Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 22/01/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Golf Balls? Sporting Good Illustrates Need for Prompt Action by EPA to Address Persistent Chemical Threats
Jan 22, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
When an errant drive lands a golf ball in the water hazard, the harm may be to more than the golfer’s handicap. -
EDF Files Extensive Comments Challenging EPA’s Changes to New Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Jan 22, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This weekend EDF submitted detailed comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its implementation of changes to the New Chemicals Review Program, as well as comments responding to the agency’s draft New Chemicals Decision‐Making Framework. -
(ACC Blog) The NAS IRIS Review: An Unnecessarily Narrow Review of EPA’s Troubled Chemical Assessment Program?
Jan 22, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) announced in December 2017 that it will again review EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). -
Microbeads Banned in Cosmetics Products in England
Jan 22, 2018 | Lexology
By Gabrielle Broomhead
In 2016 the Government announced its intention to ban the manufacture and sale of rinse off personal care products containing microbeads. -
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Puts Refinery Operation Into Bankruptcy
Jan 22, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Peg Brickley
Philadelphia Energy Solutions LLC affiliates responsible for more than one-quarter of the crude-oil refining capacity on the East Coast filed for bankruptcy protection, as the company blamed industrywide turmoil driven by politics and economics. -
FERC Approval of PennEast Project Comes with Reservations
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal regulators approved the PennEast natural gas pipeline last week, awarding a key permit that gives developers eminent domain authority and puts a spotlight on regulators in New Jersey, which has yet to issue a water permit for the project. -
For Oil and Gas, the Government Shutdown is a Near-Non-Event
Jan 22, 2018 | Forbes
By David Blackmon
Given that the nation's news media are focused about 23 out of every 24 hours each day on breathless reports about the "shutdown" of some small percentage of the federal government, some of you may be wondering how this "shutdown" is going to impact the oil and gas industry. -
Zinke Probe Paused, Oil Leases Cease with Skeleton Crew
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
The shutdown of the federal government is complicating U.S. energy dominance, a Trump administration priority playing out across the nation's millions of acres of public lands. -
Bank of America Sees Oil Demand Peak in 2030
Jan 22, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Alex Longley
Peak oil demand may be just 12 years away. -
Shutdown Scuttles Pruitt's Japan Trip
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The government shutdown thwarted Scott Pruitt's plans to travel to Japan this week. -
Birol Elected to 4-year Term at IEA
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Fatih Birol has been elected to another four-year term as executive director of the International Energy Agency, where he plans to shift the policy focus more toward low-carbon energy. -
Pipelines Urge FERC to Tread Lightly into Tax-Based Rate Cuts
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Saqib Rahim
The natural gas pipeline industry is pushing back against calls for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review shipping rates in the wake of the new tax law. -
EPA Seeks More Time on Texas Ozone Decision
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In twin legal filings, U.S. EPA officials are offering the same message to two different courts: They will make all past-due compliance decisions for the 2015 ground-level ozone standard by the end of April — with one big exception. -
'We Can't Get to Zero.' Building Goals Flummox Regulators
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California is proposing to update its already strict building efficiency standards, but the ultimate goal of net-zero energy usage still eludes regulators. -
Climate Change Causes Depression, Anxiety
Jan 22, 2018 | Reuters (In E&E Climatewire)
By Sebastien Malo
Climate change causes depression and anxiety in Americans concerned about the environment, according to new research on mental health.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Jan 22, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
When an errant drive lands a golf ball in the water hazard, the harm may be to more than the golfer’s handicap.
This was one finding of research commissioned by public health advocates to help urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rapidly meet a Congressional directive to reduce to the greatest extent possible exposure to a class of chemicals which have been shown to build up over time in the environment, animals, or people.
The comments submitted to the EPA docket by the advocates noted that hundreds of millions of golf balls are lost on courses in the United States each year. Each ball may eventually be a source of persistent environmental contamination.
Known as “PBT” chemicals (for “Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic”), the 2016 bipartisan reforms to the United States’ chemical safety law required the EPA to use previously established criteria to rapidly develop regulations to prevent further exposure to such chemicals. The agency identified five PBT chemicals in December 2016 to regulate under the provision, known as section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In the summer of 2017, the agency released its findings on the use of these PBT chemicals.
Through their own research efforts, including looking at customs records of chemical imports, the Healthy Building Network, in cooperation with Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Environmental Health Strategy Center, identified uses of four of the five chemicals not previously identified by the agency, and submitted comments on January 20 urging the EPA to swiftly halt the use of the persistent toxic chemicals.
In particular, the advocates discovered that nearly 10,000 kg of Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), a PBT used as a “peptiser” in rubber, was imported into the United States by Bridgestone Golf between 2015 and 2017. Patent applications for golf balls, including those held by Bridgestone Golf, make reference to the use of PCTP. Based on the imports and the patents, it appears likely PCTP was used in golf ball manufacturing as recently as last year. (The advocates have not sought to verify the presence of the chemical in golf balls sold.)
The Rubber Manufacturers Association noted in a submission to the EPA that its members, including Bridgestone Americas, no longer use PCTP in the production of tires made in or imported into the United States. They did not address the apparent continued use of the chemical to make golf balls.
“While Bridgestone pats itself on the back for eliminating a toxic chemical in one product, it has remained quiet on its apparent use in another,” said Liz Hitchcock, Acting Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “This demonstrates the importance of EPA promptly following its legal mandate to eliminate continued use of PCTP and the other persistent toxics.”
“Congress directed EPA to take expedited actions to regulate this type of chemical because the threat posed is significant and will be with us for a long time to come,” said Hitchcock. “The nature of PBT chemicals is that they build up in ecosystems and often people, and they don’t readily break down. We must stop introducing them to the environment.”Rejecting the Chemical Industry’s Delay Tactics
The advocates also urged the EPA to reject the chemical industry’s attempt to change the already settled definition of PBT and further delay the regulations required by the 2016 law.
The American Chemistry Council, in a submission to the agency, claims that EPA’s definition of PBT is outdated and requests the agency reevaluate the five chemicals using a set of criteria that reflects “current, best available science.” Unsurprisingly, their definition of “current, best available science” is a non-peer-reviewed report from a workshop that was funded by the chemical industry, where two-thirds of committee chairpersons drafting the report worked for the industry.
Congress, in writing the 2016 updates to TSCA, specifically endorsed EPA’s existing list of PBT chemicals, which is based on internationally used criteria, and set expedited timeframes for the agency to take action on them.
“In normal times, industry’s request to replace an internationally recognized and congressionally specified criteria with their own wish list would be so ludicrous as to be immediately laughed off as a joke,” said Patrick MacRoy, Deputy Director of Environmental Health Strategy Center. “However, since the Trump administration has turned the EPA into a consulting firm for the chemical lobby, this will be viewed as a sensible request that we’ll actually have to fight.”
The full comments from the advocates, including details on uses of the other PBTs, are available at http://saferchemicals.org/documents/january-12-2018-pbt-comments/.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/toxic-golf-balls-sporting-good-illustrates-need-for-prompt-action-by-epa-to-address-persistent-chemical-threats/
-
EDF Files Extensive Comments Challenging EPA’s Changes to New Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Jan 22, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This weekend EDF submitted detailed comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its implementation of changes to the New Chemicals Review Program, as well as comments responding to the agency’s draft New Chemicals Decision‐Making Framework.
After the passage of the Lautenberg Act in June 2016, EPA started out on a sound footing in implementing the major changes to Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), correctly subjecting more new chemicals to conditions or testing requirements through issuance of consent orders. It also took successful steps to address a temporary backlog that was largely due to the fact that these changes to TSCA took immediate effect.
Beginning in August of last year, however, using the already eliminated backlog as an excuse, the new political leadership at EPA signaled its intent to reverse course and effectively return the program to its pre-Lautenberg state – under which few chemicals were subject to any conditions and even fewer to any testing requirements, despite the fact that the great majority of new chemicals reviewed by EPA lack any health or environmental safety data.
EPA convened a meeting in early December of last year to present its New Chemicals Decision‐Making Framework implementing these changes. The agency noted it was already using the Framework, despite also accepting comments on it.
EDF’s comments raise a host of legal, policy, scientific, good government and transparency objections to EPA’s new approach. I won’t attempt to summarize the 42 pages of our comments here, many aspects of which we have raised through this blog over the past many months.
We hope EPA reconsiders its rash change of course and opts to comply with the law.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/01/22/edf-files-extensive-comments-challenging-epas-changes-to-new-chemical-reviews-under-tsca/
-
Jan 22, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) announced in December 2017 that it will again review EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Previous NAS reports, one in 2011 and another in 2014, found serious problems with IRIS and offered sweeping recommendations to overhaul the program.
NAS is not alone in identifying critical issues that need reform with the IRIS program. Since 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has regularly highlighted its concerns with regard to IRIS because of fears that the program is at risk of becoming obsolete due to an inability to produce quality chemical assessments in a timely manner. Congress has also repeatedly expressed serious concerns with regard to IRIS and has held numerous hearings in recent years—including one last September—to discuss those ongoing problems.
EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. The agency originally designed the IRIS program to support this mission by using scientifically defensible methods and approaches to identify and characterize health hazards. The program has had repeated problems achieving that goal, though.
In 2016, Congress passed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), which requires EPA to use the best available science and a weight of evidence process when evaluating the risk from new and existing chemicals. Consistent application of these core scientific standards is fundamental to achieving EPA’s mission. Given the concerns that have been raised by NAS, GAO, Congress, and many in the scientific community, it is not clear that IRIS assessments qualify as the best available science, applied in a weight of the evidence approach.
Tying their own hands
Initially, it was encouraging to hear that the latest review by NAS will assess changes to IRIS that that EPA has implemented or plans to implement based on recommendations from NAS. Unfortunately, on closer review, it appears the NAS is tying its own hands in its official statement of task for the review:
“The committee primarily will base its assessment on EPA presentations and interactive sessions during a 1.5 day workshop at which multiple opportunities will be provided for stakeholder input.”
The constraints NAS is placing on itself will prevent it from fully evaluating—based on a well-informed, full, and fair scientific assessment—whether:EPA made any substantive or procedural changes to the IRIS program;Those changes adequately address NAS’s 2011 and 2014 recommendations;EPA can demonstrate it has implemented the changes in recently completed draft or final IRIS assessments; andIRIS assessments reflecting those changes constitute the best available science, applied in a weight of the evidence approach.
The committee has further constrained its ability to produce a thorough assessment by only allowing itself nine months to complete the review. Although we encourage its timely completion, NAS should ensure that it takes sufficient time to effectively evaluate the changes made to the IRIS program and to solicit additional stakeholder engagement and input.
Ensuring a robust committee review
To conduct an effective review of the IRIS program, NAS should revise its statement of task to:Fully evaluate and benchmark EPA’s progress with respect to the specific recommendations set forth in the 2014 NAS Report and the 2011 NAS Report.Evaluate whether EPA has developed a set of a priori data quality evaluation criteria for epidemiology, toxicology, and mechanistic data to identify and categorize the strongest and most relevant studies for any IRIS assessment.Expressly evaluate whether EPA has developed a robust and scientifically defensible weight of the evidence approach to integrate scientific evidence.Provide express guidance on the organization of data using mode of action to evaluate biological plausibility and to develop dose-response curves.Assess whether EPA’s proposed procedural changes to IRIS have resulted in a program capable of gathering, assessing, and integrating the scientific literature with respect to chemical assessments in a way that is transparent to the public, timely, and reflective of the best current scientific methodologies.
Getting it right
The recommendations outlined above will allow NAS to fully consider recent improvements made to the IRIS process and identify the areas that EPA needs to continue working on to improve the program so that it can produce chemical assessments in a way that is transparent to the public, timely, and reflective of the best current scientific methodologies.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/01/the-nas-iris-review-an-unnecessarily-narrow-review-of-epas-troubled-chemical-assessment-program/
-
Microbeads Banned in Cosmetics Products in England
Jan 22, 2018 | Lexology
By Gabrielle Broomhead
In 2016 the Government announced its intention to ban the manufacture and sale of rinse off personal care products containing microbeads. This month new legislation has come into force. The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017 introduce the ban on manufacturing these products, with a ban on selling them set to follow in July 2018.
The legislation is made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. Trading Standards departments will be responsible for enforcing the ban and the legislation includes options for both civil and criminal sanctions.
The regulations make it an offence to:Use microbeads in the manufacture of any rinse-off personal care productSupply, or offer to supply, any rinse-off personal care product containing microbeads
So, what are microbeads and why are they banned?
Microbeads are tiny plastic spheres that can be found in exfoliating facial scrubs, shower gels and toothpaste, among other products. The legislation defines them as “any water-insoluble solid plastic particle of less than or equal to 5mm in any dimension”. This section applies to their use in rinse off personal care products "any substance or mixture of substance that are intended for application to the human body (this includes the mouth and teeth) in the course of personal care treatment, which is washed or rinsed off with water once application is completed".
Once they are rinsed off after use, these pieces of plastic are washed down the drain and cannot be filtered out by many wastewater treatment plants, meaning that they easily enter and pollute our waterways. Although microbeads only represent a small proportion of the plastic waste in the ocean, because of their size, fish and other marine animals can and do eat them, introducing potentially toxic substances into the food chain.
According to a report by the Environmental Audit Committee, a single shower can flush as many as 100,000 microbeads, with this adding up to 86 tonnes per year from the UK alone.
What does the ban mean?
Cosmetic manufacturers in the UK, should no longer be adding microbeads to their products, as of 9th January 2018, if they are found to be in breach of the ban, local authorities can impose a civil variable monetary penalty (VMP).
A VMP is a fine used to remove any financial benefit of the non-compliance and as a deterrent. The local authority can determine the penalty amount and provide justification for the amount determined, which can be up to 10% of annual turnover of the business. VMPs are likely to be used where the offence is of medium severity or there are mitigating factors.
For less serious offences, authorities also have a number of non-monetary enforcement options including issuing compliance notices or stop notices, with a financial penalty being imposed for non-compliance with a notice, or they can seek an enforcement undertaking from the business which sets out voluntary steps the business will make to make amends for it’s non-compliance. An enforcement undertaking can avoid any civil or criminal sanctions, so long as the business carries out the actions within the timescale.
For more serious offences, repeat offences, or where civil sanctions have not been complied with, businesses may be prosecuted for a criminal offence and receive an unlimited fine.
The penalties will also apply to the sale or supply of products containing microbeads from July this year. For products already in the supply chain, distributors and retailers should ensure that any stock held is supplied before the ban comes into force in June. If buying from a UK manufacturer then microbeads should not be present in products manufactured after January, but many cosmetics are imported from other EC countries and beyond. There are currently only bans in place in the USA and Canada, with a ban coming into force in New Zealand this June, but in the rest of the world, microbeads will still be permitted in cosmetic products, so care should be taken when importing into the UK and assurances sought from suppliers.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b2297b24-7ad1-4338-ad75-8d3bee6c39c1
-
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Puts Refinery Operation Into Bankruptcy
Jan 22, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Peg Brickley
Philadelphia Energy Solutions LLC affiliates responsible for more than one-quarter of the crude-oil refining capacity on the East Coast filed for bankruptcy protection, as the company blamed industrywide turmoil driven by politics and economics.
The operator of two refineries just miles from center city Philadelphia said in a Monday filing that it hopes to be on its way out of bankruptcy before the end of February, with a chapter 11 plan worked out in advance with top-ranking lenders. Philadelphia Energy, which said it intends to continue to operate normally during its restructuring, is racing to restructure with its eye on a March 31, 2018 deadline for complying with federal fuel regulations.
Philadelphia Energy says the Clean Air Act’s renewable fuel standard program is the primary reason for its financial distress. The company says it is a victim of “regulatory compliance costs that specifically penalize independent merchant refiners,” as well as adverse economics in the energy sector.
Because of its position in the energy-distribution chain, Philadelphia Energy can’t comply with fuel-blending-standard requirements and must instead buy compliance credits from large oil companies, owners of retail gasoline stations and from companies that trade in the compliance credits for profit.
Philadelphia Energy will ask a bankruptcy judge to let it refashion its business in bankruptcy, “free and clear” of the regulatory-compliance liabilities that it blames for snarling its finances. If the company can’t get the judge to allow it to erase the overhang of regulatory liabilities, Philadelphia Energy could have to buy compliance credits with a market value of $350 million in order to meet its obligations by the March deadline, court papers say.
Low prices have put the energy industry under stress for years, with effects that have reverberated through shipping, utilities, support and drilling companies around the globe. Philadelphia Energy, however, says federal regulations have made compliance one of its largest expenses, and one that has weighed on its ability to stay on top of its debts.
Philadelphia Energy Solutions, the parent company, didn’t file for bankruptcy protection. It is part of the turnaround strategy, committed to contributing $65 million to retain 25% of the refinery operation once it is out of bankruptcy.
Almost all term loan lenders, owed in the aggregate, more than $620 million, are on board with Philadelphia Energy’s workout plan, which stretches out the refinery’s debt maturities, brings in new cash and cuts debt service payments by $35 million annually, according to court papers.
The chapter 11 plan calls for $120 million in new money from a group of top lenders, who are also swapping out $107 million of loans for equity in the reorganized refinery operation, court papers say. All in, Philadelphia Energy is counting on $260 million in added liquidity to shore up its finances, according to an outline of the chapter 11 plan that was filed Monday.
Trade creditors will be paid in full, court papers say.
The regulatory issue is rooted in the refinery’s position in the market. Products include heating oil, jet fuel, kerosene, fuel oil, propane, propylene, butane, and sulfur.
Most of Philadelphia Energy’s products are sold unblended, which limits the refiner’s ability to satisfy federal regulations by mixing biofuels such as ethanol into the fuel it deliver to pipelines for markets in the Central Atlantic and Northeastern U.S.
If it wants to avoid fines, Philadelphia Energy has to purchase compliance credits, exposing the company to an “unpredictable, escalating, and unintended compliance burden” which has cost $832 million since operations began in September 2012, court papers say. In 2012, it cost Philadelphia Energy $13 million to meet its fuel-blending-compliance requirements. By 2016, that figure had risen to $231 million, court papers say.
Washington D.C. based private-equity firm Carlyle Group and Sunoco Inc., which is now a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., formed Philadelphia Energy to buy the refining complex from Sunoco in 2012. Philadelphia Energy was positioned to capture the crude oil product of fracking operations in the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian regions. As an independent merchant operation, Philadelphia Energy’s refinery business doesn’t control blending and distribution of the “substantial majority” of the transportation fuel it produces, court papers say.
Carlyle Group and Energy Transfer could not immediately be reached to comment on Philadelphia Energy’s bankruptcy turnaround effort.
The case has been assigned to Judge Kevin Gross. Philadelphia Energy is represented by the law firms of Kirkland & Ellis and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones in the bankruptcy, case number 18-10122.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-energy-solutions-puts-refinery-operation-into-bankruptcy-1516626312?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
FERC Approval of PennEast Project Comes with Reservations
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal regulators approved the PennEast natural gas pipeline last week, awarding a key permit that gives developers eminent domain authority and puts a spotlight on regulators in New Jersey, which has yet to issue a water permit for the project.
Late Friday in a 4-1 decision, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted developers a certificate for the 120-mile pipeline that proposes to run from Luzerne County, Pa., to Mercer County, N.J., serving markets in both states.
FERC has a history of working to reach unanimity on most pipeline permits, but last year the commission issued a split decision to approve a pair of projects, the Atlantic Coast pipeline and Mountain Valley pipeline, being developed to carry Marcellus Shale gas toward the Atlantic coast (Energywire, Oct. 16, 2017).
The PennEast vote similarly drew a dissenting opinion from Commissioner Richard Glick, raising questions of whether FERC's tradition of speaking with a single voice will fall by the wayside at a time when pipeline construction has become increasingly controversial.
Three commissioners issued opinions explaining their views on the project. Republican Neil Chatterjee and Democrat Cheryl LaFleur wrote in favor of the approval, but expressed reservations about incomplete land survey data stemming from the refusal of some landowners to allow project representatives onto their land.
"I recognize that the rights of landowners are important, and do not take their concerns lightly," Chatterjee wrote. "I am supporting the project despite these concerns, because I believe the Commission has sufficient information in the record on which to make its decision."
LaFleur similarly wrote that she felt the commission had gathered enough information to approve the project despite those gaps but highlighted the need for a broader review of FERC's decisionmaking process.
"I strongly support Chairman [Kevin] McIntyre's announcement that the Commission will undertake a generic proceeding to look broadly at our pipeline certificate policies," wrote LaFleur. "I believe this review should include both our needs determination and our environmental review of proposed projects. Today's order highlights the issue of how pipeline developers engage with landowners, which I believe should also be explored."
In a dissenting opinion, Glick raised two major issues with his colleagues' decision to advance the project.
First, Glick criticized FERC's acceptance of customer commitments from companies affiliated with the project's developers, saying those agreements "are not necessarily the result of an arms-length negotiation."
The project is being developed by PennEast Pipeline Co., a consortium that comprises six companies: UGI Corp., AGL Resources, New Jersey Resources, South Jersey Industries, PSEG Power and Spectra Energy Partners.
Glick noted that 75 percent of the PennEast project's subscribed capacity lies with affiliates of the developer. "By itself, the existence of precedent agreements that are in significant part between the pipeline developer and its affiliates is insufficient to carry the developer's burden to show that the pipeline is needed," Glick wrote.
Last year, a study by Oil Change International, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club made a case that such affiliate shipping contracts can significantly distort the picture of market need for a pipeline project (Energywire, Sept. 19, 2017).
Glick also took issue with the issuance by FERC of certificates with major conditions for construction that the developer has yet to meet, noting that the use of condemnation authority "comes with significant consequences for landowners whose properties lie in the path of the proposed pipeline."
"In my view, Congress did not intend for the Commission to issue certificates so that certificate holders may use eminent domain to acquire the information needed to determine whether the pipeline is in the public interest," he wrote.
Following Friday's announcement, the developers of PennEast issued an updated project timeline that anticipates starting construction this year and putting the pipeline into service in 2019. "The original project timeline allowed for many variables, though [it] did not anticipate the many months without a voting quorum at FERC," the company said.Spotlight on New Jersey
FERC's issuance of the pipeline permit puts a spotlight on New Jersey, where the PennEast project has already walked away from a partial application for a water quality permit before the state Department of Environmental Protection.
In June, NJDEP closed the project's file out after a 60-day window to respond to an information request timed out. The company said it would resubmit the application once it had FERC approval (Energywire, Sept. 22, 2017).
The project has also come under close scrutiny from the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, which earlier described the project as "unduly generous to PennEast and unfair to consumers."
PennEast will also require approval from the Delaware River Basin Commission, an interstate regulator made up of representatives appointed by the governors of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, along with representation from the Army Corps of Engineers.
The role of input from regulators and political leaders in New Jersey highlights changes in the state since Democrat Phil Murphy was sworn in as governor last week.
Murphy has a mixed record on the PennEast project: He spoke against it at least once during the campaign, saying, "I think I'm against it, period, full stop." But a spokesman later appeared to walk that committment back.
Derek Roseman, a spokesman for the Murphy transition team, declined to read into the then-governor-elect's comments on the project and on natural gas generally and said, "He's only said every project needs to be viewed and weighed on its own merits and within the context of an Energy Master Plan" (Energywire, Nov. 17, 2017).
Following Friday's announcement, the developers of PennEast said FERC's approval validates the need for the pipeline. "One preliminary estimate found that during a 10-day period alone, the PennEast pipeline would have saved the region more than $300 million if it had been in service in November as originally contemplated," the company said, adding that "even during non-peak periods, such as October, prices in New Jersey were triple those in Pennsylvania."
Accounting for delays to date, the company said it anticipates starting construction this year and putting the pipeline into service in 2019.
Opponents in New Jersey, meanwhile, blasted FERC's decision and geared up for the next round in the conflict. Taking after opposition campaigns in New York, they pledged to block it at every level.
"The federal review of PennEast was a complete sham," said Hopewell Township Mayor Kevin Kuchinski. "The fight to stop this unneeded pipeline is now on our turf, where New Jersey's strong authority to protect its residents and environment can be used to hold PennEast fully accountable to the law."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071525
-
For Oil and Gas, the Government Shutdown is a Near-Non-Event
Jan 22, 2018 | Forbes
By David Blackmon
Given that the nation's news media are focused about 23 out of every 24 hours each day on breathless reports about the "shutdown" of some small percentage of the federal government, some of you may be wondering how this "shutdown" is going to impact the oil and gas industry.
The short answer to that question is, "not much." A longer and more detailed answer follows.
Upstream operating companies are going to continue to drill and frac and produce oil and natural gas from their wells, just as if nothing has happened in the nation's capital. All of their people are going to keep having to show up for work on each and every business day. This will disappoint some of them, but most will be pretty happy about continuing to receive their paychecks.
The oil and natural gas from those hundreds of thousands of wells will continue to mostly flow into pipelines, although a small percentage of the oil will keep getting transported via thousands of trucks or rail cars. Yes, the railroads will keep running, and the nation's interstate highway system remains open, despite the catastrophic impressions you may be getting from the myriad sensational reports on the various cable news networks.
Pipeline companies will continue receiving and moving all the oil and gas that fuels the preponderance of our nation's economy, just as they do when 100% of the federal government is open.
LNG export facilities will continue liquefying some of that natural gas and putting it on ships, which will continue to export that LNG to international markets. The remainder of that natural gas will continue to be delivered to local distribution companies for home heating, power plants for the generation of electricity, and manufacturing facilities that use natural gas as a feedstock for the production of a vast array of products we all use in our everyday lives.
Most of that crude oil will continue to be taken by the nation's refineries and turned into the gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products that drive our country's transportation sector. A growing portion of it will continue to be loaded onto tanker ships and exported onto an increasingly competitive global market.
In other words, even though the oil and gas industry is heavily regulated by the federal government, it remains a private enterprise , and as such, its operations will hardly be impacted in the near term by this partial federal shutdown.
Now, if this shutdown goes on for a long period of time, then some impacts would show up, mainly in the area of permitting operations on federal and Indian lands, and in the federally-controlled waters off the country's various coasts. The workers at the Interior Department who control the issuance of permits to drill and conduct other operations in the various federal and Indian provinces are not considered to be "essential" employees, and will not be reporting for work today.
But even this impact is likely to be quite minimal. Looking back through history, the longest period of time any government shutdown has lasted was 32 days, from December 5, 1995 through January 6, 1996. None of the others have lasted more than 18 days, and the vast majority of the 18 previous shutdowns have lasted less than a week.
The issuing of drilling permits and other approvals by the federal government is already an exercise in often interminable delays. The current shutdown is likely to only add a handful of days to what is already a long waiting game. Even adding 32 days would not end up creating a significant impact on operators on federal and Indian lands.
The issuance of permits related to the nation's interstate oil and gas pipelines will also be impacted, given that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency that governs such permits, is not classified as an "essential" service. Again, just as with the Interior Department's permitting processes, the delays at FERC will equal the number of days the shutdown lasts. Given that the pipeline industry just ended a year during which FERC spent half the year without a quorum of appointed commissioners, a shutdown that will most likely last a handful of days pales in comparison.
For those worrying that the shutdown means that those bad ol' fossil fuel industries will be free to just pollute to their heart's content, well, no, that's not in the cards, either. The EPA was declared an "essential" service during the Clinton Administration, and thus, all of that agency's employees will still be reporting for work as normal.
So, at the end of the day, this partial government shutdown is very likely to show up on the oil and gas industry's books as a basic non-event. Now, if this shutdown were to set a new record for duration, that could change, and I'll come back and give you an update at that time. Somehow, I don't think that will become necessary. Just a hunch.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2018/01/22/for-oil-and-gas-the-government-shutdown-is-a-near-non-event/2/#36e490897e08
-
Zinke Probe Paused, Oil Leases Cease with Skeleton Crew
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
The shutdown of the federal government is complicating U.S. energy dominance, a Trump administration priority playing out across the nation's millions of acres of public lands.
Scores of nonessential federal employees are home today, while the country waits to see whether Congress can pass a budget that reinstates government operations. At the Interior Department, staffing is bare-bones at agencies that issue and manage permits for oil and gas drilling, collect revenues, and are gathering public comment on the administration's new five-year offshore drilling plan. It's nonexistent in some cases.
Hundreds of parks and national monuments do remain open to the public, a priority for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. During the last government shutdown in 2013, which lasted 16 days, closed and barricaded parks and monuments served as a powerful symbol of congressional dysfunction. It reflected most poorly on the Republican-led House of Representatives.
This time around, White House budget office spokesman John Czwartacki said the Trump administration would not play political football with national parks.
"There is no desire to weaponize closing of public parks or monuments for partisan, political reasons," he told The Washington Post.
So while many parks remain open — albeit often without access to bathrooms, concession stands or gift shops — a majority of the 70,000 employees of the Interior Department are not working.
That includes some federal workers who lead the charge on permitting both onshore and offshore oil and gas operations, a key component of Zinke and President Trump's pledge to "unlock energy dominance."
Of the Bureau of Land Management's 9,500 employees, just 670 can come to work today.
According to the agency's contingency plan, updated in September, 250 BLM employees will not be furloughed specifically to respond to emergencies and carry out inspections and enforcement actions for high-risk oil and gas and logging operations. This includes things like overseeing well plugging and shut-ins, as well as devoting some hands to "patrol oil and gas fields to make sure that theft of oil or condensate is not occurring."
Employees in the energy and minerals program in charge of issuing oil and gas drilling permits are not authorized to do so.
It's a different story at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which manages the development of offshore energy and mineral resources on the outer continental shelf.
According to the agency's contingency plan, 73 of its 584 employees would remain on tap, and the majority, 66, would be available on an "on-call basis" to assist with permitting oil and gas operations. The plan states BOEM will not process or review new development or exploration plans, but "will process and review certain revised plans if it is related to the ongoing permitting work performed by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement."
BOEM is slated to cancel public meetings on its proposed offshore drilling plan covering 2019-2024 if they coincide with the government's closure.
All work at Interior's oversight agency, the Office of Inspector General, would temporarily cease, according to the agency's contingency plan. Work would pause on current investigations into Zinke's travel and into whether the transfer of about 50 senior career staffers was politically motivated, for example.
It's not clear whether Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue is staffed this morning and collecting rent and royalties from oil, gas and other resources extraction on public lands. A request for comment went unanswered. Federal oil and gas royalties are the second largest source of income for the U.S. Treasury.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071503
-
Bank of America Sees Oil Demand Peak in 2030
Jan 22, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Alex Longley
Peak oil demand may be just 12 years away.
That's according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts including Peter Helles, who predict that 40 percent of all car sales will be electric vehicles by 2030, reducing the need for oil as a fuel for transport.
"Electric vehicles will likely start to erode this last major bastion of oil demand growth in the early 2020s and cause global oil demand to peak by 2030," the analysts wrote in an emailed report.
Despite strong global oil consumption helping to push crude prices higher, the rise of electric vehicles is seen as one of the biggest long-term threats to demand. Most oil companies see demand peaking around 2040, while Royal Dutch Shell Plc has said it expects to see demand peak in the early 2030s. Consultancy Wood Mackenzie said late last year that it expects oil demand growth to crawl, but not peak, by 2035, forcing major energy companies to shift from oil to natural gas and chemicals.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Bank-of-America-sees-oil-demand-peak-in-2030-12514932.php
-
Shutdown Scuttles Pruitt's Japan Trip
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The government shutdown thwarted Scott Pruitt's plans to travel to Japan this week.
Pruitt had been slated to leave for Japan on Saturday, but the trip was canceled at the last minute as Congress failed to agree Friday night to continue to fund the federal government, according to a U.S. EPA spokesman.
The international trip had not been formally announced by the agency, but Politico reported he had intended to travel to both Japan and Israel this week. The agency didn't offer details about what Pruitt would have been doing, but many expected him to promote U.S. energy interests, much like his trip to Morocco last month where he discussed exports of liquefied natural gas with Moroccan officials (Climatewire, Jan. 19).
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said over the weekend the administrator was no longer leaving for Asia.
"Our scheduled trip to Japan has been postponed and reports from Politico that we were traveling to Israel this month were always inaccurate. Every meeting Administrator Pruitt attends is available at www.epa.gov," Wilcox said in an email.
While EPA has begun publishing a schedule for the administrator online, meeting details are not available until after the fact.
Pruitt has been criticized by the left for advocating fossil fuels throughout his tenure as administrator. He has actively worked to slash regulations affecting the oil and gas and coal industries, specifically the Clean Power Plan and regulations on methane emissions. During numerous public appearances, he has stated that one of the best ways for the United States to address climate change globally is to promote the spread of technology like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
But in recent weeks, Pruitt has also taken on a more proactive role in promoting what the Trump administration has called "energy dominance" abroad.
A press release from EPA after Pruitt's trip to Morocco noted he was the first member of Trump's Cabinet to visit the country. He had met with Moroccan Minister of Energy, Mines and Sustainable Development Aziz Rabbah to discuss exporting LNG to the country.
Pruitt's conversations in Morocco weren't limited to energy issues. EPA also noted the administrator met with Moroccan Minister of Justice and Liberties Mohamed Aujjar. Their discussion "focused on the importance of adhering to the rule of law" and cooperation between the two nations.
"These meetings allowed us to directly convey our priorities and best practices with Moroccan leaders, as well as identify opportunities for continued cooperation, as our two countries further talks around the Environmental Work Plan," Pruitt said in a statement in December. "We are committed to working closely with countries like Morocco to enhance environmental stewardship around the world."
EPA's contingency plan for a shutdown states there will be no travel without appropriations or a continuing resolution. However, there are exceptions for "exempted activities" or when there are "carryover or other funds" to pay for the travel costs of exempted personnel.
Had Pruitt gone ahead with the trip to Japan, he would have been leaving the country just a week after the EPA Office of Inspector General said it would begin investigating the administrator's travel to Morocco, which reportedly cost taxpayers an estimated $40,000. The IG office is also investigating Pruitt for travel expenses related to frequent trips back to Oklahoma and $58,000 in charter and military flights (E&E Daily, Sept. 28, 2017).
The decision to cancel the trip came even as the administrator announced to staff on Friday afternoon the agency would remain open this week and that employees should report to work, as other federal offices shuttered.
"EPA has sufficient resources to remain open for a limited time during the shutdown," Pruitt announced on his official Twitter account Saturday. "Thanks to EPA staff for your hard work, dedication, and all you do for the American people."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071505
-
Birol Elected to 4-year Term at IEA
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Fatih Birol has been elected to another four-year term as executive director of the International Energy Agency, where he plans to shift the policy focus more toward low-carbon energy.
Birol was elected by IEA's governing board for a second term under a process initiated by member countries at their last ministerial meeting in November, according to a statement.
Fatih Birol International Energy Agency
Birol said he would oversee a "modernization" strategy for the Paris-based organization, including bringing in more emerging economies that are taking up a larger percentage of global energy use. Birol said he also planned to "look beyond oil" in terms of energy security and give more attention to natural gas and electricity. IEA also should be turned into a clean energy hub for energy efficiency and other resources, he said.
"The good news is that there is no contradiction between achieving climate goals, universal access and clean air quality," Birol wrote last week in a post of the World Economic Forum.
IEA is well known for producing reports on energy trends such as the annual World Energy Outlook and global fossil fuel exports. As the face of those reports and the agency's overall mission, Birol is a frequent commenter on energy shifts that are altering global markets and climate policy. In October, he warned that a slowdown in efficiency initiatives threatens to thwart reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, Oct. 5, 2017).
Formed in the 1970s, IEA initially was focused on analyzing and advising on oil supply but has shifted in the years since to also weigh environmental protection, energy security and economic development.
Birol first became IEA executive director in September 2015. He previously was the chief economist and director of global energy economics at the agency.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071573
-
Pipelines Urge FERC to Tread Lightly into Tax-Based Rate Cuts
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Saqib Rahim
The natural gas pipeline industry is pushing back against calls for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review shipping rates in the wake of the new tax law.
The law will lower the corporate tax rate from 34 percent to 21 percent. A coalition of consumer groups and state attorneys general has asked FERC to pass along some of the savings in lower rates, and FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre said Thursday the agency is considering it (Energywire, Jan. 19).
A handful of states, including Oklahoma and Kansas, are already moving to make sure that utility companies pass along some of their tax savings to customers. FERC sets the initial rates for interstate pipelines in much the same way as state regulators — it allows operators to recover their reasonable costs, including taxes, and a set amount of profit.
The pipeline companies, though, say the so-called recourse rates that FERC sets are often just a starting point. In many cases, gas shippers negotiate directly with the pipeline company to set their rates. In other cases, companies negotiate a discount to the recourse rates.
Kinder Morgan Inc., which ships about 38 percent of the gas in the U.S., said about 70 percent of its volume is transported under negotiated or discount rates. CEO Steve Kean said FERC should consider that before it imposes any rate changes.
"We do not believe that the FERC can or should isolate the tax law change for some separate immediate action," Kean said.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which represents long-haul pipeline operators, echoed those concerns.
"Tax expenses are but one of the many components considered in developing interstate pipeline rates, and how to handle the changes resulting from recently enacted tax legislation while ensuring that rates remain just and reasonable, as required by the Natural Gas Act, may differ based on the circumstances of each pipeline," INGAA President Don Santa said in a statement. "INGAA hopes the Commission moves carefully in considering how to address this very complex issue."
On the other side of the argument, big natural gas users are concerned that they could be overcharged. For instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has more than 11,000 megawatts of gas-fired generation in its fleet serving customers in seven states, joined a FERC proceeding meant to examine what pipelines should be allowed to charge to recover their income taxes.
There's some precedent for FERC pushing companies to pass along their tax savings. The commission told electric companies to voluntarily reduce their rates, or face involuntary rate investigations, in 1987 when income tax rates were lowered under the Reagan administration.
FERC exempted gas pipelines from its 1987 order, though, because most gas rates at that time were subject to periodic review anyway, according to a research note from the law firm Sidley Austin.
Earlier this month, FERC asked the operators of four gas pipelines that are in the process of setting their initial rates for more information on how the tax law would affect them. It's unclear, though, whether the commission will wind up taking broader action against the entire gas pipeline industry, the Sidley Austin note said.
"FERC may prefer a case-by-case review," the note said.
That could be a positive for Kinder Morgan, according to analysts as Raymond James & Associates Inc. They summed up the long-term impact of the tax law on pipeline rates as "not all bad and not all at once."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071521
-
EPA Seeks More Time on Texas Ozone Decision
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In twin legal filings, U.S. EPA officials are offering the same message to two different courts: They will make all past-due compliance decisions for the 2015 ground-level ozone standard by the end of April — with one big exception.
The agency needs until early August to finish up work on the "area attainment designations" for eight counties in the fast-growing San Antonio region, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum said in a Friday declaration with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Last fall, state officials backed off their original recommendation to deem the most heavily populated of those counties in nonattainment. EPA is now waiting for Texas regulators to release more data to support their contention that Bexar County — home to an estimated 1.9 million people — now warrants a designation of at least "unclassifiable/attainment," Wehrum wrote. The agency will then need months more to assess that information, give the state notice of its decision and allow for public comment, Wehrum wrote.
As a result, the earliest EPA "can feasibly complete" the designations for those eight counties, he said, is Aug. 10. The same declaration was also filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
EPA is facing legal challenges in both courts from coalitions of public health advocacy groups and Democratic-led states related to the agency's failure to make all attainment designations for the 70-parts-per-billion ground-level ozone standard by last October's statutory deadline.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems for people with cystic fibrosis and other chronic respiratory diseases.
The designations carry considerable practical weight because they start the clock for states to come up with cleanup plans for areas that are in violation of the standard. In a report last February, the San Antonio area council of governments predicted that a nonattainment designation could lead to at least $3.2 billion in long-term economic damage because of lost manufacturing projects and other factors.
In November, EPA had declared the bulk of the country effectively in attainment with the 70 ppb standard. But the agency punted decisions for hundreds of counties in Texas, California and other areas that could be in violation. While the agency recently set a goal of setting the remaining designations by April 30, the American Lung Association and other plaintiffs in the California suit asked U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam to make that timetable binding (Greenwire, Jan. 8). They also asked Gilliam to order the agency to make the overdue designations effective immediately.
For the last two rounds of ozone attainment decisions in 2004 and 2012, EPA allowed up to two months' lag time before those decisions became effective; in Friday's declaration, Wehrum argued that a similar delay is warranted for the 2015 standard, in part to allow affected parties "to prepare for compliance."
In the district court filing Friday, EPA did not dispute that it's tardy in making the remaining attainment designations. The status report submitted to the D.C. Circuit was a follow-up to one filed Jan. 12 after the court ordered EPA to lay out "with precision and specificity" its plans for finishing up those designations (Greenwire, Jan. 15).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071577
-
'We Can't Get to Zero.' Building Goals Flummox Regulators
Jan 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California is proposing to update its already strict building efficiency standards, but the ultimate goal of net-zero energy usage still eludes regulators.
The proposed standards, released Friday, cover all building projects, from home remodels to retail and office buildings. New homes would have to include enough solar panels to offset their electricity use, or else compensate by using extra-efficient materials.
The standards fall short of the state's goal, set in 2008, to achieve "zero net energy" for new and remodeled homes by 2020, with commercial buildings to follow by 2030. Regulators had trouble offsetting the use of natural gas for heating and cooking.
"As we're getting closer and closer, the buildings are so tight and so energy-efficient," said Payam Bozorgchami, the California Energy Commission civil engineer who served as technical lead on the standards. "We can't get to zero. How do you zero out gas?"
Instead, regulators have come up with a metric called "energy design rating" that scores buildings cumulatively against a benchmark rating. A building that forgoes solar, for example, can make up the difference by exceeding efficiency standards for lighting, appliances, insulation, heating or cooling.
As in previous versions, the standards vary according to geographic regions. The state is divided into 16 climate zones that have different preferred shades of window glazing, for example, depending on their sun exposure. The rules also put a varying value on electricity use depending on the time of day and season, known as "time-dependent valuation," that makes calculating zero net energy even more complicated.
Some homebuilders in California are already exceeding the new standards. But the rules will probably not help ease California's housing shortage, estimated at 1.2 million units (Climatewire, Nov. 21, 2017).
"We've made it part of our niche and who we are," said Brandon De Young, executive vice president at De Young Properties, which developed a 36-home neighborhood in the Central Valley town of Clovis last year that offsets all its electricity use with Tesla solar panels on each home. "For other builders, where you're trying to go price point and sell to first-time homebuyers, this is going to be a challenge and probably going to be multi-thousand dollars to add to your cost."
The standards are updated roughly every three years. Future versions should aim higher and may eventually try to eliminate the use of natural gas altogether, De Young said.
"My guess is what they'll try to do, three years, they'll try to go for the full zero-energy level even for mixed-fuel homes, and then go for electrification as the goal," he said.
The standards will be open for public comment for 45 days, followed by a revised version, which is scheduled to be approved in April. The standards would go into effect Jan. 1, 2020.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071529
-
Climate Change Causes Depression, Anxiety
Jan 22, 2018 | Reuters (In E&E Climatewire)
By Sebastien Malo
Climate change causes depression and anxiety in Americans concerned about the environment, according to new research on mental health.
Signs of depression do not appear in people concerned about climate change's effect on humanity but do appear in those worried about its effects on other species, plants and nature overall, the researchers said.
The hardest hit are women and people with low incomes, according to the study published in the journal Global Environmental Change. Symptoms include restless nights, lethargy and feelings of loneliness.
"Climate change is a persistent global stressor," said Sabrina Helm, lead author of the paper and professor of family and consumer sciences at the University of Arizona.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/22/stories/1060071495
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested