Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 11
-
7 Ways States are Tackling Toxics in 2015
Feb 10, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
Federal reform of our broken national toxics law may be decades overdue, but our friends at Safer States say at least 28 states will propose policies in the next year to reduce exposures to untested and toxic chemicals in consumer products. Do you live in one of these states? Want to help be a part of the action? -
EU Commission Delays REACH CMR Review
Feb 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
An EU Commission review on whether to extend the obligation to perform a chemical safety assessment (CSA) on carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMR) classed substances has been delayed. The review should focus on CMR substances manufactured or imported in quantities of less than ten tonnes per year. -
EU Commission Consults on Authorisation Simplification Proposal
Feb 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the simplification of the REACH authorisation procedure for Annex XIV substances, used in low volumes (CW 2 December 2014) and in legacy spare parts (CW 5 January 2015). -
Markey Named Superfund Panel's Ranking Democrat
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was named the ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee overseeing the Superfund program Feb. 10. In a statement, Markey said he would use his new position on the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight... -
Moure-Eraso Confirms Exit From CSB In June at End of Term as Chairman
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Rafael Moure-Eraso, the chairman of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board who led the agency amid years of turmoil and survived a Republican campaign seeking his ouster, acknowledged Feb. 5 that he will step down at the end of his term in June and not seek reappointment. -
Texas Company Announces Plans for First High-Level Storage Site
Feb 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
Last week, Waste Control Specialists filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit a license application for the country's first interim storage site for high-level nuclear waste by April 2016. During today's OnPoint, Rod Baltzer, president of Waste Control Specialists... -
Union Reps Storm Congress To Defend Their Agency
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA union representatives are warning lawmakers this week that attacks from Capitol Hill are hurting their agency. Representatives from EPA's Chicago-based Region 5 office are meeting with lawmakers and their staffs in at least 13 congressional offices this week to try to convince... -
Industry-Backed Poll Shows Public Support for Increased Trade
Feb 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nick Juliano
An industry coalition working to eliminate the four-decade-old prohibition on exporting U.S. crude oil today released a poll showing public support for liberalizing trade in the commodity, which respondents believe would benefit the economy and cause fuel prices to fall. -
Offshore Drilling Benefits
Feb 11, 2015 | The New York Times - Op-Ed
By Erik Milito
Re “Don’t Drill Along the East Coast,” by Martin O’Malley (Op-Ed, Feb. 2): We’re the only developed nation in the world that keeps 87 percent of its offshore energy resources off-limits. Holding just one Atlantic lease sale is a start, but does not go nearly far enough to allow the United States ... -
Studies Provide Insight on Two Overlooked Segments of Oil and Gas Industry
Feb 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Peter Zalzal
Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment... -
New York State Decides to Ban Hydraulic Fracturing
Feb 11, 2015 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Paula Dittrick
New York state officials planned in 2015 to officially ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which would end a temporary moratorium that has existed in the state for years pending studies on the possible health consequences of fracturing in the Marcellus shale. -
Maryland Moves Forward on Fracturing Regulations
Feb 10, 2015 | Oil & Gas Journal
Maryland state officials planned to draft regulations that would allow hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus shale in West Maryland provided that natural gas producers abide by certain stipulations limiting the risks of water contamination and air pollution. -
Fracturing Becoming a Common Municipal Ballot Item
Feb 10, 2015 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Paula Dittrick
Various municipalities, including Denton, Tex., have banned or sought to ban hydraulic fracturing through ballot issues while some states such as New York have imposed moratoriums, citing environmental issues or health concerns (see story this issue, p. 24) . -
Senate Should Vote to Override Veto Of Keystone Legislation, Cornyn Says
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Republicans should hold a vote to override an expected veto of legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10. “I'd be happy with that. I think it would certainly put a number of Democrats in the hot seat,” said Cornyn... -
Congress Poised to Send Pipeline Bill to White House
Feb 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
With a final legislative step -- at least for now -- expected today, controversial efforts to approve TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada enter a new phase as President Obama prepares his veto pen and former Florida governor and potential 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush's (R) involvement in another pipeline approval... -
One in Three Natural Gas Processing Plants Account for Most Emissions, Study Finds
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Less than 1 percent of the methane that passes through natural gas gathering and processing facilities is leaked, but a small number of facilities account for the majority of emissions, according to a new study. Thirty percent of the gathering facilities studied accounted for 80 percent of the total emissions observed... -
Seismic Risk From Waste Injection Wells Can Be Minimized, Managed, EPA Reports
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Operators of waste injection wells can reduce the risk of triggering earthquakes by assessing a site methodically, testing the well, periodically monitoring well pressures and being prepared to modify operations, possibly through trial and error, according to a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Republicans Go Full Steam at Obama's Energy and Climate Agenda
Feb 10, 2015 | National Journal
By Ben Geman
The energy battle between congressional Republicans and the White House is on. Wednesday, the House will vote to send legislation mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to Obama's desk, where it awaits his veto pen. A key Senate committee is holding a hearing in the first step to action against... -
Broad Energy Efficiency Bill to Be Introduced In Senate by End of February, Shaheen Says
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A new, broader version of Senate energy efficiency legislation will be introduced by the end of February, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10. Similar to a bill introduced in the 113th Congress, the legislation will include a measure to repeal a provision... -
EDF, Industry Disagree on Methane Study Implications
Feb 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The Environmental Defense Fund, Colorado State University and Carnegie Mellon University released two studies today aimed at calculating methane emissions from oil and gas gathering and processing stations. The survey of 114 gathering facilities and 16 processing plants showed that gathering facilities are more... -
Opponents Say Talk of Offsetting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Jeopardize Global Pact
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk and Eric J. Lyman
Opposition to language proposing worldwide “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century surfaced Feb. 10, immediately after the language was added to the draft negotiating text that will be the basis for this year's Paris global climate agreement. -
Emissions Reporting Requirements for Lead Aligned With Revised Monitoring Rule
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is revising the threshold for reporting lead emissions sources as point sources under its air emissions reporting requirements rule. The effort is aimed at aligning those reporting requirements with monitoring requirements for the national ambient air quality standards for lead. -
Here’s How California Lawmakers Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases
Feb 10, 2015 | SF Gate
By David R. Baker
In a move that could shape California’s climate policies for decades to come, legislators on Tuesday introduced a series of bills that would slash oil use in half by 2050, mandate the use of renewable power for 50 percent of the state’s electricity and force California’s massive public retirement funds to dump coal company stocks. -
National Research Council Advocates Carbon Dioxide Emissions Cuts Before Geoengineering
Feb 10, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
The National Research Council (NRC) is underscoring the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide before exploring ways to modify Earth’s climate. Altering the climate, sometimes called geoengineering, would require significant additional research and global coordination, NRC concludes in two reports released on Feb. 10. -
EPA's 'Form' For Stricter Ozone Air Standard May Trigger Legal Challenge
Feb 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
EPA's proposed “form” for implementing its planned stricter ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could -- if finalized as proposed -- trigger a legal challenge from environmentalists because it could allow areas to exceed the limit multiple times yet still demonstrate compliance, says an environmental attorney. -
EPA Considers Dallas-Fort Worth Area For Severe Ozone Nonattainment Category
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed to reclassify the Dallas-Fort Worth area as being in severe nonattainment of the 1997 ozone standard, EPA Region 6 said Feb. 10. While the area's air quality has steadily improved as its population grows, the area missed a June 2013 deadline to attain the original eight-hour... -
Dallas Area Now In 'Severe' Nonattainment For Ozone -- EPA
Feb 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is now in "severe" nonattainment with the 1997 national ozone standard, U.S. EPA said in a proposal today. The region missed a June 2013 deadline to come into compliance with the eight-hour standard of 84 parts per billion... -
California Senate Democrats Call for New Targets for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Mahoney and Carolyn Whetzel
California Senate Democrats introduced a four-bill package Feb. 10 to carry out Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) proposal to go beyond existing climate policy goals by increasing renewable energy use and energy efficiency by 50 percent while reducing petroleum use by the same percentage. -
EPA Acted as Advocate, Not Regulator In Modifying California Air Plan, Court Told
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
The Environmental Protection Agency acted more as an advocate than a regulator in modifying a state plan to control ozone and fine particulates in the San Joaquin Valley, an advocacy group argued Feb. 10 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 09-71383, oral arguments 2/10/15). -
Obama Unveils $2B Goal for Private Investments in Climate Fight
Feb 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The White House announced a $2 billion goal for private sector investments in the fight to tackle climate change, and improve low-carbon energy technology. The initiative is meant to bulk up investments in clean energy, according to a White House fact sheet released on Tuesday. -
The World Can Turn the Corner on Climate Change By 2020. Here's How.
Feb 10, 2015 | Environmental Leader
By Fred Krupp
When it comes to climate action, it’s a good thing that smart people keep building scenarios for cleaning up global energy production. Those visions of the future are necessary – but they tend to lack an essential ingredient. One team of researchers recently reviewed 11 such studies, all of them offering plans for “50 to 90 percent... -
2011 Mercury Rule Cited as Reason For Shutting Down Montana Power Plant
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
PPL Montana announced it will permanently shut down its mothballed J.E. Corette coal-fired power plant in Billings in part because of the cost of complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's 2011 mercury rule. The company recently re-evaluated a 2012 decision to mothball the plant and retain the option to restart... -
Input Sought on EPA Proposed Agreement To Act on States' Fine Particulate Plans
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is now seeking public comment on a proposed agreement that would establish deadlines for agency action on state plans for the implementation of national fine particulate matter standards. The proposed consent decree, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California... -
We Need Open Debate on Oil Train Safety
Feb 11, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
As oil trains rumble through the Sacramento region, a key House panel held an important hearing on how rail and pipelines can keep up – safely – with the boom in domestic oil production. For two hours, top rail and oil industry executives testified and answered questions on this crucial issue. -
Boxer Takes Top Transportation Panel Slot In Announcing Subcommittee Membership
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Former Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will be the top Democrat on the committee's Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee, she announced Feb. 10, in hopes of having an impact on the upcoming battle to reauthorize the highway bill. -
Boxer Takes Over Transportation Subcommittee in EPW Shakeup
Feb 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced yesterday that she will replace Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware as the top Democrat on EPW's Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, part of a shakeup of the full committee's Democratic leaders.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
7 Ways States are Tackling Toxics in 2015
Feb 10, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
Federal reform of our broken national toxics law may be decades overdue, but our friends at Safer States say at least 28 states will propose policies in the next year to reduce exposures to untested and toxic chemicals in consumer products. Do you live in one of these states? Want to help be a part of the action? Read on.
The proposed laws come in all shapes and sizes. Some have good shot at passing, some will be heavily opposed by the chemical industry. Some are comprehensive and some are focused on specific harmful chemicals. Chemicals under scrutiny include flame retardants, components of plastics, and preservatives like formaldehyde found in cosmetics and consumer products. States are also moving to empower consumers with information about chemicals in products and to require manufacturers to provide public information.
Here’s the seven trends Safer States is watching:
1. Identification and disclosure of chemicals harmful to kids. At least twelve states will consider policy to: identify chemicals of concern; and/or require makers of consumer products to disclose chemicals of concern; and/or phase out chemicals of concern. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
2. Toxic Flame Retardants. At least eleven states and the District of Columbia will consider policy to phase out the use of and/or require labeling of toxic flame retardants in certain consumer products. Alaska, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee and Washington.
3. Phthalates. At least five states will consider policy to keep phthalates out of jewelry, childcare products, cosmetics and other consumer products. Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York.
4. Lead. At least five states will consider policy to address lead in paint, kids’ products, electronics and other products. Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York.
5. Bisphenol A. At least six states will consider addressing the endocrine disruptor BPA in kids’ products, food packaging and other products. Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York
6. Cadmium. At least four states will consider restricting cadmium in jewelry and kids’ products. Illinois, Mississsippi, New Jersey and New York.
7. Bonus policy efforts. Less-toxic cleaning supplies in schools (Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey); restrictions on mercury (Arkansas, California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York); restrictions on triclosan (Iowa); restrictions on synthetic turf (California, New York); green procurement strategies (Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont); restrictions on formaldehyde in children’s personal care products (New York, South Carolina); restrictions on microbeads (Connecticut, Vermont and Wyoming); and policies yet to be determined (North Carolina, Rhode Island).
YOUR TURN! You can be a part of the change!! Safer States has a list of organizations broken out by individual state here. It’s an easy way to be a voice where you live and fight for safer chemicals. Also, join our effort to enact real, meaningful federal reform. Visit our homepage and sign up to get alerts.
-
EU Commission Delays REACH CMR Review
Feb 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
An EU Commission review on whether to extend the obligation to perform a chemical safety assessment (CSA) on carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMR) classed substances has been delayed. The review should focus on CMR substances manufactured or imported in quantities of less than ten tonnes per year.
The review should have been carried out by 1 June 2014, as required by REACH Article 138.1, but is still being prepared, with no certainty whether it will be released this year. It will take into account the costs incurred by manufacturers and importers if required to conduct a CSA, the distribution of these costs between the actors in the supply chain and downstream users, and the benefits for human health and the environment.
A report on the issue commissioned by the EU executive and presented at a meeting of Competent Authorities on REACH and CLP (Caracal) in July 2014 estimated that extending the CSA obligation to CMR substances manufactured or imported between one and ten tonnes per year could create a benefit of €8.4m, mainly by avoiding cancer fatalities (CW 22 July 2014).
The review being prepared by the Commission is also expected to address another obligation, enshrined in REACH Article 138.3, to look at the registration requirements for all substances manufactured or imported between one and ten tonnes/year/manufacturer.
While the review could address potential changes regarding the CSA obligation for CMRs under ten tonnes and additional registration requirements for other substances in the same tonnage band, it is not yet clear if the Commission will initiate any such formal change.
-
EU Commission Consults on Authorisation Simplification Proposal
Feb 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the simplification of the REACH authorisation procedure for Annex XIV substances, used in low volumes (CW 2 December 2014) and in legacy spare parts (CW 5 January 2015).
The EU executive argues that substances subject to authorisation under REACH, used in volumes ranging between ten to 100kg/year per legal entity, are a clear case where a “streamlined and simplified” authorisation would be recommended. This is largely due to the high costs of preparing a full authorisation procedure, given the potentially reduced benefits for human health and the environment, resulting from substitution of those substances. The volume is calculated by summing up all uses of the substance by the same legal entity; the simplified procedure should only apply to operators for their own uses, and would not extend to other legal entities in the supply chain.
The Commission recommends that the authorisation application for these substances should require less documentation. If the applicant manages to demonstrate proper control of the risks, posed by the low volume use of the substance in the simplified application, “the socio-economic benefits arising from the use ... are assumed to outweigh the risk to human health or the environment,” the Commission consultation document reads. Sample formats for the analysis of alternatives and the socio-economic impacts are provided in the consultation, so respondents can assess the amount and type of information that would be requested.
A review period of seven years is proposed, with the possibility of shortening it if alternative substances or technologies become available and viable, or extending it upon request from the applicant, who has to provide justification for such a demand. The European Commission says that the simplified procedure shall not apply, however, to Annex XIV substances, used in low volumes but incorporated in consumer mixtures or articles that consumers may be exposed to.
It is, thus, asking for contributions from different interest groups and citizens on: the level of detail and documentation required for the simplified authorisation;the maximum volume per legal entity that could be considered as “low volume”;its proposed exclusion criteria for low volume substances that could benefit from it; andthe duration of a normal review period.
The consultation is also addressing a transitional measure to extend this procedure to substances used in spare parts for repairing articles, which were either placed on the market, or had their production stopped, before the substance’s sunset date – defined as “legacy spare parts”.
Given the fast approaching sunset dates for these Annex XIV substances, the Commission says, an interim solution would be to extend, by five years, the latest application and sunset dates for them. This would give the EU executive time to implement legislation that would create a simplified authorisation procedure for this specific case, the consultation document reads.
The Commission is, thus, consulting on the definition of spare parts and legacy spare parts, as well as whether the simplified authorisation should also apply to those substances, used to repair or maintain articles that are no longer produced. Stakeholders are asked to advise of any current 31 Annex XIV substances being used in this way.
Responses to the consultation can be submitted until 30 April.
-
Markey Named Superfund Panel's Ranking Democrat
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was named the ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee overseeing the Superfund program Feb. 10. In a statement, Markey said he would use his new position on the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight for “ensuring toxic chemicals are both safe and secure, reclaiming our communities from hazardous pollution, and pushing back on any efforts to deny and defund critical science and environmental safety efforts.” Markey has been a longtime proponent of Superfund, initially pushing for a larger fund when the original law was passed in 1980. Massachusetts is home to 37 sites on the Superfund National Priorities List.
-
Moure-Eraso Confirms Exit From CSB In June at End of Term as Chairman
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Rafael Moure-Eraso, the chairman of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board who led the agency amid years of turmoil and survived a Republican campaign seeking his ouster, acknowledged Feb. 5 that he will step down at the end of his term in June and not seek reappointment.
“This is my fifth and final year serving as chairperson of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board,” Moure-Eraso said at a press conference in Houston.
Moure-Eraso's announcement came just over a week after he helped usher in a controversial measure that restructured of CSB governance—mainly by rescinding board orders that had limited the chairman's authority—and canceled three unfinished investigations (26 DEN B-1, 2/9/15).
Although not unexpected, the announcement highlights the uncertainty surrounding the beleaguered agency in a period of flux. The White House can select a board member to lead the CSB on an interim basis, but the next chairperson will require Senate approval, regardless of whether he or she is a confirmed board member or a new nominee.
Stakeholders Eye Transition
The International Chemical Workers Union Council hopes the White House rapidly nominates a new chairperson “to ensure a smooth transition,” union health and safety specialist John Morawetz told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 9.
“We have had many concerns about the CSB under its current chairman, and we are hopeful that the transition to a new chairman will bring a wave of much-needed change to the board,” Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 9.
The next change at the CSB will come later this month when board member Richard Engler officially joins the agency's leadership. Although already confirmed, Engler's duties at the New Jersey Work Environment Council have kept him away from joining the board until now.
Shuffling on the Board
Moure-Eraso and board member Manuel Ehrlich Jr. appeared to take advantage of Engler's absence when they pushed through the governance measure Jan. 28 on a 2-1 vote. The board voted over the objections of Mark Griffon, the agency's third sitting board member, who asked to delay consideration for a few weeks until Engler arrives. Thus, Moure-Eraso and Ehrlich avoided the chance of a 2-2 deadlock.
It's unclear when the White House's choice for the fifth and final seat on the board, Kristen Kulinowski, might arrive. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has yet to schedule her nomination hearing.
Should she win confirmation, Kulinowski might not join until after the board has turned over. Like Moure-Eraso, Griffon's five-year term will expire in June.
Tumultuous Tenure
Moure-Eraso, 68, came to the CSB from the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, where he was chairman of the School of Health and Environment's Department of Work Environment. Previously, he worked as an industrial hygienist for the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union and the United Automobile Workers.
The CSB has completed 18 investigations of chemical accidents thus far during Moure-Eraso's tenure.
Critics from industry and labor—as well as both political parties—have bashed Moure-Eraso for the slow pace of investigations, degraded relationships with other federal agencies, low employee morale, exodus of senior personnel and one board member, and reports of bullying dissenting staffers.
The White House is reviewing an inspector general report finding that Moure-Eraso and his two top lieutenants violated federal law by conducting official agency business using private e-mail.
Following bipartisan grilling during a June 2014 hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Moure-Eraso faced a Republican effort to oust him (119 DEN A-17, 6/20/14).
The Oversight Committee continues to investigate allegations of corruption, intimidation of whistle-blowers and general misconduct at the CSB, and may hold another hearing, committee spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10.
Consolidating Power
But Moure-Eraso's most lasting mark on the CSB could end up being the measure that restructured board governance to concentrate power in the chairperson's office. Although the governance motion was introduced by Ehrlich, it had long been a project of Moure-Eraso and top agency officials to cast aside restrictions on his power as chairman.
In November 2011, Moure-Eraso tried to modify sections of a few board orders that were rescinded in the recent governance measure, but the motion was tabled indefinitely by a dissenting board member. The attempt came about six months after the board rejected a proposal by Moure-Eraso to replace the established procedures for public meetings with a procedure giving him sole authority to conduct meetings, call for a motion and rule on any point of order.
Then-board member William Wark called Moure-Eraso's move an “unconscionable” attempt to silence the board and boost his own power. Wark said in his written dissent that Moure-Eraso “would just as soon cloister all decision-making authority unto himself.”
-
Texas Company Announces Plans for First High-Level Storage Site
Feb 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
Last week, Waste Control Specialists filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit a license application for the country's first interim storage site for high-level nuclear waste by April 2016. During today's OnPoint, Rod Baltzer, president of Waste Control Specialists, discusses his company's plans and the potential hurdles facing the approval and construction of the facility. Baltzer also talks about his expectations for this proposal to become a part of congressional action on nuclear waste. Today's OnPoint will air on E&ETV at 10 a.m. EST.
-
Union Reps Storm Congress To Defend Their Agency
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA union representatives are warning lawmakers this week that attacks from Capitol Hill are hurting their agency.
Representatives from EPA's Chicago-based Region 5 office are meeting with lawmakers and their staffs in at least 13 congressional offices this week to try to convince them that EPA does important work that's suffering as a result of scaled-back budgets and a trimmed-down workforce.
They've got charts showing how EPA's staff has dwindled to its lowest level in decades, a report showing that drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is suffering and data about how deficit reduction efforts have affected the federal workforce.
In addition to their environmental pitch, they're making the case that EPA has a positive economic impact on states, in part by channeling cash to state programs.
"We want them to understand that this is about jobs, too," said John O'Grady, president of the American Federation of Government Employees chapter representing EPA workers in the Chicago region.
The union representatives are making the pitch to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
The congressional offices they're stopping by include those of Sens. Rob Portman (R) and Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio, Mark Kirk (R) and Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois, Tammy Baldwin (D) and Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin, Joe Donnelly (D) and Dan Coats (R) of Indiana, Amy Klobuchar (D) and Al Franken (D) of Minnesota, and Debbie Stabenow (D) of Michigan.
In the House, the representatives plan to meet with the staffs of Wisconsin Republican Reps. Paul Ryan and Reid Ribble.
The Capitol Hill visits come as government employees and union representatives from across the country have gathered in Washington, D.C., for AFGE's annual legislative and grass-roots mobilization conference.
-
Industry-Backed Poll Shows Public Support for Increased Trade
Feb 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nick Juliano
An industry coalition working to eliminate the four-decade-old prohibition on exporting U.S. crude oil today released a poll showing public support for liberalizing trade in the commodity, which respondents believe would benefit the economy and cause fuel prices to fall.
The coalition Producers for American Crude Oil Exports (PACE) commissioned FTI Consulting to conduct the survey, which showed large margins of voters backing the group's positions.
"This survey demonstrates that a significant majority of voters also believe the economy and consumers would benefit and America's strategic position in the world would be strengthened if U.S. oil producers were permitted to sell crude oil to customers in countries who are trading partners," PACE Executive Director George Baker said in a statement this afternoon.
At no point does the poll actually use the word "export," instead asking respondents what they think about allowing sales "in countries that are trading partners," which 69 percent of respondents said they would support, or letting U.S. producers "trade oil on international markets," which garnered 62 percent support.
Jeremy Ruch, FTI's senior director for strategy consulting and research, said in an email today that the poll was worded that way to "get the cleanest and clearest read on what voters think" about the underlying issue, and "in our experience polling on similar issues, the term 'export' is not fully understood by the public and holds certain connotations."
Among other findings, the poll found 65 percent support for policies that would allow U.S. oil companies "to sell crude oil to customers in the U.S. and to customers in countries who are trading partners," compared with 31 percent who said the "federal government should mandate that American oil producers sell crude oil only to customers in the U.S."
Export proponents recognize that they must reassure members of Congress -- and their constituents -- that lifting the export ban would not cause an increase in gasoline prices, a finding that was bolstered by several think tank studies released last year. Today's poll found 63 percent of voters thought the price of oil, gasoline and diesel fuel would fall in response to "an increase in crude oil on the global market."
The poll surveyed 1,025 registered voters nationwide Feb. 2-5 and had a 3.06-point margin of error.
The PACE poll's findings are sharply at odds with a survey conducted in December by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a liberal group close to the Obama administration that has opposed efforts to lift the export ban. That poll of 1,101 likely voters was never publicly released, but a summary of its findings was obtained by E&ENews PM.
CAP's poll found 69 percent of likely voters oppose allowing oil and gas companies to "export more" to foreign countries. The same poll found 82 percent support for policies that would require oil and gas produced from public lands and offshore to be used domestically and not exported, according to the summary.
-
Feb 11, 2015 | The New York Times - Op-Ed
By Erik Milito
Re “Don’t Drill Along the East Coast,” by Martin O’Malley (Op-Ed, Feb. 2):
We’re the only developed nation in the world that keeps 87 percent of its offshore energy resources off-limits.
Holding just one Atlantic lease sale is a start, but does not go nearly far enough to allow the United States to keep pace with countries around the world. By simply looking north to Canada, we have seen Atlantic offshore oil and gas development bring towns that were once deemed to be “near extinction” back to life with vibrant economic development.
Opening the Atlantic, the Pacific and off-limits areas in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore development could create nearly 840,000 new American jobs and grow our economy by up to $70.2 billion per year between 2017 and 2035, according to studies from Quest Offshore Resources.
The co-chairmen of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling recently said that “offshore drilling is safer than it was four years ago,” at the time of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico incident, because industry and the government have worked together to improve spill prevention and response.
In every state directly involved — from Virginia to Florida — majorities of voters support moving forward, recognizing that offshore development will create jobs and enhance our national security.
It’s past time to take advantage of this tremendous American opportunity.
-
Studies Provide Insight on Two Overlooked Segments of Oil and Gas Industry
Feb 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Peter Zalzal
Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment and the transmission and storage segment—were led by researchers at Colorado State and Carnegie Mellon universities and Aerodyne Research, and included collaboration with EDF and companies in each of these segments.
In the gathering and processing study, researchers measured 130 gathering and processing facilities, finding emissions at gathering facilities ranging from 0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet of methane leaking per minute (scf/m). For the transmission and storage study, a different team led by CSU also collected extensive on-site and downwind measurements of methane at 45 transmission and storage sites. Site-level methane measurements ranged from 2 to 880 scf/m, with an average measurement of 70 scf/m. Of all the facilities measured for these studies, data suggests the natural gas emitted was worth about $25 million and had the 20-year climate impact equal to the emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles.
The Administration has recently announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025—actions that will help prevent this needless waste. The announcement indicates that new standards will build on the technologies EPA evaluated in a set of five peer-reviewed, technical white papers (including technologies to find and fix leaks and to address emissions from compressors).
The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments. In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed. Here are some of the findings:The gathering and processing study found substantial venting from liquids storage tanks at approximately 20 percent of sampled gathering facilities. Emission rates at these facilities were on average four times higher than rates observed at other facilities, and at some of these sites with substantial emissions, the authors found that company representatives made adjustments resulting in immediate reductions in emissions.Researchers found that processing plants leaked at much lower rates than gathering facilities, attributing this discrepancy in part to regulations requiring comprehensive leak detection and repair at processing plants. Moreover, the authors found that 19 of the 25 facilities with the lowest average emission rate were staffed by full time operators.In the transmission and storage study, the two sites with very significant emissions were both due to leaks or venting at isolation valves. The study also found that leaks were a major source of emissions across sources, concluding that measured emissions are larger than would be estimated by the emission factors used in EPA’s reporting program.
All of these findings suggest that equipment leaks are an important source of emission and that strong, comprehensive leak detection and repair requirements could help to find and fix these leaks.
The studies also underscore the importance of EPA’s proposed action to strengthen methane reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector (known as Subpart W). In particular, EPA has proposed to require reporting from sources in the gathering and boosting sector, which is critical because there are thousands of these sources across the country and they are not currently required to measure and report their emissions data to EPA.
It is critical that we address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the two studies released today provide additional insights on several important emission sources. As the administration has announced it will take actions to begin to address methane emissions, we must begin working together to deploy commonsense, highly-cost effective technologies to reduce this pollution and minimize waste—solutions that leading states and companies have deployed and that are urgently needed to ensure a level playing field and protect communities across the country.
-
New York State Decides to Ban Hydraulic Fracturing
Feb 11, 2015 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Paula Dittrick
New York state officials planned in 2015 to officially ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which would end a temporary moratorium that has existed in the state for years pending studies on the possible health consequences of fracturing in the Marcellus shale.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration announced the decision Dec. 17, 2014, citing health risks and concerns about possible contamination of air and water.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) said it would issue a legally binding recommendation prohibiting fracturing based upon the recommendation of acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker.
DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said his department would issue a final environmental impact statement in early 2015 to be followed by an order from him prohibiting the use of high-volume fracturing.
Fracturing and horizontal drilling enabled the gas drilling boom in the Marcellus, underlying southern New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.
David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, has said drilling was not imminent in New York anyway because many promising drilling locations remain in Pennsylvania where industry faced much more certainty about regulations.
In an interview with KQED, a Northern California NPR affiliate station, US Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said she believes "a lot of misinformation" exists about fracturing.
"I think that localized efforts or statewide efforts in many cases don't understand the science behind it, and I think there needs to be more science," Jewell said when asked about New York's decision. API comments
The American Petroleum Institute issued a comment from Karen Moreau, API New York State Petroleum Council executive director, saying Gov. Cuomo acted irresponsibly, putting the state's economy on a reckless path.
"This is the wrong direction for New York," Moreau said. "New York families, teachers, roads, and good-paying jobs have lost out to political gamesmanship." She noted that communities in neighboring Pennsylvania have received hundreds of millions of dollars generated through the shale energy industry.
"Revenue from natural gas production supports road and bridge improvements, water and sewer projects, local housing initiatives, environmental programs and rehabilitation of greenways. We are resolved to continue to fight for these benefits in New York," she said.
Gov. Cuomo told reporters at a news conference that his commissioners made the decision rather than himself. He believes the decision was based upon factual information but that lawsuits still could be filed "every which way from Sunday."
He called the debate over fracturing the "most emotional" issue that he had dealt with as governor.
"They're not listening, and they're not hearing, and they're yelling," he said of trying to talk with opponents of fracturing.
More than 6 years ago, then-Gov. David Paterson ordered a ban on fracturing until the completion of a study by the environmental conservation department.
Initially that department released a draft report recommending fracturing be allowed, but public debate prompted the state to order a second draft. Gov. Cuomo later ordered the New York State Department of Health to conduct its own study. The health department delayed issuing that report several times.
Upon announcing his recommendation, Zucker said, "We cannot afford to make a mistake. The potential risks are too great. In fact, they are not fully known."
Previously, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled in 2013 that townships in New York state could ban hydraulic fracturing and shale gas drilling within municipal borders. The appeals court ruled in favor of the towns of Dryden and Middlefield (OGJ Online, May 2, 2013).
Mark Brownstein, associate vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said EDF believes every state has the right to decide whether or not unconventional oil and gas development "is consistent with the interests and wishes of its citizens."
He noted New York remains the country's fifth largest gas consumer with an extensive network of gas transmission and distribution lines.
"Methane leaking from these systems has more than 80 times the climate-warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe," Brownstein said. "State officials and the companies that operate these pipes need to find and fix those leaks as part of the ongoing effort to modernize New York's electric and gas infrastructure and accelerate the state's transition to cleaner, renewable, and more efficient energy."
-
Maryland Moves Forward on Fracturing Regulations
Feb 10, 2015 | Oil & Gas Journal
Maryland state officials planned to draft regulations that would allow hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus shale in West Maryland provided that natural gas producers abide by certain stipulations limiting the risks of water contamination and air pollution.
The decision stemmed from a report concluding a 3-year study by state agencies. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed an executive order in June 2011 establishing the Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative.
On Nov. 25, 2014, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Department of Natural Resources released a draft report recommending that drilling be allowed in Garrett and Allegany counties if best practices are followed.
Implementation of regulations was expected to become effective after Gov.-elect Larry Hogan took office Jan. 21. The report from O'Malley's administration recommended regulations.
"We're committed to ensuring that Marylanders have access to the economic opportunities associated with [hydraulic fracturing] while also putting the most complete practices into place to ensure the highest level of protection for Maryland residents," O'Malley said.
The amount of gas in western Maryland is believed to be small compared with gas volumes in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where fracturing already is allowed. The Marcellus and Utica shale formations have yet to be explored in Maryland, the report said.
"Best practices and rigorous monitoring, inspection, and enforcement can reduce risks to acceptable levels, but cannot completely eliminate all the risks," the report said, acknowledging that "knowledge and technology are continuously advancing." Shale gas regulations likely will need to be updated periodically to reflect newly developed best management practices.
Within Garrett County and western Allegany County, the Marcellus shale is 5,000-9000 ft deep with the Utica shale being deeper. These two shale formations in western Maryland could produce oil, wet gas, and dry gas.
The Marcellus shale is believed to have been the source rock for gas in the Oriskany sandstone, which lies closely below the Marcellus in Maryland. Both the Marcellus and Oriskany are Devonian.
Gas from the Oriskany was produced starting in the 1940s. The reservoir currently is used as underground gas storage with its headquarters near the town of Accident in Garrett County.
While the Marcellus has attracted most of the attention in Maryland, the Taylorsville basin also extends under Maryland and Virginia. In addition, the Gettysburg, Culpepern, and Delmarva basins also extend under Maryland although little is known about them.
A 2012 US Geological Survey study estimated more than 1 tcf of gas in the Taylorsville basin while the Marcellus basin was estimated at 84 tfc, USGS said. The Taylorsville, a Triassic basin, runs through much of Maryland's Charles County and goes into St. Mary's, southern Prince George's, Calvert, and Anne Arundel counties.
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters said on its web site that Shore Exploration and Production Corp. of Dallas had leases on 80,000 acres in Virginia with hopes of fracturing in the Taylorsville basin.
During the late 1980s, Shore Exploration obtained interest in leases with Exxon Corp., Texaco Inc., and Eastern Exploration Inc. Those leases were in Caroline, King and Queen, and Essex counties in Virginia.
Decades ago, Texaco and Eastern Virginia Gas Co. planned a wildcat well in Maryland less than 1 mile south of the town of Faulkner in Charles County (OGJ, Dec. 31, 1990, Newsletter). Study wide ranging
A fact sheet posted online on the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) web site said an industry representative estimated that as many as 1,600 wells could be drilled on 128,000 acres in Garrett County and another 637 wells could be drilled on 51,000 acres in Allegany County.
In addition to water and air pollution, the study examined the cumulative effect of multiple wells on natural resources and the environment, including forest fragmentation.
Under the Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative, the MDE and Natural Resources Department consulted with an advisory commission in a three-stage study.
The first stage concluded with recommendations regarding the desirability of legislation to establish revenue sources, such as a state severance tax, and the desirability of legislation to establish standards of liability for any damages caused by gas exploration and production.
The second stage concluded with recommended best practices for all aspects of natural gas exploration and production in the Marcellus shale in Maryland.
The third stage concluded with a final draft report outlining recommendations regarding Marcellus shale drilling, including possible contamination of groundwater, handling and disposal of wastewater, possible consequences to the environment and natural resources, impacts to forests and important habitats, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic impact.
The final report estimated extraction over 10 years. Researchers estimate Allegany County could experience some 900 new jobs at peak extraction along with $1.8 million in tax revenues and $2.3 million in severance tax revenues.
In its peak year, Garrett County could gain an estimated 2,425 new jobs, $3.6 million in tax revenues, and $13.5 million in severance tax revenues, the report said.
Maryland state agencies and the advisory commission reviewed studies by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Interior, the US Department of Energy, the state of New York, and the Delaware River Basin Commission, among others.
The advisory commission also reviewed results of the DOE study on the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing and DOE's advice on practices for shale extraction.
The advisory commission included representatives from the scientific community, the gas industry, business, agriculture, environmental organizations, citizens, and government.
-
Fracturing Becoming a Common Municipal Ballot Item
Feb 10, 2015 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Paula Dittrick
Various municipalities, including Denton, Tex., have banned or sought to ban hydraulic fracturing through ballot issues while some states such as New York have imposed moratoriums, citing environmental issues or health concerns (see story this issue, p. 24) .
The bans and moratoriums frequently prompt legal battles. At least two lawsuits were filed within days of the November 2014 election in which Denton residents voted 59% in favor of a ban on fracturing within city limits, marking the first fracturing restriction in Texas.
Denton sits above the Barnett shale in North Texas and has about 280 gas wells within city limits. The Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) and the Texas Land Office each separately filed a lawsuit against the city of Denton. Denton Mayor Chris Watts has vowed to defend the ban.
"This phenomenon is not unique to Denton," Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director of energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, told UOGR in an email in late December.
She believes that the merits of allowing fracturing will prove to be very case-specific "based on best practices or bad practices" both by community and by company.
"In communities where the industry is not sensitive to environmental and social factors (water safety, noise, traffic, air quality, tremors) the companies will find themselves dealing with increased community activism and eventually increased local bans or regulations," Jaffe said.
"We have seen similar actions in localities in Pennsylvania and Colorado. In the latter case, problems in Colorado communities almost ended in a statewide ban as stakeholders pressed for change. The jury is still out how the Colorado issues will be resolved," she said.
As increased drilling takes place in Ohio and elsewhere, industry's performance will determine how contagious the idea of local bans or restrictions will become, said Jaffe, a member of a steering committee reviewing well completion techniques, including fracturing, in California. Litigation over Denton ban
The TXOGA filed its lawsuit in Denton County state district court asking for an expedited schedule to keep the ordinance from taking effect, claiming the Denton ordinance is unconstitutional because a city cannot write ordinances that go against the Texas Constitution.
Tom Phillips, attorney with Baker Botts in Houston and a former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, represents TXOGA's request to have the ordinance declared invalid and unenforceable.
He said that the ordinance exceeds the authority of cities and is "an impermissible intrusion" on the powers that the Texas Legislature granted the Texas Railroad Commission and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
The lawsuit maintains the state of Texas has sufficiently regulated fracturing, meaning that no municipality within the state has the legal authority to ban fracturing.
"The ordinance's complete ban second guesses and impedes this state regulatory framework," the lawsuit said. "The ban will result in the total inability to develop hydrocarbon interests within the city because wells in Denton produce gas from the Barnett shale, and the only way to produce such gas in commercial quantities is through the use of hydraulic fracture stimulation of this dense shale formation that would not otherwise economically produce."
The Supreme Court of Texas already recognized fracturing is essential in the play, the lawsuit said, citing a 2008 case involving Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. vs. Garza Energy Trust.
Separately, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson filed a lawsuit in Travis County, Tex. The land office maintains the Denton ordinance does not differentiate between privately owned and state-owned minerals. The land office oversees state-owned land.
Patterson asked for a permanent injunction against what he called an "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable" prohibition.
"This ban on hydraulic fracturing is not constitutional, and it won't stand," Patterson said. "If it were allowed to be enforced, it would hurt the school children of Texas." A share of oil and gas revenues from state-owned lands go into the state's Permanent School Fund although the amount coming from Denton was not immediately available.
Patterson said the Denton prohibition is pre-empted by state law, and that he filed the lawsuit in defense of the state's mineral interests.
"The law is clear, the Railroad Commission regulates oil and gas in Texas, not local municipalities," Patterson said.
Texas Railroad Commission Chairwoman Christi Craddick has said TRC will keep issuing drilling permits in Denton.
TRC Commissioner David Porter issued a statement saying he was disappointed "that Denton voters fell prey to scare tactics and mischaracterizations of the truth in passing the hydraulic fracturing ban." He said bans are based on misinformation rather than science and fact.
Elsewhere across the nation, residents of Athens, Ohio, approved a fracturing ban but three other Ohio communities defeated such a ban. The communities that defeated the ban were Gates Mills, Kent, and Youngstown. It was the fourth time in 2 years that Youngstown voters have soundly rejected a move to ban fracturing in its share of the Utica shale formation.
Voters in three California counties considered broader measures to ban fracturing, horizontal drilling, and other methods of well stimulation. A ballot issue in Santa Barbara County failed while measures passed in San Benito and Mendocino counties.
San Benito and Mendocino counties lie on the Monterey shale, a formation estimated to contain more than 10 billion bbl.
Earlier in 2014, the California Senate narrowly voted against a statewide fracturing moratorium. Opposition mounts in Canada
New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant and Energy Minister Donald Arseneault in December announced plans to introduce a bill that would impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in New Brunswick.
Separately, an environmental review board in Quebec concluded the potential negative consequences outweigh economic benefits of fracturing. Quebec's government was expected to use the report in its deliberations on whether to extend a 2011 moratorium on shale exploration.
In New Brunswick, Gallant told reporters at a news conference that "We have been clear from day one that we will impose a moratorium until risks to the environment, health, and water are understood."
He said the moratorium will apply to all types of fracturing, regardless of whether the process uses water, propane, or another substance.
Galant said the moratorium will not be lifted until five conditions are met:
• The establishment of a social license to lift the moratorium following consultations.
• The availability of credible information regarding the consequences on air, health, and water so a regulatory regime can be developed.
• A plan to mitigate impacts on public infrastructure and address issues such as waste water disposal.
• Implementation of a process to fulfill the province's obligation to consult with First Nations.
• Establishment of a royalty structure to ensure maximum benefits for New Brunswick residents.
Gallant said there will be no grandfather clause provided for projects already under way. Gas companies will be permitted to continue with seismic testing or drilling wells, but they will not be permitted to fracture any wells while the moratorium is in place.
Jean-Guy Leclair, general manager of PotashCorp New Brunswick said his company would consider its options, and he noted in December that it was premature to discuss those options.
"What PotashCorp needs is access to a secure, stable supply of natural gas, regardless of the source," Leclair said in a news release. "If this moratorium removes a source of supply, we will have to review what it means for our operations. It could have a serious impact on our costs."
Separately, Quebec's environmental officials released a report in December 2014 saying fracturing presents potential risks to air and water quality as well as noise and light pollution. It said the environmental risks outweighed the financial benefits.
Previously, the Quebec government imposed a partial drilling moratorium pending completion of an environmental study to evaluate hydraulic fracturing (OGJ Online, Oct. 11, 2010).
A review board concluded exploration and production of shale gas in the St. Lawrence Lowlands "would not be advantageous...because of the magnitude of the potential costs and externalities compared to royalties."
The report also cited other concerns "including plans of social acceptability, legislation, and a lack of knowledge, particularly with respect to water resources."
Quebec has no substantial commercial oil or gas production although companies are interested in developing an emerging play for gas in Ordovician Utica shale in the St. Lawrence Lowlands roughly between Montreal and Quebec City. Several million acres of land licenses are in force in the province.
An aide to Quebec Environment minister David Hurtle said the report raises "many serious questions" as the government develops its strategic environmental assessment on hydrocarbons.
Stephane Forget, vice-president of Quebec's Federation of Chambers of Commerce, said the report was "not very positive for the development of [shale gas] in Quebec." Moody's: Federal frac regs unlikely in 2015-16
The results of the midterm elections make federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing highly unlikely in the next 2 years, said Moody's Investors Service, adding that maintaining the regulatory status quo is credit positive for exploration and production companies working in unconventional plays.
But in the absence of federal regulation, state and local governments are likely to enact their own rules and legislation in response to environmental concerns, Moody's analyst Zev Halstuch wrote in a report issued shortly after New York state announced plans to formally ban high-volume fracturing.
Legislation has been proposed in Congress, most recently in June 2013, to define fracturing as a federally regulated activity under the US Safe Drinking Water Act.
But Halstuch believes the current possibility of passing such legislation is remote because Republicans, who have generally taken the position that state regulation of fracturing is sufficient, have a decisive majority in both the House and the Senate.
"That said, federal regulation is not the only regulatory challenge E&P companies will face," Halstruch said. Fracturing has raised questions about ground-water safety, air quality, and whether it triggers seismic activity.
"In the last few years, several hundred local governments have passed rules restricting or banning fracturing within their borders," Halstuch said. "Courts in Pennsylvania and New York have ruled that municipalities can curtail fracturing, even if it is permitted by the state. Courts in Colorado and Texas are examining the same issue."
-
Senate Should Vote to Override Veto Of Keystone Legislation, Cornyn Says
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Republicans should hold a vote to override an expected veto of legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10.
“I'd be happy with that. I think it would certainly put a number of Democrats in the hot seat,” said Cornyn, who is Senate majority whip, in the Capitol. “I think we ought to play this all the way through. We are trying to get it to the president first, but I think that is something we will be discussing” with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
The Senate passed the bill (S. 1) Jan. 29 by a 62-36 vote, five short of the votes needed to override a presidential veto. The House is expected to pass the Senate-amendment version Feb. 11, sending it to President Barack Obama's desk (20 DEN A-18, 1/30/15).
“The president needs to work with Congress in a bipartisan way and approve the Keystone XL pipeline project for the American people,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), the author of S. 1, said in a statement, adding that Obama will have 10 days to decide whether to sign or veto the bill.
The Obama administration has said multiple times it will veto the legislation because it would circumvent an ongoing review of the project, which is being led by the State Department because the pipeline crosses an international boundary.
The $8 billion project by TransCanada Corp. would carry heavy oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas. It was first proposed in 2008 and has become a proxy for Obama's commitment to climate change, with environmental groups staunchly opposed to the pipeline and labor unions and energy companies supporting it.
-
Congress Poised to Send Pipeline Bill to White House
Feb 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
With a final legislative step -- at least for now -- expected today, controversial efforts to approve TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada enter a new phase as President Obama prepares his veto pen and former Florida governor and potential 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush's (R) involvement in another pipeline approval makes waves.
The Republican-controlled House today is poised to vote on KXL legislation for the second time this year, but the question remains whether the bill will receive the same level of support in the second round now that the House will take up a Senate-passed version with a handful of amendments, some of them sponsored by Democrats.
The bill now include language promoting energy efficiency and stating that climate change is real and not a hoax. Another Senate amendment encourages lawmakers to require oil sands producers to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. SPECIAL REPORT
A look at the far-reaching debate on the Keystone XL pipeline, which could change the energy and economic agenda for both the United States and Canada. Click here to view the special report.
While some lawmakers may feel uncomfortable with the amendments or the decision to not merge the bills during a conference committee, a GOP aide close to the negotiations said there was no indication of anything that could put the bill in jeopardy.
"My advice, and leadership agreed, is we would simply accept the Senate bill," Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), sponsor of the House version, said during a Rules Committee hearing last night on the parameters for debate. He called it the "judicious thing to do, the efficient thing to do."
Cramer suggested many Republicans support the oil spill amendment and described the climate provision as an effort to find common ground with President Obama, who has expressed concerns about the pipeline's potential greenhouse gas emissions.
Apparently recognizing the climate change skepticism within the GOP caucus, Cramer said the amendment may make the legislation something "he can feel comfortable signing" and a "good-faith effort" at bipartisanship.
The Senate bill passed late last month by a vote of 62-36, with nine Democrats voting in favor. The House bill passed weeks earlier by a 266-153 vote. Twenty-eight Democrats voted in favor and no Republicans against. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted present.
Amash, one of the House's staunchest libertarians, supports KXL but doesn't think it appropriate for lawmakers to consider legislation to benefit just one company.
"If the House approves the Senate-passed bill, we won't have to conference it," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), the bill's Senate sponsor, said in a statement, "and it will go right to the president's desk."
But some House Democrats wanted the opportunity to further amend the legislation. Since the Senate considered dozens of amendments, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) asked, "Why shouldn't the House do the same?"
Pallone, top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he considered the KXL bill "fundamentally flawed" and would oppose it with or without further changes.
Still, Pallone said his side would like to consider amendments to require U.S. steel for KXL and to address the oil spill liability issue now. Both have been long-standing Democratic demands in both chambers.
In the end, the Rules Committee voted for a closed rule. In other words, lawmakers will not get to vote on amendments, which means legislation approving KXL will soon head to Obama's desk.
The president has threatened to use his veto pen against the bill -- with or without amendments -- because it would bypass his administration's review process.
Now that the State Department's environmental review is complete and agencies have had a chance to comment, Secretary of State John Kerry and then Obama must determine whether KXL is in the national interest.
Neither the House or Senate has enough votes to override the veto. So if the president keeps delaying his decision or rejects the project, pro-KXL lawmakers have said they would attach the measure to another must-pass bill. Jeb Bush emails, FBI interviews
Even though many Democrats support KXL, Republican politicians at every level have been particularly vocal in pushing the pipeline's approval. They see the debate as putting them on the side of public opinion.
This week, newly released emails show that while Jeb Bush was Florida's governor, he may have helped pressure State at the request of a TransCanada contractor on a previous transboundary pipeline from Canada in 2006 when his brother was in the White House.
"I am hoping you may have some suggestions for me on how we might encourage the DOS to initiate our review under [the National Environmental Policy Act]," wrote Mike Koski, an executive for Canadian company Trow, now called Exp, with operations in Florida. "We don't need the review expedited or anything like that -- we just would like it to start."
Bush, according to a trove of emails he released this week, responded to Koski, "I don't know how to get them to get moving but I will get our DC office to find out."
Koski responded sometime later, "I don't know what you and your staff did, but after 2 months of trying everything we could do, the process seems to have started. We have a meeting with DOS Monday to initiate the [environmental impact statement] process."
Bush, who is considering a presidential run next year, has supported KXL, too. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, another potential candidate on the Democratic side, has refrained from taking a position.
Meanwhile, news has also been circulating that the FBI has been interviewing opponents of KXL and Canadian oil sands development in general, apparently trying to learn more about potentially illegal and disruptive protest activities (Greenwire, Feb. 9).
Ayn Dietrich, an FBI spokeswoman in Seattle, said the agency conducts interviews on a number of activities, and they don't necessarily mean the subject is under criminal suspicion.
"Further," she said, "the FBI takes care to distinguish between constitutionally protected activities and illegal activities undertaken to further an ideological agenda."
Other anti-KXL advocates have not been the target of recent FBI interviews, said Bold Nebraska founder Jane Kleeb. She said things have been quiet on that front since TransCanada gave police a presentation about aggressive pipeline critics (EnergyWire, July 11, 2013).
-
One in Three Natural Gas Processing Plants Account for Most Emissions, Study Finds
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Less than 1 percent of the methane that passes through natural gas gathering and processing facilities is leaked, but a small number of facilities account for the majority of emissions, according to a new study.
Thirty percent of the gathering facilities studied accounted for 80 percent of the total emissions observed, according to the study, Measurements of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Gathering Facilities and Processing Plants: Measurement Results, published Feb. 10 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
Researchers from Colorado State University, Carnegie Mellon University, Fort Lewis College and Aerodyne Research Inc. measured facility-level methane emissions at 114 gathering facilities and 16 processing plants in the U.S., recording more than 1,400 emissions plumes. The study found that 85 gathering facilities leaked less than 1 percent of the methane that passes through the system while another 19 had methane leaks of less than 0.1 percent. Researchers observed significant venting of methane from liquid storage tanks at 20 percent of gathering facilities studied. Those facilities had methane emissions that were four times larger on average than similar facilities with less venting.
Researchers released the results of a similar study on methane emissions from pneumatic controllers at natural gas wells in December 2014. That study found that 20 percent of pneumatic controllers accounted for 96 percent of natural gas and methane emissions (237 DEN A-17, 12/10/14).
Emissions Inventories Outdated
Researchers said the Environmental Protection Agency's current greenhouse gas inventories for the oil and natural gas sector rely on data collected in the 1990s and my not accurately represent current technologies and operations in the sector. The studies aim to provide updated measurements of emissions from various points in the oil and natural gas production chain.
The studies come as the EPA plans to directly regulate for the first time methane emissions from new oil and natural gas wells as part of the White House's methane strategy. Methane accounted for nearly 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012, according to the administration (10 DEN A-1, 1/15/15).
Industry Touts Reductions
The oil and natural gas industry said the study underscores efforts companies have already made to reduce methane leaks along the production chain.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said Feb. 10 that pipeline maintenance efforts have reduced the number of pipeline leaks by 94 percent in the past 30 years, preventing 122 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions. The group said the maintenance efforts include routine screening for leaks to identify cost effective opportunities for repairs at natural gas pipeline facilities.
-
Seismic Risk From Waste Injection Wells Can Be Minimized, Managed, EPA Reports
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Operators of waste injection wells can reduce the risk of triggering earthquakes by assessing a site methodically, testing the well, periodically monitoring well pressures and being prepared to modify operations, possibly through trial and error, according to a report by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The report, “Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches,” dated Feb. 5, was distributed to EPA regional offices to provide suggestions for managing seismicity that increasingly is associated with disposal of wastewater from oil and natural gas wells.
The report's recommendations were framed within the context of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, a Safe Drinking Water Act program. The U.S. has more than 172,000 Class II injection wells, used for disposal of brine and other fluids from oil and gas wells, according to the EPA.
Oil and gas wells are not a focus of the report, although injection of water to trigger fracture formation is a common practice in oil and gas wells. Under EPA regulations, such hydraulic fracturing can lead to a well being regulated as a Class II injection well if diesel fuel is added to the water.
States Contributed Expertise
The information in the report may not be new to many state regulators. A memorandum from Ronald Bergman, acting director of EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division, said states with extensive programmatic experience in addressing induced seismicity participated in development of the report.
Those states included Ohio, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Arkansas.
“A number of these states have developed state regulations or guidelines addressing induced seismicity and each of the states contributed valuable experience and expertise to this effort.”
It has been less than a year since Ohio tightened its permitting requirements—not for wastewater injection but rather for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells. The step was taken after seismic activities in Mahoning County “that show a probable connection to hydraulic fracturing near a previously unknown microfault,” state regulators said (71 DEN A-11, 4/14/14).
The U.S. Geological Survey also has studied the subject. In congressional testimony, USGS officials have described the issue of induced seismicity as a manageable problem that in some cases may simply be handled by reducing the pumping speed or pressure of injection.
State Regulatory Actions Noted
The report draws on lessons learned by state regulators. Authority to run the UIC program, like many other regulatory programs created by the federal government, often is delegated to states.
EPA has approved state primacy programs for UIC regulation of all classes of disposal wells in 33 states.
The report noted that some regulators have exercised authority to prohibit disposal operations in some cases.
Regulators also have resorted to having wells plugged or temporarily shut during an investigation when the wells are suspected of inducing seismicity.
In Arkansas, regulators established a moratorium on Class II disposal wells in a defined area judged to be at high risk of seismic activity.
Testing, Operational Changes
The EPA report recommends evaluation of regional and local geological information and operational data on injection wells to assess the likelihood of activating faults and causing seismic events.
The initial static pressure of a well should be assessed, and periodic static bottomhole pressure monitoring should be performed to assess reservoir pressures, the report said. Annular pressure tests and production logging (measurement of fluid flow) should be performed if mechanical integrity is a concern, the report said.
Injection operations may need to be modified to minimize or manage seismicity. The report lists as examples of operational modifications:
• reducing injection rates;
• injecting intermittently to allow time for pressure dissipation;
• separating multiple injection wells by greater distances for pressure distribution; and
• implementing contingency measures in the event seismicity occurs above a specified level.
-
Republicans Go Full Steam at Obama's Energy and Climate Agenda
Feb 10, 2015 | National Journal
By Ben Geman
The energy battle between congressional Republicans and the White House is on.
Wednesday, the House will vote to send legislation mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to Obama's desk, where it awaits his veto pen. A key Senate committee is holding a hearing in the first step to action against the Environmental Protection Agency's high-profile rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. And Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will likely be grilled about the administration's natural gas export policies.
Those hearings should be followed by more confrontational sessions this month and next with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, whose agency is forging ahead with hydraulic fracturing rules that are unpopular with Republicans.
And a top House Republican just released a broad framework for comprehensive energy legislation that will likely prompt collisions with Democrats.
The debates will be far more wide-ranging and consequential than the Keystone pipeline issue that Republicans used to start the year. Obama is expected to veto the bill, and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override. That outcome was expected and the debate symbolic, but the rest of the year will feature GOP attempts to beat back environmental and climate rules that Obama wants to be part of his legacy.
The White House has signaled that Obama won't sacrifice his big initiatives to cut carbon emissions in the name of forging fiscal deals with Capitol Hill. But that won't prevent Republicans from looking for openings to undermine his agenda.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold its first hearing on the EPA's planned rules for new and existing power plants Wednesday, with Janet McCabe, EPA's top air pollution official, as the sole witness.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already vowed an effort to attach provisions to spending legislation that block the EPA rules, putting himself on the appropriations subcommittee that handles the agency's budget.
"I think some of it will focus on appropriations," Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of the GOP's leadership team, said of effort to thwart the rules.
"The more people find out about the EPA rules that will increase their utility bills, the less they will like them, and all those things may come together about the time we get to the Interior Appropriations bill," Blunt added, referring to spending legislation for EPA and the Interior Department.
Spending bills are just one option Republicans have available to them.
They also could seek to use the Congressional Review Act, a mid-1990s law that was part of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." It gives lawmakers power to overturn final agency regulations, but has been used successfully just once. EPA plans to complete emissions rules for new and existing power plants this summer.
Democrats say they're ready for a fight. "We are prepared to protect the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is clear and it certainly gives not just the authority but the obligation to the administration to regulate all pollutants, and carbon is a pollutant, so we will look forward to that discussion," said Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat who is active in climate policy battles.
The coming days and weeks will also feature Republicans and top Cabinet officials jousting in public. Moniz will appear before a House Energy and Commerce panel Wednesday and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday to discuss his agency's budget request.
Moniz has a good rapport with Republicans—the administration energy policies that anger them the most tend to come from the Interior Department and EPA, and Moniz's pro-nuclear and pro-natural gas stances are popular across the aisle. But he'll likely still face criticism over the pace of his agency's approval of natural gas export applications, which advocates want quickened.
Elsewhere, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton on Monday released a wide-ranging and short-on-details outline for potential energy legislation.
Upton's framework pledges to tackle "permitting challenges" that thwart development of infrastructure to modernize electricity systems and make them more secure; efforts on development of an energy workforce that can address "21st Century challenges" and include more minority and low-income workers; provisions on energy exports; and provisions on energy efficiency.
The document's neutral wording is hardly an all-out assault on Obama's policies, and indeed could contain the seeds of agreement on some topics like efficiency.
But it's also an early signal of policy fights ahead. For instance, past GOP efforts to speed permitting have led to White House charges that Republicans are trying to gut environmental reviews. Also unclear is how hard Republicans might push on easing decades-old bans on crude-oil exports, an area of potential collision with Obama.
And the brief document also promises some clear battles over Obama's use of the Clean Air Act.
"The committee will also address regulatory overreach of the Environmental Protection Agency, including its power plant rules under Section 111 of the Clear Air Act and recent ozone proposal," it states.
The House can easily pass measures to thwart EPA's climate change rules, while the Senate is tougher terrain.
But Republicans also must grapple with conflicting plans: Following through on efforts to restore normal Senate procedures rather than reverting catch-all spending bills at the eleventh hour, yet also making good on threats to demand language that thwarts Obama's climate agenda, which the White House has vowed to protect.
Those fault lines were on display last week when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who heads the Appropriations Committee sub-panel that controls EPA's budget, fielded a reporter's question about McConnell's demand for provisions that block EPA's power plant regulations.
Her long, very careful answer highlights the balancing act that the GOP faces. Here's a portion of it:
"It is my intent, and I am working with my appropriations staff—and they know full well what my directive is—and that is, where we are going to be working aggressively every step of the way [is] to put together a bill that is responsive and is something that we can gain support for passage, not a messaging bill, but support for passage," said Murkowski, who also chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"You are going to have folks that will want to load this particular bill with a lot of different clever ideas as to ways that they can either make things happen or stop things from happening," she added. "And so this is where it is going to take a pretty patient skill set to sift through."
Beyond the spending bill fights, Murkowski also expressed hope that she could find some common ground with Democrats on legislation that she wants to move through the Energy panel, and hopes to hold hearings by early spring.
Murkowski is among the chamber's strongest oil-and-gas industry allies, and strongly supports opening far more areas for drilling offshore than Obama or most Democrats support, among other areas of conflict. But Murkowski said she held out hope for finding common ground with Sen. Maria Cantwell, the panel's top Democrat, citing possibility for agreement on energy efficiency, nuclear-waste policy, and public-lands issues.
-
Broad Energy Efficiency Bill to Be Introduced In Senate by End of February, Shaheen Says
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A new, broader version of Senate energy efficiency legislation will be introduced by the end of February, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10.
Similar to a bill introduced in the 113th Congress, the legislation will include a measure to repeal a provision in the 2007 energy law that requires the government to phase out use of fossil fuels in federal buildings, according to Shaheen, who is working on the legislation with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).
That measure is supported by companies such as Exelon Corp. subsidiary Constellation Energy and Lockheed Martin Corp.
“We are working on a new draft,” Shaheen said. “We're trying to get input from various constituencies, to see if there are other provisions out there we should include in the bill.”
The bill is also likely to contain measures that would ease energy efficiency standards for grid-enabled water heaters, increase energy efficiency in government data centers and promote energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
Those provisions were attached as an amendment to legislation (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which President Barack Obama has said he would veto.
The bill from the 113th Congress, which was backed by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and the investor-owned utility National Grid, would have authorized funding for measures to increase energy conservation in the federal government, establish voluntary national model building codes and boost energy efficiency in the manufacturing and commercial sectors.
That bill would have cut energy costs by about $16.2 billion a year, created 192,000 jobs and avoided 95 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to estimates. However, the legislation stalled on the Senate floor amid a fight over what amendments could be offered to the bill (92 DEN A-3, 5/13/14).
In December, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, pledged to move the “common sense” bill from Shaheen and Portman in 2015.
-
EDF, Industry Disagree on Methane Study Implications
Feb 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The Environmental Defense Fund, Colorado State University and Carnegie Mellon University released two studies today aimed at calculating methane emissions from oil and gas gathering and processing stations.
The survey of 114 gathering facilities and 16 processing plants showed that gathering facilities are more methane-intensive than companies reported to U.S. EPA to comply with the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirement Program. Researchers on a call this afternoon with reporters said the companies were not intentionally underreporting -- gathering stations are not required to report below a certain threshold, which skews the statistic.
"There's a tremendous opportunity to reduce emissions from the gathering facilities in my opinion," Anthony Marchese, a CSU researcher, said on the call with reporters.
Processing plants, which are subject to leak detection and repair requirements, emitted lower levels of the heat-trapping gas, the survey showed.
EDF said the success of the detection-and-repair requirements showed the difference regulations can make in curbing methane.
"The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments," Peter Zalzal, a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a blog post. "In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed."
The studies are part of a 16-study series the environmental group has undertaken with research and industry partners in the hopes of getting a better handle on the methane footprint of domestic petroleum production.
The green group has pushed EPA to regulate methane emissions directly using Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. EPA announced last month that it would release proposed rules for new oil and gas operations this year but would not immediately regulate existing facilities.
But the petroleum industry said the EDF/CSU study showed it was already doing enough voluntarily to curb its emissions.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) noted that several of its members participated in the survey "to better understand" their emissions.
The trade group argued that the study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, confirmed what it has said all along -- that a handful of sites are responsible for the bulk of emissions.
"At the 45 sites researchers sampled, just two sites accounted for almost as much methane as the other 43 sites combined," INGAA said.
Overall, the natural gas transmission industry reduced the number of leaks along the pipe by 94 percent, INGAA said. The American Petroleum Institute's Howard Feldman noted that of the 130 facilities the study examined, 101 had methane loss rates below 1 percent.
"EPA's own analysis shows that new methane regulations announced by the Obama administration are unnecessary in view of the dramatic progress the oil and natural gas industry is already making in reducing emissions," Feldman said.
EDF and its research partners did not make a copy of their study available.
-
Opponents Say Talk of Offsetting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Jeopardize Global Pact
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk and Eric J. Lyman
Opposition to language proposing worldwide “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century surfaced Feb. 10, immediately after the language was added to the draft negotiating text that will be the basis for this year's Paris global climate agreement.
The net-zero 2050 proposal, offered by Switzerland at the United Nations climate talks in Geneva, would allow countries and companies to offset greenhouse gas emissions with controversial or relatively unproven carbon reduction technologies such as capturing and storing carbon dioxide underground, “biochar” initiatives that involve absorbing greenhouse gases into burned biomass, and genetic engineering technologies.
Any plan to reduce carbon emissions to zero will require offsets. But opponents of the new language fear a direct reference such as the “net-zero” proposal would promote the use of potentially disruptive types of offsets and slow the transition away from fossil fuels by making them more viable. Environmental groups also said the inclusion of the language in the negotiation text could harm developing nations and undermine the credibility of the Paris climate accord.
Varied Terminology
A global goal of phasing out the use of fossil fuels by 2050 was first raised at the Conference of the Parties summit in Lima last December, where it was hailed as one of the main accomplishments of the talks (238 DEN A-25, 12/11/14).
Various drafts of the negotiating text and other proposals since then have referred to “climate neutrality,” “carbon neutrality,” “near zero emissions,” “zero emissions” and “decarbonization” of the world economy by 2050.
Whatever the term, the concept remained the same: Countries and companies would strive to reduce emissions as much as possible while using offsets to balance out the rest.
“The long-term goal is to re-establish the balance of greenhouse gas emissions to a level the planet can naturally absorb,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, told Bloomberg BNA. “That balance has been catastrophically disturbed.”
Figueres said she uses the term “climate neutrality” to refer to the 2050 goal.
Businesses Support 2050 Net-Zero Goal
The idea of advancing a “net-zero” 2050 proposal has found support among some of the world's top business leaders, according to a recent letter to Figueres.
The letter, dated Feb. 5, urged policy-makers to ensure that such a goal “becomes the foundation upon which countries build the text of the final agreement.”
“A global commitment to net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 is what the world needs to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change and is what governments, businesses, investors and communities need to plan and invest for the future,” the letter said.
The letter was signed by influential business leaders including Virgin Group founder Richard Branson; Huffington Post Media chair Arianna Huffington; Francois-Henri Pinault, the chief executive officer of Kering SA; Unilever Plc CEO Paul Polman; Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala; former Tata Group Chairman Ratan Tata; and Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank.
Concerns From Developing Nations
Environmental groups and delegates from African countries such as Tanzania and Kenya have pushed back on the inclusion of net-zero language, saying its implementation could burden developing countries.
“If we are talking about planting more trees in Africa, that creates a problem where there is less arable land for farming,” said Augustine Bantar Njamnshi, the chairman of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance.
“Competition for the remaining arable land in Africa for food is increasing and this will only aggravate the problem,” Njamnshi said in an interview on the sidelines of the Geneva talks. “Poor people won't have enough land to grow the crops that they need to eat.”
“If these CEOs are serious about their urgency in addressing this global crisis they would not be talking about 2050,” Njamnshi said. “Their real intention is to provide more time to invest in business as usual and make profits.”
‘Science Fiction.'
Net-zero language would ultimately fuel a land grab, said Kate Dooley a climate activist and doctoral candidate at the University of Melbourne.
“Most of the technologies they are looking at is simpler stuff like growing trees, sequestering carbon dioxide in soil, biochar, and bioenergy carbon capture and storage,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “That implies use of land—extremely large amounts of land—and it immediately raises the issue of food security.”
The idea of planting more trees to offset carbon emissions on such a large scale is “science fiction,” said Ulriikka Aarnio, a senior policy officer with the Climate Action Network. “This would require a huge amount of land.”
As for carbon capture and sequestration options, it would be very difficult to monitor polluters, Aarnio said. “You would have to have a monitor at every power plant. The viability of a net system is just not doable.”
The Swiss proposal came on the same day as the U.S. government-funded scientific report said such efforts to intervene in climate change could work, but they need to be studied and tested more before they are widely deployed (see related story).
The language will almost surely be left in the negotiating text when it is finalized at the end of the Geneva negotiations Feb. 13, according to Figueres. The text will be finalized, translated, and distributed to parties by the end of May and will act as the basis for the global climate agreement scheduled to be finalized at the Paris summit in December.
-
Emissions Reporting Requirements for Lead Aligned With Revised Monitoring Rule
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is revising the threshold for reporting lead emissions sources as point sources under its air emissions reporting requirements rule.
The effort is aimed at aligning those reporting requirements with monitoring requirements for the national ambient air quality standards for lead.
The EPA, in a final rule (RIN 2060-AR29) signed by Administrator Gina McCarthy Feb. 6, lowered the threshold for reporting lead emissions sources as point sources from five tons per year of potential emissions to 0.5 ton per year of actual lead emissions.
The reporting of all emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors to those pollutants will be required for any point source meeting the new lead threshold, according to the EPA.
The revised point source threshold will align the reporting rule with the 2010 monitoring rule for lead standards, which require monitoring agencies to install and operate monitors near sources that emit 0.5 ton per year or more of lead.
The agency altered the lead reporting threshold in a rulemaking that included several other revisions to the air emissions reporting requirements rule, which calls on state, local and tribal air agencies to collect and submit emissions data.
The original air emissions reporting requirements rule was issued in 2008 to streamline various reporting requirements. Data submitted under the rule is included in the National Emissions Inventory.
Some Reporting Requirements Removed
The revisions include several changes to remove reporting requirements deemed unnecessary by the EPA, including the elimination of reporting requirements for emissions from wildfire and prescribed fires.
The agency said it already provides nationwide estimates for emissions from wildfires and prescribed fires, so it's not necessary for states and other air agencies to report their own data. However, states will still be required to report emissions from agricultural fires, the EPA clarified.
The final rule also eliminates requirements for the reporting of daily and seasonal emissions associated with nonattainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide.
States will instead be required to report those emissions under pollutant-specific regulations, such as regulations for implementation of national ozone standards.
The revisions to air emissions reporting requirements will go into effect once the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Publication of the document hasn't yet been scheduled. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Here’s How California Lawmakers Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases
Feb 10, 2015 | SF Gate
By David R. Baker
In a move that could shape California’s climate policies for decades to come, legislators on Tuesday introduced a series of bills that would slash oil use in half by 2050, mandate the use of renewable power for 50 percent of the state’s electricity and force California’s massive public retirement funds to dump coal company stocks.
The bills would enshrine into law goals announced last month by Gov. Jerry Brown, who sees in the state’s fight against climate change a chance to create a lasting personal legacy.
The proposed legislation comes at a time when policies to encourage renewable power are under attack in other states, and oil prices have tumbled to their lowest levels in years. In contrast, the package unveiled Tuesday by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León would further commit California to ending its dependence on oil.
“We need to move the state away from fossil fuels and free consumers from the grip of oil prices,” said de León, D-Los Angeles. “The fact is, an economy built on fossil fuels is an economy built on shifting sands.”
The legislation could prove a huge boost to the state’s clean-energy industry, already estimated to employ roughly 430,000 people. The bills would ensure, by government mandate, that the market for new solar power plants, wind farms and zero-emission cars will continue to grow.
“It’s about setting targets, sending that market signal and then, frankly, getting out of the way,” said Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County), who wrote one of the bills and was lead author of California’s pioneering, 2006 climate law, AB32. In a nod to that history, Pavley’s new bill bears the name SB32.
Indeed, the legislation would accelerate changes in the state’s economy and power mix that are already well under way, while setting in law the ambitious target of cutting the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent of 1990’s levels by the year 2050. That long-term goal has, until now, existed only in the form of an executive order from Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger — orders that could easily by discarded by a future governor.
“The governor and the Legislature have clear intentions that California should continue to lead the country, if not the world, in combatting climate change,” said Sen. Mark Leno, co-sponsor of one of the new bills. “It’s about visionary thinking and setting a goal. You can’t get there if you don’t set a goal.”
Leno is convinced that the state’s goals will benefit California’s economy, rather than disrupt it. So far, the state’s drive to use more renewable power has been estimated to boost utility bills 1 percent to 2 percent per year, according to Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the state’s largest utility. And the costs of solar and wind power have plunged since 2006.
“This can be done without busting the bank,” Leno said. “Renewable energy is as cost-effective as fossil fuels now.”
One business organization backed by the oil industry warned that the bills could push up energy prices in the state, while stopping short of denouncing the legislative package altogether.
“Businesses and consumers are now paying increasingly higher bills for our current climate change policies under AB32,” said Rob Lapsley, chairman of Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy. His organization spent much of 2014 trying to prevent the state’s cap-and-trade system from covering fuel sales, a fight the group ultimately lost.
“While we support the current goals, we have major concerns that the next generation of legislative and regulatory mandates allow businesses and energy providers the flexibility to determine the most cost-effective way to meet climate change goals,” said Lapsley, who is also president of the California Business Roundtable.
The new bills would answer a question that has hung over California’s climate fight for several years. Many of the state’s existing policies to fight global warming set goals for the year 2020, but not beyond. Current state law, for example, requires utilities to get one-third of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2020. Similarly, the state’s cap-and-trade system for reining in greenhouse gas emissions has specific targets through 2020, but no further.
The legislative package unveiled Tuesday would create enforceable new goals stretching out to mid-century. By 2050:
•Oil use for all forms of transportation would be cut in half.
•Utilities would be required to get 50 percent of their electricity from the sun, the wind and other renewable sources. The same standard would apply both to investor-owned utilities such as PG&E as well as municipal utilities, such as those serving Los Angeles and Sacramento.
•The energy efficiency of all existing buildings within the state would be improved by 50 percent.
In addition, California’s two major public retirement funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS, would divest all coal company stock holdings, currently estimated to be worth $300 million. The bills do not call, however, for divesting from oil company stocks.
With Brown likely to support the bills, in some version, the package introduced Tuesday stands a good chance of passage in a Legislature controlled by Democrats, several lawmakers said.
-
National Research Council Advocates Carbon Dioxide Emissions Cuts Before Geoengineering
Feb 10, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
The National Research Council (NRC) is underscoring the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide before exploring ways to modify Earth’s climate. Altering the climate, sometimes called geoengineering, would require significant additional research and global coordination, NRC concludes in two reports released on Feb. 10.
The first priority should be cutting greenhouse gas emissions, NRC says. Next, the possibilities for altering the climate are carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM), the reports say.
Neither of these theoretical approaches to address climate change has ever been scientifically tested or applied in the environment.
CDR involves several strategies. They include increasing the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by boosting photosynthesis through land management strategies and ocean iron fertilization, burning of biomass for energy coupled with carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture of CO2. In contrast, SRM would involve injecting sulfur dioxide or other gases into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays into space and thus reduce solar warming of the planet.
If more fully developed, CDR has the benefit of removing the causes of climate change and ocean acidification. In contrast, SRM would only offset the warming effects of greenhouse gases and not stem acidification from ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2, the reports say.
Methods for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are far more developed than either possibility for intervening in the climate, the NRC reports emphasize.
“Environmental risks vary among CDR approaches but are generally much lower” than the risks associated with SRM, the reports say. “However, it is also less risky environmentally to avoid a given CO2 emission to the atmosphere than to emit it with the expectation that it will be purposefully removed from the atmosphere at some later time.”
The NRC committee that compiled the reports urges policymakers to first reduce emissions, next explore CDR, and only then move to examine the potential of SRM after significant research and monitoring. “The Committee considers it to be irrational and irresponsible to implement [SRM] without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon dioxide removal, or both.”
-
EPA's 'Form' For Stricter Ozone Air Standard May Trigger Legal Challenge
Feb 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
EPA's proposed “form” for implementing its planned stricter ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could -- if finalized as proposed -- trigger a legal challenge from environmentalists because it could allow areas to exceed the limit multiple times yet still demonstrate compliance, says an environmental attorney.
Under the agency's proposal to revise its ozone limit, EPA would determine whether areas are meeting the standard based on a form, or statistic, of a three-year average of annual fourth-highest ozone concentrations in those areas. The approach is the same the agency used in its 1997 and 2008 revisions to the NAAQS and has never been litigated, but the source says that if EPA retains the approach in the NAAQS it could spur a legal challenge.
EPA's approach to the form could expose the public to significant ozone pollution exceeding the proposed standard of between 65 parts per billion (ppb) and 70 ppb, stricter than the existing 75 ppb limit, the source says.
Instead, EPA should adopt a form that bases attainment of a 70 ppb standard on the second-highest concentrations over three-years or alternatively retain the existing form but tighten the standard to 60 ppb, the source adds.
Either approach would ensure stricter pollution controls, the source says. Basing the attainment form on higher ozone exceedances could lead to such areas being designated nonattainment rather than attainment, which would require them to impose more stringent controls on industrial sources of ozone-forming pollution to meet the NAAQS. By using a form of the “second time in any year that an area has an eight-hour average above what's safe, [the area] should be designated nonattainment” and face the Clean Air Act mandate for stricter controls, the source says.
Alternatively, a lower overall ozone NAAQS of 60 ppb would also force greater cuts in emissions and would “usually protect people from at least two eight-hour exposures of concern at 70 ppb,” the source adds.
While the source hopes that “detailed technical comments” that environmentalists will file on the issue will change EPA's position, if the agency follows through with its proposal to continue using the existing form for determining whether areas are attaining the NAAQS, the source says environmentalists might file a suit.
Any such litigation would be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the source believes the court would find EPA's existing form for the ozone NAAQS arbitrary.
'Free Pass'
If EPA sets the standard at 70 ppb -- the top end of the range it is considering for the ozone standard -- the public is “going to have multiple exposures of concern” at that level, the attorney says, adding that EPA “set the form to allow at least three exposures at any level in any given year. So, [EPA] gets a free pass.”
“It wouldn't surprise me if multiple environmental groups support using a more appropriate and protective form for the primary standard when comments finally get filed,” the source says.
Environmentalists' comments, due by March 17, “will signal to EPA if [it is] not willing to protect innocent people from death and disease,” then it can expect a legal fight, the source adds.
Although the attorney is not aware of any environmentalists previously pursuing any litigation over the form of any NAAQS that might help with an eventual suit on the ozone form, “I don't think lack of precedent is an impediment because it's just math” that could be demonstrated by looking to see if “actual monitoring data” is providing the protection EPA intended with the level and form it sets to avoid exposures of concern.
But one state air regulator says concerns over the form for the primary standard “hasn't been on the radar” for EPA or for its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that endorsed a stricter ozone limit. There has “always” been “some way where you throw away some of the worst [ozone] days to achieve programmatic stability,” the source says, while acknowledging that the ozone NAAQS “[n]umber and form are both important.”
EPA uses the fourth-highest exceedances of the ozone NAAQS in a given year, rather than the first three-highest exceedances, because the highest value would be “much more variable, and [you] don't want areas flip-flopping in and out of attainment. That would be bad from a policy perspective,” the source says.
EPA's Decision
EPA in its Dec. 17 Federal Register notice outlining its proposal to tighten the NAAQS includes a discussion of how it decided to retain the form of the ozone first adopted in 1997 and retained in 2008.
The agency notes that the Clinton administration in its 1997 rulemaking to set the ozone limit at a value expressed at 84 ppb established the current form because it “better reflects the continuum of health effects” from ozone pollution, as it gives more weight to years when 8-hour ozone concentrations are well above the NAAQS.
EPA at the time assessed setting the form at the second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-highest daily maximum ozone concentrations and ultimately chose the fourth-highest concentrations as the best approach to reasonably account for exceedances of the limit. “A more restrictive form was not selected, recognizing that the differences in the degree of protection afforded by the alternatives were not well enough understood to use any such differences as a basis for choosing the most restrictive forms,” according to the agency's Register notice.
In 2008, the Bush EPA then reviewed and retained the form after weighing other options based on CASAC's advice, public input and other factors. EPA also determined at that time that it was important to have a form that would ensure stability in the implementation of the NAAQS through consistent attainment designations.
EPA concluded that the existing form best accounted for meteorological events that can lead to ozone formation, which could reduce public health protection by leading to areas frequently shifting in and out of attainment due to those events. “[S]uch frequent shifting could disrupt an area's ongoing implementation plans and associated control programs,” EPA says, and the existing form gave a “stable target” for implementing ozone reduction programs.
In the current ozone NAAQS review, EPA says it weighed prior conclusions by the agency and CASAC on the form as well as the importance of stability in assessing areas' attainment status, and EPA “concludes that the currently available evidence and information do not call into question these conclusions from previous reviews.”
EPA concludes that “a standard with the current 4th high form, coupled with a level lower than 75 ppb as discussed below, would be expected to increase public health protection relative to the current standard while continuing to provide stability for implementation programs” -- though the environmental attorney disagrees.
Citing CASAC's support for the existing form, the source says, “I don't think they understand the form. . . . I don't disagree with CASAC on the science . . . [but] as a Clean Air Act attorney, I think I just see more of how the NAAQS gets implemented.” The source is “willing to wager CASAC doesn't understand or isn't aware [of] EPA's refusal to re-designate [an] area from attainment to nonattainment even though data supports it. A CASAC representative did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
-
EPA Considers Dallas-Fort Worth Area For Severe Ozone Nonattainment Category
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed to reclassify the Dallas-Fort Worth area as being in severe nonattainment of the 1997 ozone standard, EPA Region 6 said Feb. 10.
While the area's air quality has steadily improved as its population grows, the area missed a June 2013 deadline to attain the original eight-hour ozone standard of 84 parts per billion, the agency said. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to reclassify the Dallas-Fort Worth area as a severe nonattainment area due to the missed deadline.
The proposal will be published for public comment in the Federal Register in seven days to 10 days. Upon publication, a 30-day public comment period will begin.
The EPA has been coordinating closely with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the North Central Texas Council of Governments, elected officials and statewide environmental organizations in preparation for the Feb. 10 proposed action, the agency said.
TCEQ has developed a clean air plan for the revised 2008 ozone standard and is expected to submit that plan to the EPA for review by July, the EPA said.
The Dallas-Fort Worth air quality has significantly improved over the last decade, the EPA said.
Ten years ago, the eight-hour average was 98 parts per billion, while the preliminary value for 2010-2014 is 81 ppb. During that time, the region also has been among the fastest-growing regions in the country.
The EPA revised the eight-hour health-based standard for ozone in 2008, the agency said. In 2013, the EPA proposed for public comment guidelines for the revised standard, including plans to revoke the 1997 ozone standard for all purposes and to no longer reclassify areas under the old standard. However, this proposal still isn't final.
EPA Proposal Result of Settlement
The EPA's proposed action is a result of a November 2013 settlement with the Sierra Club. The environmental group's lawsuit alleged the EPA hadn't met deadlines under the Clean Air Act.
Under the settlement agreement, the EPA agreed to deadlines to determine whether the Dallas-Fort Worth area met the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards and review implementations plan submissions by the state (216 DEN A-5, 11/7/14).
-
Dallas Area Now In 'Severe' Nonattainment For Ozone -- EPA
Feb 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is now in "severe" nonattainment with the 1997 national ozone standard, U.S. EPA said in a proposal today.
The region missed a June 2013 deadline to come into compliance with the eight-hour standard of 84 parts per billion, EPA said. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency said it must now reclassify the designation from its current status as "serious."
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets ambient air quality standards and then requires states to come up with plans to reduce pollution levels in areas that do not meet the national limit. The Clean Air Act establishes deadline schedules for nonattainment areas that reflect the severity of noncompliance; if any area fails to meet a deadline for its current status, it is bumped up to the next level of severity.
Though it is rarely done, the Clean Air Act allows the government to cut off state highway funds if areas continuously fail to achieve air quality standards.
The Sierra Club sued EPA last year to compel the agency to change the Dallas area's status to severe. Today's proposal came about as the result of a consent decree the environmental group and EPA entered into last month.
Ground-level ozone is a key component of smog and is formed when nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. In Dallas-Fort Worth, the biggest contributors to ozone pollution are cars and trucks, according to EPA.
Environmentalists say rapidly expanding hydraulic fracturing operations also contribute substantially to the region's air quality issues, though the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says oil and gas production has not significantly affected ozone in the region.
The agency's proposal to change the area's classification will soon be published in the Federal Register. Upon publication, it will be subject to a public comment period of 30 days before being finalized.
EPA tightened the national ozone standard to 75 ppb in 2008 -- the Dallas-Fort Worth area is considered in moderate nonattainment with that standard -- and is currently considering a proposal to lower it further to between 65 and 70 ppb. In proposing to tighten the standard, EPA also proposed to revoke the 1997 standard for regulatory purposes, which could make today's proposal moot, but the agency has not yet made the decision final.
Despite the new proposed designation, EPA said the Dallas-Fort Worth area has made gains in air quality. Recent preliminary data show that the eight-hour average in the area is 81 ppb, down from 98 ppb a decade ago.
EPA said it worked with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, officials and state environmental organizations on its proposal today.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is working on a Clean Air Act plan that lays out how it will meet the 2008 standard in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and is expected to submit it for EPA review by July.
"The TCEQ is currently focused on achieving the newer, more stringent 75 ppb EPA ozone standard," TCEQ said in a recent statement. "Achieving that goal will be challenging, but as shown by recent ozone readings, the state is heading in the right direction."
The commission has opposed EPA's plan to further tighten the standard, arguing that it would bring significant costs with little benefit to public health.
-
California Senate Democrats Call for New Targets for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Mahoney and Carolyn Whetzel
California Senate Democrats introduced a four-bill package Feb. 10 to carry out Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) proposal to go beyond existing climate policy goals by increasing renewable energy use and energy efficiency by 50 percent while reducing petroleum use by the same percentage.
California is on its way to meeting the goal of deriving one-third of its electricity from renewable resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The package of bills set new goals for 2030 and 2050, with a focus on job creation and economic growth.
“Clean tech companies in California are creating more jobs and are investing more money than competitors in any other state,” Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D) said at a news conference on the lawn of the state Capitol. “We need to pursue policies that build on this economic growth by strengthening incentives for energy efficiency and clean technology.”
De Leon and other Democratic senators were flanked by representatives of environmental groups, clean energy companies, labor groups and home builders as they announced the following legislation:
S.B. 32 by Sen. Fran Pavley (D) would codify a 2005 executive order from former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
S.B. 350 by de Leon (D) and Sen. Mark Leno (D) would set a 2030 goal to cut petroleum use by 50 percent and increase renewable energy use and energy efficiency in existing non-residential buildings by 50 percent. Brown proposed the 50/50/50 goals in his January State of the State address (3 DEN A-8, 1/6/15).
S.B. 185 by de Leon would require the California Public Employees' Retirement System and California State Teachers Retirement System to divest their portfolios from coal companies. CalPERS has said such a move would thwart its ability to be an activist investor.
S.B. 189 by Sen. Ben Hueso (D) would establish a “high-level expert” committee to advise state leaders on clean energy and climate actions that would help with job creation.
Support, Opposition Already
Representatives of clean energy companies, including Solar City and Sunpower, and labor groups, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the State Construction and Building Trades Council, offered strong support for the legislation at the event, saying the state's ambitious climate policies are creating jobs throughout the state, including in areas with high unemployment rates.
The Western States Petroleum Association immediately issued a written statement expressing its opposition to S.B. 350 or any legislative or regulatory mandates to force a 50 percent reduction in gasoline and diesel use by 2030.
“A mandate to reduce petroleum consumption by 50 percent is an impossibly unrealistic goal,” Western States Petroleum President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said.
“Mandates to force reductions in gasoline use are not climate change policies,” she said. “They are attacks on an important industry in California designed to create conflict and controversy.”
The bill would give the “unelected California Air Resources Board open-ended authority to adopt mandates by regulation to achieve unrealistic cuts in gasoline and diesel use,” Reheis-Boyd said. “Mandates designed to achieve a goal of this magnitude will require unacceptably coercive restrictions on our mobility choices and will be crushingly expensive.”
Bill to Curb CARB
Assemblyman James Gallagher (R) introduced a bill Feb. 5 that would prohibit California Air Resources Board from adopting or amending regulations under the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, which is the foundation of the current policies and the new legislative proposals, without approval from the Legislature.
Gallagher told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10 the bill would create more oversight and accountability on CARB's actions.
With a minority in both houses, Republicans may have a difficult time winning enough support to pass the bill.
Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D) said at the news conference that the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, which he chairs, will begin a series of oversight hearings Feb. 25. He intends to examine ways that California can meet the goals of the legislation and actions CARB is taking. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
EPA Acted as Advocate, Not Regulator In Modifying California Air Plan, Court Told
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
The Environmental Protection Agency acted more as an advocate than a regulator in modifying a state plan to control ozone and fine particulates in the San Joaquin Valley, an advocacy group argued Feb. 10 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 09-71383, oral arguments 2/10/15).
Rather than reject or order amendments to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), the EPA aided and didn't regulate the state, said Brent J. Newell, an attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment in San Francisco representing the Association of Irritated Residents.
“EPA was trying to assist the district to avoid sanctions,” Newell told the three-judge panel.
“EPA isn't supposed to have authority to amend SIPs. In this situation, EPA is collaborating with the state,” Newell said during oral arguments.
Simi Bhat, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division, told the judges that “EPA made a mistake and corrected it. That correction was appropriate and reasonably based on interpretations of state law by the state attorney general.”
Advocacy groups have been pressing to bring the San Joaquin Valley into compliance for years. Oral arguments were held nearly four years after the Ninth Circuit ordered the EPA to re-evaluate its prior approval of transportation control measures in an earlier 2003 state plan revision submitted by the California Air Resources Board to update mobile source emissions data (Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 09-71383, 2/2/11; 24 DEN A-13, 2/4/11).
States are responsible for ensuring air quality within their jurisdiction meets the Clean Air Act's air quality standards and submit to plans to the EPA to implement the law. California delegates that authority to regional air districts.
California Submitted SIP Revision in 2002
California in 2002 submitted a SIP revision to the EPA that contained rules governing ozone and particulates in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
The EPA approved the SIP before the plan was in compliance with state regulations, which had to do with the process of adding agricultural source controls.
The EPA revised the scope of its 2004 approval to apply only to the extent that the state could implement the SIP.
The advocacy groups challenged EPA's use of the Clean Air Act's Section 7410(k)(6) to make that correction.
The law permits the EPA to correct such mistakes, Bhat said.
Said Changes Nothing
Air district counsel Annette A. Ballatore-Williamson, a partner with McCormick Bartow LLP in Fresno, Calif., said the case from a practical, real world discussion “is much ado about nothing.”
The rule applies only to a limited period of time, 2004-2010. “Now at this present time as far as redressability, vacating EPA's error correction rules serves no practical purpose,” Ballatore-Williamson said.
“From an air quality perspective, the status quo would be maintained,” she said. “There would be no benefit for air quality.”
The association is represented by Newell and Sofia Parino, also from the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, San Francisco.
The EPA is represented by Bhat. Ballatore-Williamson represents the San Joaquin Air District.
Amicus Foster Farms is represented by Timothy S. Bishop, partner, Mayer Brown LLP Chicago.
The Air Coalition Team is represented by Philip M. Jay Kahn, Soares & Conway LLP, Hanford, Calif.
-
Obama Unveils $2B Goal for Private Investments in Climate Fight
Feb 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The White House announced a $2 billion goal for private sector investments in the fight to tackle climate change, and improve low-carbon energy technology.
The initiative is meant to bulk up investments in clean energy, according to a White House fact sheet released on Tuesday.
"Today’s announcements will help clean energy investors reduce transaction costs, spread promising investment models, and increase their climate mitigation impact," the White House fact sheet said.
The $2 billion in private contributions will go toward reducing cost, improving low-carbon energy technology, and boosting solar, wind, and energy efficiency.
Commitments include $1 billion from the University of California Board of Regents toward investing in climate change solutions and helping advance clean energy vehicles.
Wells Fargo is also committing of $100 million in environmental grants by 2020 to boost energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
The private investments coincide with President Obama's request for $4 billion in his 2016 budget to help states prepare for his proposed carbon pollution rule on existing power plants.
-
The World Can Turn the Corner on Climate Change By 2020. Here's How.
Feb 10, 2015 | Environmental Leader
By Fred Krupp
When it comes to climate action, it’s a good thing that smart people keep building scenarios for cleaning up global energy production. Those visions of the future are necessary – but they tend to lack an essential ingredient.
One team of researchers recently reviewed 11 such studies, all of them offering plans for “50 to 90 percent reductions in global CO2 emissions by mid-century.” But as the writer David Roberts observed last month in Grist, “most decarbonization scenarios are thought experiments, not practical roadmaps…We need to start thinking in practical terms about how to get the technologies we need ready.”
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, for the past, year Environmental Defense Fund has been drawing up a short-term blueprint for climate action, part of new strategic plan that will guide all of our work for the next five years.
We came up with a program to accomplish something audacious: stopping once and for all the centuries-long rise in global greenhouse gas emissions and seeing them peak, level off and begin to decline within the next five years. We call it turning the corner toward a stable climate.
Of course it won't be easy and EDF can’t do it alone – it will take hard work by people all over the world. But the window of opportunity is open. Though global CO2 emissions from energy use are still going up, in recent years their rate of increase has been cut in half.
To capitalize on that and turn the corner once and for all, here are four of the big levers we need to pull now:
1. Focus on the biggest emitters: The U.S., China and Europe.
For the United States, turning the corner by 2020 means seeing through the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed limits on carbon pollution from power plants – our single biggest source of carbon pollution – while making sure the billions of dollars that will be spent on upgrading our electric grid are invested wisely.
In the U.S. and Europe alike, it means sweeping aside outdated regulations that are getting in the way of clean energy and energy efficiency – which is why our fastest-growing program at EDF is devoted to doing just that.
And for China, where EDF has been working for 20 years, it means, by 2020, capping half of the nation’s carbon emissions, improving energy efficiency by 25 percent and shifting the country’s energy mix to one-third renewable energy, natural gas and nuclear – up from 15 percent in 2013.
In November, the U.S. and China made a historic announcement about cutting global warming pollution and committing themselves to the clean energy path. Now we’re going pedal to the metal down that road.
2. Reduce short-lived climate pollutants such as methane.
Methane is 84 times more dangerous to our climate than carbon dioxide in the short term, and it accounts for about 25 percent of the warming we’re experiencing today. Any serious plan to combat global warming must address methane, which is is vented and leaked from wellheads, compressors, and pipelines all across the natural gas system. (Natural gas is mostly methane.)
A few years ago, when EDF began sounding the alarm about methane, almost no one was talking about it. Now we’re starting to make genuine progress. The federal government has proposed rules to control emissions and set a target of achieving a 40-45-percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 –something we can do at bargain prices.
According to a study by consultant ICF International, if we stopped 40 percent of methane emissions, the cost of a thousand cubic feet of natural gas would increase by an average of just one penny. It’s the biggest environmental bargain I know.
3. Halt deforestation in the Amazon.
Global deforestation is responsible for about 15 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, and clearing will go on until we make forests more valuable alive than dead. A global carbon marketplace where rainforest nations are rewarded for preserving their forests is a key strategy.
EDF has been working with the Kayapo and other Amazonian tribes while encouraging carbon markets in California and elsewhere to allow capital to flow to the forest defenders. Already, there are encouraging signs: Brazil has reduced its rate of deforestation by 70 percent over the past decade.
Our goal by 2020 is to see zero net emissions of greenhouse gases from Amazon deforestation.
4. Tackle the market failure that caused this problem in the first place.
The president and the EPA have used many, though not all, of the options they have to cut carbon pollution under existing law. Turning the corner by 2020 doesn’t depend on Congressional action – but we cannot solve the climate crisis without action in Washington.
Accelerating the clean energy technology we need for long-term decarbonization requires a price and limit on carbon, a trigger for a worldwide market correction that benefits clean energy.
It’s Economics 101: When putting carbon pollution into our common atmosphere is no longer free, industry will have a bottom-line incentive to find clean alternatives – and investors, inventors and entrepreneurs will join the race.
Making climate pollution a cost of doing business is the path many governments are already taking, from California to Brussels to Beijing. It’s time for Washington to follow their example.
These and other ideas for turning the corner are laid out in detail in EDF’s new strategic plan. Please let me know what you think – and even more important, please join us as we take on the hard work of turning this blueprint into reality.
-
2011 Mercury Rule Cited as Reason For Shutting Down Montana Power Plant
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
PPL Montana announced it will permanently shut down its mothballed J.E. Corette coal-fired power plant in Billings in part because of the cost of complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's 2011 mercury rule.
The company recently re-evaluated a 2012 decision to mothball the plant and retain the option to restart it if wholesale power market conditions in the Northwest changed, David Hoffman, spokesman for PPL Montana in Helena, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10.
The EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard in 2011 placed upgrade mandates on the plant, and the estimated cost of putting the plant back in service—coupled with low wholesale prices in the Northwest—prompted the decision to permanently shut down, Hoffman said (246 DEN A-1, 12/22/11).
The plant will be retired in August.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) issued a statement faulting the Obama administration's “war on coal” for the closing of the Corette power plant.
“The EPA's misguided agenda doesn't just hurt Montana's coal industry—it directly affects thousands of Montana families, union workers and tribal members who rely on coal for good-paying jobs and reliable, affordable energy,” he said in a statement.
The 153-megawatt power plant, which uses low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, began operating in 1968 and now has about 30 full-time employees, the company said in a statement.
The Corette plant closing will have no effect on PPL Montana's Colstrip power plant in Rosebud County, which the company operates and owns jointly with five other companies, it said.
-
Input Sought on EPA Proposed Agreement To Act on States' Fine Particulate Plans
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is now seeking public comment on a proposed agreement that would establish deadlines for agency action on state plans for the implementation of national fine particulate matter standards.
The proposed consent decree, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, would set a Nov. 30 deadline for the EPA to approve or disapprove portions of state implementation plans submitted by six states for the 2006 national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter. The agency also would be required either to approve state plans or to issue a federal plan covering interstate pollution from five other states and the District of Columbia (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:12-cv-6472, proposed consent decree filed 1/21/15).
The proposed agreement would settle a 2012 lawsuit by the Sierra Club, which alleged that the EPA failed to take nondiscretionary action under the Clean Air Act to act on infrastructure state implementation plans. Those plans describe the basic elements of each state or territory's strategy to implement, maintain and enforce revised national ambient air quality standards.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve infrastructure plans within 12 months once the agency has determined that the plans are administratively complete. If the EPA disapproves a plan or if a state fails to submit a complete plan, the EPA has two years to promulgate a federal implementation plan to cover the affected state or territories.
The state plans that are the subject of the Sierra Club lawsuit are for the EPA's 2006 fine particulate matter standards of 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over 24 hours.
Proposed 2015 Deadlines
Under the proposed settlement, the EPA would be required by Nov. 30 to approve or disapprove remaining state implementation plan elements for California, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
The settlement also would set the following 2015 deadlines for the EPA either to promulgate a federal implementation plan or to approve a state implementation plan regarding interstate pollution obligations:
• July 31: Colorado and Wyoming,
• Sept. 30: Oregon and
• Nov. 30: South Dakota, Idaho and the District of Columbia.
The Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” provision requires the EPA and states to address interstate transport of air pollution that affects downwind areas' ability to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards.
The EPA is scheduled to publish a Feb. 11 notice alerting the public of the filing of the proposed consent decree. The agency then will accept public comment on the proposed agreement until March 13. Comments can be filed at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0079.
The EPA said it or the Justice Department may withdraw the proposed consent decree if comments indicate that the settlement would be inappropriate, improper on inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
We Need Open Debate on Oil Train Safety
Feb 11, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
As oil trains rumble through the Sacramento region, a key House panel held an important hearing on how rail and pipelines can keep up – safely – with the boom in domestic oil production. For two hours, top rail and oil industry executives testified and answered questions on this crucial issue.
Then Rep. Jeff Denham had to go and spoil it.
The Turlock Republican, chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, ended last week’s hearing on an unfortunate note – an unnecessary dressing down of a rail car manufacturing executive who called on federal regulators to speed up the rollout of safer oil tank cars.
Though his firm (which has a repair shop in Modesto) would benefit financially, Greg Saxton, senior vice president and chief engineer at the Greenbrier Companies, happens to be right. The National Transportation Safety Board, which put rail tank car safety on its “most wanted” list for 2015, points out that more than 100,000 outdated cars carry crude, increasing the risk of leaks and explosions. Denham also says he’s concerned that the U.S. Department of Transportation missed its own Jan. 30 deadline to submit new rules on oil tank cars.
So what was Saxton’s transgression, according to Denham? He had the temerity to talk to lowly newspaper editorial writers, as well as esteemed members of Congress.
Denham lectured Saxton that he didn’t want the “wrong people” – whoever they are – “talking to the ed boards across the country” and creating a “misperception” that “our industry” is unsafe.
“I just want to make sure we’re all singing the same tune that we have a very safe industry and we want to work together in improving that industry,” the congressman said, as pointed out by Mike Dunbar, opinions page editor at The Modesto Bee who talked to Saxton last month.
Last time we checked, acting as a public relations consultant for the oil industry isn’t Denham’s job. He should care much more about keeping his constituents in Modesto and Turlock safe. As chairman of this important panel, he should encourage open debate. Instead, his spokeswoman said Tuesday, Denham stands by his remarks to Saxton.
Thankfully, officials in Benicia actually listened to people who exercised free speech.
They announced last week they will redo parts of an environmental study on the proposal for two 50-car oil trains a day to traverse Sacramento and other Northern California cities on the way to the Valero refinery in Benicia.
Benicia officials are responding to environmental groups, Sacramento-area officials and Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had all properly pointed out that the report fell short in analyzing potential oil spills and fires in the middle of urban areas and didn’t even consider possible harm east of Roseville.
The updated study, to be released June 30, also needs to at least consider suggestions from Sacramento and Davis leaders that Union Pacific Railroad be required to give advance notice of oil shipments to emergency responders and be banned from parking oil trains in urban areas.
They’re the sorts of ideas that people might just want to explain to a congressional committee – or perhaps even an editorial board.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article9716210.html#storylink=cpy -
Boxer Takes Top Transportation Panel Slot In Announcing Subcommittee Membership
Feb 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Former Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will be the top Democrat on the committee's Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee, she announced Feb. 10, in hopes of having an impact on the upcoming battle to reauthorize the highway bill.
In announcing the subcommittee assignments, Boxer said she followed the example of former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). Baucus, now the U.S. ambassador to China, also chose the top minority position on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee in 2005, when Democrats were also the minority party in the Senate. The chairman of the Republican-led committee that year was Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who returned as chairman this year after Republicans won control of the Senate last fall.
The current transportation bill expires at the end of May.
Other Democratic members of the transportation and infrastructure panel announced by Boxer Feb. 10 are Sens. Tom Carper (Del.); Ben Cardin (Md.); Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.); Jeff Merkley (Ore.); and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).
Carper was named the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, while Whitehouse was named top Democrat on the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was named ranking minority on the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight.
-
Boxer Takes Over Transportation Subcommittee in EPW Shakeup
Feb 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced yesterday that she will replace Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware as the top Democrat on EPW's Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, part of a shakeup of the full committee's Democratic leaders.
Boxer's decision to pull rank and take over the Transportation Subcommittee comes as Congress seeks to reauthorize a surface transportation bill known as MAP-21, which is set to expire May 31.
A long-term reauthorization of the spending bill this spring is unlikely, but the EPW Committee has a lead role in negotiating a deal, and sources said that Boxer believes an agreement would burnish her legacy before she retires at the end of 2016.
The change represents a demotion for Carper, who as chairman of the subcommittee teamed up last year to push for MAP-21 reauthorization with Boxer and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and new EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe took over the full committee after Republicans gained control of the Senate last month.
The shakeup affects other Democrats on the EPW Committee, as well, as other top spots were reshuffled to make room for Boxer's new role on the Transportation Subcommittee.
Carper will serve as ranking member of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, replacing Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a leading climate change action advocate in the upper chamber who loses a platform to push his top issue.
Instead, Whitehouse was named ranking member of the reorganized Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee. Fisheries was added to the panel's purview -- last Congress it just covered wildlife and water issues.
Whitehouse replaced Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who served as the subcommittee's chairman last year but now does not have a leadership spot on EPW. Cardin used that post to champion the Chesapeake Bay.
Additionally, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was named as the ranking member on the Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee, replacing Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, who headed the panel when Democrats were in charge of the upper chamber.
Inhofe reorganized the panel and changed its name from the Subcommittee on Oversight earlier this year. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey had served as the chairman of the old Oversight Subcommittee before the Republicans took control.
The subcommittee has broad jurisdiction over U.S. EPA's Superfund program, which cleans up the most polluted industrial sites around the country.
Markey has worked on Superfund issues for years and led a decades-long fight during his tenure in the House to clean up a toxic site in Woburn, Mass. The case was settled in 2012 when two firms agreed to pay $4.2 million in damages caused by contamination at the site.
"I will continue my decades of work ensuring toxic chemicals are both safe and secure, reclaiming our communities from hazardous pollution, and pushing back on any efforts to deny and defund critical science and environmental safety efforts," Markey said in a statement.
In a separate change, Inhofe -- a vocal opponent of action on climate change -- also eliminated the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee, which was run last Congress by Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested