Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/12
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Spending Growth Predicted
Jan 12, 2018 | Breakbulk
Capital spending in the U.S. chemical industry is forecast to rise by more than 6 percent in 2018, according to figures from trade associations. -
Attorneys Urge More Industry Engagement On TSCA In Face Of Citizen Suits
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Attorneys are urging industry groups to more closely track and engage with environmentalists' litigation under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying initial suits could set important precedents that will determine how the new law is ultimately implemented. -
Environmental Group Appeals EPA's Decision-Making Framework
Jan 11, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On January 5, 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) of what is characterized as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “final rule” issued November 7, 2017, entitled “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework: Working Approach to Making Determinations under Section 5 of TSCA.” -
Comments on EPA's Alternative Test Method Strategic Plan
Jan 12, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Kristi Pullen Fedinick
Under the amended Toxic Substances and Control Act, Congress directed EPA to develop a Strategic Plan “to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine, or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures” (see section 4(h)(2)(A)). -
Calif. Directs PG&E to Ease off Natural Gas
Jan 12, 2018 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Mark Chediak
An order approved by California's Public Utilities Commission yesterday authorizes California's biggest utility to rely on batteries and other renewable resources instead of natural gas during peak demand times. -
LNG Emissions Would Swamp Ore. Climate Goals — Report
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Fossil fuel opponents have launched a new attack on Oregon's Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas export project with a study showing the project's greenhouse gas emissions would dwarf those of the state's remaining coal-fired power plant. -
Power Plant Controversy Peaks in New Orleans
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Back in 2016, Entergy Corp. deactivated two units at an aging power plant in New Orleans and proposed building a smaller station at the same site. -
NASA Study Underscores Urgency of Solving the Global Methane Problem
Jan 12, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By David Lyon
A new NASA study suggests methane emissions from fossil fuels may be responsible for half of the recent rise in global atmospheric methane concentrations. -
FERC Stands by State Decision to Block Constitution Pipeline
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday upheld New York's decision to block a natural gas pipeline, passing up a chance to use the federal trump card that many in the pipeline industry had hoped for. -
POLITICO pro Q&A: Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski
| Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski has recently scored major victories on long-running issues for Alaska, such as the nearly 40-year quest to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and she's optimistic a deal is near to end her battle to build road to King Cove soon as well. -
Ohio Officials Worry about Possible New Spills from Rover Natgas Pipe
Jan 12, 2018 | Reuters (In the New York Times)
By Scott DiSavino
Ohio environmental regulators on Friday told federal energy regulators the state has significant concerns about the potential for a spill from Energy Transfer Partners LP's drilling under a river as the company works on the Rover natural gas pipeline. -
Ewire: Murray Touts Deregulatory Progress but Targets GHG Risk Finding
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Coal magnate Robert Murray is giving Trump administration officials high praise in their efforts to implement his recently leaked “action plan” that calls for repealing Obama-era rules affecting the sector, though he is still pushing his second-highest priority -- reversing EPA's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. -
Hogan, with an Election Ahead, Joins State Climate Compact
| E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow and Josh Kurtz
Maryland will become the 16th state to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, Gov. Larry Hogan (R) announced yesterday. -
Hearing on Proposed Repeal Mixes Science and Politics
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
Maryland's unique natural properties — the Chesapeake Bay, extensive wetlands and more than 3,000 miles of coastline — took center stage yesterday as state Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) and legislative leaders held a hearing here on the Trump administration's plans to kill or dramatically diminish the Clean Power Plan. -
EPA Extends Comment Deadline on CPP Repeal
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA will extend the public comment deadline on its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until April 26 to accommodate three new listening sessions it has scheduled to address public demand for more options to weigh in on the effort to revoke the Obama-era greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants. -
'This Is a Sin.' Public Appeals to Pruitt's Religion
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
To keep the Clean Power Plan alive, some people are appealing to Scott Pruitt's faith in God.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Spending Growth Predicted
Jan 12, 2018 | Breakbulk
Capital spending in the U.S. chemical industry is forecast to rise by more than 6 percent in 2018, according to figures from trade associations.
The positive outlook is matched by growth in planned maintenance spending to US$1.26 billion and nearly 320 chemical production projects underway with a cumulative value of more than US$185 billion, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
“Our fundamentals remain incredibly strong and the U.S. remains the destination for chemical investment,” said Kevin Swift, ACC chief economist.
The increased spending is expected to spur further growth for the breakbulk sector with major process equipment procured for many projects but delivery still outstanding.
http://www.breakbulk.com/u-s-chemical-spending-set-grow/
-
Attorneys Urge More Industry Engagement On TSCA In Face Of Citizen Suits
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Attorneys are urging industry groups to more closely track and engage with environmentalists' litigation under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying initial suits could set important precedents that will determine how the new law is ultimately implemented.
Herb Estreicher, an attorney and chemist with the law firm Keller and Heckman, noted during a Jan. 10 webinar that no industry groups intervened or filed an amicus brief in the recent case where public health groups successfully staved off EPA efforts to dismiss their suit challenging the agency's rejection of their TSCA section 21 petition seeking to ban drinking water fluoridation.
Estreicher has previously told Inside EPA that the ruling rejecting EPA's motion to dismiss could open the door to many more such petitions seeking new TSCA rules, a point he reiterated on the webinar.
There is an “unprecedented interest in all things TSCA by environmental groups. As a result you may well see environmental groups engaging in section 21 petitions in greater [number] than ever before,” he told the webinar.
But he also raised broader concerns, noting that environmentalists are also challenging the Trump EPA's three final framework rules, intended to implement the 2016 statutory reform of TSCA. Environmentalists are challenging the significant changes that the Trump EPA made to those final rules compared to the draft rules that the Obama EPA released shortly before the transition.
There are “already three cases on the [TSCA implementation] framework rules. We'll see more of that,” he said.
He said such early cases -- in which a host of industry trade associations have formally intervened -- show that courts will play a key role and “industry really needs to think hard about engaging.”
For example, he warned that while the framework rules, which govern how EPA will prioritize and assess “existing” chemicals under the new law, “are legally sound, they are where industry would like them to be, but they could be rolled back by another administration."
“But if there's a court case that supports EPA's views, then another administration could not roll those back. … This period of time is very, very important.”
Estreicher spoke Jan. 10 with his colleague Eric Gotting on a webinar the firm hosted titled “TSCA Section 21 Citizen Petitions Under the New TSCA -- A Looming Threat.”
During their remarks, they focused extensively on the fluoridation case, Food and Water Watch v. EPA, and TSCA section 21 -- which allows private parties to petition EPA for a range of possible actions under other sections of the law.
The case, Estreicher says, shows that Congress' revamping of TSCA section 4, which allows the agency to issue mandatory test rules, and section 6, which allows the agency to ban certain substances, “probably means we'll see a lot more section 21 petitions.”
Looking over EPA's history with section 21 petitions, Estreicher notes that these citizens' petitions are “usually brought by environmental groups. They generally seek section 6 bans, section 4 test rules or section 8(a) PAIR rules. They are usually very high profile.”
As examples, Estreicher pointed to several petitions that environmentalists have brought to EPA before the 2016 reform law passed, including requests that EPA require testing of the effects of carbon dioxide on ocean acidification, create an inventory of uses of mercury, regulate the disposal of PVC plastic, or perhaps most famously, a petition to ban lead in shot and bullets, which Estreicher noted was “heavily litigated.”
'Got Mileage'
Before Congress' reform of TSCA, Estreicher explains that those petitions calling for EPA to promulgate section 4 or section 6 rules were “rarely granted,” while petitioners seeking section 8(a) rules were the “only place you generally got mileage."
TSCA section 8 allows EPA to require companies to retain and report certain kinds of chemical information.
Estreicher says he believed that this was the case because EPA did not undertake its own section 6 rules after the 5th Circuit reversed the agency's ban on many uses of asbestos in its 1991 decision Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA.
At that time, “asking EPA to engage in a section 6 rulemaking probably was not going to be successful,” Estreicher said. Similarly, he noted that before the reforms, test order rules under section 4 were “a fairly extensive exercise, a lot of homework” for agency staff and so petitions requesting these rules were “probably also not going to be successful.”
But the reformed TSCA has changed both section 4 and section 6, and as a result, Estreicher and his colleague said they expect changes.
The TSCA changes “make it more likely that a section 21 petition prevails. Unlike the old [TSCA], EPA is now in the business of promulgating section 6 rules. There's a whole machinery for promulgating section 6 rules. So the reluctance EPA had is probably no longer present.”
Similarly, Estreicher noted that changes to section 4 give EPA greater authority to issue test orders for companies regarding chemicals they are manufacturing, formulating or importing. “Asking for test rules is probably easier than under the old TSCA. I think we may also see section 21 petitions asking for section 5(e) orders,” which EPA issues to address concerns with certain uses of new chemicals. Unlike existing chemicals, TSCA section 5 gives EPA authority to review and approve new chemicals before they enter the market.
Estreicher noted that changes to TSCA “reduced the threshold for 5(e). . . . We may see petitions asking for 5(e) orders. Certainly it would be much easier than under old TSCA.”
'Powerful New Tool'
Gotting, a litigator with the firm, underscored Estreicher's concerns. He noted that Judge Edward Chen's decision to reject EPA's motion to dismiss the Food and Water Watch case will likely encourage environmentalists to file many more such petitions.
“Plaintiffs can now attempt to show unreasonable risk based on the merits. So the plaintiffs can now ask the judge, not EPA to decide” whether to regulate a chemical, Gotting said.
In the wake of the case, “NGOs are now going to see section 21 as a powerful tool” to use that may accomplish their objectives “without going through the time-consuming prioritization process” outlined in the statute and EPA's framework rules. As a result of the case, NGOs will be able to “target individual uses” of chemicals. The practice will essentially allow petitioners to select chemicals to 'jump[] to the front of the line. It may be hard for EPA to get rid of a case through a motion to dismiss."
Noting that Chen is taking briefings from EPA and plaintiffs over the scope of information he will review in the suit, Gotting said that “NGOs are going to be likely to get . . . their day in court. . . . The court will not be limited by EPA's initial finding. NGOs will essentially get a second bite at the apple before the court.”
One concern is that judges generally do not have the technical expertise in chemistry and risk assessment that EPA staff do, Gotting indicated, adding that in such cases there is “potential to get a finding of unreasonable risk where none exists. . . . Industry likely faces more uncertainty in a lawsuit than in an [evaluation] undertaken by EPA. [Any affected company] should consider intervening in a case.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/attorneys-urge-more-industry-engagement-tsca-face-citizen-suits
-
Environmental Group Appeals EPA's Decision-Making Framework
Jan 11, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On January 5, 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) of what is characterized as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “final rule” issued November 7, 2017, entitled “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework: Working Approach to Making Determinations under Section 5 of TSCA.” The Framework Document, as it has come to be called, is the “final rule” at issue and was posted in EPA’s docket opened for comments related to its two Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) public meetings that took place in December. It is reasonable to assume that the Framework Document is not referred to by EPA as a final rule and was not published in the Federal Register as a final rule because EPA believes it is a document that outlines a conceptual approach to how EPA may go about making decisions on new chemicals. EPA specifically states the document, referred to as a “draft” in the Federal Register notice that announced the two public meetings, “outlines EPA’s approach to making decisions on new chemical notices submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” and includes EPA’s “general decision framework for new chemicals” and a breakdown of how EPA “intends to approach each of the five types of new-chemical determinations required under the statute.”
The citizen action petition raises novel and interesting legal questions, and is quite different from the other petitions for review, one for each framework final rule, that are pending. Whether the newest legal challenge will survive procedural motions that EPA can be expected to file to dismiss the action remains to be seen.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/environmental-group-appeals-epa-s-decision-making-framework
-
Comments on EPA's Alternative Test Method Strategic Plan
Jan 12, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Kristi Pullen Fedinick
Under the amended Toxic Substances and Control Act, Congress directed EPA to develop a Strategic Plan “to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine, or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures” (see section 4(h)(2)(A)). The first version of the Strategic Plan is due within two years of the bill’s enactment (by June 22,2018). The strategic planning process is to be iterative, with reports to Congress every five years, and is intended to serve as a roadmap for the integration of health-protective uses of alternative test methods (ATMs) in Agency decision-making.
In December 2017, EPA held a public meeting to obtain input on draft considerations for its strategic planning process. The draft considerations outlined a timeline and process for developing a strategic plan that needs to be consistent with the statutory requirements for using complementary testing methods that are reliable, relevant, and are of equal or better scientific quality to existing methods to protect the health of vulnerable populations (including pregnant women, children, and workers) and ecosystems.
In our comments to the Agency on designing a Strategic Plan that is both protective and responsive to the requirements outlined in the amended TSCA , NRDC recommended that the first iteration of the plan focus on building confidence in ATMs to provide health protective information, increasing the knowledge base necessary to increase the relevance of new testing methods (knowledge development), and identifying the types of problems that can be solved with emerging tools (problem formulation).
We also recommended that:The process of integrating ATMs into decision-making be incremental, iterative, and transparent.The timeline and associated objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan must represent realistic expectations and should extend beyond a five-year time frame.Recommended timelines and uses of ATMs should be consistent with their capacity to accurately and adequately assess hazard, risk, or exposure potential – particularly for vulnerable populations.ATMs and strategies must be proven to be reliable, relevant, and able to provide information of equivalent or better scientific reliability and quality prior to being included on a list of acceptable tools to aide decision making.Emerging tools involving the use of vertebrate animals (e.g., zebrafish, transgenic whole animals, and genetically diverse mammalian systems) should be included in the Strategic Plan.
The multistage process for the development and implementation of ATMs under the amended TSCA gives the Agency a powerful opportunity to build upon the potential of new and emerging methods to provide added health protections to human and ecological populations. This process must be deliberate and thoughtful, however, and should not exceed or outpace the ability of ATMs to provide equivalent or better information for purposes of assessing chemicals. Testing methods that leverage and combine the strengths of various tools – including mammalian, non-mammalian, in vitro, in silico, epidemiologic, and other methods – can increase the speed, accuracy, relevance, and reliability of testing large numbers of chemicals for adverse outcomes, ensuring the health of populations for generations to come. The overzealous deployment of tests that may underestimate or completely miss toxicity or exposure (high false negative rate), however, would result in risk evaluations and determinations that are not consistent with the requirements of the revised TSCA, and will fail to protect public health and the environment.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kristi-pullen-fedinick/comments-epas-alternative-test-method-strategic-plan
-
Calif. Directs PG&E to Ease off Natural Gas
Jan 12, 2018 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Mark Chediak
An order approved by California's Public Utilities Commission yesterday authorizes California's biggest utility to rely on batteries and other renewable resources instead of natural gas during peak demand times.
The order would push San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to lean on a clean energy alternatives to electricity generated by three gas-fired plants operated by Houston-based Calpine Corp., which has said it would need to retire some of the plants due to an abundance of renewable power during peak-demand periods.
"These gas plants typically sit idle for much of the year, whereas a battery could be used for a range of other services, such as helping integrate renewables," said Logan Goldie-Scot, head of energy storage analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Calpine has opposed the order, criticizing it in a December letter to the commission as imposing "unreasonable costs and risks on customers." But PG&E supports the plan and has asked to incorporate upgrades to power lines as part of it.
A surplus of solar power in the state combined with cheaper and better-designed batteries are making renewable storage an increasingly viable option for California and other states with ambitious clean energy goals.
"California is going to create a blueprint for the coming years," said Michael Ferguson, director of U.S. energy infrastructure at S&P Global Ratings. "Renewables proliferated where there was supportive regulation, and that caused the costs to decline. I would expect to see the same thing to happen with battery storage".
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070833
-
LNG Emissions Would Swamp Ore. Climate Goals — Report
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Fossil fuel opponents have launched a new attack on Oregon's Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas export project with a study showing the project's greenhouse gas emissions would dwarf those of the state's remaining coal-fired power plant.
Jordan Cove LNG is proposed to ship as much as 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from fields in British Columbia, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to global markets, supplied in part by a new pipeline to snake 229 miles from an interconnection point on the California border to tidewater.
Yesterday, Oil Change International, a group that advocates for a pivot away from fossil fuels, published a report on the proposed pipeline and export terminal's projected life-cycle emissions that suggest that, if built, the facility would result in a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.
"The emissions estimate includes an estimated range of methane leakage along the supply chain and finds that even a conservative estimate of methane leakage undermines claims that the gas supplied to global markets via the project would lead to a net reduction in GHG emissions," the group said.
It also contested developers' claims that the LNG shipped from Jordan Cove would replace coal in global markets.
The gas industry argues that LNG exports can help other countries meet their climate goals while supporting U.S. business. Critics say that even small amounts of methane leakage from the natural gas production and distribution system can negate the advantages of burning gas over coal, while building global infrastructure with long-lived infrastructure assets locks countries into greenhouse-gas-intensive energy systems and crowds out renewables.
The new analysis suggests in base-case and high-end emissions estimates for the proposed project that on a global basis it would lead to 36.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, roughly equivalent to 8 million passenger vehicles.
The total would be 15.4 times the 2016 emissions from Oregon's sole coal-fired power plant, the study said. That plant is slated to close in 2020, at which point Jordan Cove would become Oregon's biggest source of climate-changing pollution, according to the report.
Proposed more than a decade ago, Jordan Cove has long been controversial within Oregon. The project was turned down for a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2016, when commissioners said a lack of binding commitments to purchase LNG from the facility meant it lacked benefits to offset the project's negative impacts. Last year, developer Veresen Inc. was bought by Pembina Pipeline Corp., and the combined company submitted initial documentation for a revised project filing with FERC.
Last year, the state's two Democratic senators called on the White House to stay out of the federal permitting process after President Trump expressed support for going forward with the project (Greenwire, May 4, 2017).
Responding to the study, Michael Hinrichs, a spokesman for the developer, said Jordan Cove would bring tax and jobs benefits to Oregon and that it has gone through years of scrutiny by regulators. He did not respond to the climate emissions calculations in the study but said, "Natural gas is cleaner burning, has fewer pollutants, is less expensive and more efficient than other fuels that are capable of meeting around-the-clock energy demand."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070857
-
Power Plant Controversy Peaks in New Orleans
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Back in 2016, Entergy Corp. deactivated two units at an aging power plant in New Orleans and proposed building a smaller station at the same site.
The idea hasn't found smooth sailing despite being pitched in the company's hometown. Entergy put an initial application on hold last year before eventually presenting two options to the city — one rated at 226 megawatts and another at 128 MW. Both were pegged to use natural gas.
Critics have kept after the company, arguing it's looking backward to gas when it should be considering ways to chart a new course. The New Orleans discussion echoes electricity debates across America about the role batteries, energy efficiency, renewables and fossil fuels should play in an evolving grid. Entergy's proposal was debated for days during a hearing last month, and the company is adamant its approach is best.
Now the matter will be in the hands of a committee of the New Orleans City Council, which is the primary regulator of Entergy New Orleans, a local Entergy subsidiary. Opponents are hoping the council finds a way to look at options besides gas, even if a filing for council advisers already voiced support for the smaller plant.
"We're going to continue to work hard to make sure that people's voices are heard and that fair decisions are made," said Logan Atkinson Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, "because what we don't want is for the residents of this city to be stuck with something for 30 years that we don't need and that they don't want."
Entergy counters that, unlike intervening critics, it has the responsibility to keep the lights on for a major city. The company's stance is that local generation is needed, especially in the event of another hurricane. Entergy has no large, operational power station in New Orleans, and it relies on transmission lines to bring electricity into the city. It wants a new peaking generator.
"We need a local unit," said Brian Guillot, senior counsel for Entergy New Orleans. "We need it for reliability. We need it because it's the most economic option to meet our overall capacity need. It's going to be safe. It's going to be good for customers. And it's going to produce hundreds of millions of dollars of local economic impact."
In a statement, Councilmember Jason Williams said the council will use a "fully developed record" to reach its decision.
Williams said the council would aim to see that residents and businesses "have among the lowest rates, utility bills and carbon footprint of any utility in the country while assuring a reliable electric power system for our growing city." Other observers have pointed out that many Louisiana residents see high power bills because of hot summers and old housing.
Williams leads a five-person committee of the City Council that handles utility issues, and it could take up Entergy's proposal at a Feb. 21 meeting. Timing isn't certain. The matter could then go to the full council.
Debating the need
It's unusual for a city to oversee an investor-owned utility as the primary regulator, but the quirky setup seems to fit New Orleans (Energywire, March 17, 2015). The dynamics are even more unusual this year because only two of the City Council's seven current members will remain once winners of last year's elections take office in early May.
One of the departing members, LaToya Cantrell, is set to become mayor.
Still, current council members are poised to make the call on how Entergy proceeds if a decision is reached in the next few months.
The process started in June 2016, when Entergy filed an application with New Orleans seeking approval for a new power plant. It took two units offline at the Michoud plant site in an area known as New Orleans East that same year, removing about 781 MW of capacity that also relied on natural gas.
A weaker load forecast led to a pause in the process in 2017, but Entergy submitted an amended application in July 2017. It outlined a choice between a 226-MW combustion turbine and a 128-MW alternative with reciprocating internal combustion engines. The price tags were estimated to be $232 million and $210 million, respectively.
Entergy asked that a new power station be found in the public interest, and it sought approvals tied to cost recovery, construction monitoring and timing. A decision wasn't made last year as Entergy hoped. At this point, the company has indicated the bigger plant could be ready in the first quarter of 2021, while the smaller option could be available in January 2020.
Burke of the Alliance for Affordable Energy said it doesn't make sense for Entergy to back the larger option that would take longer if the company sees an immediate need. She also doesn't view a gas peaker as a cost-effective solution.
"I really think that to build a peaking gas plant in 2018 is a fool's errand," Burke said. "And to spend money in a city that doesn't have that much puts us in a position of not being able to invest in other kinds of resources."
Burke added that the Michoud location "makes so little sense that it boggles the mind," citing flooding in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Entergy, Guillot said, has a "soft preference" for the 226-MW option and would support that or the smaller project. There have been improvements in the area since Katrina, he said, suggesting the plant site would be less vulnerable. He stressed that Entergy isn't against other resources but sees issues with them.
Depending on transmission upgrades would not be feasible given the current reliance on existing lines to provide power, he said, while questions remain about the cost and potential of batteries and efficiency efforts. More is needed than assumptions and optimism, according to Guillot.
"We need to have a reliability measure in place that we can actually count on," he said.
Support for smaller option
Joseph Vumbaco, who testified on behalf of advisers to the City Council, outlined what may be the most likely path at this point: an approval of the smaller plant. Vumbaco said in filed comments that Entergy New Orleans customers are "at risk of significant electrical outages of potentially long duration."
He raised some issues with Entergy's proposal but said building the smaller option while incorporating renewable technologies and certain demand-side management would be in the public interest.
Susan Guidry, a New Orleans councilmember, said she's not comfortable with the fact that both of Entergy's options involve a gas-fueled plant. In an interview, she endorsed the idea of an open request for proposals to see what bids might arise and she said relies on advice from the Alliance for Affordable Energy.
Guidry spoke of a desire to see renewables, battery storage and energy efficiency while noting the potential of microgrids. She'd like to see results from an upcoming demand-side management study, but that might not be ready before the council makes a decision on Entergy's plant proposal.
"We need to be very careful with picking our energy sources and make 'em as clean and durable as possible," Guidry said. But she said she may face "something of an uphill battle" at the council.
Guillot said the 226-MW option would help cover forecast capacity needs for Entergy New Orleans over a 20-year horizon, while the 128-MW option might help cover half that period. Both would help with local reliability, though he said transmission upgrades may be needed if the smaller option were chosen.
At the same time, Guillot said the smaller station would bring flexibility that could help to back up renewables, use less groundwater and bring a capability to start by itself if the grid were to go dark.
Burke supports the idea of requiring Entergy to do a competitive solicitation to get a sense of least-cost options to fill needs. She said options such as demand response and batteries could be faster and more cost-effective than a peaking plant. A transmission solution also could play a role, in her view. Burke said reliability discussions shouldn't just be about a power plant, citing outages that occur along the city's distribution system.
Guillot said more capital will be spent on the distribution system to help with neighborhood outages, while a new power plant would help in the event of a high-impact outage scenario. And being part of the region managed by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator doesn't solve everything, he said, because there's still a reliance on lines to bring in power.
Guillot also said Entergy New Orleans has interest in seeing up to 100 MW of renewables in its generation mix, though much of that may not be located in New Orleans because of space limitations. He said a new peaking gas plant in New Orleans could run more than 15 percent of the time, and proceeds from the facility's power sales outside New Orleans would be credited to customers.
Meanwhile, Minh Thanh Nguyen, executive director of a community-based organization called VAYLA New Orleans, works near the proposed gas plant and has concerns about pollution and safety. He noted the plant site experienced a gas pipe accident back in 2016. He called for work to fix aging infrastructure in the city and for a shift to renewable energy.
"A gas plant is not the development that we need right now," Nguyen said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070855
-
NASA Study Underscores Urgency of Solving the Global Methane Problem
Jan 12, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By David Lyon
A new NASA study suggests methane emissions from fossil fuels may be responsible for half of the recent rise in global atmospheric methane concentrations. While we’ve known for some time that methane levels have been increasing worldwide, it hasn’t been clear why. The research narrows uncertainty as to both the sources and trends influencing global methane emissions.
According to the study, which was published last week in the journal Nature Communications, methane emissions from fossil fuels are rising at a rate of 12 to 19 million metric tons a year.
Different interpretations of global methane concentration data have attributed fluctuating methane levels to a wide variety of sources and factors, including fossil fuel production, increased emissions from agriculture and changing wetlands, or the rate of methane removed from the atmosphere.
This new NASA study, however, suggests methane levels are increasing and the primary drivers are emissions from fossil fuels, including oil, gas and coal, along with biogenic sources (e.g., wetlands and cattle).
Science in Context
Using satellite imagery, NASA scientists observed lower and declining methane emissions from wildfires – a decrease happening twice as fast as previous studies have shown. With improved data, researchers now estimate emissions from other sources such as oil and gas to be rising faster than expected.
The revelation comes as multiple studies point to higher than reported emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, associated with oil and gas activity.
One study, from researchers at the Carleton University found that oil and gas methane emissions in Alberta, the "Texas of Canada", are at least 25 to 50 percent higher than current estimates. Another NASA study identified a 2500-square mile methane hot spot over the four corners region of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. Subsequent research verified nearby oil and gas emissions is the key source.
Advancing Global Methane Science
A growing number of leading global oil and gas companies including BP, Exxon and Shell have embraced methane reductions as a priority, while others have pledged to a near zero methane emissions future. Access to more and better data is essential for industry and policy makers worldwide to track progress and improve the efficiency of reductions that are achievable today.
It’s why EDF is participating in a series of independent investigator lead scientific studies through UN environment to measure global oil and gas methane emissions. The new work builds on EDF’s multi-year research effort in the United States, which helped to fill important knowledge gaps and to improve field practices as well as inform government policies.
Leveraging breakthroughs in technology to further expand our understanding is another key. For example, one of our latest endeavors – a partnership with the Dutch Space Agency – involves tracking atmospheric methane from an orbiting satellite. Data from this satellite is expected to help enhance transparency of these emissions for industry and governments.
Grabbing the Lowest-hanging Fruit
Oil and gas methane is a significant global problem, but it is also a problem with a relatively simple solution. The International Energy Agency singled out methane as a central business issue for oil and gas companies, concluding that the industry can reduce its worldwide emissions by 75 percent – and that up to two thirds of those reductions can be realized at zero net cost. Further, IEA says that just the no net cost reductions would have the same climate impact in 2100 as immediately closing all the coal plants in China.
A key takeaway from this latest NASA study is that methane levels are climbing worldwide and fossil fuel production plays a big role.. At the same time, we know that massive reductions across the global oil and gas industry are highly feasible – and also impactful. So, even as better data will lead to more informed decisions for both companies and countries looking to reduce their greenhouse gases that include methane, there are large-scale, low-hanging fruit opportunities that can and should be pursued now.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/01/12/nasa-study-underscores-urgency-of-solving-the-global-methane-problem/
-
FERC Stands by State Decision to Block Constitution Pipeline
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday upheld New York's decision to block a natural gas pipeline, passing up a chance to use the federal trump card that many in the pipeline industry had hoped for.
FERC said yesterday it will not declare a "waiver" in the case of the Constitution Pipeline Co., a company that has been trying for years to build a new gas line through New York.
Constitution said it deserved the waiver because New York regulators had been unfair and taken too long to review its application for a water permit. The company asked FERC to take an extraordinary step: to void the state's action, effectively clearing the way for construction to begin.
But in a brief order, the five FERC commissioners said they were wary of undercutting states' rights and saw no reason to break with the same legal standards used for the last 30 years. They said the current regulatory scheme, while imperfect, "strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of the applicant and the certifying agency."
The action is a marker, though not an epilogue, for the ongoing tussle between pipeline companies that want to build and states that want the freedom to deny them. New York, among other states, have employed their power under the Clean Water Act to halt gas pipelines that have otherwise received FERC approval.
Companies such as Constitution have responded by challenging those decisions in court. And with the arrival of President Trump, some expected the federal government to apply its full might to get their pipelines through.
FERC's action yesterday complicates that picture.
Last year, FERC did find waiver for a short gas pipeline that the state had denied. That decision's being challenged in federal court.
But yesterday, FERC argued against overinterpreting its mandate, saying that one year is enough time to give projects a fair hearing while forcing state regulators to be timely.
And FERC rejected the idea that it should decide whether a state has acted in a "reasonable" amount of time.
"Doing so would not only be difficult, as we have discussed, but it would severely undercut the authority that Congress gave the states if that authority were subject to reversal any time that a federal licensing or permitting agency felt that a state had taken too long to act," the commission wrote. "Had Congress wanted to establish such a regime, it could have made clear that federal agencies were to be the arbiters of reasonableness. It did not."
But Constitution isn't finished yet. Williams Cos., the lead sponsor of the project, intends to ask FERC for a rehearing and, if necessary, take it to federal appeals court, according to spokesman Christopher Stockton.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070863
-
POLITICO pro Q&A: Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski
| Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski has recently scored major victories on long-running issues for Alaska, such as the nearly 40-year quest to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and she's optimistic a deal is near to end her battle to build road to King Cove soon as well.
Murkowski emerged largely unscathed after breaking with the Trump administration on Obamacare last summer, and she says she has a good relationship with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Still, after the turnaround on opening Florida's coast to oil and gas drilling, she says the agency is likely to further shrink its offshore drilling lease plan, including removing some Alaskan waters that Zinke had included.
And she said even through some in the Trump administration are "really squeamish" about discussing climate change, she isn't, and it's important for the U.S. to lead the world with technologies to address the problem.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
You’ve notched some really key policy victories as chairman — such as opening ANWR, lifting the crude oil export ban and the land swap for the King Cove road. Is there some sort of secret sauce to getting things done in this highly polarized time?
I think part of it is persistence. I can’t lay claim to being the one that led the way on either ANWR or King Cove. Those were started by my father and [former Sen.] Ted Stevens. Both of them. In the case of ANWR, it was 37 years. With King Cove, it was merely about three decades.
It has been such a long battle. And people have asked me, “Criminy, Lisa, you just like tilting at windmills all the time. It’s been years. Why can’t you even get this tiny little road? ANWR, you should just give up on it.” You don’t give up on something if it’s right. And the cause was right with both of them.
And so whether it is ANWR or whether it is a small connector road to safety, these are issues that are hard because people don’t understand Alaska. I think part of what I bring to the table — and it’s not unique because it’s not something I have that neither my father or Ted or Don Young doesn’t have — but I am just very, very, very passionate about Alaska. And anybody who works for me will tell you and anybody whose had to sit next to me on an airplane knows that.
You’re also frequently called a moderate. Is that a label you like? Do you accept that?
Moderate is just fine by me. Because I interpret that to mean someone who is willing to look at all sides of the issue. Sometimes I may come down on the conservative side. Sometimes I may come down on the more liberal side. And, if in being thoughtful, it puts me more in the middle that is a place I’m happy to be.
When did you first see a realistic path for ANWR to get through?
It was really when the president was elected.
That far back, really?
When we knew that we had a Republican president, that immediately got me started thinking. Because I can tell you that if Hillary Clinton had become president, we would not have ANWR open. It was her husband that vetoed it after the Congress passed back in 1995 and I would have expected no different had she been president. So when Trump gained office, it allowed for an opportunity in my mind to build a strategy. What I had been doing throughout my tenure here had been every year, every Congress I introduced another ANWR bill. Even though in the years of the Obama administration where there was not a snowball’s chance that ANWR would be open, we still introduced the bill, allowed it to be out there for discussion. Everybody knows it’s still a priority. I never let it flounder in the idea box, but we knew legislatively we didn’t have opportunity.
When Trump won, then we started thinking, "What is the strategy? What is the approach?" And when we came in in January very early — it may have even been the first week back — I met with [Senate Majority] Leader [Mitch] McConnell and said, “I’m not quite sure what the path might be going forward but we have an opportunity with ANWR now with a new administration, with a House and a Senate that are in Republican hands and I think we need to build a strategy going forward. And if there’s an opportunity through reconciliation, it would be helpful if the Energy Committee had instructions to find revenues because we could do so with ANWR."
Are you surprised you’ve been able to be as effective as you have under the president given you were so critical of him during the 2016 election?
I don’t know the president that well. I’m getting to know him a little bit better. I think all Americans are getting to know him a little bit better. I was clearly not on his good list this summer, I guess. I kind of was put in the penalty box for a while, but I got back on the ice and we scored a goal here. ...
I think what we saw was an alignment of priorities. The things I had been working on, they resonate with this president. And it’s not because my ideas are so brilliant. It’s that you have a president who believes in our economic opportunities that come from utilizing our energy resources and what that can bring. I think he looks at Alaska, I think, and sees opportunity there.
How’s your relationship with Secretary Zinke at this point?
Good.
The beer summit worked?
The beer summit worked. It was a great opportunity for us to just sit down and not only talk though what’s going on in the office, but to know one another better. He’s a fellow Westerner. He’s a skier too. And to just kind of know and understand who he is and some of his views and ideas, because he is a significant influence in a state like mine where so much of Alaska is public lands. And I’ve always said the Secretary of the Interior is like Alaska’s landlord. And he said, “I don’t think I want to be your landlord. I want to be your partner.” That’s a much different attitude than we’ve had with previous secretaries.
Did you get off on a weird footing to start though?
No. No. I always prefer when others affirm their own comments, but he made very clear to me, “Your state is important to the Department of the Interior.” And he said, “The issues that you deal with in your committee are really important to me. And, oh by the way, you’re also the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that has oversight of everything. We’re going to get to know one another pretty well.” And we have. And I think that’s been important, because there are some difficult issues that we deal with in this space. Having an understanding of where he’s coming from and why, I think he recognizes that if there’s going to be news coming that is going to be big news, it’s best to try to give us a heads up so we’re not flat-footed and so that if we’ve got questions about it. Kind of the no surprise policy.
So you knew he was going to announce a reversal on Florida offshore drilling ahead of time then?
No, I didn’t know about the Florida announcement, but I can't say that it surprises me. The one thing that surprised me about it is that it came as soon as it did. And I think that’s what has gotten everybody. If he had made this announcement a month from now, I don’t think it would have been that big of a deal.
People will be weighing in. I expect them to weigh in in Alaska and I’m encouraging them to do so because I don’t think all 19 areas in offshore Alaska should be open for oil and gas leasing.
Is it the right call to remove Florida from the five-year lease plan though? Back in 2016 when President Obama pulled back on Atlantic offshore drilling, you said that move “undermines the energy security of our country and is an ominous warning to Alaskans.” What’s different this time?
I think you had a couple of different things going on. I think you had a level of support in some of the Atlantic seaboard states. Florida has always been pretty outspoken — even the Republicans — in that there are areas that are acceptable for oil and gas leasing and other areas that are not. Was I surprised that ultimately Florida offshore was taken off? No.
Do you think more areas will be taken off before we’re done?
Oh yeah. I think you will see areas that will drop off. Again, in Alaska, we’ve got 19 areas. Gulf of Alaska is extraordinary fishing grounds for us. Has there been anybody that has been poking around looking for oil there in the last 50 years? No. Do I think it should be part of this year’s five-year lease sale? I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s any interest there. Where the interest is for us is up in the Arctic and it’s in Cook Inlet where we’ve been producing oil and gas for decades and decades and decades.
There are other areas that I think we — Alaskans — are more interested in pursuing. If we’re not going to pursue these areas in the next five years, take them off. That’s the beauty of this five-year plan and this is where you need people to just kind of calm down a little bit. First of all, what the secretary put out there is a draft. The other thing to remember is this is not permanent. This is for five years.
But do you think Zinke could have handled it better to have avoided this initial firestorm? And more broadly, it seems like there’s been a steady stream of negative stories about him — whether that’s his travelor fundraising practices or something else. Are you concerned at all with how he’s running the department?
There’s a lot of stories because people are looking for stories and you’ve got new people in the administration. So I’m not going to comment on whether things could have been handled better or worse in terms of some of the stuff that’s come out.
Do I think Secretary Zinke has given direction and focus to the Department of Interior when it comes to how we access our public lands and how we encourage our energy potential on our public lands? I think he’s doing the right things. What he has done — what his folks have done — not just with the executive orders but with some of the regulations that are being pulled back, they’re taking things in a direction that I certainly agree with.
I think that the direction on policy that we’re seeing out of Interior right now is strong and it’s necessary. I think it’s shaken some people up. And, again, the way the lease sale was handled in terms of what was laid down was an approach that was entirely different than the way the Obama administration chose to take it. They put a very few things out there and then they continued to take from that.
With the Trump administration, what Secretary Zinke did was he put everything out there and then he’s going to winnow it down so it’s right size.
What about Secretary Rick Perry? Do you have any reaction to FERC’s move earlier this week to reject his power plan?
I certainly respected the authority of Secretary Perry to go the direction he did and make that task. I’ve long been saying we need to better understand where we are with our reliability of supply. Because when the day comes and it’s cold out here and we don’t have it, you’re going to have people picking up their telephone and screaming at me as chairman of the Energy Committee or screaming at the secretary and saying "where you guys been?" So understanding that, I think, was important.
Have you seen other signs from the agency that you like or areas you’d like to see more from Perry on?
There’s aspects of reorg[anization] that are under discussion. We’re going to be getting a briefing on that to better understand that. I think we’re going to see that both within DOE and DOI. I certainly need to get a better handle on those aspects of it. I’m hopefully going to have an opportunity to bring the secretary up.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop said he’s more optimistic an energy bill can get done this year since it’ll focus on just energy issues. Do you share that optimism? Why do you think this year could be different?
The first reason is the same reason we stick with ANWR and we stick with King Cove: It’s the right thing to do. Now it’s 10 years since we’ve updated our energy policies, so we’ve got to get crackling on this. What we put in place — and what passed [S. 2012 (114)] the Senate 85-12 — is still good.
We’ve got to encourage our friends on the other side that it’s time to do it. And I think they recognize that. I’ve had good conversations with Congressman [Greg] Walden and Congressman [Rob] Bishop. Congressman Bishop’s retiring [in 2020], so he’s kind of looking at how we shape some things then. Not to say he wasn’t willing to do that before, but I think it does help to kind of crystallize some things and say, “OK, what do we want to be able to advance out of here?”
The other thing we can kind of factor into the discussion: There’s a lot of infrastructure in the energy space. And I’m not saying we’re going to take our energy bill and plop it into an infrastructure bill. That’s not my intention at all. I want to run our bill on its own as we did before. But it’s a reminder that all of the exciting stuff you want to talk about over here, we can help facilitate that through a strong energy bill. Grid modernization, perfect example there ... on the reliability side, cyber. Doing more just from the perspective of what we’re doing to enhance clean energy solutions through renewables and hydro and all kinds of good stuff.
What do you think the federal government should be doing in the climate change space?
I think that there is much that can be done to address some of the issues that we face with climate change that can be addressed through investments that we’re making. When you upgrade your pipelines so you don’t have methane emissions out of your gathering lines, you don’t have seepage — you might not think of it in the perspective of is this a climate change policy — but are we making incremental gains in that way. And certainly many of the things that we would include in our energy bill really go to the heart of how we’re able to address the issue of carbon and carbon emissions. I think that’s kind of, in my view, the first easy step that doesn't have a big label on it.
And I have to acknowledge: I’m dealing with an administration where some in the administration get really squeamish about anything that has the word climate in it. I’m not afraid to talk about that. I’m not afraid to bring anybody up to my state and show them the impacts we’re seeing — whether it is to our runways, our coastal communities or to take them out in the interior and show them the impacts of additional fires that we haven’t seen. I want to help facilitate a conversation that is constructive about this, not get people in lines on either side and say, “you’re the neanderthal in the room.”
Does it concern you to hear members of the administration deny the basic science of the problem?
I am not going to lose a lot of hours in my day worrying about how they choose to speak about it. What I want to try to guide them to is a recognition that [of the benefit of having] a no-harm policy, if you will. In other words, we go ahead and make this investment, and even if all the climate proponents are wrong, this investment would still have been a smart and sound investment. I truly believe that we should be leading the world when it comes to our advances in technologies that push us to a cleaner and more efficient and less wasteful society. And right now we’re not doing that. And I think we need to put ourselves more in the front seat. And I think that there are certainly policies that we need to be looking at and I’m looking at them.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/01/politico-pro-q-a-senate-energy-chairwoman-lisa-murkowski-282739
-
Ohio Officials Worry about Possible New Spills from Rover Natgas Pipe
Jan 12, 2018 | Reuters (In the New York Times)
By Scott DiSavino
Ohio environmental regulators on Friday told federal energy regulators the state has significant concerns about the potential for a spill from Energy Transfer Partners LP's drilling under a river as the company works on the Rover natural gas pipeline.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency said in a filing with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that it learned this week that 148,000 gallons of drilling fluid were "lost down the hole" that ETP is drilling under the Tuscarawas River in Stark County, Ohio.
That is the same site as a spill last April of 2 million gallons of mostly clay and water used to lubricate drilling blades, which led FERC to temporarily ban ETP from new horizontal drilling.
The state has "significant concerns for the potential of similar releases as occurred at this location in April," it said in the filing. "We are deeply concerned this second drill under the Tuscarawas River is heading towards a similar outcome which resulted in the previous release to the environment."
The state EPA said in its filing the company has not discovered any new spills in the area.
Ohio, which asked FERC to ban all of ETP's horizontal directional drilling in November, said in its filing on Friday it wants more information on the Tuscarawas drilling.
FERC in December allowed ETP to complete all horizontal drills on the Rover project, including those in Ohio.
Officials at ETP were not immediately available for comment.
Pipeline companies use horizontal directional drilling to cross under large obstacles like highways and rivers.
Once finished, the $4.2 billion Rover pipeline will carry up to 3.25 billion cubic feet of gas per day from the Marcellus and Utica shale fields in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia to the U.S. Midwest and Ontario in Canada.
One billion cubic feet per day of gas can supply about five million U.S. homes.
ETP said in December it expected to finish Rover by the end of the first quarter.
About 0.9 bcfd of gas was already flowing on the completed portions of the pipeline, according to Reuters data.
Major gas producers that have signed up to use Rover include units of privately held Ascent Resources LLC, Antero Resources Corp, Range Resources Corp, Southwestern Energy Co, Eclipse Resources Corp and EQT Corp.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/01/12/us/12reuters-energy-transf-ohio.html?_r=0
-
Ewire: Murray Touts Deregulatory Progress but Targets GHG Risk Finding
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Coal magnate Robert Murray is giving Trump administration officials high praise in their efforts to implement his recently leaked “action plan” that calls for repealing Obama-era rules affecting the sector, though he is still pushing his second-highest priority -- reversing EPA's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
“President Trump has done a wonderful job in addressing what is needed to improve the cost of electricity in America and to improve the reliability, security and resilience of the electric power grid," Murray said in a recent interview with the Associated Press. "I give him very high marks.”
He also praised EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry as “stars” and that overall Trump appointees should get “nearly a 10” rating.
Pruitt has made significant progress on Murray's top request in his March “action plan” -- scrapping EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) GHG rule for existing power plants. The agency has proposed to rescind the rule and hopes to finalize that measure by the end of the year.
However, the AP story notes that Murray is “still hopeful” Pruitt will implement the next biggest priority on the to-do list: withdrawing the GHG endangerment finding that forms the foundation for all the agency's climate rules.
Murray might have to keep hoping for a while.
Many powerful industry groups are pushing EPA to write a narrow replacement for the CPP and to avoid a major clash on the endangerment finding, arguing that would provide them with the most regulatory and legal certainty.
However, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum in an exclusive interview with Inside EPA's Dawn Reeves is refusing to rule out a host of options related to the CPP and the GHG risk finding, leaving open the possibility that reviews of those policies could result in uncertain outcomes and upend expectations for where the agency might land.
On the CPP, Wehrum said a recent advance notice of proposed rulemaking outlines a “range of possible outcomes,” including a narrower replacement rule. But he added that EPA will “look at the possibility of rescinding and doing nothing more.”
Wehrum also distinguished the agency's work on the CPP -- which encompasses reconsidering the new source rule, including its finding that partial carbon capture and sequestration is available and required for any new coal plant -- with a climate science debate on the endangerment finding.
When Pruitt thinks about the endangerment issue and the CPP, “he thinks about them on two separate tracks,” Wehrum said. “The administrator also firmly believes the science underlying the endangerment finding -- the process that EPA used to make the determination that's reflected in the endangerment finding -- he believes that process was flawed” because it discounted contrary views. “The administrator firmly believes that at a minimum he would like to provide an opportunity for those who did not feel they had a voice in the prior process to have a voice.”
Wehrum said the two issues can move forward on separate but concurrent tracks, and “you only get to a connection if, as a result of” the climate science review “we are convinced that a different conclusions should be reached” than the existing endangerment finding.
While such a result might please hardliners such as Murray, it would likely be opposed by major industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute and other power sector groups.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-murray-touts-deregulatory-progress-targets-ghg-risk-finding
-
Hogan, with an Election Ahead, Joins State Climate Compact
| E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow and Josh Kurtz
Maryland will become the 16th state to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, Gov. Larry Hogan (R) announced yesterday.
The development marks a win for greens seeking to bolster their bipartisan credentials on climate. Hogan is the third Republican governor to join the group after Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and Vermont Gov. Phil Scott.
The alliance, founded last year after President Trump initiated the United States' withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, aims for states to meet the 24-29 percent emissions cut envisioned by the international agreement over the next eight years.
"The importance of aggressive but balanced action in states, communities, and businesses and the need for multi-state collaboration and international leadership on climate change grows stronger every day," Hogan said in a statement.
The announcement comes as Hogan gears up for what may be a bruising re-election campaign this fall. A Gonzales Maryland poll released yesterday underlined the paradox facing Hogan as he seeks to win re-election in a state that soundly rejected Trump in 2016. The governor remains broadly popular. Roughly 70 percent of respondents approve of his job performance, the poll found.
But signs of weakness remain. While Hogan led three potential challengers by at least 10 points, he failed to crack the 50 percent mark in any hypothetical matchup. The poll found many voters remain undecided.
"Hogan won because he got independents and Democrats to vote for him in 2014. He needs them to vote for him if he is going to win re-election. Those are the folks that are going to care about this climate alliance," said Todd Eberly, associate professor of political science at St Mary's College of Maryland.
Hogan has alternatively drawn praise and scorn from environmentalists on climate. In 2016, he signed a bill committing Maryland to slashing emissions 40 percent of 2006 levels by 2030. His secretary of the environment, Ben Grumbles, is widely credited for helping to push through a more stringent carbon cap for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state cap-and-trade program.
But Hogan also vetoed a 2016 bill to strengthen the state's renewable portfolio standard and provide incentives for clean energy jobs. The Legislature later overrode him.
"We have seen with respect to the climate targets in the past that Hogan is willing to embrace the aspirational target but doesn't support the regulatory path to get there," said state House Majority Leader Bill Frick (D), who sponsored the RPS legislation. "But aspirations don't clean up the environment."
State Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) was slightly more charitable.
"It could mean a lot," he said. "It could mean the governor is now going to champion energy conservation. It could mean the governor is ready to champion methane reductions. Or it could just be election-year politics."
Testifying at a hearing on the Clean Power Plan in Annapolis yesterday, Donald Boesch, a marine biology professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, applauded Hogan's decision to join the climate alliance.
Praising Grumbles' commitment to climate action, he added, "With Maryland's three branches of government pulling in the same direction, along with 14 other states ... we can make a real difference."
But Susan Turnbull, a former chairwoman of the Maryland Democratic Party who is the running mate of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous, a former NAACP president, suggested that Hogan should have been more vocal about Trump's decision to withdraw from Paris. She referred to "Gov. Hogan's last-minute scramble to join the alliance," and added, "You shouldn't have to wait for public pressure like this hearing."
Turnbull is the mother of climate activist David Turnbull, the campaign director at Oil Change International.
Environmentalists said a better test for Hogan will come later this year when Maryland lawmakers take up a bill to boost the state RPS. Maryland electricity suppliers now must get 25 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025. The bill would raise that to 50 percent by 2030.
"The governor can do better and needs to do better," said Chesapeake Climate Action Network Executive Director Mike Tidwell. "He's got a mixed record at best on energy and climate."
Douglass Mayer, a spokesman for the governor, defended Hogan's environmental record, saying he had consistently supported "strong action" on clean air and clean water.
"Far too often on the environment, people wind up attacking each other instead of finding solutions," he said.
Asked what the practical effect of joining the alliance means, Mayer said, "It's a voluntary group. It just means more collaboration."
Indeed, while the climate alliance has slowly added states to its ranks, it still lacks a uniting policy goal for achieving its objective.
Many alliance members were already on track to meet the emission targets called for under former President Obama, and their leaders have independently proposed further efforts to slash carbon levels.
The alliance was founded by California Gov. Jerry Brown, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, all Democrats. Other member states include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico.
Hogan's announcement is likely to have a greater impact nationally, said Eberly, the St. Mary's professor.
"A bipartisan symbolic issue is going to have more influence than one that can be dismissed as a partisan," Eberly said. "It sends a message that Republicans also understand that this issue matters."
Whether that message is received by Maryland voters in November is one of Hogan's most pressing questions in 2018.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070819
-
Hearing on Proposed Repeal Mixes Science and Politics
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
Maryland's unique natural properties — the Chesapeake Bay, extensive wetlands and more than 3,000 miles of coastline — took center stage yesterday as state Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) and legislative leaders held a hearing here on the Trump administration's plans to kill or dramatically diminish the Clean Power Plan.
State and national politics were a key element of the conversation during the 3 ½-hour hearing on the plan, the Obama administration's signature initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at power plants.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was a frequent target of criticism, labeled biased and lawless by officials and people who testified. Gov. Larry Hogan (R), whose administration this week wrote to Pruitt expressing its support for the Clean Power Plan and joined the bipartisan alliance of governors committed to meeting the goals of the Paris climate accord, was the object of some partisan attacks (see related story).
The "people's hearing" was called by Frosh, state Senate President Mike Miller (D) and state House Speaker Mike Busch (D) — one of a series of sessions that Democratic attorneys general have scheduled this month on the CPP repeal, after EPA rejected their entreaties to hold hearings in their states (Energywire, Jan. 10).
Frosh pulled no punches when it came to discussing Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who sued the Obama administration's EPA to block the Clean Power Plan and other environmental initiatives. Frosh said Pruitt should recuse himself from any Trump administration deliberations over the future of the CPP.
"He made up his mind when he sued EPA," Frosh said. "He is undeniably biased."
Frosh also blasted Pruitt for refusing to hold an official EPA hearing on the CPP anywhere on the East Coast, except for West Virginia coal country.
"We're here because we believe Maryland has a story to tell and that Marylanders deserve to be heard," he said.
That story included Maryland's vulnerability to sea-level rise, already evident in frequent flooding in the Annapolis historic district; the erosion of historic Smith Island in the Chesapeake Bay; and a "thousand-year" flood that raged through the old mill town of Ellicott City in 2016 (Climatewire, Nov. 17, 2015; Greenwire, Aug. 1, 2016).
"The science is increasingly clear," said Donald Boesch, a marine biology professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who warned of "disastrous consequences" if the state and nation do not embrace "net-zero" power emissions.
Boesch said scotching the Clean Power Plan would make it impossible for the state to attain its emissions reduction goals.
Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, said the air quality improvements from the Clean Power Plan as proposed by the Obama administration would result in 100 fewer premature deaths. But the alternative proposed by Pruitt, he said, would lead to six additional premature deaths compared with the baseline.
"It could very well worsen public health and environmental outcomes in the state compared to doing nothing," Burtraw said.
In addition to Maryland's natural resources, the Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus, said repealing the Clean Power Plan could hurt urban areas, as well, noting that many African-American neighborhoods are close to coal-fired plants. Yearwood praised state officials for banning hydraulic fracturing last year.
Maryland, he said, is "not only the Free State, but the Fossil-Free State."
While Hogan, who is girding for a tough re-election campaign, works to burnish his environmental credentials, two of the Democrats running for governor turned up at Frosh's hearing yesterday. Former NAACP President Ben Jealous and his running mate, former state Democratic Chairwoman Susan Turnbull, were particularly pointed in their criticism. Jealous sought to link Hogan, who has worked to distance himself from the Trump administration, to Pruitt.
The EPA leader, Jealous said, "has become a threat to our state in too many ways, and the silence of our governor has frankly put our state at risk."
The other Democratic gubernatorial contender who testified, Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker, did not launch any partisan attacks, speaking instead about how climate change has impacted his jurisdiction in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and about the county's new stormwater management program.
Earlier this week, Hogan's environment secretary, Ben Grumbles, wrote a letter to Pruitt emphasizing the state's support for the Clean Power Plan as written by the Obama administration. Douglass Mayer, Hogan's spokesman, lamented the criticism his boss has received on the environment.
"The governor's record on the environment is incredibly strong, as evidence by his strong actions on clean air and clean water," Mayer said.
In all, several dozen people testified at Frosh's hearing — and they all decried the Trump administration's plan to debilitate the Clean Power Plan. Raquel Guillory Coombs, a spokeswoman for Frosh, said one person emailed the attorney general's office this week to signal his support for repealing the CPP. Frosh said yesterday's testimony would be submitted to EPA and, he hoped, added to the official record.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070827
-
EPA Extends Comment Deadline on CPP Repeal
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA will extend the public comment deadline on its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until April 26 to accommodate three new listening sessions it has scheduled to address public demand for more options to weigh in on the effort to revoke the Obama-era greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants.
The three listening sessions will be Feb. 21 in Kansas City, MO; Feb. 28 in San Francisco; and March 27 in Gillette, WY, the agency announced. Those will be in addition to one public hearing EPA held Nov. 28-29 in Charleston, WV.
An agency spokesman says the comment deadline, originally slated to close Jan. 16, will be extended to 30 days following the final meeting, to April 26, per Administrative Procedure Act requirements. EPA initially said it would not formally extend the regulatory docket's opening for comment but would consider information it received at the three new meetings. The agency previously announced the sessions but had not provided dates or locations.
The spokesman adds that because of procedural requirements with the Federal Register, EPA is unlikely to be able to halt the planned docket closing Jan. 16, so will have to technically “reopen” it.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement announcing the new listening sessions that they are being held “in response to significant interest surrounding the proposed repeal” of the CPP and the “success” of the West Virginia hearing.
The notice adds that EPA in an upcoming Register notice will simultaneously re-open the public comment period and provide further details on the listening sessions. “Written statements and supporting information submitted while the public comment period is open will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the listening sessions,” the statement adds.
The new listening sessions' details come days after 12 states led by California filed formal comments saying Pruitt must recuse himself from the repeal proceedings, due to a “closed mind,” since before becoming administrator Pruitt, as Oklahoma attorney general, helped to lead litigation against the rule.
In response to the announcement that one of the new sessions would be in Wyoming, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate environment committee, said it is “encouraging that Trump administration officials will be coming to Gillette to hear directly from the people of Wyoming,” including miners and community members who would be harmed the most by the CPP.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-extends-comment-deadline-cpp-repeal
-
'This Is a Sin.' Public Appeals to Pruitt's Religion
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
To keep the Clean Power Plan alive, some people are appealing to Scott Pruitt's faith in God.
The EPA administrator, who is a Southern Baptist, has fought against the Obama administration's signature climate rule since his days as Oklahoma's attorney general. Now the agency he leads is in the first phases of undoing the rule, by seeking comment on the proposal from the public. A number of commenters made it clear that EPA's decision to reconsider the rule did not mesh with their own religious views. They challenged Pruitt to reconsider his opposition to the Clean Power Plan in light of his moral obligation to protect the planet.
One woman told Pruitt to review the Bible's teachings on the environment.
"[I]f you are among those Americans that have turned your back on science because it challenges your beliefs, I urge you to consult your religious texts," wrote Jessica Ferrato.
Ferrato noted that citations in the Bible about care for the environment could be found from "Genesis to Revelations" and were supported by a range of Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian teachings.
"[W]hether you are guided by science or religion, by mathematics or by the lure of cold hard cash, our morality, our life experiences, and our success as a species and as a society is fundamentally connected to the care with which we manage the bounties of our natural world," Ferrato said.
Greg Rockwell, meanwhile, expressed his disappointment with the administrator more succinctly.
"This is a sin. Please repent, and follow God," he wrote.
While appealing to the administrator's personal beliefs may seem like an unusual tack to prevent regulatory rollbacks, Pruitt is known to have strong ties to his faith. In Oklahoma, he was an active member of his church in Broken Arrow, where he served as a deacon and taught Sunday school. Since coming to Washington, he has attended Bible studies with other Cabinet members (Climatewire, July 14, 2017).
Pruitt often sprinkles his public speeches with religious references, using words like "prayerfully" and occasionally alluding to Scripture. Last November, he attended the dedication of Washington, D.C.'s Museum of the Bible.
Commenters attempted to tap into that connection to Christianity to reach the administrator, who has gone forward with the repeal over the objections of environmental groups and public health experts.
Many comments filed with EPA began with the same phrase: "As a person of faith, I am very concerned about the impact of global warming on God's Creation."
Commenters pointed out that the Bible called for mankind to be "good stewards" of the Earth. That, they said, included protecting against the harmful impacts of climate change.
The Rev. Dr. Gail Cafferata, an Episcopal priest, said repealing the Clean Power Plan was undermining "vital health protections."
"God has blessed us with this planet with its precious air, water, flora and fauna, and made us stewards of this wondrous creation. From this ethical perspective, any risky exploitation of the earth for human purposes like greed or power or national supremacy is immoral because it offends the Creator of heaven and earth," she wrote.
This isn't the first time opponents of Pruitt's plans have attempted to reach him by appealing to his faith. In October, a group of religious leaders made a trip to EPA headquarters calling for the agency to take action on climate change and reconsider its deregulatory agenda. The administrator did not attend that meeting, but the group was able to meet with agency staff (Climatewire, Oct. 25, 2017).
To date, there are more than 185,000 comments posted on the Federal Register, and EPA had set a comment deadline of 11:59 p.m. Tuesday. Yesterday afternoon, EPA extended that to April 26 to allow comments after additional public "listening sessions" on eliminating the rule.
EPA's first listening session of the year will be on Feb. 21 in Kansas City, Mo., followed by another on Feb. 28 in San Francisco. The final listening session will be on March 27 in Gillette, Wyo., according to EPA. The agency held its first listening session in November in Charleston, W.Va.
"In response to significant interest surrounding the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan and the success of the West Virginia hearing, we will now hold listening sessions across the country to ensure all stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input," Pruitt said in a statement.
An EPA court filing on Wednesday also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to continue to keep the case challenging the Clean Power Plan on hold until the agency completed its rulemaking process.
So far, most of the posted comments on the CPP's repeal have voiced opposition to the proposal.
Some commenters lauded Pruitt's actions, too.
One man, David M. Albert, said he thought some provisions of the Clean Power Plan were illegal and the rule should be repealed. He targeted the endangerment finding, a scientific determination that underpins EPA's greenhouse gas rules.
"The CPP is proposed due to the Endangerment Finding which itself was enacted without required study. Since the enactment of the Endangerment Finding all of the supporting arguments for it have been shown to be invalid by peer reviewed science," he wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/12/stories/1060070817
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested