ACC AM 2/23/2018

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioend) A Packed CPAC For Energy

   Feb 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro

   By Kelsey Tamborrino
   
   
   ... American Oversight, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and the Environmental Working Group have filed a FOIA request for communication between EPA officials and representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the Chlorine Institute, as well as companies including Occidental Chemical, Olin and Chemours.
2. Future Of ISDS In NAFTA In Doubt, Giving Companies Pause

   Feb 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro

   By Adam Behsudi
   
   
   U.S. businesses are coming to the realization that the new NAFTA 2.0 deal may not include an investor-dispute process, which has allowed companies to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in damages over the 24-year life of the pact.

LCSA News

3. (ACC Mentioned) Toxics Office Reassigns Staff From P2 To Address TSCA Workload Burdens

   Feb 23, 2018 | Inside EPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   Leaders of EPA's toxics office are moving staff from its pollution prevention (P2) program to work on implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), citing the struggle they face to keep up with the workload created by the reformed statute's mandates, according to an internal agency memo reviewed by Inside EPA.

Chemical Management News

4. Facts Missing in Review of EPA Chemical Rule: Environmentalists (1)

   Feb 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   The public can't know whether a chemical rule the EPA has proposed would protect oilfield workers as stated because the agency has failed to release essential information, a senior Environmental Defense Fund scientist said Feb. 22.
5. Honeywell, Saint-Gobain Face PFOA Claims for Lost Profits

   Feb 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Peter Hayes
   
   
   Honeywell and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics failed to shake off a contractor's claims that their contamination of local groundwater cost him $1 million in lost revenue.
6. DuPont, Chemours Hit With New Suit Over Cape Fear Contamination

   Feb 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Peter Hayes
   
   
   DuPont and Chemours were hit with a suit by dozens of Fayetteville, N.C., residents who say the companies dumped perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) into the Cape Fear River and contaminated their properties.

Energy News

7. Cheniere LNG Exports Surge, with More Trains Underway

   Feb 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Charlie Passut
   
   
   Cheniere Energy Inc. more than tripled liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports last year from its Sabine Pass export terminal in Cameron Parish, LA, while narrowing its annual losses and posting a more than four-fold increase in annual revenues.
8. Oneok Adding NGL Pipeline, Fractionation Facility, Processing Plant to Capital Growth Plans

   Feb 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By David Bradley
   
   
   Oneok Inc. plans to invest $2.3 billion by 2020 on projects including a Midcontinent-to-Gulf Coast natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline, a fractionation facility in Mont Belvieu, TX, and a natural gas processing plant in North Dakota, the Tulsa-based company said Wednesday.
9. DOE To Finance Heat and Power Technology Research

   Feb 22, 2018 | Chem.Info

   Today, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) announced up to $10 million to conduct research and development activities to further the utilization of cost-effective, highly efficient combined heat and power (CHP) specifically designed to provide support to the electric grid.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

10. Activists Call For Ban On New Crude Oil Train Terminals

    Feb 22, 2018 | The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

    By Jacob Took
    
    
    The Baltimore City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee met on Wednesday to discuss a bill prohibiting the construction of crude oil train terminals in the City. Advocates for this bill argue that the pollutants and threat of explosion from crude oil trains make them too dangerous to run through Baltimore.

Environment News

11. Energy Companies Lag On Emission Curbs — Report

    Feb 22, 2018 | E&E News PM

    By Arianna Skibell
    
    
    While cities, states and corporations have doubled down on efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the wake of President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and undo Obama-era environmental policies, some of the biggest energy companies in the country are not following suit, a new report says.
12. Key Democrat Readying Carbon Trading Legislation Ahead Of Midterms

    Feb 22, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Lee Logan
    
    
    A top Democrat on the House energy committee is writing new legislation to create a federal greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, the first such organized legislative effort since the early days of the Obama administration, and is poised to receive feedback on the issue from scores of stakeholder groups by next week.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioend) A Packed CPAC For Energy

   Feb 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro

   By Kelsey Tamborrino

   A CPAC-KED HOUSE: All three energy principals will head to the National Harbor today to address a crowd of GOP officials and supporters at the Conservative Political Action Conference. While ME isn't expecting much in the way of policy specifics to be discussed, the conference will be a chance for the three to rally the faithful and tout their accomplishments over the past year.

   Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Energy Secretary Rick Perry will deliver remarks during a morning session with former Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez. Zinke will discuss “the incredible success” the administration has made on President Donald Trump's “energy dominance” goals, including increasing federal energy revenues to states by more than a billion dollars and the tax reform bill's opening of the "1002" area of Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge, according to Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift.

   Granted a primetime spot on the agenda, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will address the confab’s Ronald Reagan dinner and dessert reception alongside Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro. Pruitt is no stranger to the event, having appeared last year just days after he was confirmed to EPA. Warmly embraced by the conference, Pruitt vowed last year that he would repeal various Obama administration rules like the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. During his address tonight, the administrator plans to highlight the work done at his agency "to ensure regulatory certainty for hardworking Americans,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said. “In one year, Administrator Pruitt spearheaded 22 de-regulatory actions that saved the American people more than $1 billion in regulatory costs,” she added.

   If you go: Zinke and Perry’s session begins at 8:35 a.m. and Pruitt’s at 7 p.m. at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center. See the full CPAC schedule here and watch the livestream here.

   INTERIOR DELAY OF METHANE RULE ‘UNTETHERED TO EVIDENCE,’ JUDGE SAYS: A federal judge late last night blocked the Interior Department's delay of key requirements under the methane waste rule, reinstating at least for now a rule the Trump administration is in the midst of repealing. In a fiery order, Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for Northern California said that Interior's delay is “untethered to evidence” that would support postponing the original methane regulation. He also said the challengers — California, New Mexico and environmental groups — have shown "irreparable injury caused by the waste of publicly owned natural gas, increased air pollution and associated health impacts, and exacerbated climate impacts,” and are likely to win the entire case.

   In a 29-page injunction, Orrick, an Obama appointee, rejects the Trump administration's arguments for delaying the rule. Interior "fails to point to any factual support underlying" its new concerns, Orrick wrote. He also slammed key parts of Interior’s regulatory analysis, especially what he said was an attempt to inflate the delay’s climate benefits when they are likely negative. Plus, he added, Interior violated notice-and-comment requirements because "Secretary Zinke refused to consider comments regarding the substance or merits of the" original methane waste rule.

   Sound familiar? This is the second time the oil and gas industry has faced whiplash regulatory confusion amidst the Trump administration’s efforts to halt Obama-era environmental regulations as quickly as possible. EPA last summer stayed its own methane rule covering new oil and gas wells, but after a weeks-long tug of war with the D.C. Circuit, the rule was reinstated. EPA is now considering phasing in certain requirements rather than outright staying the rule.

   HAPPY FRIDAY! I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino, and Bracewell’s Frank Maisano was first to identify Calvin Coolidge as holding the title for shortest presidential memoir. “The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge” clocks in at 247 pages. For today: Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to name a woman to his Cabinet. Who was the woman and what was the Cabinet position? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.

   HEADS UP! Zinke will also meet with governors from Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota and Alaska today, according to Interior.

   WATCHDOG FLAGS ZINKE-NRA MEETING: A government watchdog group is waving red flags over Zinke’s previous appearance at a Virgin Islands fundraiser, as well as a new speaking engagement backed by the National Rifle Association. The Campaign Legal Center — which boasts former Office of Government Ethics head Walter Shaub Jr. as a senior director — is calling on the FEC to investigate the Virgin Islands appearance, and it plans to request that Interior's inspector general probe what it contends is a "pattern of violations" of ethics regulations, Pro’s Ben Lefevre reports. “In his short time in office, Secretary Zinke’s boundary-pushing — and, apparently, boundary-crossing — conduct has set a poor ethical example for the department’s staff,” the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a draft complaint it plans to send to the inspector general Monday.

   The complaints from CLC also flagged a previously unreported tripfrom September when Zinke and two Interior staffers stayed two nights at the Four Seasons Resort in Dallas while the secretary spoke at an conference organized by the NRA. The group previously donated $4,000 to Zinke’s 2016 congressional campaign. According to travel documents, an Interior ethics officer signed off on Zinke and the staffers’ spending of $195 per room per night. During the trip, Zinke spent an hour at an “informal” luncheon with oil industry executives and financial industry members who had contributed heavily to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Ben writes. “The lunch, which Interior's trip schedulesshow was held to discuss ‘sports and conservation,’ included Thomas Hicks, a Texas oilman who contributed $1,500 to Zinke’s congressional races and at least $8,100 to Trump’s presidential campaign, according to FEC data.” Read more.

   REPORTS: TRUMP SCHEDULES BIOFUELS MEETINGS: The president has called two summits with Cabinet members and senators on potential changes to biofuels policy, Bloomberg and Reuters reported last night, citing sources familiar with the matter. The first meeting is set for today with Pruitt and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Bloomberg reports. Another meeting is scheduled for Tuesday and will include senators who have been locking horns over the issue.

   Reuters reported the Tuesday meeting will include Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassleyand Joni Ernst, along with Pruitt, Perdue, and potentially Perry. One source said the meeting would "focus on short-term solutions to help" the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery, whose owners recently put the company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, placing the blame on the Renewable Fuel Standard. Another source told Reuters, the “meeting will consider whether to cap prices for biofuel credits, let higher-ethanol blends be sold all year, and efforts to get speculators out of the market.”

   EPA NOT SWEATING FLYNN’S RETIREMENT: There's no need to worry about who will take over the deputy EPA administrator job in a couple of months, when the career official retires, an agency spokeswoman told ME. EPA "fully expect[s]" the president's nominee for the job, Andrew Wheeler, to be confirmed before acting deputy Mike Flynn retires on April 3, the spokeswoman said. If Wheeler is not confirmed at that time, it is unclear whether another career official or a political appointee would land temporarily in the post, which oversees day-to-day operations. Though Wheeler appears to have the votes for confirmation, Democrats unhappy with his lobbying history and climate policies likely will force the Senate to spend the maximum time debating his nomination. The Senate is slated to focus mostly on judicial nominations next week.

   — “Mike Flynn is a dedicated and hard-working public servant,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said of the 38-year agency veteran. “Anyone who was lucky enough to work with him appreciates his work and his friendship, and we all wish him the best in his retirement.”

   EPA HEARING DRAWS THREE SPEAKERS: EPA will hold a public hearing today on its proposal to reject a request from Connecticut to require more pollution controls at a coal plant in Pennsylvania — but it might not last very long. The speaker list for the hearing at EPA’s D.C. headquarters has only three people on it — one from the American Lung Association and one apiece from the states of Connecticut and Maryland. (The schedule even includes a one-hour lunch break.) Speakers are typically limited to five minutes at these events, at which EPA officials mostly listen. Asked whether EPA would give anyone a little extra time with so many empty seats in the room, a spokesman referred ME to the original announcement’s rules and the five-minute limit. It’s technically not too late to go, since so many slots appear open; the event begins at 9 a.m. at EPA’s headquarters and goes until 6 p.m. or until two hours after the last registered speaker.

   ONE FOR THE RECORD: In a lawsuit filed Thursday, two groups alleged EPA is violating federal records laws by avoiding creating and maintaining documents about agency activities. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility cite news reports in their lawsuit that say Pruitt and his political appointees have told EPA staff not to keep written records, including in rewriting regulations. Those records should be maintained under the Federal Records Act, the groups say, and made available within a month by request under the Freedom of Information Act. Pro’s Emily Holden reports here.

   MURKOWSKI WARNS OF ‘FRAGILE’ ENERGY GAINS: Even as she took a victory lap before the Alaskan state legislature Thursday for opening ANWR and progress toward building the King Cove road, Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski urged state lawmakers against complacency in protecting those hard-fought wins. "These gains are substantial — and in many ways they’re historic — but ... in many ways they’re still fragile,” she said. "As much now as we’ve ever done, we need to be speaking with one voice at the national level.” She said there would likely be substantial litigation over ANWR and King Cove, urging lawmakers to take the lawsuits “seriously.”

   The outlook for King Cove, you ask? "I can’t wait to be there to turn the first shovel of dirt on this. We are closer than ever to finally seeing a life-saving road,” Murkowski said.

   Next steps in the five-year drilling plan: Murkowski pronounced herself “pleased” with Zinke’s proposed moves to expand the number of areas potentially open for oil and gas drilling, especially Arctic waters. "Just because Shell is not there right now does not mean there are not opportunities,” she said.

   FOR YOUR RADAR: Murkowski today hosts Forest Chief Tony Toole in Ketchikan, where she promised to bring up the 2001 roadless rule that limits road construction through national forests for timber harvesting or mining purposes. That rule she said, has limited forestry, mining and renewable energy projects, and she plans to push for “balanced management” in national forests.

   GETTING POWER STORAGE'S FULL POTENTIAL: Researchers from the Brattle Group released a study Thursday examining FERC's recent Order 841 that aims to make it easier to add electricity storage to the grid. If states build on the Order 841, the study found, storage market potential could increase to 50,000 MW over the next 10 years, as long as storage costs continue to drop. Read the study here.

   THE CLIMATE CONSEQUENCE: Banning new and renewed leases for fossil fuel production on U.S. public lands could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 280 million tons annually by 2030, on par with major Obama administration policies, according to a new study in Climatic Change. Restricting leases would lead to slightly higher prices and stimulate production elsewhere, the study by the Stockholm Environment Institute found.

   THE ID OF ISDS: Ahead of upcoming meetings to discuss NAFTA's investment chapter, Pro’s Adam Behsudi reports, there is growing sentiment among countries involved in the talks that the investor-state dispute settlement — which allows companies to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in damages — could be dropped from the revised trade pact. According to an official report seen by POLITICO, Canada presented a “conceptual proposal of possible landing zones,” which included eliminating the ISDS, during the latest round of talks in Montreal.

   Green groups have previously called out the ISDS as an under-the-radar opening where fossil fuel companies might try to press for increased access for drilling. Meanwhile, business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have called on the administration to preserve the controversial provision. The American Petroleum Institute released a statement this week stressing the importance of ISDS for U.S. access to Mexico's newly opened oil and natural gas market. Read the story here.

   FOIA WHAT IT’S WORTH: American Oversight, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and the Environmental Working Group have filed a FOIA request for communication between EPA officials and representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the Chlorine Institute, as well as companies including Occidental Chemical, Olin and Chemours. The request comes ahead of a decision on restrictions expected to be related to asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Read the FOIA here.

   STRANDED ON URBAN HEAT ISLAND: A new paper published Thursday from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology focuses on the connection between a city’s layout and the phenomenon known as an urban heat island. The research, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, found cities laid out on a precise grid had a far greater buildup of heat compared to their surroundings than those more chaotically arranged. Read more.

   MAIL CALL! WHITEHOUSE PRESSES ON MSHA ACTION: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed the head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration on whether he plans to move forward on items in Bob Murray’s “action plan” to the administration. Murray’s action plan includes three proposals for MSHA, Whitehouse says in a Thursday letter to David Zatezalo. Specifically, Whitehouse asks Zatezalo whether he will act on Murray’s request to roll back MSHA’s coal dust and pattern of violation rules. Read the letter here.

   IN THE SNOW: A report out today from Protect Our Winters links years of low snow cover to fewer jobs in U.S. ski towns. In those years, “reduced participation decreased value added by over $1 billion and cost 17,400 jobs compared to an average season,” according to the report. Read it here.

   CLICK IT: New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich launched a “Solar Toolkit” on Thursday. “The toolkit highlights success stories from around the state, and provides reflections from the New Mexicans who have gotten the job done,” Heinrich said in a statement. See it here.

   QUICK HITS

   — Study: New surge in civil lawsuits tied to Deepwater Horizon spill, The Hill.

   — From the rubble, utilities ready for the next disaster, S&P Global.

   — Unraveling the 'weaponization' of the EPA is top priority for Pruitt, CBN News.

   — Former Trump aide calls Paris climate accord ‘a good Republican agreement,' The New York Times.

   — Spectacular fossils found at Bears Ears — right where Trump removed protections, The Washington Post.

   HAPPENING TODAY

   9:00 a.m. — POLITICO’s State Solutions conference, focusing on innovative approaches that governors have taken to address complex problems, 901 K St. NW

   9:00 a.m. — EPA public hearing on Connecticut ozone petition, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.

   12:00 p.m. — The Women of Renewable Industries and Sustainable Energy lunch and learn with Julia Hamm, of the Smart Electric Power Alliance, 1220 19th St. NW

   12:00 p.m. — The Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project discussionon whether it is “Time to Reform the Jones Act?” 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE

   THAT'S ALL FOR ME!

   https://www.politicopro.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/02/a-packed-cpac-for-energy-113414
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. Future Of ISDS In NAFTA In Doubt, Giving Companies Pause

   Feb 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro

   By Adam Behsudi

   U.S. businesses are coming to the realization that the new NAFTA 2.0 deal may not include an investor-dispute process, which has allowed companies to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in damages over the 24-year life of the pact.

   That possibility is growing more real amid new revelations that all three countries involved in the talks are considering an endgame in which the mechanism — known as the investor-state dispute settlement — is completely dropped from the revised deal. Possible options are expected to be discussed this week as negotiators meet Thursday through Saturday to discuss NAFTA's investment chapter.

   During the latest round in Montreal, Canada presented a “conceptual proposal of possible landing zones,” which included eliminating the ISDS from the pact’s investment chapter, according to an official report seen by POLITICO that summarizes progress made on investment issues during the sixth round of talks in January. The dispute mechanism is contained in section B of Chapter 11 of the current pact.

   “The chief negotiators instructed the leads to explore, on a without prejudice basis, a landing zone that would include no Section B,” states the document. The document goes on to say that in exchange for dropping ISDS, Canada would be willing to offer flexibility when renegotiating the broader investment protections in the chapter.

   “On a number of issues, the only way to get to yes is to drop them,” said one source close to the talks. “At a technical level, there’s no way to get this [resolved] in an early April time frame.”

   One potential result could end up with language that would allow companies that made investments before a certain date to retain access to ISDS mechanism. Another could be to include language similar to the U.S.-Australia trade agreement that didn’t include ISDS but leaves open the possibility of negotiating a dispute settlement system in the future, said the source.

   That could be a major problem for businesses and lawmakers who view ISDS as a vital part of any renegotiated deal.

   “The United States, Canada, and Mexico should work together to retain ISDS provisions in NAFTA that ensure fair treatment of investors, and reject any efforts to undermine the positive role of these protections,” the Business Roundtable said in a statement released Thursday. “Eliminating or weakening ISDS would be harmful to U.S. businesses and workers.”

   The American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying organization for the U.S. oil and gas industry, released a statement this week stressing the importance of ISDS for U.S. access to Mexico's newly opened oil and natural gas market.

   The BRT and two other major business groups — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers — sent a warning in August that attempts to eliminate or weaken ISDS could undermine their support for a final deal.

   “Without ISDS, would the business community support NAFTA?” said one trade lobbyist. “That’s a question we’re struggling with right now.”

   From the start of the negotiations in August, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has come out swinging against ISDS, proposing that U.S. participation in the process be voluntary. Ever since then, many business groups have pushed back against a move.

   “ISDS does not infringe U.S. sovereignty. Rather, it upholds the same fundamental due process and private property guarantees protected by our Constitution, and it obligates other countries to uphold these precepts as well,” the business groups wrote in an Aug. 23 letter to Lighthizer.

   Three senior Republican senators warned Lighthizer as far back as August that Congress may not back a final NAFTA deal if it doesn't include strong dispute settlement provisions. The lawmakers argued that Trade Promotion Authority legislation passed in 2015 requires the administration to negotiate trade deals that include ISDS in exchange for getting any final trade deal fast-tracked through Congress with an up or down vote.

   "In short, Congress has made clear that in order to win its support, a trade agreement must include effective state-to-state and investor-state dispute settlement provisions," Sens. Orrin Hatch, John Cornyn and John Thune wrote in a letter to Lighthizer on Aug. 24, which was obtained this week by POLITICO.

   One congressional aide reiterated this week that excluding ISDS from any new trade deal "would very seriously jeopardize obtaining congressional support.”

   After the third round of talks in September, Lighthizer said that the dispute mechanism gave companies an incentive to move production overseas, calling it “political risk insurance paid for by the United States government.”

   Canada, too, has no deep affection for the legal process that allows private companies to seek monetary compensation when they feel their investment rights under the pact’s have been violated. Ottawa has lost a number of ISDS disputes brought by U.S. companies. In contrast, the United States remains undefeated against claims brought through NAFTA or any of its other trade deals.

   Still, Canada is maintaining support for its initial proposal that would emulate an “investment court system” it set up through a trade deal with the European Union. That concept, which created a more transparent and permanent dispute process, was largely driven by Brussels as it attempted to respond to a groundswell of opposition to ISDS born out of its now defunct trade talks with the United States.

   Canada’s attachment to its own proposal may be lukewarm at best, according to sources close to the talks.

   Ottawa’s alternative, given the eagerness by Lighthizer to opt out of the proposal, would be a bilateral arrangement with Mexico using the same principles it established with the EU. But one source close to the talks said that option would take months of technical work.

   A Canadian official pushed back against the suggestion that Canada’s position is to ultimately drop ISDS from the pact.

   “What we said there [in Montreal], and what we say now is that we want to improve ISDS or pursue a bilateral framework with Mexico,” the official said.

   Mexico, for its part, has been supportive of keeping ISDS in the agreement, albeit with some improvements.

   Trade experts say a move by Canada to push forward the idea of dropping ISDS altogether could be part of a larger negotiating strategy to give the United States a win. That could, in turn, encourage Lighthizer to back off other, more contentious demands. A key priority for Canada is to defend the agreement's Chapter 19, which allows a country to challenge another’s anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

   “Canada basically views this as the last effort to move beyond this issue,” said one trade lobbyist, who only had “slivers of hope” that a final deal would include ISDS.

   Others saw the move as a miscalculation on Canada’s part, which has spent much of the NAFTA talks going toe-to-toe with the United States.

   “What do they think they’re going to get out of this?” asked another trade lobbyist supportive of ISDS. “You think you’re going to be able to hang on to Chapter 19? Forget about it.”

   Still, there is some sense among other practitioners that ISDS has run its course in trade agreements. U.S. companies could find ways to gain access to the legal process by investing through overseas subsidiaries in countries that still have the dispute mechanism in trade or investment treaties with either Canada or Mexico.

   "The network of investment treaties has grown so big and complex, that it's not hard for an investor to structure an investment in a way that maximizes the potential protection from investment treaties," said an international arbitration lawyer.

   "I think we certainly have hit the high watermark when it comes to ISDS," the lawyer added. "It's hard for me to see in the foreseeable future the United States negotiating an agreement that contains it."

   Doug Palmer and Megan Cassella contributed to this report.

   https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/02/future-of-isds-in-nafta-in-doubt-giving-companies-pause-360188
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

3. (ACC Mentioned) Toxics Office Reassigns Staff From P2 To Address TSCA Workload Burdens

   Feb 23, 2018 | Inside EPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   Leaders of EPA's toxics office are moving staff from its pollution prevention (P2) program to work on implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), citing the struggle they face to keep up with the workload created by the reformed statute's mandates, according to an internal agency memo reviewed by Inside EPA.

   “We will be detailing staff from the P2 program, including but not limited to Safer Choice, to work on TSCA new and existing chemicals activities,” Jeff Morris, director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), said in the memo sent to employees Feb. 21. Safer Choice, housed within P2, allows companies that produce products with best in class chemicals considered 'safer' to use an EPA logo on those products to help promote them.

   The memo signals that P2 staff are being reassigned to help with the massive TSCA workload. “Shifting staff from P2 to TSCA through these details is necessary at this point because our 2018 workload demands for implementing TSCA are exceeding the capacity of the current number of staff doing TSCA work,” it says.

   Morris does not provide any specifics in his memo, saying only that he will be “happy to talk about this more” at an upcoming Feb. 27 “all-hands meeting. . . . But because we need to begin these shifts quickly to meet the needs we are facing at this time, I wanted to share this information with you now.”

   Agency sources tell Inside EPA that OPPT leadership is asking for two people from P2 generally, and three people from the Safer Choice program, to move to the TSCA program, though it is not yet clear what roles these individuals would take on. So far, the re-assignments are being described as one-year details, one source says.

   In his memo, Morris outlines some of the many responsibilities OPPT is struggling to deal with as it works to implement the revised TSCA passed into law in 2016: adapting the new chemicals review program to changes set in the revised law while keeping to the statutory deadlines, setting up the new program for prioritizing and assessing existing chemicals that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, continuing work on the first 10 existing chemical assessments to meet statutory deadlines, completing exposure evaluations of selected persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals by deadline, and finalizing a non-animal testing strategy among many other tasks, while also keeping up with OPPT's preexisting responsibilities.

   Morris warns, “as we strive to meet the challenges and fulfill the responsibilities of implementing TSCA under the ambitious deadlines . . . we are going to have to continually evaluate how our resources are deployed across the office. These details of P2 staff are not the first shifts we’ve had to make since TSCA was amended -- you will recall that last year we reached out across the office and the agency to detail staff into new chemicals -- and there may be additional shifts in the future as we continue to evaluate our needs.”

   An EPA spokesperson says “Details are common practice at the EPA to fill needs and provide professional development. EPA will continue to meet the challenges and fulfill the responsibilities of implementing TSCA under the ambitious deadlines” in the revised toxics law. “EPA, with some limits, can direct resources to hiring for TSCA implementation.”

   Staff Reassignments

   OPPT could also potentially aim to detail staff from EPA's Office of Research & Development (ORD), which would be in line with language attached to the House's fiscal year 2018 spending bill for EPA. The legislation suggested consolidating the agency's risk analysis programs within the new TSCA effort. The Senate version of the bill includes language directing EPA to de-fund the research office's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program entirely.

   IRIS has long been targeted by industry and other regulated entities and Republicans because of what the critics see as overly conservative risk analyses that they argue drive too stringent regulations. Because Congress has yet to pass a budget for 2018, its directions to EPA -- including on IRIS -- remain in limbo.

   EPA has acknowledged that it faces staffing limits in implementing the revised TSCA. For example, Nancy Beck, President Donald Trump's top political appointee in the toxics office, suggested that the administration's government-wide hiring freeze is undermining the agency's ability to implement TSCA.

   Last fall, toxics office leaders also said they were moving to reorganize OPPT to better implement TSCA, news that has led to concerns from many within the office, particularly from staff outside the TSCA program concerned that their work is taking a back seat to TSCA implementation.

   Speaking at a Feb. 8 webinar, Beck indicated lawmakers should have authorized staffing levels for the new TSCA program as they did for a pesticide fee program years earlier. When lawmakers wrote the 2016 TSCA revisions they neglected to provide the flexibility that the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA) gives the pesticides office, allowing it to hire full-time equivalents (FTEs) beyond agency staffing caps.

   Beck said the difference between the two laws is a “very important point because the agency currently has a hiring freeze, and there are FTE hiring counts that we cannot go above. However, because PRIA language is very clear this does not count towards the agency's cap, we are working to hire 50 more people in the [pesticides] program. . . . The fact the PRIA language allows us to go beyond a hiring cap will be helpful,” she added.

   A former toxics official says that the omission in revised TSCA “is further indication that EPA wasn't as engaged/thoughtful on the bill while it was being debated as it could have been.” The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which oversees both OPPT and the pesticides office, “had PRIA experience and seemingly should have recognized the issue/benefits of being independent of EPA hiring ceilings.”

   The American Chemistry Council, a trade association for chemical manufacturers which has considered revised TSCA implementation a top priority since its passage, declined to discuss Beck's comments or the cuts proposed to the TSCA program in President Donald Trump's FY19 budget proposal. “We’ve long supported EPA having the staff and financial resources necessary to fully implement the TSCA amendments as Congress intended,” a spokesman says.

   Budget Proposal

   Trump's FY19 budget proposal for major EPA funding cuts also targets the TSCA program for spending reductions -- despite Administrator Scott Pruitt's claims that implementing the new TSCA statute is a priority.

   For example, the FY19 request for toxics risk review and prevention proposes cutting funding from the FY17 level of $64.3 million to $58.6 million in FY19, an almost nine percent cut. Staffing levels -- described as total workyears -- would drop from FY17's level of 255.5 FTEs down to 238.7 FTEs in FY19, an almost seven percent cut.

   Repeating an unimplemented request from the FY18 budget proposal, the FY19 plan calls for shifting $8.2 million and some 51.6 FTE from appropriations funding to a new TSCA user fee account, as allowed in the new TSCA program. EPA, however, has only just released the draft version of the rule for comment. Beck also said on the webinar that her goal is to have the fee rule “in place by October 1,” the beginning of FY19.

   The budget also proposes transferring $315,000 and two FTE to ORD, which houses the agency's computational toxicology research program. The shift would “support risk assessment and evaluation science that is needed to address new TSCA requirements,” according to the FY19 congressional justification.

   The budget proposes adding $7.7 million and two FTE to support the TSCA program, and to provide “minimal resources and FTE to continue certain activities from the Lead-based paint program,” which the budget proposes eliminating, as it did in its FY18 budget proposal.

   The Trump administration also proposes eliminating the toxics office's separate Endocrine Disrupting Screening Program (EDSP) and its P2 program, echoing language in the FY18 proposal. “The ongoing functions of the [EDSP] can be absorbed in the pesticides program,” the budget says of that Congressionally-mandated program.

   Trump's budget describes its zeroing out of the P2 program simply as “eliminating” it. The Congressional Justification does not appear to address the Safer Choice program, which is housed with the P2 program. 

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/toxics-office-reassigns-staff-p2-address-tsca-workload-burdens
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

4. Facts Missing in Review of EPA Chemical Rule: Environmentalists (1)

   Feb 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto

   The public can't know whether a chemical rule the EPA has proposed would protect oilfield workers as stated because the agency has failed to release essential information, a senior Environmental Defense Fund scientist said Feb. 22.
   

   The 15-day comment period the Environmental Protection Agency gave to review the limited information it provides for its rule on use of an anti-corrosive chemical also is inadequate, Richard Denison, EDF's lead senior scientist, told Bloomberg Environment.

   The EPA has told the environmental group and Bloomberg Environment that it would allow more time for comment, but as of mid-day Feb. 22 it had not announced an extension. The agency did not reply to questions about whether it would release more health, safety, or other information into the docket.

   Denison referred to a rule the EPA proposed Feb. 8 (RIN:2070–AB27) for an anti-corrosive chemical called 3,3′-methylenebis[5-methyloxazolidine] (Chemical Abstracts Service No. 66204-44-22). Comments are due Feb. 23.

   Modify Existing Regulation

   The rule would modify an existing regulation by allowing the chemical to be used in oilfield operations and as a hydraulic fluid, provided workers wear specific personal protective equipment to prevent exposure.

   The protections were needed, the agency said, because new toxicity data it received showed the chemical could release formaldehyde, which is classified as a known human carcinogen by the Department of Health and Human Services. The data also raised concerns about ways the chemical could affect the neurological system and human development, the EPA proposed rule said.

   The Environmental Defense Fund asked the EPA on Feb. 12 to provide the public more than 15 days to comment on the proposed rule. It also requested the agency release more health, safety, and other information to help workers, health advocates, and the regulated industry understand the health concerns and other issues the regulation is designed to address, the EDF wrote.

   The EPA's proposal identified many health and environmental concerns about the anti-corrosive chemical, yet the agency failed to provide the public the information it has that underlies those concerns, Denison said. For example, an acute inhalation study and monitoring studies of formaldehyde release in specific industrial settings are mentioned by the agency, but not provided in the docket, he said.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128687916&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128687916&jd=128687916

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Honeywell, Saint-Gobain Face PFOA Claims for Lost Profits

   Feb 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Peter Hayes

   Honeywell and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics failed to shake off a contractor's claims that their contamination of local groundwater cost him $1 million in lost revenue.
   

   The ruling clarifies when a plaintiff whose property was not itself damaged may pursue a negligence claim under New York law for lost business or economic damages.

   The claim may go forward because the universe of potential plaintiffs is limited, the court said.

   The court distinguished the case from one that involved thousands of potential plaintiffs stemming from a construction collapse in midtown Manhattan, wherea New York appeals court limited negligence claims to those physically affected by the collapse.

   Here, plaintiff R.M. Bacon LLC alleges that the discovery of perfluorooctanoic acid in area groundwater caused property values in the Village of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., to drop. The area was named a state Superfund site, causing its excavation and construction business to collapse.

   The complaint alleges that Saint-Gobain, and Allied Signal Inc.—a corporate predecessor of Honeywell International—discharged PFOA from their Hoosick Falls manufacturing facilities.

   An individual negligence claim by R.M. Bacon owner Michael Bacon, alleging PFOA migrated to his property thereby diminishing its value, may also proceed, the court said.

   Even if a potential buyer's fear of PFOA is unfounded, Bacon's claim may be viable as long as the decline in market value is real, the court said.

   The court also dismissed R.M. Bacon's negligent interference and tortious interference claims, and certified all rulings for immediate appeal.

   Judge Lawrence E. Kahn issued the ruling.

   Weitz & Luxenberg PC and Powers & Santola LLP represent R.M. Bacon and Michael Bacon.

   Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP represent Saint-Gobain.

   Arnold & Porter LLP and Allen & Desnoyers LLP represent Honeywell.

   The case is R.M. Bacon, LLC v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2018 BL 55437, N.D.N.Y., No. 17-CV-0441, 2/20/18.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128687934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128687934&jd=128687934

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. DuPont, Chemours Hit With New Suit Over Cape Fear Contamination

   Feb 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Peter Hayes

   DuPont and Chemours were hit with a suit by dozens of Fayetteville, N.C., residents who say the companies dumped perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) into the Cape Fear River and contaminated their properties.
   

   The companies contaminated the property owners’ groundwater, soil, and surface water with PFCs, including GenX, the complaint, filed Feb. 21, alleged.

   GenX was designed as an alternative to perfluorooctanoic acid after the EPA said PFOA is a “likely human carcinogen.”

   DuPont owned and operated the Fayetteville plant from 1971 until 2015. Chemours is the current owner and operator.

   The plaintiffs own property, “including surface water and groundwater,” located near the plant, according to the complaint.

   The claims include negligence, trespass, and failure to warn.

   The suit is the latest salvo in litigation that began last year over contamination of the river.

   A proposed class action filed in October 2017 alleged contamination of the plaintiffs’ household water supply. The class action allegations have been consolidated in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

   Public water providers have also filed suits against the companies.

   Baron & Budd P.C. represents the plaintiffs.

   The case is Dew v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., E.D.N.C., No. 18-cv-00030, complaint filed2/21/18.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128687935&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128687935&jd=128687935

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

7. Cheniere LNG Exports Surge, with More Trains Underway

   Feb 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Charlie Passut

   Cheniere Energy Inc. more than tripled liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports last year from its Sabine Pass export terminal in Cameron Parish, LA, while narrowing its annual losses and posting a more than four-fold increase in annual revenues.

   Houston-based Cheniere said Wednesday it exported 70 LNG cargoes totaling 252 trillion Btu from Sabine Pass in 4Q2017, compared with 23 cargoes (81 trillion Btu) exported in the year-ago quarter. For the full year, the company exported 205 cargoes (734 trillion Btu), versus 56 cargoes (195 TBtu) in 2016.

   To date, Cheniere management said the company has exported about 300 cumulative LNG cargoes from Sabine Pass to 25 countries and regions worldwide.

   Four trains are operational at Sabine Pass, with Train 4’s date of first commercial delivery (DFCD) scheduled for March. Meanwhile, Train 5 is under construction and should be substantially completed by the first half of 2019, with DFCD set for the second half of next year. Train 6 has been permitted, but it is not yet under construction.

   DFCD for Train 4 was reached last June, after Cheniere and Korea Gas Corp. agreed to a 20-year sales and purchase agreement (SPA) for about 3.5 million metric tons/year (mmty) of LNG. Two months later, Cheniere reached DFCD for Train 2 with 20-year LNG SPAs with Gas Natural Fenosa LNG GOM Ltd. and BG Gulf Coast LNG LLC. DFCD under a 20-year SPA with GAIL (India) Ltd. related to Train 4 is expected to be reached next month.

   Cheniere also advanced its plans to export LNG from a new terminal near Corpus Christi, TX, where Trains 1 and 2 are currently under construction while Train 3 has been permitted. The company expects Train 1 to be substantially complete and reach DFCD in the first half of 2019, while Train 2 is expected to be substantially complete in the second half of 2019 and reach DFCD in the first six months of 2020.

   "With the commercialization of the trains substantially complete, we are now focused on completing the remaining steps necessary to make a final investment decision [FID] on Train 3 at Corpus Christi in the next several months," CEO Jack Fusco said during an earnings call with analysts Wednesday. "I look forward to putting a check mark on the now famous to-do list on my white board next to 'FID CC3,' as I'm sure you all do as well."

   Later in the call, Fusco said Cheniere appears to have enough contracts to commercialize Train 3 at Corpus Christi.

   "If you go out there, you'll see that we've already started with the foundation work and some of the groundbreaking work," he said. "There's a lot of synergies with being able to transfer the workforce from Train 2 right over to Train 3."

   In addition, Train 6 at Sabine Pass "is shovel-ready,” he said. “There are still some crews there. It would be a logical next extension of Cheniere...So, if the market continues to grow the way it has been and demand in the product that we have, we're very hopeful that we can launch right into having two trains' FID."

   Asked to comment further on the complexities of developing two LNG terminals, Fusco said the intent is to create value for Cheniere shareholders.

   "While the capital structure is complicated, it's not going to hinder us from doing what's right for the investor base," Fusco said. "Again, we feel like at Sabine 6, just like at Corpus [train] 3, there is a lot of utilities, etc., that we've already invested in that would make that a very competitive train, and we want to capitalize on that and earn the maximum returns we can for our shareholder base. It's not going to influence our decision-making of what entity that sits in."

   Earlier this month Cheniere signed two SPAs with PetroChina International Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corp., for 1.2 mmty of LNG, a development that should help advance the Corpus Christi project. A portion of supply is scheduled to begin shipping later this year, with the balance beginning in 2023.

   Cheniere also entered into a 15-year LNG SPA with Singapore-based Trafigura Pte Ltd. for about 1 mmty of LNG last month, with shipments to begin in 2019.

   The company said it had $722 million in cash and cash equivalents at the end of 2017. Cheniere said it also had current and noncurrent restricted cash of $1.9 billion, $544 million of which it plans to spend on Sabine Pass and $227 million to develop the Corpus Christi terminal. Cheniere said $1.1 billion was for restricted purposes under the terms of Cheniere Energy Partners LP's credit facilities, while $75 million was for other restricted purposes.

   Cheniere reported net income of $127 million (54 cents/share) in 4Q2017, compared with year-ago profits of $110 million (48 cents). For the full year, net losses totaled $393 million (minus $1.68), versus a 2016 net loss of $610 million (minus $2.67). The company attributed increased income from operations as a result of additional trains in operation at Sabine Pass.

   Total revenues were $1.75 billion in 4Q2017, more than triple the $572 million reported in the year-ago quarter. For the full year, Cheniere had total revenues of $5.6 billion, more than quadruple the $1.28 billion revenue in 2016.

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113470-cheniere-lng-exports-surge-with-more-trains-underway
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Oneok Adding NGL Pipeline, Fractionation Facility, Processing Plant to Capital Growth Plans

   Feb 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By David Bradley

   Oneok Inc. plans to invest $2.3 billion by 2020 on projects including a Midcontinent-to-Gulf Coast natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline, a fractionation facility in Mont Belvieu, TX, and a natural gas processing plant in North Dakota, the Tulsa-based company said Wednesday.

   "With more than $4 billion of announced capital-growth projects since June 2017, we continue to build off of our significant asset footprint," said CEO Terry Spencer.

   The announcement came just weeks after Oneok said it would spend $1.4 billion to build the Elk Creek NGL pipeline stretching 900 miles from the Rocky Mountains to its existing Midcontinent facilities, which serve Oklahoma’s producers in the STACK and SCOOP, i.e., the Sooner Trend of the Anadarko Basin, mostly in Canadian and Kingfisher counties, and the South Central Oklahoma Oil Province.

   Oneok's latest plans include the 400,000 b/d Arbuckle II NGL pipeline, which would create additional liquids transportation capacity between the company's Midcontinent infrastructure in Oklahoma and its existing NGL facilities in Mont Belvieu.

   The 530-mile, 24- and 30-inch diameter Arbuckle II pipeline is expected to cost $1.36 billion. It would have the capability to be expanded up to 1 million b/d with additional pump facilities, which could more than double the company's current capacity between the Midcontinent and Gulf Coast. Arbuckle II is expected to be completed in 1Q2020, Oneok said.

   Oneok is also planning the MB-4 NGL fractionator and related infrastructure in Mont Belvieu, estimated to cost $575 million with completion also set for early 2020. The 125,000 b/d facility would bring Oneok's total NGL fractionation capacity to 965,000 b/d.

   "The Arbuckle II Pipeline and MB-4 fractionator will help meet the needs of NGL producers in all of the basins where we operate, including the STACK and SCOOP areas and the Denver-Julesburg, Powder River, Williston and Permian basins," Spencer said. "These strategic projects complement our recently announced Elk Creek pipeline, increasing Oneok's ability to deliver NGLs from the Rocky Mountain region to growing markets in the Gulf Coast."

   The initial capacity of the Arbuckle II Pipeline is more than 50% contracted, and MB-4 is fully contracted, Oneok said. Both are anchored by long-term contracts with 10-20 year terms.

   Oneok also said it plans to spend $400 million to build by late 2019 the 200 MMcf/d Demicks Lake natural gas processing plant and related field infrastructure in McKenzie County, ND. The plant, in the core of the Williston Basin, would be supported by acreage dedications with primarily fee-based contracts. It would increase Oneok's Williston gas processing capacity to more than 1.2 Bcf/d.

   "The Demicks Lake plant is expected to contribute additional NGL volumes to Oneok's NGL gathering system and natural gas volumes to Oneok's 50%-owned Northern Border Pipeline," the company said.

   Oneok's announcement comes three years after it suspended plans to build the Demicks Lake facility and two other natural gas processing plants in shale basins, deciding to wait for crude oil prices to rebound. When the company first unveiled plans to build the Demicks Lake facility in 2014, its cost was estimated at $515-670 million.

   The trio of planned projects is expected to generate adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization multiples of four to six times. Following recently completed equity issuances totaling $1.6 billion, Oneok expects project funding to come from cash generated from operations and short- and long-term borrowings. Oneok does not expect to issue additional equity in 2018 and well into 2019.

   The Elk Creek pipeline and related infrastructure announced last month would have capacity to transport up to 240,000 b/d of unfractionated NGLs from near Oneok's Riverview terminal in eastern Montana to Bushton, KS. It would have the capability to be expanded to 400,000 b/d with additional pump facilities. Oneok expects to complete the project by the end of 2019.

   In October, West Texas LPG Pipeline LP, a joint venture between Oneok and Martin Midstream Partners LP, said it planned to invest about $200 million to expand its NGL system into the Permian Basin’s Delaware sub-basin. West Texas LPG Pipeline is an NGL pipeline system that consists of 2,600 miles of pipeline in Texas and New Mexico, providing transportation services to the Mont Belvieu, TX, market center from nearly 40 third-party natural gas processing plants in the Permian Basin.

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113467-oneok-adding-ngl-pipeline-fractionation-facility-processing-plant-to-capital-growth-plans
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. DOE To Finance Heat and Power Technology Research

   Feb 22, 2018 | Chem.Info

   Today, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) announced up to $10 million to conduct research and development activities to further the utilization of cost-effective, highly efficient combined heat and power (CHP) specifically designed to provide support to the electric grid.

   CHP is a suite of predominately gas-fired distributed generation technologies that produces electricity and thermal energy onsite, providing the user with more efficient and lower cost electricity while also increasing site reliability and energy security. CHP can also reduce line losses and strain on grid infrastructure.

   Within the Advanced Manufacturing Office, CHP is the focus of both research and development (R&D) and technology partnership activities. The R&D activities are focused on researching new CHP technologies that will enable development of advanced CHP systems that support U.S. economic competitive advantage, promote economic development, instill resiliency in businesses and communities and create and maintain local energy-related jobs.

   EERE anticipates making approximately 6–10 awards in the form of cooperative agreements. The funding opportunity includes two areas of interest to research enabling technologies for CHP systems that are specifically designed to provide cost-effective support to the electric grid.

   Area of Interest 1 – Power Electronics and Control Systems

   The objective of this Area of Interest is to research, develop, and test CHP components such as power electronics and control systems, needed to enable the cost-effective use of new and existing CHP systems to provide support to the grid.

   Area of Interest 2 – Electricity Generation Components

   The objective of this Area of Interest is to research and develop the electricity generation component of a 1-20 MWe CHP system capable of two operating configurations – a baseload mode where it is running at half its rated capacity and is designed to perform in a conventional CHP manner and a second, at full rated capacity, where it is designed to maximize its ability to support the electric grid.

   https://www.chem.info/news/2018/02/doe-finance-heat-and-power-technology-research
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

10. Activists Call For Ban On New Crude Oil Train Terminals

    Feb 22, 2018 | The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

    By Jacob Took

    The Baltimore City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee met on Wednesday to discuss a bill prohibiting the construction of crude oil train terminals in the City. Advocates for this bill argue that the pollutants and threat of explosion from crude oil trains make them too dangerous to run through Baltimore.

    Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and Baltimore Clean Water Action (CWA) have led the campaign against crude oil trains since 2013, when one exploded in Lác-Megantic, Quebec, killing almost 50 people. According to CWA, 165,000 Baltimore residents live in areas that might be affected by an explosion.

    Most of the crude oil that is shipped to port cities like Baltimore comes on trains from North Dakota. Because the oil is shipped between states, local governments have little power to regulate shipments. Instead, cities like Portland, Ore. and Vancouver, Wash. have passed legislation to regulate train terminal construction in urban areas.

    Jennifer Kunze, the Maryland state organizer for CWA, said that they had concerns about both the safety of Baltimore residents and the long-term environmental impact of crude oil.

    “The oil companies are putting communities across the country near these rail lines at risk with each shipment,” she said. “They’re obviously putting everyone on the planet at risk by continuing to extract with more and more extreme measures this crude oil that we know we need to keep in the ground if we’re going to meaningfully reduce the impacts of climate change.”

    She explained that this bill, titled the Crude Oil Terminal Prohibition, seeks to amend the City’s zoning code to list crude oil terminals alongside trash incinerators, nuclear power plants and other facilities that cannot be built in Baltimore.

    According to CCAN Healthy Communities Campaign Organizer Taylor Smith-Hams, organizers pushed for this bill after the Texas-based oil and gas company Targa Resources applied for a permit to ship crude oil from a terminal on the Fairfield Peninsula in South Baltimore.

    CCAN blocked Targa’s access to this terminal by requiring them to obtain air pollution permits. Smith-Hams said that after this, they worked with City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke to find a preemptive way to block crude oil shipment in Baltimore.

    “We started looking at how can we do that so that we don’t have to be playing whack-a-mole in defeating these terminals one by one,” Smith-Hams said. “Councilwoman Clarke hoisted it up and said that we need to figure out a way to work on this issue.”

    Clarke represents the 14th district, which includes Charles Village, Homewood campus and the surrounding area.

    At a rally before the hearing on Wednesday, Clarke said that she was excited to make Baltimore neighborhoods safer. She added that the city has struggled against federal legislation.

    “We know that our city is criss-crossed with commercial rail lines, but the Feds won’t let us legislate anything about that,” she said. “If we limit any expansion or terminals for crude [oil], we begin to diminish the future traffic through and in Baltimore City.”

    Jeff Fraley, a representative of Baltimore Industrial Group, a union representing workers from several industrial corporations, testified against the bill at Wednesday’s hearing.

    He said he’d met with several members of the committee and other local leaders to answer some questions he had about the bill.

    “Will this bill ban trains carrying crude oil through the city in the future? The answer is no,” he said. “Will this bill get rid of oil facilities in the city? No, it will not.”

    He added that the bill could dissuade potential investors or other corporations from settling in the city.

    “Will this bill set a formal precedent for banning any use or commodity in the city just because some people find it undesirable? The answer is yes,” he said. “There will be a precedent set forth, and other commodities will be arrested because of it.”

    Benjamin Zaitchik, an associate professor of Earth & Planetary Sciences and member of the Baltimore Commission on Sustainability, said that he believes in the movement behind this bill and doesn’t want oil reserves to continue shipping through Baltimore.

    However, he questioned whether the bill would be the most effective measure against crude oil shipments.

    “Baltimore is not the only port. There are other places for this to go,” he said. “Is this the most powerful way to actually slow the flow of the extraction of oil and slow the markets?”

    He suggested that if other cities followed Baltimore’s example, the measures might be more effective.

    He said that he thought organizers might be using the public safety concerns to push for a larger agenda against climate change.

    “I do worry a little bit about convenient conflation of issues, where you lead with safety, but what you really care about is climate and you’re not being 100 percent honest about what you’re trying to do,” Zaitchik said.

    On the other hand, Kunze said that the issue brought the intersection of climate change and public safety to the forefront.

    Westport, a neighborhood in South Baltimore, is surrounded by rail lines.

    “It’s an area that dealt with environmental racism and pollution for a very long time. We have a lot of industry in the area — the cumulative impact of multiple different polluters within in a small area in an area that is majority black and low-income — that’s something that we can’t allow to continue,” she said.

    Chauna Brocht, a resident of Charles Village whose children attended Margaret Brent Elementary School, said that a rail line ran beneath the school’s playground. She said that 30,000 public school students could be affected by an explosion.

    Brocht said that the bill was important for Baltimore because of the breadth of communities affected.

    “This is an issue that crosses racial lines. Low-income communities are affected, middle-income communities are affected,” she said. “There’s a groundswell of community support on this issue.”

    Several students and faculty at Hopkins have conducted research in support of the campaign against crude oil trains.

    Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni, a physician at the Hopkins Bayview campus and a member of the community group Physicians for Social Responsibility, has done research on air pollution from the crude oil train terminals.

    She said that a primary reason many cities have considered legislation against crude oil shipments was because of the concerns about air pollution.

    “The terminals release what’s called ‘volatile organic compounds,’ and so they independently cause many health problems including liver and kidney dysfunction, sometimes leukemia. They’re especially harmful to children,” she said.

    Anna Scott, a PhD candidate in the department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, also shared concerns about the potential pollution from these trains.

    She explained that she had conducted research to determine the possible carbon footprint of each train.

    “How much CO2 would you get from a train full of oil that you wouldn’t get if that train was not being shipped?” she said.

    According to Scott, one train car carries 340 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), and a standard train might carry about 12,000 tons. She said that this was equivalent to about 500 years of carbon emissions for an average Baltimore resident.

    She said that her research shows the consequences of continuing to facilitate crude oil shipment.

    “Allowing for the possibility of building more fossil fuel infrastructure is not the direction we should be going,” she said. “The evidence is clear that we need to transition away from a carbon-based economy.”

    Sauleh Siddiqui, the co-director of the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at the Whiting School of Engineering, spoke about the quality of the crude oil on these trains.

    He said that little research has been conducted into what happens to crude oil under certain conditions during train shipment.

    “It was impossible to find information on where these accidents were happening,” he said. “It was something that was not looked after, and it was up to volunteers to actually do [the research].”

    Siddiqui refuted the common claim that crude oil is a less volatile substance than gasoline. 

    “Oil on a train is very different than oil in a reservoir,” he said. “Oil on a train is oil under pressure travelling next to a river, travelling next to urban centers, and if it crashes then it’s under heat.”

    He further explained that oil in transit is often diluted with other mixtures, altering its chemical makeup in uncertain ways.

    Like Scott, Siddiqui added that he hopes his research will show the dangers of crude oil shipping.

    “My job as an academic isn’t to tell people where to have their regulations or what’s better for society, my job is to put information out there,” he said.

    Scott said that Hopkins should take a more engaged stance on the issue.

    “The support of the institutions that are backing us in policy issues shows that these values that we claim to hold so dearly aren’t just lip-service,” she said.

    According to Surapaneni, Hopkins has already acted as a leader in the broad campaign against climate change. She cited the University’s recent divestment from thermal coal companies as a step in the right direction.

    “At Hopkins we do a lot in terms of switching over to renewable energy,” she said. “We have enough scientific evidence, whether it’s from air pollution or climate change, on human health. As an organization that promotes that, we can definitely play a role in supporting our community.”

    She added that community leaders drafted a letter to the City Council with over 70 signatures from local institutions, including the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA).

    Kunze also called for Hopkins to take a stronger stance in this effort.

    “It’s important for anchor institutions like this to take a serious look at taking that kind of leadership role and advocacy efforts that will benefit both their own campuses and the whole city,” she said.

    She said that a train car was derailed on the MICA campus in summer 2016, prompting them to take a stance on the issue.

    Smith-Hams, who studied at MICA, said that the incident brought this issue closer to home for her.

    She said that institutions should pressure local governments to fight climate change because of the federal administration’s stance on the issue.

    “Institutions with clout and with platforms [have] a responsibility to stand up and fight for public health and safety,” she said.

    Brocht said that the range of threats she faced simply in sending her kids to school was scary but said that this is an easily-avoidable threat.

    “This is pretty straightforward,” she said. “This is not as complicated as getting gun control laws passed or figuring out diplomatic relations with North Korea. This is a zoning ordinance.”

    The bill passed through committee on Wednesday, with six out of seven votes. It will proceed to consideration by the full City Council on Monday.

    http://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2018/02/activists-call-for-ban-on-new-crude-oil-train-terminals
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

11. Energy Companies Lag On Emission Curbs — Report

    Feb 22, 2018 | E&E News PM

    By Arianna Skibell

    While cities, states and corporations have doubled down on efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the wake of President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and undo Obama-era environmental policies, some of the biggest energy companies in the country are not following suit, a new report says.

    Twenty-one of the largest oil and utility firms in the United States have spent millions of dollars to influence elections while having minimal board oversight of climate risk and almost no board members with climate expertise, said a new study from 50/50 Climate Project, which helps boards and investors address global warming.

    "These energy and utility firms face the highest exposure to climate risk, and are most in need of transformation to adapt to a low-carbon economy," Edward Kamonjoh, executive director of 50/50, said in a statement.

    "A growing chorus of investors are asking these companies to manage these climate risks responsibly to protect shareholder interests, but the message is clearly not getting through to corporate boards of directors," he said. "Shareholders should be very concerned."

    Researchers pulled data from company websites, national election spending, political committee filings, and federal and state lobbying disclosures.

    They found that from 2011 to 2016, these companies spent $673 million to influence the political system, predominantly with shareholder money, but only two companies — Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. — have board members with any climate expertise.

    Seven companies have board members with some environmental background, while the rest of the companies do not, the study found.

    In addition to spending money to prevent climate action at the federal level, the report found, companies spent more than $50 million to block clean energy programs in seven states.

    In Alaska, California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon and Washington state, companies blocked clean energy standards, improvements to energy efficiency and scrapping fossil fuel tax incentives.

    "One would think that, in 2018, the energy industry would have fully integrated the implications of climate change to its business model. One would be wrong," Nell Minow, vice chairwoman of ValueEdge Advisors and a 50/50 board member, said in a statement.

    The report compared companies' public statements and their association with nonprofit groups that legally can obscure their donors while working against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    "I can't think of another regulated sector where investors would tolerate this type of high-risk negligence at the board level," Minow said. "There's no reason to believe investors will continue to tolerate it in the energy sector."

    Several companies flagged by the report say they are in favor of climate action but disagree with policies championed by the previous administration and environmental groups.

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/02/22/stories/1060074535
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Key Democrat Readying Carbon Trading Legislation Ahead Of Midterms

    Feb 22, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Lee Logan

    A top Democrat on the House energy committee is writing new legislation to create a federal greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, the first such organized legislative effort since the early days of the Obama administration, and is poised to receive feedback on the issue from scores of stakeholder groups by next week.

    The effort could elevate the role that climate policy plays as Democrats head into midterm elections later this year with their eyes set on wresting control of the chamber from Republicans for the first time in nearly a decade.

    The GHG credit trading effort is being spearheaded by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel.

    In a January letter sent to scores of interested parties, the lawmaker asks more than a dozen detailed questionsabout how such a trading program would work. He asks for replies by Feb. 28.

    Tonko's spokesman did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

    But any upcoming concerted push on Capitol Hill for broad climate legislation would be the first since the 2010 failure of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.

    “As Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Environment, I am launching this effort to develop new federal climate legislation that builds on everything that has happened since the ACES Act was introduced and that incorporates lessons learned from the development of the Clean Power Plan and through the numerous actions taken by states,” Tonko says in his letter.

    After the House passed Waxman-Markey in 2009, “Congress has failed to produce an updated, comprehensive climate policy that accounts for the major changes occurring in the energy sector and the increasing effects of climate change that we are experiencing,” Tonko adds.

    One former Democratic aide notes that many other Hill offices are also mulling the issue, characterizing Tonko's effort as one of several in which environmental groups and others are “really hashing out what it is the greens want from a climate policy.”

    Tonko is “hoping to kind of put a flag in the ground” and would be in a good position to shepherd legislation if Democrats regain control of the chamber following November's elections and he becomes chairman of the environment panel.

    But Democrats are not necessarily aligned on the specifics of their preferred policy. Separate groups of lawmakers have already floated bills to trade carbon allowances or to enact a carbon tax or “fee.”

    For instance, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and others have long said that their push for a carbon fee is the policy most likely to eventually attract Republican support necessary for passage because the notion of cap-and-trade became politically toxic during the Waxman-Markey debates.

    Many groups also have differing ideas about how revenue generated by any legislation should be used, with options including payments to taxpayers to offset higher energy costs, investments in low-carbon technology, assistance to coal and other sectors harmed by decarbonization efforts and others.

    In addition, any bill could face major pitfalls as lawmakers debate which EPA climate rules would be preempted or retained, given environmental groups' general belief that many rules would be necessary to complement a market-based program and the competing desire to block some regulations to attract GOP votes.

    'Climate Solutions'

    Tonko's letter says he seeks legislation based on “environmental effectiveness, cost effectiveness, fairness, transparency, and simplicity.” While he is open to “any effective climate solution,” he is “particularly interested in issues related to designing a cost-effective, market-based cap and trade program” to cut GHGs.

    Within that framework, Tonko seeks input on several oft-debated questions for climate mitigation policy. For example he seeks input on the best way to offset higher energy costs for low-income consumers and whether to use revenues for a variety of purposes, including aid to workers at energy-intensive industries and a “just worker transition.”

    He also asks about which “complementary federal programs” should be retained alongside any market-based GHG policy to further reduce emissions, and how federal policy should interact with existing carbon trading programs and ensure it does not “disadvantage early actors.”

    Most of the remaining questions in his letter focus on various design aspects of a cap-and-trade program, including: which entities would be covered, the “appropriate” emissions cap; the length of compliance periods; how allowances should be distributed; whether any auction should include a reserve price; how to control allowance costs; whether to limit banking and borrowing; how to address emission offsets; penalties for noncompliance; monitoring and reporting rules; and how to mitigate “leakage” among energy-intensive, trade-exposed sectors.

    Tonko's letter says responses would not be released publicly, in an effort to elicit “candid” ideas, though information might be summarized without specific attribution.

    Next steps in the effort were not clear, including how soon Tonko hopes to craft legislation informed by the responses, or whether a bill would be released before or after this year's midterm elections.

    The former Democratic aide says the effort is occurring amid failed hopes that Republican lawmakers in the Trump era would embrace a revenue-neutral carbon tax as a way to address climate change and avoid charges that they are ignoring mainstream scientific findings about climate risks.

    This source says several right-leaning groups -- including a coalition of several top officials in former GOP administrations who pushed such a tax in early 2017 -- have long advanced the argument that dozens of Republicans in Congress are privately open to such a policy in the right political context.

    “It's a notion that we all want to be true,” the source says, but it has been “proven wrong.”

    As evidence, this source says that a prime opportunity to enact such a carbon tax would have been during the GOP's December 2017 tax code overhaul, with carbon tax proceeds largely going to pay for major cuts in corporate taxes.

    However, lawmakers “didn't even contemplate” that strategy in a serious way.

    The former aide says Tonko's effort is not necessarily a response to the carbon tax dynamic, and that it remains a thorny political problem to try to attract Republicans to a broad climate bill.

    While the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus has grown to more than 60 members this year, some environmentalists charge that the group to date has floated few, if any, major policies to address the issue.

    And the former aide says that even relatively moderate Republicans are unlikely to “lead with their chin on climate solutions” as they head into GOP primary races this year, though it could be interesting to watch how they approach the issue in what many experts expect to be a challenging general election for many members in swing districts.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/key-democrat-readying-carbon-trading-legislation-ahead-midterms
    

    Return to headline | Return to top