Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/26
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 People Who Shouldn’t Be in Charge of Protecting Us From Toxic Chemicals
Jan 26, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
You wouldn’t want an arsonist running the fire department. You wouldn’t hire a builder who’s never raised a hammer. But President Trump has put people in charge of protecting Americans from toxic chemicals who have either spent their careers working against stronger public health regulations, or who have no environmental qualifications or experience at all. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Leaders Nervous as NAFTA Talks Restart
Jan 26, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
As NAFTA negotiations opened Jan. 23 in Montreal, plastics industry officials were nervous that the Trump administration may exit the trade deal. -
Plastics Present 'Triple Threat' to Corals — Researcher
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Over 11 billion plastic items are covering corals across the ocean and increasing disease in the vulnerable species twentyfold, according to new research. -
Enviros Back Away From Remaining LNG Export Challenge
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists are stepping back from a legal challenge to liquefied natural gas exports. -
DOE’s Perry Says U.S. Shale No 'Spoiler' for Global Prices in 2018
Jan 26, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Energy Secretary Rick Perry told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he doesn't believe U.S. shale production will be a spoiler of global oil and natural gas prices in 2018, and he also is skeptical of projections that unconventional production is unsustainable long-term. -
Chemical Board Joins Probe of Deadly Okla. Rig Blast
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board will conduct a full investigation of the gas drilling explosion that killed five people this week in Oklahoma, widening the probes into one of the deadliest onshore incidents in the oil field. -
Appeals Court Weighs N.Y. v. FERC Challenge
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges this week waded into a critical battle involving state authority over natural gas pipelines. -
Murkowski Wants Some Alaska Waters Closed to Offshore Drilling
Jan 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) wants the Interior Department to remove some areas surrounding Alaska from consideration for offshore oil and natural gas drilling. -
Author Explores 'Shades of Gray' in Divisive Fracking Debate
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Daniel Raimi was nowhere near oil and gas country when hydraulic fracturing first piqued his interest. -
Emboldened Northam Asks Lawmakers to Support Carbon Cap
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is seeking legislative approval to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state cap-and-trade program. -
Trump to Talk About Paris Today
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
A White House official said President Trump is open to re-engaging in the Paris climate accord, during a press conference today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. -
Upton to Join Noah's Ark Caucus
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
Republican heavyweight Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan announced today that he is joining the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus with Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 People Who Shouldn’t Be in Charge of Protecting Us From Toxic Chemicals
Jan 26, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
You wouldn’t want an arsonist running the fire department. You wouldn’t hire a builder who’s never raised a hammer. But President Trump has put people in charge of protecting Americans from toxic chemicals who have either spent their careers working against stronger public health regulations, or who have no environmental qualifications or experience at all.
As Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt repeatedly sued the Environmental Protection Agency to block clean air rules. Now he’s running it. Pruitt’s top deputy for chemical safety, a former bigwig with the chemical industry’s powerful lobbying group, was called out by a House committee for her “very disturbing” attempts to undermine EPA science. And when Trump’s pick for White House environmental czar was the top environmental regulator in Texas, her commission falsified test data to bring small towns into “compliance” with federal drinking water safety standards – in fact, they were in violation.
Theirs aren’t the only faces in Trump’s gallery of regulatory rogues. One year into Trump’s war on public health, here’s a closer look.
Scott Pruitt, EPA Administrator
Pruitt has already proven to be the most hostile head of the EPA in its nearly 50-year history. Carol Browner, who ran the EPA during the Clinton administration, predicts it will take “20 to 30” years to rebuild the agency’s full capacity in the wake of Pruitt and Trump’s tenure.Pruitt reversed an expected ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which the agency’s own scientists found to cause brain damage in kids at even low levels of exposure.He scrapped the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to cap dangerous industrial smokestack pollution. It would have helped avoid at least 140,000 asthma attacks in children.He delayed a ban of methylene chloride, a lethal paint stripper chemical that can kill people on contact, and a ban of the cancer-causing industrial solvent TCE.He recently took steps toward lifting minimum age requirements to allow adolescent farmworkers to handle highly toxic pesticides.
Nancy Beck, Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Division
When she was appointed last spring, EWG called Beck “the scariest Trump appointee you’ve never heard of.” The National Academy of Sciences once called her proposed approach to chemical safety “fundamentally flawed.”As the top lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, Beck consistently fought for weaker chemical safety laws.Since her appointment, Beck has significantly weakened proposed rules to assess chemical safety in favor of the chemical industry.Also to favor industry interests, she has fundamentally changed the way the EPA approves new chemicals before they come on the market.
Kathleen Hartnett White, nominated to run the White House Council on Environmental Quality
During her Senate confirmation hearing, Hartnett White was unable to answer the most rudimentary questions around the science of climate change, despite years of speaking out as a skeptic. She thinks more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a good thing. When Hartnett White was the top environmental regulator in Texas, her commission falsified data showing that tens of thousands of people were drinking tap water with dangerous levels of radiation.In a news interview, she defended the decision to ignore the EPA’s radiation standards for drinking water, saying, “I believe local first, state second, federal government third.”In her confirmation process, Hartnett White likely plagiarized answers to written questions from members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Albert “Kell” Kelly, Senior Advisor in charge of EPA’s Superfund Task Force
Kelly, Pruitt’s friend and financial patron, is a former Oklahoma banker banned for life by federal regulators from working in the banking industry.He has zero experience in environmental remediation, science, law or policy.Pleadng a scheduling conflict, he ignored a request by Congress to testify on his role as head of the Superfund Task Force.
Dana Baiocco, Trump-appointed member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Before becoming a commissioner, Baiocco represented the tobacco and asbestos industries in court.Baiocco represented a number of companies, including Mattel and Yamaha, in multiple lawsuits over recalls and safety claims.
As far as we can tell, none of them has ever advocated on behalf of stronger public health or environmental laws. You could stand on a sidewalk in any city and have a good chance of finding people more qualified and committed to protecting Americans from toxic chemicals than these folks.
https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/5-people-who-shouldn-t-be-charge-protecting-us-toxic-chemicals#.WmtbHq6Wa6I
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Leaders Nervous as NAFTA Talks Restart
Jan 26, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
As NAFTA negotiations opened Jan. 23 in Montreal, plastics industry officials were nervous that the Trump administration may exit the trade deal.
The head of Dow Chemical Co.’s Washington office, for example, warned in an unusually direct tweet that while NAFTA needs to be updated, “withdrawing will have a large and harmful impact on the chemical, & therefore, manufacturing sector.”
Underscoring the delicate stakes, senior leaders of the plastics industry’s trade associations in Canada, Mexico and the United States all met in Montreal — the first time they have jointly attended a round of talks.
The Plastics Industry Association, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association and Mexico’s Asociacion Nacional de Industrias del Plastico A.C. made clear they believe uncertainty is hurting the industry.'Calm the market's nerves'
“A signal to the manufacturing community that progress is being made would calm the market’s nerves and give businesses the certainty they need to begin making new investments,” said Patty Long, executive vice president of the U.S. group, in a Jan. 25 statement.
The mood was not entirely gloom. The head of the American Chemistry Council, Cal Dooley, wrote Jan. 25 that he had significant concerns, but he also saw expressed hope that NAFTA could be modernized without being scrapped.
Industry groups have been pushing NAFTA “modernization,” by which they mean updating the language to cover topics that barely existed when it was signed in 1993, like e-commerce.
Dooley bluntly warned that leaving NAFTA would pose sizable risks to the shale-gas led boom in U.S. plastics and chemical exports.
“Withdrawing from NAFTA, and reintroducing tariffs into the North American supply chain, would erode U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and extinguish a renaissance that is expected to peak within the next decade,” he wrote in an essay published by ICIS News.
Dooley said higher tariffs would be a “significant hit” to operating margins.
“When the president talks about withdrawing from NAFTA, inserting highly controversial proposals or removing investor protections from a new agreement, he makes it difficult for his most steadfast supporters to back any reform effort,” Dooley said.Surviving a change
Some analysts say in the end, canceling NAFTA is a change the U.S. resin industry could probably handle without major harm.
Joel Morales, executive director polyolefins Americas with consulting firm IHS Markit, suggested at the recent Plastics in Automotive conference that renegotiating or scrapping NAFTA would not have a major impact on plastics materials.
Resin from the United States would still be exported, and new duties would not make a big difference, he said at the conference, sponsored by Plastics News and held Jan. 16 in Detroit.
Mexico and Canada are the largest export markets for the U.S. plastics industry, according to the Plastics Industry Association. And the current plastics trade balance favors the United States.
The U.S. had a $10.7 billion surplus in plastics with Mexico in 2016, its largest with any country, and a $719 million surplus with Canada, its fifth-largest.
The trade advantage for the United States with Mexico was across the board: all four major industry subcategories of resins, plastic products, molds and machinery had surpluses with Mexico. Resins lead with a $6 billion surplus.
For industry overall, outside of plastics, the United States has a trade deficit with Mexico. In 2016, it hit $63.2 billion.
But the very different picture within plastics led a prominent executive in Mexico’s industry to say that the U.S. polymers sector is more at risk than Mexico.
“Americans have a lot more to lose than us in the plastics industry,” said Angel Oria, director general of Mexico City-based resin distributor Polimero y Materias Primas Internacionales SA de CV. He’s also a former leader of Anipac.
Mexico sends more finished goods like automobiles north, but the U.S. has an advantage in plastics products because it supplies components needed for final assembly in Mexican factories, Oria said in a November interview.
U.S. government statistics show the plastics products segment had a $4 billion surplus with Mexico in 2016.
Oria said NAFTA helps North American manufacturing compete with other major regions, like East Asia or Europe.
The head of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association called on negotiators to send clear signals so companies can make investment decisions.
“Right now many businesses are waiting to see how the negotiations conclude before making new investments,” said Carol Hochu, president of the Mississauga, Ontario-based CPIA, in the Jan. 25 statement. “A show of progress would give them the green light to plan for future growth.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180126/NEWS/180129908/plastics-industry-leaders-nervous-as-nafta-talks-restart
-
Plastics Present 'Triple Threat' to Corals — Researcher
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Over 11 billion plastic items are covering corals across the ocean and increasing disease in the vulnerable species twentyfold, according to new research.
Coral species with a lot of spikes were more likely to snag the plastic, according to the study, which was published in the journal Science. Once plastic landed on coral, its likelihood of getting a disease went from 4 percent to 89 percent.
Plastics are a "triple threat," according to Drew Harvell, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University who worked on the study.
The plastic itself doesn't necessarily sicken the corals, the study said, but it could cause wounds that open them up to infections. The plastic also acts as a ride for bacterial pathogens to travel across the ocean.
The third threat, Harvell said, is the large pieces of plastic that cover corals and shade them from light, which can weaken their immune systems.
Corals face a long list of challenges, including increasing ocean temperatures.
Coral bleaching is relatively easy to study, Harvell said. "Much less well studied are the diseases that follow bleaching events," she added. Corals have a chance to come back after bleaching events, but diseases can kill the tissue inside corals.
Researchers looked at 124,000 reef-building corals across 159 reefs in the Asia-Pacific region. By 2025, they estimate that 15.7 billion pieces of plastic will cover Asia-Pacific reefs.
White plague recently infected over 20 species of coral on South Florida's reefs. Not much is known about the disease, which can kill a coral in as few as two weeks (Greenwire, Dec. 11, 2017).
"This new study should be a wake-up call to everyone who loves these reefs or earns their living from them in the fishing or dive tourism industries in Florida," said Chris Bergh, the Nature Conservancy's South Florida program manager. He added that scientists routinely see plastics and other debris on Florida's reefs.
"Plastic in the ocean isn't just unsightly, it is now proven to contribute to the rapid decline of one of our most unique and economically valuable natural resources, the Florida Reef Tract," Bergh said.
The path forward is clear to Harvell.
"There is a lot more research that can be done, but frankly, I'd rather just see us deal with the problem," she said. Implementing waste management systems, coming up with innovative biodegradable plastics and restricting plastic use would be some of the first steps.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072109
-
Enviros Back Away From Remaining LNG Export Challenge
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists are stepping back from a legal challenge to liquefied natural gas exports.
The Sierra Club this week moved for voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit opposing LNG exports from the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana. The suit was the last in a series of five LNG export challenges filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2015 and 2016.
The D.C. Circuit tossed the other four lawsuits last year, rejecting the Sierra Club's claims that the Department of Energy had not properly considered the environmental and climate impacts of increased gas exports. Those cases dealt with proposals to ship LNG from Freeport, Texas; Cove Point, Md.; Sabine Pass, La.; and Corpus Christi, Texas.
The remaining lawsuit targeted a separate export approval for Sabine Pass in Louisiana. The Sierra Club has acknowledged that the issues in the case largely mirror those rejected by the D.C. Circuit last year.
Sierra Club attorneys filed a notice Wednesday night asking the court to dismiss the challenge. Oral arguments had been scheduled for Feb. 12 before Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Clinton appointee; Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee; and Judge Greg Katsas, President Trump’s first and only nominee so far to the D.C. Circuit.
But the environmental group and other opponents of LNG exports are continuing their fight in other venues. The Sierra Club is one of many groups opposing the construction of an export facility in Coos Bay, Ore.
They're also in the early stages of opposition to a project in Brownsville, Texas, and have recently submitted comments to DOE urging the agency to take a closer look at cumulative climate and economic impacts from exports (Energywire, Nov. 2, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072001
-
DOE’s Perry Says U.S. Shale No 'Spoiler' for Global Prices in 2018
Jan 26, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Energy Secretary Rick Perry told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he doesn't believe U.S. shale production will be a spoiler of global oil and natural gas prices in 2018, and he also is skeptical of projections that unconventional production is unsustainable long-term.
Speaking at an energy panel with his counterparts from India, Russia and Saudi Arabia, Perry indicated during the global forum that he didn't necessarily take as gospel projections released Wednesday by the International Energy Agency (IEA) that show U.S. production could increase to about 10.5 million b/d from 9.8 million b/d. The IEA forecast U.S. oil production in 2018 islikely to exceed 10 million b/d, surpassing output from Saudi Arabia and rivaling that of Russia.
"I would like to stand here and tell you that the numbers are absolutely correct," Perry said Wednesday. But he said CEO Harold Hamm of Continental Resources Inc., who helped provide energy advice during the Trump transition last year, “might say 'Well, you might want to take another look at those.'"
Perry told the audience he did not think domestic shale production “is going to be a spoiler, partly because there are a lot of reforms going on in the world. Those reforms have the potential to really drive consumption and innovation." He cited reforms in Saudi Arabia, Mexico and India.
Perry also dismissed suggestions that U.S. production would reach 14 million b/d by 2021, but begin to decline by around 2024, ostensibly because the United States wouldn't be able to maintain that level of production.
"We shouldn't buy into these terrible numbers that say in 2024-2025 we're going to run out of oil," Perry said. He noted there is "technology that we may see" in the future to keep domestic production robust. Rather, the "great and good story" emerging is that the world's fossil fuel producers are giving "opportunity to the world, particularly in some of the countries that haven't had the opportunity to grow on the manufacturing side.
"I know it's interesting for us to sit here and speculate what the price of oil is going to be or what the volumes are going to be...But I think it's so important for the global community to understand that the fossil fuel producers [are] making available a better quality of life and opportunities. We're blessed to be in countries with a pretty substantial ability to deliver to the people of the globe a better quality of life through those fossil fuels."
When pressed if he was concerned that U.S. producers were not disciplined, and that production would in turn suffer, Perry said simply "no."
"I think that the market has the ability to respond to this. And I think when we have a bit of a surplus...that's good for the globe."
U.S. 'Exporting Freedom'
Earlier Wednesday, during an interview with the Fox Business Network, Perry said the United States "is not just exporting energy, we're exporting freedom. We're exporting to our allies in Europe the opportunity to truly have a choice of where [they] buy [their] energy from," Perry said. "That's freedom. And that kind of freedom is priceless."
When asked to characterize the significance of U.S. energy supplies coming to Europe, Perry called the continent's shift in energy supply and control the most "dynamic" event since the end of World War II.
"The United States isn't about controlling a country with this energy," Perry said. "It's about literally freeing up our allies around the world, letting them know that we're going to be there for them. There's no strings attached when you buy American [liquefied natural gas]. So that's world-changing."
Although he declined to comment on the amount of energy supplies coming from the United States, the Energy Secretary said "my job is to make sure that it's an abundant supply, and I want to get people together so that they know that America is going to be a reliant supplier of that energy. The price will work itself out."
Perry also touched on a couple of energy sector controversies to erupt this month, including the Department of Interior's (DOI) decision to drop Florida from a draft proposal to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. Earlier this month the Trump administration also slapped a four-year tariff on imported solar cells and modules.
"I think the administration, through the DOI, is sensitive to the issues there," Perry said of offshore drilling in Florida. "There's plenty of space” to drill, he said, whether it’s in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or elsewhere…”[W]e can develop the energy resource that we have. The people of Florida said, 'Hey listen, we don't want to add any new drilling platforms.' The administration respected that."
On the possibility of the solar tariff triggering a trade war, especially with China, he said, "you shouldn't be worrying about this administration from the standpoint of transparency and fairness. That's what Donald Trump is all about. You want to compete against the United States? Bring it. But don't subsidize in a way that is unfair. Don't get into the market and try to gobble up all of the market, and then all of a sudden, after you've choked everybody else out of the market, guess what? Prices go up."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113169-does-perry-says-us-shale-no-spoiler-for-global-prices-in-2018
-
Chemical Board Joins Probe of Deadly Okla. Rig Blast
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board will conduct a full investigation of the gas drilling explosion that killed five people this week in Oklahoma, widening the probes into one of the deadliest onshore incidents in the oil field.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission have already started their own inquiries into the explosion. Investigators from the CSB arrived Wednesday and will meet with the leaseholder of the well and the drilling contractor, the board said in a statement yesterday.
The well, about 100 miles southeast of Tulsa near Quinton, is owned by Red Mountain Energy LLC of Oklahoma City. The rig, owned by Patterson-UTI Energy, had been drilling for about 10 days when it caught fire and exploded at about 8:45 a.m. Monday.
The fire burned until late Monday afternoon, and the site was too dangerous for investigators to enter until midday Tuesday. All five of the crew who died were found in the remains of the rig's doghouse, or control room (Energywire, Jan. 24).
Based on a log of workers at the site, Pittsburg County authorities identified the men as Josh Ray, 35, of Fort Worth, Texas; Matt Smith, 29, of McAlester, Okla.; Cody Risk, 26, of Wellington, Colo.; Parker Waldridge, 60, of Crescent, Okla.; and Roger Cunningham, 55, of Seminole, Okla. The state medical examiner's office asked their families for dental records to confirm their identities.
Patterson-UTI, which has a history of drilling accidents and government fines, said in a statement yesterday it is cooperating with all the investigating agencies. Three of the dead workers were Patterson employees.
"We, above all parties, want to determine the cause, learn from it and help prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again," the statement said.
It was the worst U.S. drilling accident since 2010, when BP PLC's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, killing 11 people.
The CSB's investigation could provide a clearer picture of the explosion's causes. It operates like the National Transportation Safety Board, with wide-ranging authority to interview people and examine evidence. It can make recommendations to regulatory agencies, but it doesn't impose fines or conduct any enforcement.
OSHA can impose fines, but its jurisdiction is limited to workplace safety violations. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission can impose penalties, too, but its authority is limited to violations of state rules that require companies to prevent pollution and maintain control of wells.
The CSB issued a series of reports after the 2010 Gulf of Mexico explosion. Over the years, it has pressed OSHA and other agencies to take a more systematic approach to regulating safety in the oil field (Energywire, Jan. 12, 2015).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072027
-
Appeals Court Weighs N.Y. v. FERC Challenge
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges this week waded into a critical battle involving state authority over natural gas pipelines.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a high-stakes case pitting New York regulators against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The question: Did FERC go too far when it overruled New York's denial of permits for a Millennium Pipeline Co. project?
Immediately at stake is the fate of the 8-mile Valley Lateral pipeline designed to feed a new power plant in the Empire State. The case has broader implications for the relationship between FERC and states applying closer scrutiny to pipeline applications.
A three-judge panel grilled both sides during Wednesday's hearing in New York, probing the language and intent of a statutory provision that allows FERC to declare that a state has "waived" its opportunity to review a project application if it takes longer than a year to issue a decision.
FERC took that rare step last year, reversing the New York Department of Environmental Conservation after determining that the agency had waited too long before ultimately denying a water permit for Valley Lateral. The state and the feds disagree over when the one-year clock for Millennium's application began: FERC says it began when regulators received the application; New York says it began later, when the application was deemed complete (Energywire, Sept. 18, 2017).
Frederick Brodie from the New York State Office of the Attorney General argued this week that FERC's approach would undermine the state decisionmaking process.
"FERC's interpretation would allow applicants to game the system by submitting a fragmentary application to start the clock and then sandbagging DEC with a large supplement later in the process," he said. "Under FERC's interpretation, the clock starts running if you simply text a blank application form with a project's name on it. That cannot be the law."
Judge Susan Carney, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of that claim.
"I'm having trouble understanding some of those calamities," she said, noting that the state Department of Environmental Conservation could simply deny such applications.
Hogan Lovells attorney Cate Stetson, representing Millennium, argued that pipeline applicants have "precisely zero incentive to game the system" because they know that attempting to withhold relevant information until the last minute would result in permit denial.
"And a pipeline applicant, I would venture, would have a steep uphill battle convincing this court or any court that that decision was somehow an abuse of the DEC's discretion," she said. "The gamesmanship, to the extent there was unfortunately in this case, occurred with the way that the DEC went about treating the application."
Debra Ann Livingston, a George W. Bush appointee, raised similar concerns, questioning whether New York's interpretation would, in fact, allow the state to disrupt the regulatory process by "indefinitely" delaying projects by deeming their applications incomplete.
FERC Solicitor Robert Solomon argued that part of the purpose of the "waiver" provision of the Clean Water Act is to avoid indefinite delays for permit applications, and it's FERC's job to make sure the law is carried out.
Carney pushed back on that statement, noting that another purpose of the law is to ensure meaningful state participation.
Judge José Alberto Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, also sat on the 2nd Circuit panel. The court is expected to rule within the next couple of months. If New York wins, a separate legal battle over the merits of the state's permit analysis will move forward in the same appeals court.
In the meantime, pipeline construction is moving forward. Recent regulatory filings indicate that tree clearing along the route is mostly complete, and workers will soon begin laying the pipeline.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072039
-
Murkowski Wants Some Alaska Waters Closed to Offshore Drilling
Jan 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) wants the Interior Department to remove some areas surrounding Alaska from consideration for offshore oil and natural gas drilling.
Murkowski told Reuters that she and other state leaders are excited at the prospect of drilling in the Arctic Ocean and more drilling in the Cook Inlet.
But some other areas, like the Kawerak region in the Bering Straits, should be off-limits for environmental reasons, she said.
“There are certain areas that we feel are not opportune for leasing and for development," Murkowski, who chairs the Senate committee that oversees Interior, told Reuters. “Let’s focus on where the opportunity is good and there is interest and defined resource with limited obstacles.”
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke unveiled a plan early this month under which nearly all waters around Alaska, save for the ecologically critical Bristol Bay, would be considered for drilling. The plan also included all of the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Zinke has pledged to take seriously concerns of governors, congressional delegations, coastal communities and others in formulating and finalizing the plan.
Days after he unveiled the plan, he took Florida’s waters out of consideration due to objections by Gov. Rick Scott (R). But despite objections from other states’ leaders, he has not committed to removing any other areas.
Murkowski said Zinke will likely heed concerns from Alaska and elsewhere.
“He will take things off just as he took Florida off and as he will be taking other matters off as the process moves forward,” she said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370858-murkowski-wants-some-alaska-waters-closed-to-offshore-drilling
-
Author Explores 'Shades of Gray' in Divisive Fracking Debate
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Daniel Raimi was nowhere near oil and gas country when hydraulic fracturing first piqued his interest.
It was 2011, and he was a graduate student in North Carolina, helping regulators assess the state's natural gas potential. The fracking boom had taken hold in other parts of the country, and the Tar Heel State didn't want to miss out.
It turned out North Carolina didn't have much natural gas to speak of, but Raimi was hooked on the topic. He found himself frequently fielding questions from friends and family members seeking to understand the basics of fracking and the broader shale gas boom: Does fracking contaminate water? Will fracking make me sick? Is fracking good or bad for climate change?
Raimi uses his new book, "The Fracking Debate," to tackle those questions by sorting through research, talking to experts and visiting communities affected most by the spread of the oil and gas extraction technique.
"A few days of driving through oil and gas country, coupled with conversations across a bar stool, can teach you as much as dozens of journal articles and research reports," he writes in the book, part of a series from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
For each question, the author — now a lecturer at the University of Michigan and a fellow at the Washington, D.C., think tank Resources for the Future — explores benefits and damage associated with fracking and highlights nagging uncertainties that stand in the way of clear answers to some questions.
Raimi discussed his book with E&E News this week.
What do you hope are readers' biggest takeaways from your book?
My hope is that for people who are new to the subject, that they will understand the complexities and understand that there are real benefits and there are real risks associated with shale development. For people who are already knowledgeable about the topic, many of them have staked out strong positions on one end or the other. There are a lot of people who are vehemently pro-fracking and a lot of people who are vehemently anti-fracking. Many of those on the extremes don't like to listen to the other side of the argument, and so my hope for people on both sides of the extremes is that they will take from the book reasons to at least understand the other side of the arguments.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I do think people in such a polarized topic, I think it's valuable to have a resource that lays out the evidence in a way that doesn't have an agenda. When you do that, it gets very hard to be black and white about this particular topic, and I think if the book has any goal, it's to help people see the shades of gray on all of these important questions.
Have you gotten much feedback yet from people who seem to be on the extremes of the debate?
I haven't gotten much. I haven't seen any reviews or heard directly from any of the very anti-fracking organizations, nonprofits. I also haven't heard directly from any of the industry communications groups. I'd be very interested in their reaction.
You outline two definitions of fracking in the book. Can you break those down in a nutshell?
Sure, I'll try to do it in a nutshell — it can be hard. So the word "fracking" is often used by different people in different ways for different purposes. For people who are opposed to shale development, they will use the word fracking to encompass the entire industry. So they will talk about fracking pipelines or fracking wells or fracking gas plants. And I think that's a messaging strategy that takes advantage of the fact that the word fracking is not an appealing-sounding word. It's a very evocative word that sounds like a profane word and has allowed them to make a lot of puns and write headlines in a very attention-grabbing way that puts shale development in a negative light because of the negative nature of the word. And so even though hydraulic fracturing is just one step of many that is required to develop an oil and gas well, anti-fracking groups have used the word fracking as often as possible.
On the other side of the debate, the pro-industry side, when industry groups or industry advocates are talking about the risks of shale development, any type of risk, they are typically much more careful in their terminology. So they use terms like fracking or hydraulic fracturing to mean only the process of hydraulically fracturing a well, which is that discrete process. So if there is stray gas contamination because of improper well casing or cementing, which has happened hundreds of times in Pennsylvania alone, the industry will correctly point out that hydraulic fracturing is not the direct cause of that contamination. So that's part of it.
But things get much more confusing when the industry talks about the benefits of the shale revolution. When they talk about the risks, they use hydraulic fracturing or the word fracking very carefully; when they talk about the benefits, suddenly the definition of fracking starts to balloon, and they will talk about how fracking has created this many jobs, or fracking has reduced U.S. oil imports by a certain amount. So, for people who are not experts on this topic, it can be really confusing what the word fracking itself even means.
What was your favorite place to visit during all of your research over the years?
I had a lot of really fascinating experiences. I went to 21 different regions across 16 states, many of them multiple times. One of my favorite places was going to Beaumont, Texas, and going to [the oil field] Spindletop and going to the museum there, learning about the early boomtowns in east Texas. I also had a great time — the hotel in Williston, N.D., where I always stayed, they had a blackjack table at the bar and karaoke every night, so I had fun doing karaoke. I'm not much of a gambler.
I also love West Texas. I went to Balmorhea State Park and went swimming there. I played music with people in West Texas, and I ate wonderful barbecue, so West Texas probably is No. 1.
Do you have a position on the types of regulations or policies states and the federal government should have for fracking?
It depends on each discrete regulation. For certain regulations, I think there are some approaches that are better and others that are not as good.
One policy that I think is important: So most oil and gas regulations are developed and implemented at the state level, and that's where most of the fracking debate takes place. But if you zoom out to the national level and you think about the climate implications of shale development, which are substantial, I think most researchers who have worked on this issue would agree that pricing greenhouse gas emissions with a steadily rising price either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system would be very beneficial for climate change long term. And I think that low-cost natural gas actually makes it easier to do that in the long term because it provides a low-cost alternative to coal. And I think a federal policy on pricing greenhouse gas emissions would be the right way to go. Whether or not we are going to get there anytime soon is another question.
Do you think the industry has a PR problem? Is a social license something that really matters, and if so, is the industry doing enough to secure that for the future?
That's a tough question. Because the industry is diverse in terms of its operations, its messaging, its culture — different companies have different cultures, they have different priorities, they have different interests. Some of them operate at a global level; some of them operate at a very local level. So I think it can be difficult for the industry to speak with one voice because it's large and it's diverse. But I think some of the communications groups that the industry supports, and I talk about this in the book, they're not always upfront about the risks of oil and gas development, and they often, whenever any study comes out that focuses on the risks of shale development, they try to take that study down. And I don't think that's helpful for the debate. Maybe it's in their short-term interest to do that, but I don't think it's in anyone's long-term interest to ignore the real risks that are out there.
Many anti-fracking activists have in recent years turned their attention to oil and gas pipelines. Are there lessons environmentalists, industry and regulators can draw from the fracking debate that can be applied to these new iterations of that?
I think the principles of the fracking debate as I outline it in the book is that people cast it in the black-and-white light. And when an issue gets black and white and it gets really polarized, it can be hard to make constructive decisions, and you end up with all or nothing in terms of public messaging campaigns, and I think that's detrimental to making good policy. So I think a lesson you can take from the debate over fracking is that when you're trying to make good policy, you have to acknowledge the gray areas and try to understand them better instead of try to paper over them. That would apply to climate, that would apply to pipelines, that would apply to any important piece of the energy system.
Are you tired of talking about fracking? What issues are you focusing on now?
I'm tired of hearing myself talk. It doesn't come that naturally to me. I still find the oil and gas industry is a fascinating and rapidly changing industry, and its impacts in the United States, in the communities I visited, are not going away anytime soon — the positive and the negative. I'm still very interested in shale development and the debate over fracking. I know it's not quite as prominent a topic as it was a few years ago, but the issues are still just as important and just as complex and just as fascinating to me personally.
There are a few projects that we're cooking up at Resources for the Future where we're trying to develop better ways of sharing good information on oil and gas issues. I'm also working up a project on the local impacts of wind development, again just trying to understand how the growth of that is affecting communities for better or for worse. I would love to have a good understanding of local effects of all types of energy development, not just oil and gas, because the energy system is incredibly important, and as it changes over the coming decades, it's going to have huge implications for communities, and I'd like to help develop policy so that those impacts are as positive as they can be.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072029
-
Emboldened Northam Asks Lawmakers to Support Carbon Cap
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is seeking legislative approval to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state cap-and-trade program.
Such a plan would have been doomed to fail only months ago. With little prospect of getting past Virginia's Republican-dominated General Assembly, Northam's predecessor and political patron, Terry McAuliffe, proposed joining the compact via executive order.
But a decisive Democratic victory in November changed the political calculus in Richmond. Democrats won 15 House seats, reducing the Republican majority in the lower chamber from 29 seats to 1.
The shift has emboldened Northam. In an address to lawmakers earlier this month, he spoke about the dangers posed by climate change to Virginia and offered RGGI as a potential solution.
"As a native of the Eastern Shore, a scientist and a resident of Hampton Roads, I can tell you personally that, no matter what politicians in Washington say, climate change is real. Sea levels are rising. It affects us every day," Northam said. "For anyone who has trouble believing that, come visit Tangier Island with me sometime and meet the people whose way of life is already being altered by this global crisis."
Putting the question to the Legislature comes with potential benefits and risks. Proponents of the plan say it will allow the state Legislature to have a say in how the money generated by RGGI's auctions are allocated. Under the executive action approach, the State Corporation Commission would direct utilities on how to spend the money.
A bill calling for Virginia to join RGGI seeks to use 35 percent of the revenue on climate resilience measures, 30 percent on energy efficiency, 20 percent on renewable energy and 10 percent for coal communities in southwest Virginia.
An even bigger selling point for passing legislation includes the promise that a future governor would be hard pressed to withdraw from the carbon program.
"I think the governor very much wants to make this a partnership with the General Assembly," said Del. David Bulova, a Democrat who co-sponsored the bill. "He's clearly committed to reducing carbon emissions. The other element of this is making this work for the whole state."
The proposal comes at a time of great change in Virginia's energy sector. Dominion Energy Inc., the largest utility in the commonwealth and a major political power in Richmond, recently announced it was placing nine old fossil fuel units on reserve status. That includes four coal units and four more that were converted from gas to coal. The move coincides with a wider shift away from coal to natural gas in Virginia.
RGGI membership isn't the most ambitious energy bill in Richmond this year. That would be a bill to undo a five-year rate freeze for Dominion. The freeze was passed on the premise that the Clean Power Plan, former President Obama's plan to cap carbon emissions from power plants, would drive up energy costs.
Now, with President Trump rolling back the federal rule, Virginia lawmakers and Dominion are calling to end the freeze. The debate largely lies in how much power to give state regulators when they revisit the power company's rates.
Stephen Haner, a longtime Richmond lobbyist who has represented large industrial consumers, reckons RGGI will become a bargaining chip in the larger debate over state regulators' authority to set Dominion's rates.
"With the governor's support and the change in the House, its prospects are improved," Haner said. "There are still some legislators who are very opposed to that [RGGI] and skeptical that they are going to raise prices."
The RGGI bill still faces an uphill climb. While Republicans have a one-seat majority in both the Senate and House of Delegates, they boast a two-seat majority on most committees and subcommittees. The GOP has been historically hostile to the idea of capping carbon in Virginia. One Republican delegate who made several proposals to tackle carbon emission was defeated in the Democratic wave in November.
Dominion, for its part, has been coy on the subject.
"While our work to lower emissions is on-going, we are in the process of evaluating Virginia's proposal to determine the full costs and benefits to Virginia residents," the company said in a statement. "We expect to fully meet whatever regulatory requirements that result."
The bill's proponents are still optimistic. The House bill has a Republican co-sponsor in Del. Gordon Helsel, who represents a low-lying area around Hampton Roads.
RGGI boosters also have considerable leverage. Northam has promised to proceed with McAuliffe's executive order regardless of what the Legislature decides.
State Sen. Lynwood Lewis, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill, likes to remind skeptical colleagues of that fact.
"Why would we not want a say for where the revenue goes?" he said.
Whether that wins over any of his Republican colleagues will determine the success of Northam's legislative gambit.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072011
-
Trump to Talk About Paris Today
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
A White House official said President Trump is open to re-engaging in the Paris climate accord, during a press conference today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
"It's something that he's still open to," a senior administration official said. "Again, the same point I would make about this I already made about the [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal]: He's open to rejoining, if the terms are different and if the terms are better for the United States."
The United States hasn't officially left the Paris Agreement — it can't until November 2020 — but Trump has signaled his intent to do so. Trump has sought better terms for the United States, though his administration hasn't provided any details.
Trump's position on the global climate deal has made him and the United States international outliers, and he's expected to receive pressure from business and world leaders at the World Economic Forum. If the United States leaves the Paris Agreement, it would be the only party to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that is not part of the accord.
The senior administration official said Trump will discuss the U.S. action on Paris in a scheduled interview with Piers Morgan on CNN International.
"His objection to the Paris Agreement was not in any way related to its goals of environmental protection; it was the way that it enacted environmental restrictions and the way that it restricted the U.S. economy vis-à-vis other countries," the official said. "And if that can be fixed, he said six months ago, he's open to rejoining, or to joining a new agreement."
The Trump administration has downplayed the effects of humans on climate change, and the president has made comments skeptical of mainstream climate science. At the same time, Trump's administration has pursued an agenda of "energy dominance" that seeks to wield fossil fuels as an economic and geopolitical tool.
In a meeting with Swiss President Alain Berset today, Trump ticked off one of his administration's early accomplishments on energy. He noted that the tax overhaul Congress passed late last year included a provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. The Alaska wilderness area is thought to contain a gusher of oil, but drilling had been prevented there for decades over environmental concerns.
While it's not clear oil companies will rush to the area, given the potentially high economic and legal costs of operating in ANWR, Trump told Berset that the refuge has "tremendous potential."
"We've been trying to get ANWR approved since prior to President Reagan," Trump said, according to a pool report.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072053
-
Upton to Join Noah's Ark Caucus
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
Republican heavyweight Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan announced today that he is joining the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus with Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
"When it comes to climate change we must take an economically realistic and pragmatic approach," Upton said in a statement. "Joining the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus is a tremendous opportunity to work across the aisle towards those goals."
Axios first reported that Upton would join the group, which is dedicated to finding market-based solutions to address global warming. The so-called Noah's Ark group, which adds Republicans and Democrats in pairs, has increased its head count dramatically since its inauguration in 2016. It now has 68 members.
Upton has served in Congress for more than 30 years and chairs the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy after reaching his term limit as full committee chairman.
Upton said he believes in pursuing an "all of the above" energy strategy that preserves the environment and the Great Lakes and keeps energy prices low.
He did not, however, mention potential market-based solutions to warming, such as a carbon tax, but instead promoted the measures his panel has been pursuing.
"We've also been doing solid work at the Energy and Commerce Committee," he said. "We've taken legislative action to lower emissions, keep electricity and energy prices low, and supported renewable hydropower and natural gas projects. We must continue to promote climate strategies that champion conservation, innovation, and competition."
Citizens' Climate Lobby, which worked to establish the caucus, said Upton's presence could serve to encourage other Republicans.
"Upton is one of the most senior Republicans in the House," said Steve Valk, CCL's communications director. "He's one of these guys that if he comes along on a particular policy, that's kind of a green light for other Republicans."
Schakowsky took a more aggressive stance, one in line with the views of most Democrats on the committee. "Climate change is a real and growing threat," she said.
"Around the country and across the globe, communities have already started to feel the ravaging effects of an increasingly more extreme climate," she said in a statement. "The United States has a duty to face this problem head-on, taking bold action to combat what I see as one of the most crucial issues of our time."
The caucus has served mostly as an educational forum, with limited legislative victories, such as forming a voting bloc to strip an anti-climate-science provision from a defense spending bill.
The lack of action has earned members scorn, with environmentalists charging that the group serves as mere political cover for vulnerable Republicans.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), caucus co-chairman, has said he is unwilling to push his members beyond what they are comfortable. Still, he said the caucus will move more toward presenting concrete policy solutions to warming.
The group is set to lose some Republicans in the new Congress. Most recently, Rep. Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania said he would not seek re-election after facing sexual harassment accusations.
He was one of only eight House Republicans to come out against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to help pay for the tax overhaul Congress passed late last year (E&E Daily, Jan. 26).
California Republicans Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa also announced retirement plans earlier this month.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/26/stories/1060072097
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested