’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is preparing to adopt following a quick 30-day public-comment period. Even a series of small changes — replacing “must” with “should” throughout the regulations — could significantly undermine regulation of this powerful industry.
On a separate track, the Trump administration is also trying to relax testing standards for well-control devices and allow oil companies more time to investigate equipment failures. Those BSEE-requested changes are now being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Trump has also ordered the safety bureau to review the rule for exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean for possible suspension, revision or repeal. The bureau finalized the “Arctic Ocean Drilling Safety” rule in 2016 after years in development following Shell’s 2012 disastrous oil explorations in the Arctic and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
These safety rollbacks are being introduced just as the administration is preparing to release a new five-year draft oil-leasing plan for federal waters to reflect Trump’s April 28 executive order to significantly expand offshore drilling. That plan is expected to open up the Arctic and perhaps the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as well — bodies of water long excluded from federal oil leasing.
Even on its best days, offshore drilling is dirty and dangerous. Small oil spills happen so often in the heavily drilled Gulf of Mexico that they rarely even make the news. But the combination of more drilling and less safety regulation significantly increases the chances of bigger, deadlier spills.
In announcing the drilling safety rule rollbacks Dec. 28, Trump’s BSEE Director Scott Angelle, had the chutzpah to said, “We can actually increase domestic energy production and environmental protection.”
Here’s the reality: We can’t protect our oceans by letting the oil industry do whatever it wants. It’s a childish fantasy to believe we can deregulate offshore drilling without having coastal communities, marine wildlife and our climate pay a terrible price.
Kristen Monsell is the oceans program legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/367327-trumps-offshore-drilling-expansion-deregulation-is
-
GAO Finds Inconsistencies in Processing Offshore Oil Testing
Jan 4, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal regulators under the Obama administration were inconsistent in how they processed applications to conduct seismic research for offshore oil and natural gas, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found.
Auditors found in a report released Thursday that, depending on the regional office, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) took as much as 340 days to review seismic applications, or sometimes approved them the day they were complete.
Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, which are responsible for reviewing seismic applications for compliance with wildlife laws, don’t have consistent standards for how to record the timing they take to process applications, GAO said.
“Until NMFS and FWS develop guidance that clarifies how and when staff should record the date the agency determines the ‘adequacy and completeness’ of an application, the agencies and applicants will continue to have uncertainty around review time frames for incidental take authorizations,” GAO said.
“Moreover, NMFS and FWS officials we interviewed said that they do not analyze their review time frames, a practice that is inconsistent with federal standards for internal control.”
Seismic analysis is the standard process by which companies hoping to drill offshore determine the oil and natural gas potential under the ocean floor.
The practice is controversial. Conservationists say seismic surveys harass and harm marine species like whales and porpoises.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, requested the report, and released it publicly Thursday.
He said it shows the need to reform drilling standards to make the process more certain for the private sector.
“Seismic research is vital to unlocking energy potential off our coasts, and federal red tape is standing in the way,” he said in a statement. “GAO’s report highlights the bureaucratic dysfunction, lack of transparency and blatant abuses of discretion that has stalled greater exploration and development.”
GAO’s research focused on 2011 through 2016.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/367416-gao-finds-inconsistencies-in-permitting-for-offshore-oil-testing
-
NIST Kicks Off New Year with a Grim Grid Warning
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A cyberattack on the power grid could ripple across multiple sectors, "possibly stressing the fabric of our society to the point of collapse," the National Institute of Standards and Technology warned yesterday in updates to a key cybersecurity guide.
The agency called out the need to design security into electricity networks and other critical infrastructure systems from the beginning, setting a New Year's resolution for any companies following the voluntary recommendations.
"Our cybersecurity problems today really rise to the highest level of our economic and our national security," said Ron Ross, a fellow at NIST who authored the updates to the agency's systems security engineering publication, in an interview yesterday. "We're providing guidance so when people are designing upgrades, security can be considered in the first phase."
Changes to the November 2016 document highlight "interdependencies" between power utilities and the natural gas, banking, water, transportation and communications industries.
The risk of knock-on effects from an attack on the power grid has drawn high-level attention recently, as researchers test the potential impacts of a coordinated cyberattack and federal officials map out their response plans. The North American Electric Reliability Corp.'s fourth GridEx security exercise last fall brought in participants from the financial, natural gas and telecommunications industries, among others, officials say.
The guidance in NIST's systems security engineering publication can apply to all of those industries, Ross said. Many of them rely on the same commercial "internet of things" technologies such as routers or web cameras that offer hackers soft targets.
"We're building a brave new world of unbelievable capability," Ross said. "As part of that, one of the things that we're going to have to very seriously think about is: What are the inherent vulnerabilities that come from the way technology is designed, built and operated?"
The updated guidance recommends keeping networks of connected devices as simple as possible and policing how "smart" technologies are allowed to act on a given system so a single glitch doesn't crash everything.
NIST is teeing up another engineering document on cyber resiliency, set for release in March. The agency, part of the Department of Commerce, is also finishing the first major update to its Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, an effort that grabs more attention than "below the water line" issues like systems engineering, NIST said.
Ross said he hoped the last document would boost awareness of the complexity of infrastructure systems being built today, and encourage grid operators and other industries to put more thought into security.
"For places where those systems are controlling things that we really value and have to depend on as a nation, that's an important discussion," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070047
-
Department of Transportation Reminds Railroads to Meet Year-End Positive Train Control Requirements
Jan 4, 2018 | Transportation Today
By Aaron Martin
Citing concerns that many of the nation’s railroads are not on pace to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) systems before a year-end deadline, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chow recently urged railroads to heed congressionally mandated milestones for implementation.
Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Class I railroads and railroads that operate intercity and commuter passenger rail on a regular basis are required to implement PTC systems by Dec. 31. 2018.
However, just eight of 37 railroads required to install PTC systems on their own tracks had received conditional PTC System Certification from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) by the end of 2017. By September, 12 railroads reported that all required PTC system hardware had been installed — and another 12 railroads reported that less than 50 percent of required hardware had been installed, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.
“Advancing the implementation of Positive Train Control is among the most important rail safety initiatives on the department’s agenda,” Chao said. “The FRA leadership has been directed to work with your organization’s leadership to help create an increased level of urgency to underscore the imperative of meeting existing expectations for rolling out this critical rail-safety technology.”
PTC implementation must be achieved within the regulatory timeline established by Congress, Chow warned. The deadline was already extended once in 2015 under the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act.
https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/7395-department-transportation-reminds-railroads-meet-year-end-positive-train-control-requirements/
-
Delaware Threatens EPA with Suit over Interstate Ozone Petitions
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
Delaware is threatening to sue EPA over the agency's failure to reply to its four outstanding petitions for direct federal regulation of power plants in upwind states that the First State says are contributing to its problems attaining the agency's ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
In Jan. 2 letters to agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Delaware gives EPA 60 days' notice of its intent to sue over the agency's lack of action over petitions brought under Clean Air Act section 126, which allows EPA to directly limit emissions from emissions sources if they are shown to be threatening air quality in other states downwind. If Delaware files suit, it will follow similar suits already filed by Connecticut and Maryland.
Delaware says that the power plants at issue -- three in Pennsylvania and one in West Virginia -- compromise its ability to meet the ozone NAAQS. New lawsuits would add pressure on EPA to act on interstate air pollution, while the agency's new political leadership considers its policy on the issue.
Delaware Gov. John Carney (D) said in a Jan. 2 statement, “The Clean Air Act entitles Delaware to relief from upwind pollution and the remedy we are seeking is reasonable and within EPA’s authority and responsibility to grant.”
He added, “We are simply asking that the EPA require these power plants that pollute Delaware’s air to run their existing pollution control equipment when the plants are in operation.”
Delaware's petitions target the Brunner Island, Conemaugh and Homer City power plants in Pennsylvania, and the Harrison Power Station plant in West Virginia.
Maryland has also filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking to force a response to its petition that asks EPA to require power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to run existing controls.
Delaware is already suing EPA in federal appeals courts over the agency's six-month extension of the original 60-day deadline for it to respond to Delaware's petition over the Conemaugh plant, in State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control v. EPA, now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. A parallel suit is on hold in the D.C. Circuit, pending the outcome of the 3rd Circuit case.
Delaware argues that EPA lacks the legal authority to grant itself such an extension, but EPA says that the case is moot because it has missed even the extended deadline.
EPA's Unified Agenda of pending rules, as updated this fall, lists responses to section 126 petitions from Delaware, Connecticut and Maryland as “long-term” actions, with unspecified timetables.
Meanwhile, EPA in a recent legal brief responding to Connecticut's lawsuit seeking to force a response to its own section 126 petition rebuffs suggestions that it should be given a hard deadline to respond, in State of Connecticut v. Pruitt, et al., now before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. In a Dec. 27 filing, EPA says, “the Court’s response to a deadline not met in the past should not be to order a deadline that cannot be met in the future.”
Further, neither the state nor environmentalist intervenors present “a convincing case that their preferred 60-day deadline in this instance is either a realistic one that will serve the public interest, or one that actually allows EPA to meet applicable statutory requirements for taking final action on the petition. To the contrary, because it is not one that will enable EPA to thoroughly analyze and take a defensible final action on the petition, their schedule disserves the public interest and amounts to little more than a 'punishment' to EPA for its past delays,” the agency says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/delaware-threatens-epa-suit-over-interstate-ozone-petitions
-
Lawyers Debate Rule at Federalist Society
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
Two well-known environmental lawyers debated the legal future of the Clean Power Plan yesterday — but wound up sounding more like junior economists by the time the event was through.
The conservative Federalist Society gave Thomas Lorenzen, an industry lawyer at Crowell & Moring LLP, and David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Climate & Clean Energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a forum to discuss the CPP, which remains stalled in federal court as the Trump administration seeks to dismantle it.
On the hourlong teleforum, the two attorneys discussed the finer — and sometimes more obscure — legal points of the Clean Air Act, which undergirds the Clean Power Plan as devised by President Obama's U.S. EPA.
But they were forced to switch gears when the questions came in.
One question involved the CPP's impact on consumers — and whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal to dramatically scale it back would reduce utility bills.
Lorenzen conceded that he wasn't sure.
"It's worth noting that the utility industry had already shifted generation to lower-emitting sources" before the CPP was enacted, he said, but added that getting to the plan's proposed 32 percent reduction in 2005 emission levels by 2030 becomes a more incremental and expensive process.
Doniger noted that the Obama EPA calculated the net cost of the more stringent regulations associated with the CPP at $8 billion. But the agency, he said, argued that the associated savings in public health and public benefit from cleaner air were worth about $50 billion.
"It's very hard to make the case that the Clean Power Plan was an overambitious reach," he said, agreeing with Lorenzen's contention that some of the emissions reductions have already been taking place within the power sector. "In fact, the thing to do now would be to go farther, not scale it back as Administrator Pruitt wants to do."
Asked why the Obama administration pursued the Clean Power Plan when the actual reduction in global temperature from the reduced emissions goals was negligible, Doniger said the 2015 rule inspired the international community to act to combat climate change — a commitment that has blossomed everywhere except in the Trump administration.
"Any global measure to reduce global climate change is going to be really small on its own," he said.
Lorenzen agreed that "it's not about how much or how little a particular regulation does." But he said EPA's mistake under Obama was starting off with politically driven assumptions about what sort of emissions reductions could be reached.
Doniger objected to the notion that Obama dictated a number. "This plan," he said, "was built from the bottom up."
For now, the plan is stalled. After being stayed by the Supreme Court in early 2016, it is idling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held a hearing on a challenge to the CPP that September.
With President Trump's election, the appeals court appears to be waiting to see what Pruitt's EPA does with the regulation. Pruitt has vowed to eliminate or drastically change the plan, and the rulemaking process is now underway.
Lorenzen called the Supreme Court justices' order to stay the rule "extraordinary ... an indication of the Supreme Court's discomfort" with the CPP.
But Doniger said that "Tom and others read way too much into the Supreme Court's stay."
What's more, he said, if the Trump administration eliminates the CPP, it will be in violation of the Clean Air Act, which, as the high court has found, enables the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
"This is the one case where the existing rule is in limbo and yet there are no new rules," he said. "It's a very unfortunate situation, and it's highly unusual."
Doniger said that environmental and public health groups are prepared to sue as soon as the Trump EPA acts on the Clean Power Plan — and he said he likes their chances, even if the case winds up in the high court.
"The Environmental Protection Agency — I should say, our side, because the EPA is not on our side in this case — tends to win before the Supreme Court on Clean Air Act interpretation," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070071
-
Air Chief Says Challenging Endangerment Finding Is Possible
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
Top U.S. EPA officials are considering using a formal climate science critique to re-examine the endangerment finding that underpins greenhouse gas rules.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to "be sure that the scientific basis for the endangerment finding is solid," his top air lieutenant Bill Wehrum told E&E News yesterday in an interview. One option that officials are considering is using a "red-team, blue-team" approach advocated by Pruitt to debate mainstream climate science.
Some conservative groups are pushing the Trump administration to use a red-team exercise to unravel the Obama administration's endangerment finding. If that happens, it could make it harder for a future administration to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Wehrum noted that EPA doesn't have "any current plans" to repeal the endangerment finding, but he said officials are looking for ways to ensure that it's adequately grounded in science. Unraveling the finding would involve a lengthy regulatory process, and even some opponents of EPA climate rules say it would be a major legal challenge.
Meanwhile, Wehrum and his team may soon issue a climate rule of their own to replace the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP), a rule that aimed to limit power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
Wehrum spoke to E&E yesterday about why that rule is among his top priorities this year, EPA's plans for an Obama-era methane rule and what it's like for him to return to the agency to which Democratic opposition in the Senate prevented his confirmation during the George W. Bush administration.
What are your top priorities for the air office this year?
I would say CPP of course is a very big issue for us. ... We've already started the public process of trying to decide what we want to do with the rule. We've already thrown out a range of possibilities that begins with rescinding the whole thing, period, to possibly replacing it with a modified version of what was previously done or maybe something different. We issued the [advance notice of proposed rulemaking] and said, 'We want at least initial thinking from people as to what we might do as we decide to go down that road.' So we're setting out a range of possible outcomes, and it's the beginning of a regulatory decisionmaking process, and we're not anywhere near the end of that process, but it's among the most important things that we're going to be doing while I'm here — if not the most important thing — just because of the reach that the current regulation has and how much it effects the power sector and then necessarily the country as a whole because of the critical place the power sector has in the country and the economy.
From what we've seen so far from the administration, it looks like an inside-the-fence-line approach is getting a lot of attention. Does that mean the administration is leaning that way?
We're a long way from making final decisions, but I'll just tell you my view, just as Bill, not as the institution. My own view is I was concerned from the beginning with the CPP, primarily because of building blocks two and three. It was very new and very different and a departure from 40 years of practice under this part of the Clean Air Act to say we're going to regulate a whole industry instead of individual things, like power plants or chemical plants or refineries. And it was a departure to say EPA as part of a regulatory program is going to require in this case effectively a shift in generation from certain types of power generation to other types of power generation. There was a lot about the CPP that was very different and very new in a program that's been around 40 or 45 years. What I would tell you is ... I'm very much concerned about whether those aspects of the CPP were legally viable in the first instance, and that's something we're certainly going to be taking a hard look at in this whole process.
To the degree we go down the road of doing a replacement rule, then I think it's safe to say — at the beginning of the thought process — to say doing a rule like we have done every other time we've used authority under [Clean Air Act] Section 111 is an obvious place where we would start our thought process.
Your question was, 'Are we thinking about doing an inside-the-fence-line rule?' and I would say, yeah, if you look at the [advance notice of proposed rulemaking], that's pretty much what it's all about. It basically says we want to look at power plants as power plants, and if we wanted to implement a rule that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, what are the things you can do to a power plant to accomplish that outcome?
But you're leaving open the possibility of not doing a replacement rule?
We have proposed to rescind the rule altogether, and that proposal is still out there.
The CPP was one priority, what are your others for this year?
A very related thing, another priority would be to take a hard look at the methane rule, the so-called Quad Oa, or the [New Source Performance Standards] for oil and gas. ... And we're not quite as far along in our regulatory process on that one, but I can tell you and the administrator has already said that we're going to take a hard look at that regulation. I think from my perspective, we need to look at it from a couple of different perspectives. One is, it's a big and complex rule, just like a lot of rules that we do, and people that are affected by the rule already have said there's a bunch of things that need to be done just to make it clear, make it consistent, correct things that are wrong with it, so there's a set of things that should be done to the rule just to make it better, and we're thinking hard about that.
But the second and more consequential thing is, I think we'll take a hard look at whether it really is appropriate to regulate methane under that rule. We haven't started that process yet, at least in a public way, but we've already started talking about it internally, and I'm hoping sometime soon we can step out in the form of an ANPR or proposed rule to put that question in those issues out and to begin the debate and the regulatory process on that.
Do you have plans to take a look at whether the endangerment finding should be repealed?
We don't have any current plans, but the administrator has said that he would very much like to initiate a process — he's called it red-team, blue-team — but he would very much like to initiate a process to at least solicit additional input on the scientific basis for the endangerment finding. That's something we've talked about; that's something we haven't done. I'm not sure we actually will end up doing that or doing it in a red-team, blue-team format. I say all that only because we don't have a current plan to take any regulatory action as it relates to the endangerment finding, but I think it is important to know the administrator has said it's important to him to be sure that the scientific basis for the endangerment finding is solid, and he's thinking of ways and we're thinking of ways that we might be able to give ourselves greater confidence that that determination has an adequate basis and foundation.
He told Congress last month that the red team, blue team might happen in January. What is the current time frame?
We're talking and thinking about it. That's where we're at right now.
Would you like to see it held at EPA if it happens?
Yeah. The endangerment finding is an EPA action, so to the degree we were to convene a process to take a look at the underpinnings for that EPA finding, I think almost necessarily it would be an EPA activity.
What do you think about the president's tweet about climate change the other day?
I actually didn't even see it. I was on vacation.
It was something along the lines of: Given the cold snap, maybe we need some more global warming.
I would just say go talk to the folks at the White House.
Did you ever think that you be confirmed in this position when you left under the Bush administration?
[Laughs] No. I guess all I would say is, I think ultimately I have [former] Sen. [Harry] Reid [D-Nev.] to thank for deciding to change the rules of the filibuster. That certainly facilitated my return.
This interview was edited and condensed for clarity.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/04/stories/1060070065
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested