Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Cracker Company ‘Rethinking’ Plans, Appalachian Gas Market
Feb 11, 2015 | The Charleston Gazette
By Caitlin Cook
An official with the Brazil-based company that proposed a petrochemical complex in Wood County more than a year ago said Wednesday that he’s worried about the natural gas market and what that might mean for the proposed plant. -
Plans Continue for Proposed Cracker Plant in W.Va.
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
A Brazilian-based company, Odebrecht Organization, is restrategizing its plans for a proposed petrochemical complex in Wood County, W.Va., in light of low natural gas prices. -
Groups Detail Final Arguments In 'Major' Boiler MACT Suit
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists, industry organizations and others are detailing their concluding arguments in final briefs filed in litigation over EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for larger “major” source boilers, staking out competing claims over whether the MACT regulation is too stringent or unlawfully lenient. -
Mr. Obama’s Easy Call on Keystone Bill
Feb 13, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
Congress has delivered to President Obama a bill commanding him to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, accompanied by a warning from House Speaker John Boehner to ignore the “left-fringe extremists and anarchists” who oppose the project. -
GOP Thwarts Quick Keystone Veto
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Congressional Republicans plan to hold back legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline to prevent President Obama from vetoing it while lawmakers are away from Washington. -
Republicans Prep Keystone Bill for White House Veto
Feb 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Republicans held a ceremony Friday morning for their showpiece Keystone XL pipeline bill that was part celebration and part wake. -
Republicans Sign Keystone Bill
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Republican leaders signed legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday. -
Congressional Leaders Sign Legislation, Wait to Send it to White House
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Manuel Quiñones
Congressional leaders this morning signed legislation to approve TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada in a ceremony on Capitol Hill. -
Coal Giant Challenge to Power Plant Rule Has 'No Legal Basis' -- EPA
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. EPA yesterday renewed its call for federal judges to dismiss an early challenge from a major coal producer to the agency's proposed greenhouse gas standards for power plants, saying the company's claim has "no legal basis." -
State Regulators Set Sights on Clean Power Plan at Winter Meetings
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
It is highly unlikely that there will be a consensus emerging from the upcoming winter meetings of the nation's utility regulators on the merits of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, believed by many to be the most complicated rule the agency has ever issued. -
Climate ESPS Supporters Reject Reliability Fears Ahead Of FERC Meeting
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Supporters of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants are pushing back on warnings from a federal reliability watchdog that the rule will undermine electricity reliability, previewing the potential debate at an upcoming Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) meeting to discuss the rule's reliability impacts. -
EPA's Haze Emissions Plan For Oklahoma, Texas Spurs Divided Reaction
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
EPA Region 6's proposal to impose a federal implementation plan (FIP) on Oklahoma and Texas in order to force cuts in haze-forming emissions is spurring a divided reaction, with some power companies saying it unlawfully exceeds Clean Air Act mandates while environmentalists back the plan but say it could be even more stringent. -
New GOP Bill Would Give States Power to Develop Federal Lands
Feb 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Nine Senate Republicans today proposed a bill that would let states decide to develop fossil-fuel as well as renewable energy resources on federal lands. -
Amid a Lack of Fracking Data, the State Should Halt New Operations
Feb 12, 2015 | The Los Angeles Times
By The Editorial Board
The wastewater from oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other extraction processes is supposed to be injected only into wells where the groundwater is already too toxic to be used for drinking or irrigation, even if heavily treated. But last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified 10 California wells where that rule had been ignored. -
Climate Change Talks Draw New Wish List of Proposals
Feb 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Negotiators in Geneva this week opened the door for a wish list of new climate change proposals to be put on the table ahead of a major U.N. summit in December. -
Proposed Next Steps for the House Republican Energy Framework
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - Pundit's Blog
By Deborah D. Stine
As I read an article in The Hill about the House Republican Energy framework, I was watching pitches from budding entrepreneurs at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) Innovation Summit that took place Feb. 9 to 11. -
Senate Receives EPA Nominees For Data, International Offices
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
The Senate has formally received President Obama's nomination of Ann Dunkin to head EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and Jane Nishida to be the next top Office of International and Tribal Affairs official, renewing an attempt to win confirmation of their nominations that failed to move in the 113th Congress.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Cracker Company ‘Rethinking’ Plans, Appalachian Gas Market
Feb 11, 2015 | The Charleston Gazette
By Caitlin Cook
An official with the Brazil-based company that proposed a petrochemical complex in Wood County more than a year ago said Wednesday that he’s worried about the natural gas market and what that might mean for the proposed plant.
“This is a period of really deep rethinking,” David Peebles, a vice president with Odebrecht, told a crowd gathered Wednesday at the Charleston Town Center Marriott for the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia’s winter meeting.
The company closed last year on its approximately $11 million property that would house an ethane cracker plant, three polyethylene plants and associated infrastructure for water treatment and co-generation.
The company is continuing to develop the project known as Project ASCENT — short for Appalachia Shale Cracker Enterprise — but is reconsidering how it plans to move forward, Peebles said.
Natural gas prices continue to drop as production in the United States grows, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Prices have dropped to their lowest levels since September 2012, after a brief increase in November 2014.
“The advantage of the Appalachian region of ethane is not what it was two years ago for the production of plastics,” Peebles said. “We have to take a long-term view, we have to rethink what we are doing and figure out what’s the best thing for our shareholders and what’s the best thing in terms of strategic analysis in the use of our assets.”
Cracker plants break down larger molecules and separate ethane from natural gas. Polyethylene is a byproduct of this process and a base chemical for plastic products manufacturing. Crackers also remove the natural gas liquids, making the natural gas product ready for pipeline transportation.
Peebles said he still believes the long-term outlook on plastic demand is good. Plastic is replacing products like steel, ceramics, glass and paper in automobile manufacturing and the construction and food-processing industries, he said.
“This is the polymer center of the United States,” Peebles said. “We have to think regionally — we have to join Ohio, we have to join Pennsylvania and we have to think about what it is that we can do to make the midstream and downstream industries grow.”
Procter & Gamble’s recent announcement of a $500 million multi-product plant in Berkeley County is a good example of what could be done to bolster the industry, Peebles said.
The company sees positives in the region’s ability to absorb what it would produce and demand for its product, but it’s the supply mechanism that concerns Odebrecht, Peebles said.
“There’s a lot of ethane here, but there’s no pipeline to deliver it to our Parkersburg site,” Peebles said. “We’ve been overbalancing in building infrastructure to take product to the Gulf [of Mexico].”
The Gulf area will house six new major cracker plants, and Odebrecht has a major project it will bring on board in Mexico, Peebles said.
“We have three or four major producers who have committed to us,” Peebles said, “but it’s a hard deal for any producer to say, ‘Hey, we want a 5-, 10-, 20-year contract but we’re only going to take it five years from now,’ so it’s a special kind of contract we’re working on.”
Earlier Wednesday, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin told the crowd it is an exceptionally exciting time for West Virginia’s natural gas industry, despite a tight market. Tomblin conveyed his confidence in the market bouncing back and West Virginians and the businesses that call the Mountain State home will benefit from investments in the industry and potential downstream industries.
The combination of an available facility site, strong supply of natural resources and a large effort on the part of government officials to meet the company’s needs make West Virginia Chamber of Commerce President Steve Roberts hopeful that Project ASCENT will become a reality.
“The world energy market can be very hard to predict,” Roberts said. “Six months ago, nobody was expecting the price of gas to be where it is today, for example. And three and four years ago, not many expected the amount of natural gas to found that energy exploration has created.”
The company has yet to break ground on its facility because the SABIC Plastic Innovation plant is still operating on the property, Peebles said. The plant is supposed to cease its operation some time this year. After that, Peebles said, Odebrecht plans to have a demolition team come onto the site. Odebrecht is pursuing its air and water permits, which take 10 to 24 months and are necessary for building.
Peebles said Odebrecht continues to address infrastructure issues and to analyze the potential workforce.
“I’m not optimistic or pessimistic,” he said. “I’m trying to be realistic.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150211/GZ01/150219850/1102#sthash.6zutotPg.dpuf
-
Plans Continue for Proposed Cracker Plant in W.Va.
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
A Brazilian-based company, Odebrecht Organization, is restrategizing its plans for a proposed petrochemical complex in Wood County, W.Va., in light of low natural gas prices.
The property would potentially house an ethane cracker plant, three polyethylene plants and other infrastructure necessary for water treatment and co-generation. A cracker plant separates ethane from natural gas by breaking down larger molecules. A natural byproduct emerging from this process is polyethylene, a base chemical for plastic manufacturing.
The company still plans to develop the property.
"The advantage of the Appalachian region of ethane is not what it was two years ago for the production of plastics," said David Peebles, a vice president with Odebrecht. "We have to take a long-term view, we have to rethink what we are doing and figure out what's the best thing for our shareholders and what's the best thing in terms of strategic analysis in the use of our assets."
Peebles added the outlook for plastic products still looks good as the material has been slowly usurping steel, ceramic, paper and glass products for automobile manufacturing and food-processing products.
"This is the polymer center of the United States," Peebles said. "We have to think regionally -- we have to join Ohio, we have to join Pennsylvania, and we have to think about what it is that we can do to make the midstream and downstream industries grow."
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) spoke optimistically about the future of its burgeoning natural gas industry and the proposed project, supported by Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
"The world energy market can be very hard to predict," Roberts said. "Six months ago, nobody was expecting the price of gas to be where it is today, for example. And three and four years ago, not many expected the amount of natural gas ... that energy exploration has created" (Caitlin Cook, Charleston Gazette, Feb. 11). -- KS
-
Groups Detail Final Arguments In 'Major' Boiler MACT Suit
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists, industry organizations and others are detailing their concluding arguments in final briefs filed in litigation over EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for larger “major” source boilers, staking out competing claims over whether the MACT regulation is too stringent or unlawfully lenient.
The final briefs filed Feb. 11 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case United States Sugar Corporation, et al. v. EPA, et al. largely reiterate arguments raised previously.
The major source boiler MACT is part of a package of “combustion” rules also restricting air toxics from smaller “area source” boilers that emit less than 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs.
Two other rules in the combustion package include emissions standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI), and defining which materials are “fuel” for use in boilers and which are “waste” covered by the CISWI rule.
All the rules in the combustion rule package are being litigated in the D.C. Circuit in separate cases.
In their final brief in the major source boiler MACT suit, industry groups including the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others repeat their argument that EPA overreached its authority by requiring one-time “energy assessments,” measuring energy efficiency of equipment related to the boiler.
“EPA exceeded its authority by imposing an energy assessment requirement on portions of the facility that are not part of the defined source category. The source category subject to regulation consists only of 'boilers' and 'process heaters' and EPA has no authority to impose requirements on other portions of the facility,” the groups say.
The agency in a recent brief defended its Clean Air Act authority for the assessments as a legitimate measure for EPA to require beyond the “MACT floor” -- the rule's minimum emissions standard.
Industry also repeats its arguments that EPA erred by setting MACT on a “pollutant-by-pollutant' basis; by setting numeric emissions limits instead of less-stringent “work practice standards” for coal-fired boilers; by setting numeric MACT limits for mercury after it has avoided doing so in earlier rulemakings; by failing to account for malfunctions when setting MACT limits; and by setting some MACT floors that industry says are unattainable.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, refute these criticisms but repeat their own, including that EPA wrongly used carbon monoxide as a “surrogate” for some HAPs; used a statistical method called the Upper Prediction Limit to set weaker standards than the Clean Air Act requires; wrongly created subcategories of sources that effectively weaken the MACT standards; and wrongly excluded the least-polluting sources from MACT floor calculations.
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled in the case.
-
Mr. Obama’s Easy Call on Keystone Bill
Feb 13, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
Congress has delivered to President Obama a bill commanding him to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, accompanied by a warning from House Speaker John Boehner to ignore the “left-fringe extremists and anarchists” who oppose the project.
It was not immediately clear whom Mr. Boehner had in mind, unless he meant the 90 scientists, economists and Nobel laureates who appealed this week to Mr. Obama to reject the pipeline on the grounds that the United States should not be complicit in unlocking some of the dirtiest fuel on the planet. In any case, Mr. Obama should ignore the speaker and, as he has promised, veto the bill. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision about whether to proceed is his to make, not Congress’s, and the State Department review that will help guide that decision is not yet complete.
The veto is the easy call. The tougher one — for the president and his secretary of state, John Kerry — is whether eventually to say yes or no to the pipeline, which would carry about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta’s tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast. In the great scheme of things, this would not be a big addition to a global oil output that now exceeds 90 million barrels a day. And the oil would come from a reliable friend, Canada. Building the pipeline would also provide about 3,900 temporary construction jobs over two years, but no more than 50 permanent jobs thereafter.
At the same time, both Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have declared, without reservation, that climate change is a grave and increasingly tangible threat to world stability. The Canadian tar sands oil can only add to that threat.
One reason is that tar sands oil yields roughly 17 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional crude oil. A bigger reason is that there is so much of it — 170 billion barrels recoverable with today’s technology and maybe 10 times that amount in potential resources. Mainstream climate scientists are virtually unanimous in saying that as much as two-thirds of the world’s deposits of fossil fuels must remain in the ground if climate disaster is to be avoided. Alberta’s tar sands oil should be among the first such deposits we decide to leave alone.
Saying no to the pipeline will not prevent the Canadians (and American oil companies that have invested in Alberta) from extracting the oil. But it could make the job much harder. The industry hopes to expand daily production to about five million barrels in 2030 from the current 1.9 million. Doing this profitably will require robust oil prices and access to pipelines, which are a much cheaper way of moving oil than rail. And with oil prices falling fast, pipelines become even more necessary.
Not building a pipeline means that more oil — and more carbon dioxide — will be left in the ground. That is the main reason to say no. Another is that, at least right now, this country does not need the oil. Improved technology, chiefly hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has opened up vast new deposits of not only natural gas but crude oil; in January 2014, Mr. Obama was able to announce that for the first time in decades the United States was producing more oil than it imported, and the Energy Information Administration has forecast that reliance on overseas oil will continue to fall.
The stars seem very much in alignment for a courageous presidential decision that would command worldwide attention and reinforce America’s leadership role in the battle against global warming.
-
GOP Thwarts Quick Keystone Veto
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Congressional Republicans plan to hold back legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline to prevent President Obama from vetoing it while lawmakers are away from Washington.
While Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) staged a signing ceremony for the bill on Friday morning, the legislation will not be sent to the White House until after next week’s Presidents Day recess, according to a top Republican aide.
Once Obama receives the bill, he will have 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto it.Asked about the timeline provided by the aide, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested the bill could be sent to Obama the week of Feb. 23.
"I expect [the bill] will be [at the White House] by the day we’re back,” said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart.
The White House has repeatedly promised that Obama will veto the legislation, arguing the review of the $8 billion project at the State Department should be allowed to run its course."The president has been pretty clear that he does not think circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is the right thing for Congress," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said last month.
The State Department just finished collecting comments from agencies on whether the oil sands project is in the nation's best interest, potentially setting the stage for a determination this spring.
Once Secretary of State John Kerry finishes reviewing the comments he will send a recommendation to Obama, who will make the final decision.
Republicans and some Democrats have blasted the holdup of the pipeline, and rallied to approvelegislation that would take the decision out of Obama’s hands.
Still, supporters of Keystone appear to be well short of the two-thirds majorities that would be needed to override Obama’s veto.Republicans this week have urged Obama to reconsider his veto threat, arguing the pipeline will create thousands of jobs and make the country more energy independent.
Boehner at a press conference accused the president of siding with "left-fringe extremists and anarchists" by holding up the pipeline, while McConnell called the project "common sense."
“Powerful special interests may be demanding that the president veto Keystone jobs, but we hope he won’t," McConnell said.
If Obama follows through on his threat to reject the Keystone bill, it will be only the third veto of his presidency, and the first under the new Republican Congress.
-
Republicans Prep Keystone Bill for White House Veto
Feb 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Republicans held a ceremony Friday morning for their showpiece Keystone XL pipeline bill that was part celebration and part wake.
Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP lawmakers assembled in the Capitol on Friday morning at a formal enrollment ceremony, typically unremarkable affairs that precede Congress shipping the bill to the president’s desk.
And though the White House has long warned that the bill was dead on arrival because Obama objected to the effort by Congress to override his authority on the cross-border project, the Republicans repeated their calls for him to approve the measure.
“It’s really pretty simply: The Keystone XL pipeline is a good idea for our economy and for our country,” Boehner said. “To the president I would just say this: Do the right thing. Sign this bill and help us create more jobs in America and create a healthier economy.”
“We’re hoping common sense will prevail here and the president will sign this extraordinary jobs bill,” McConnell added.
That rhetoric was less heated than Boehner’s remarks earlier this week, when he said Obama was standing with a “bunch of left-fringe extremists and anarchists” rather than the American people.
The Senate spent most of January debating the bill, the first submitted under the now-Republican controlled chamber, and the House voted in favor of the measure that the upper chamber had passed.
No Democrats attended Friday’s short ceremony, but Sen. John Hoeven, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Reps. Kristi Noem and Kevin Cramer were on hand, as was Sean McGarvey, president of the North America’s Building Trades Union.
Republicans will wait to send the bill to Obama until after next week, preventing him from vetoing the legislation during their President’s Day recess. The submission will start a 10-day veto clock, not counting Sundays.
Regardless of the date, Obama will be sending the bill back to Congress.
“The president has announced that he would oppose and veto any legislative maneuvering to circumvent” the State Department’s review process, deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters yesterday aboard Air Force One. “So he will indeed be vetoing it.”
Schultz declined to say whether the White House is planning a public veto event or a private affair, noting it wasn’t clear when exactly Congress would formally send the bill over.
Some Republicans have suggested they would attempt to override the veto, though both chambers appear to be short of the requisite two-thirds required to do so. Supporters are eyeing upcoming must-pass legislation, such as spending bills, on which they could include Keystone as a rider.
After the bill’s demise, the decision on whether to approve the pipeline will remain with Obama, who is awaiting a recommendation from the State Department on whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
Obama has not said if he will grant TransCanada permission to build the oil link that would connect the oil sands fields of Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast, though his comments in recent months have indicated he was skeptical of proponents’ arguments about the number of jobs the pipeline would create and its impact on U.S. energy prices.
-
Republicans Sign Keystone Bill
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Republican leaders signed legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday.
“The new majority is getting America back to work,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Friday.Friday's ceremony highlighted the distance between Republicans and the president, who has vowed to veto the bill, on the issue.
“Everyone is on board, except for the president,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), an author of the bill.
Hoeven pressed President Obama to sign the bill, arguing that a veto would be “music” to the ears of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Hoeven asked if the administration really wants to rely on OPEC with the current terror situation with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
While a ceremony is typical for a bill that is signed into law by the president, it is more unusual for lawmakers to hold a ceremony for the bill's enrollment.
Republicans capitalized on Friday's event to send a signal to the White House.
After signing the bill, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave the pen to Hoeven, who was credited by Republicans for shepherding the bill through the Senate along with Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski. -
Congressional Leaders Sign Legislation, Wait to Send it to White House
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Manuel Quiñones
Congressional leaders this morning signed legislation to approve TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada in a ceremony on Capitol Hill.
Signing ceremonies are relatively uncommon, with leaders using them only for the most important of bills or measures they want to promote.
In this case, House and Senate Republicans wanted to highlight their differences with President Obama on the issue. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support KXL.
Obama has threatened to veto the bill, supporting his own administration's ongoing review of KXL. At the ceremony today, Sean McGarvey, head of North America's Building Trades Unions, said, "We urge the president to sign this bill."
Congressional leaders at the event wouldn't say what they would do if the president indeed used his veto pen. Some lawmakers have talked about the possibility of an override attempt or attaching KXL to another measure.
Speculation will continue for the next several days because they are waiting until after next week's recess to send Obama the bill. They want to avoid having him veto it during the recess.
"Clearly, we think it's better if we're here and so attention is brought to it because the public supports it," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), sponsor of the Senate bill, said yesterday.
Hoeven thinks a presidential veto will help Republicans in their standoff with Democrats over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. They will aim to paint the White House as obstructionist.
The GOP has been trying to get credit for managing the KXL debate and allowing amendments in the Senate. This morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) thanked Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and also top committee Democrat Maria Cantwell (Wash.) for shepherding the debate.
No pro-KXL Democrat has participated in recent GOP press events. Murkowski was absent during today's bill enrollment ceremony. A spokesman said she had an early flight back to Alaska.
Yesterday, TransCanada agreed to halt eminent domain proceedings against some Nebraska landowners amid new litigation there over the pipeline route (E&ENews PM, Feb. 12). The Obama administration has not said when it will complete its review of whether KXL is in the national interest.
Meanwhile, TransCanada said today that it would apply for another transboundary pipeline, this one from North Dakota into Canada. But the Upland pipeline would only move forward if the company's Energy East project does so, too.
-
Coal Giant Challenge to Power Plant Rule Has 'No Legal Basis' -- EPA
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. EPA yesterday renewed its call for federal judges to dismiss an early challenge from a major coal producer to the agency's proposed greenhouse gas standards for power plants, saying the company's claim has "no legal basis."
In court documents, EPA claimed Murray Energy Corp. of Ohio does not have legal standing to bring the case because the standards would not directly regulate its activities since they are designed for power plants.
Further, the agency emphasized that Murray's case -- which has been joined by several states and other coal and energy-sector entities -- should not be resolved because EPA is still finalizing the rule.
"Murray argues that this is an 'extraordinary case,'" EPA wrote. "Murray is right, but not for the reasons it believes. Rather, it is what Murray asks this Court to do -- halt an ongoing rulemaking before EPA takes final action -- that is extraordinary."
Murray and more than a dozen states are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ" to block EPA from finalizing the rule, a key component of the president's Clean Power Plan.
They raise several arguments, including conflicting House and Senate versions of a section of the Clean Air Act that were both signed into law. One version bars EPA from issuing regulations under the section forsources already regulated under the law, while the other bans new rules for pollutants that have been previously limited. The challengers contend that the source language prohibits EPA from issuing the greenhouse gas standards for power plants, since those facilities are already covered by other EPA regulations.
EPA contends that it deserves deference in analyzing the conflicting passages.
"[T]he issue Murray raises concerns the interpretation of a patently ambiguous statutory provision," the agency said.
The D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in the consolidated cases April 16.
Previous efforts to block EPA climate regulations before they were finalized failed. A bid to stymie EPA's 2012 proposed greenhouse gas standards for new power plants was quickly dismissed by the D.C. Circuit in Las Brisas Energy Center LLC v. EPA. Further, a federal district court judge last October dismissed a similar challenge to the proposed rule brought by Nebraska, saying the state had "jumped the gun" by filing the case before the rule was finalized (Greenwire, Oct. 8, 2014).
Also yesterday, environmental groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club came to EPA's defense in their own filing to the court.
"The Court," they wrote, "should not intervene in the rulemaking before EPA has the opportunity to reach a final conclusion and articulate its reasoning, based on its own ongoing analysis as well as the comments received."
Click here for EPA's brief.
Click here for the environmental groups' brief.
-
State Regulators Set Sights on Clean Power Plan at Winter Meetings
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
It is highly unlikely that there will be a consensus emerging from the upcoming winter meetings of the nation's utility regulators on the merits of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, believed by many to be the most complicated rule the agency has ever issued.
But there is optimism that the five-day gathering of more than 1,400 stakeholders starting Saturday in Washington, D.C., might result in a clear-eyed understanding of what it would mean for states to comply -- or not -- should legal challenges fail to upend the proposed rule.
This year's meetings feature numerous panels on aspects of how the CPP would affect grid reliability, the increased and prolonged use of natural gas as a generation fuel, the development of clean coal technologies, expanded use of demand response, and renewables, as well as state compliance options.
Key federal players will speak, including EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and her air chief Janet McCabe, as well as Cheryl LaFleur, chairwoman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller. Congress will be in recess so, in a departure from past winter meetings, there will be no lawmakers addressing the group.
EnergyWire spoke with a number of attendees to gauge their expectations.
Chuck Gray, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, recalled that in November "we had a good debate at our board of directors over a resolution [on the EPA proposal] that really showed that there's a wide range of different opinions among our membership on the proposed rule and the implementation of it."
"I don't think there's ever going to be a detailed consensus," Gray added.
Even if there is no consensus, the NARUC gatherings "certainly can" result in commissioners' changing their minds about a subject as controversial as the CPP, according to Susan Ackerman, chairwoman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission and of NARUC's Electricity Committee.
"One of the things I love about going to NARUC is you sit there and listen to other states talk about what their issues are and suddenly you are thinking about something that hasn't crossed your mind before," she said.
"I hope that is something that happens; that people as they start listening to where the other states are on the rule, that people see things that maybe they missed before or heard an idea that maybe they didn't think of themselves before."
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
These periodic NARUC meetings can "broaden your perspective," said Al Minier, chairman of the Wyoming Public Service Commission. But it also lets "people know what your particular situation is."
Minier is interested in how commissioners will interact and in "talking to people about where they are on the learning curve. There's been time for people to digest their various perspectives; from looking at comments, people have done a lot more homework."
Not only are the NARUC meetings an "opportunity for commissioners to talk about how other states around the country are dealing with [the CPP], but it's also a chance for utilities, [nongovernmental organizations], environmental groups and consumer groups to listen to the discussion from commissioners because there really hasn't been kind of a forum to listen on such a broad basis until these D.C. meetings," said Kevin Gunn, the former chairman of the Missouri Public Service Commission and now principal of Paladin Energy Strategies.
Getting "to see how other states are approaching [the CPP] or even thinking about it, that is the ultimate benefit here, that kind of ongoing dialogue," he said.Reliability of electric service top concern
Maintaining a reliable grid should the CPP go forward is uppermost in commissioners' minds, Ackerman said.
That is especially true in states within the Eastern Interconnection, where there are already reliability concerns because of the planned closure of coal-fired plants in response to the EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, she said.
All three members of the Alabama Public Service Commission are attending this winter's NARUC meeting. "In light of all of the critical issues that are currently facing the public utility industry we are vigilantly focused on ensuring that Alabamians continue to receive reliable utility services at reasonable rates," the PSC members said in a joint statement.
"Coal is a vital component of Alabama's utility industry and is in no way inferior to other means by which electricity is produced," the PSC members said.
"The reliability piece will be a developing story because the choices we make about designing a state program would be informed by what the reliability consequences might be," Minier said. "I don't get the sense that anybody's got a handle on that yet."States weigh range of options for compliance
State compliance efforts, NARUC's Gray noted, are "going to be a shared decision" on the part of utility regulators, state departments of environment and gubernatorial offices. But "the agency that actually submits the compliance plan to EPA will be the air regulators since they're the ones that actually report to EPA," Gray said.
Gunn described that dynamic as "weird" because PUCs are the most qualified to respond to the EPA proposal, but they won't be taking the lead.
"It's still unclear how commission involvement is going to be in actual compliance; is it going to be cost recovery; is it going to be rulemakings?" Gunn said.
Still, even state regulators opposed to the CPP realize there's a responsibility beyond litigation, Gunn said.
"Litigation isn't a compliance strategy; so no matter how much you don't like the CPP, you may end up having to comply. The timelines are short, the timelines are tight. Reliability is a concern. We need to talk about it and figure out the best way to move forward, even if you feel like it's horrible. You have to prepare with the eventuality that you have to comply."
Veteran Georgia utility regulator and NARUC Gas Committee Chairman Stan Wise expressed a similar view. All five members of the Georgia Public Service Commission oppose the Clean Power Plan, he said. But they also realize the proposed rule likely will be adopted in some form.
He doesn't see simply choosing not to abide with the rule as an option. "I think we need to do what we can to protest this rule, work to change this rule, to ultimately challenge this rule," he said. "But we'll probably have to work to implement it."
Mississippi regulator Brandon Presley said he's hoping to have some face time with EPA officials, but he's looking forward to hearing other state regulators' perspectives on how to handle the proposal.
"A lot of us have heartburn on this and how the rule is rolled out," said Presley, chairman of NARUC's Consumer Affairs Committee.
The Mississippi PSC isn't waiting for state lawmakers to take action on how to respond to the CPP. "We have already pre-emptively begun the process of hiring our outside consultants and counsel to weigh in on the issue," Presley said. "We're already engaged."
There is no session dedicated to the potential for regional compliance systems, but it is likely to be the subject of hallway and reception discussions among the regulators.
"I think most regions are going to have to look at cooperating because, as you know, electricity is interstate in nature. You can't put the walls up around your own state and comply probably," Ackerman said. It could be "less costly for consumers and maybe more effective."
Gunn certainly thinks "this meeting can shine a light on that."
"A lot of states haven't crossed the threshold into starting to think how a regional approach may work," he said. "This may be a meeting where that crystallizes thoughts.
"At the end of the day, when they look at what's the cheapest and best approach to do, they're going to look at a regional model. I just don't think they're there yet," Gunn added.Tuesday session features federal, state regulators
One of the meeting's highlights will be a session Tuesday afternoon that could evolve into a discussion of the merits of states going it alone versus regional collaboration, as well as the consequences of noncompliance and having a federal implementation plan imposed.
It will feature FERC's Moeller and EPA's McCabe, as well as five state commissioners.
"Hopefully, we'd go toward a discussion about how it can work the best it can given the profound nature of what they're proposing," said Moeller, a CPP skeptic.
"I understand why EPA's going about it the way they are under what they say is their legal limitations. But to have state implementation plans overlay what is fundamentally interstate commerce is awkward at best and has the potential for a lot of economic and reliability inefficiencies," he said.
"They're air regulators; we're energy regulators. I wouldn't expect them to be experts on electricity, which is why frankly they should be talking and listening to us," Moeller said. "I really want whatever they propose to be workable and minimize the disruptive effect of it."
Among the changes in the CPP he advocates are with the compliance timeline, the base-line year EPA uses for compliance and credit for nuclear generation, previous closure of coal plants, and early action to foster renewables.
"It's fundamentally unfair when states such as Wisconsin have pumped billions of dollars into cleaning up their coal fleet and don't get credit for it. And similarly the states that have been aggressive on renewables, you're not sending a very good message there when you're not giving prior credit," he said.
"A variety of these things, if rectified, can make the transition smoother."
For those who can't get their fill of the Clean Power Plan at NARUC, just wait a day. On Thursday, FERC will host an all-day technical conference on the effects of the plan on electric reliability, wholesale electric markets, and electric and natural gas infrastructure.
Click here to see the full NARUC agenda.
Reporter Kristi E. Swartz contributed.
-
Climate ESPS Supporters Reject Reliability Fears Ahead Of FERC Meeting
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Supporters of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants are pushing back on warnings from a federal reliability watchdog that the rule will undermine electricity reliability, previewing the potential debate at an upcoming Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) meeting to discuss the rule's reliability impacts.
The Advanced Energy Economy Institute (AEEI), the educational affiliate of a group whose members include General Electric, Microsoft, Enernoc, Johnson Controls, Verizon and other companies, issued a Feb. 12 reportrefuting findings issued late last year from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) that warned that EPA's rule will undermine grid reliability.
The AEEI report charged that NERC's fears are “largely overstated” and do not account for a host of solutions to mitigate the concerns. “Following a review of the reliability concerns raised and the options for mitigating them, we find that compliance with the [EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP)] is unlikely to materially affect reliability,” says the report, which was prepared for AEEI by the Brattle Group.
NERC did not respond to a request for comment on the study's findings but noted that it planned to release another reliability study in April.
AEEI's findings generally support EPA's characterization that the proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS) will not threaten grid reliability due to its extended compliance window and potential changes to the rule's interim compliance targets.
The report contradicts NERC's “initial reliability review,” which warned that compliance with the rule as proposed could pose major threats to a reliable electric system. The review said EPA's unrealistic assumptions in setting targets under the ESPS could have major grid reliability impacts, bolstering the case for changes that could weaken the rule.
NERC's report has already been cited by a host of agency critics to seek concessions. For example, congressional Republicans cited the report to successfully push the FERC to host a series of technical meetings -- the first of which is slated for Feb. 19 -- to discuss the rule's potential reliability impacts and other issues.
But supporters of the rule, including EPA officials, have downplayed NERC's conclusions, charging that the reliability watchdog failed to account for new generating capacity that is either planned or under construction.
Both the NERC report and the new AEEI study could be a major focus of discussion during the Feb. 19 technical conference, which is slated to discuss reliability concerns as well as the need for new infrastructure and potential changes to FERC-regulated markets.
The NERC report has already been at the heart of competing advocacy that FERC commissioners have faced from industry and environmental groups, who have been urging commissioners to take different approaches in how they assess the grid impacts of the ESPS.
Industry officials said they were pressing FERC to assess the impact of the ESPS, together with a series of other EPA rules governing the power sector. Environmentalists, meanwhile, have urged commissioners to address what the group sees as major flaws in earlier reliability assessments by NERC and the grid operator Southwest Power Pool (SPP).
In response, FERC Chairman Cheryl LaFleur has emphasized that the commission plans to be an “honest broker” for the competing claims.
Independent Assessments
In advance of the FERC meeting, supporters of EPA's rule are stepping up calls for commissioners to downplay NERC's findings. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is urging FERC to ensure that NERC and other reliability groups provide independent assessments that do not favor the interests of users, owners and operators of the bulk-power system.
“Some analyses being done are truly 'garbage-in/garbage-out' exercises using outdated assumptions about clean energy. Such analyses with built-in biases should not be viewed as credible,” AWEA said in its Feb. 6 comments to FERC.
“In short, FERC needs to make sure, through audits or other oversight tools, that NERC’s and the regional authorities’ studies do not unduly represent the interests of a particular segment of the electric power industry and their assessments of reliability issues can relied upon for their objectivity and thoroughness,” the wind group adds.
Administration officials have also been making the case. “Keeping reliability very much in mind, as the president directed us to . . . we looked at a way to design the proposed plan in a way that reliability would not be put at risk and would in fact be enhanced,” acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told a Feb. 11 Senate environment committee hearing on the rule.
During the Senate hearing, McCabe acknowledged that NERC and various grid operators have released reviews of the proposed rule, but added that “until the states decide what it is that they intend to do by way of compliance, it's really not very possible to do a real reliability study.”
Even so, she welcomed the reviews for weighing several factors that could affect grid reliability, including EPA's rule, anticipated weather events and shifts in the use of fuels. “They're doing exactly what you just described their job to be, which is thinking ahead, looking ahead, planning, thinking about contingencies, thinking about how things might roll out,” McCabe said. “Those kinds of conversations are exactly what should be happening and what is happening.”
In response to a question from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) about whether climate-related extreme weather would impact electric infrastructure, McCabe said, “We agree that the worst thing to do for reliability is to do nothing.”
The administration is also seeking $63 million in new grant funding in its fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Electricity, with the money to be used by state energy offices to do reliability and energy assurance assessments that could assist their efforts to comply with EPA's requirements.
Asked by reporters Feb. 4 whether the funding was aimed at addressing EPA's GHG rule, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the grants are for “reliability planning . . . , [and] to the extent to which that's connected to the power plant rules then the answer is yes.”
Moniz also addressed the reliability grants during a Feb. 11 House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on the FY16 budget, saying the grants would help states “plan for reliability,” which could lead states to discover the need for additional resources that DOE could consider funding at some later date.
'Fails To Adequately Address'
Echoing EPA claims, the AEEI study charges that NERC's review “fails to adequately account for the extent to which the potential reliability issues it raises are already being addressed or can be addressed through planning and operations processes as well as through technical advancements.”
The new report says NERC's earlier review has multiple shortcomings, and did not consider that retirement of the least-efficient coal plants would improve emissions and that gas pipeline constraints are “generally short-term and seasonal.”
The report also finds that grid operators “already have many operational tools and market rules available to them to manage a complex and changing power grid while maintaining reliability,” and that states have the option to comply with the rule beyond using the four “building blocks” EPA used to set state targets.
Under the ESPS, the agency used four building blocks, or emission reduction strategies, to set targets: greater efficiency at coal plants, increased use of existing gas plants and higher levels of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE).
The ESPS also includes an interim compliance target that must be met on an average basis from 2020 to 2029, in addition to a final target in 2030.
Regarding NERC's concerns about maintaining a sufficient level of generation resources following coal plant retirements, the AEEI report says that coal units needed for peak demand can operate at lower capacity levels, and that there is “excess capacity in many regions.” Further, the report says NERC did not consider how demand response, EE, new baseload gas plants and energy storage could mitigate the concerns.
“Regions with capacity markets have shown that many types of capacity resources can be added to the system in response to significant coal plant retirements due to environmental regulations [such as EPA's power plant mercury rule], including resources that can be constructed and commissioned in less than two years,” the report says.
Further, the study adds that under the ESPS, “no specific plant needs to retire at any given time. In that case, plant retirements can be delayed if necessary for months or years while alternative means of meeting the CPP requirements through additional fuel switching, EE, RE, or regional cooperation are pursued in the interim.”
NERC and others have also raised concerns that pipeline and other midstream infrastructure shortages could constrain gas supplies needed for power generation to comply with the ESPS.
But AEEI notes that market rules are in place to ensure sufficient supplies, and that gas storage and demand response could manage gas demand during constrained periods.
The study notes that the CPP does not “require coal to natural gas switching during” periods of high demand, so “traditional resources as well as other options (such as gas storage, localized gas and electric energy efficiency measures, gas and electric demand response) can continue to provide the services necessary to ensure reliability.”
Further, the report says “significant efforts are underway” to address gas shortage concerns, making it “likely that short-term gas supply bottlenecks will be at least partially overcome in the next few years.”
Variable Resources
AEEI also downplays NERC's concern about integrating the level of variable energy resources (VER) assumed in the ESPS, noting that many regions exceed penetration levels of resources such as wind and solar assumed by EPA “without negatively impacting operational reliability.”
The report notes that NERC did not consider non-variable renewable generation, “improved scheduling of energy and ancillary services markets,” improved forecasting of VER, better cooperation on transmission, and other strategies.
EPA expects renewables to have a 7 percent market share nationally under a business-as-usual scenario, with the rule increasing that to 8 percent by 2020. Under the formula used to set state targets, that would increase to 13.5 percent by 2029. Those levels, the report says, “would not lead to any reliability concerns. Many states and countries are operating at much higher levels of renewable energy today without any negative impact on reliability.”
Noting the experience of integrating renewables in California and Germany, the report says, “It is likely that over the coming decade the availability of various options to manage intermittency will increase while their cost will decrease.”
The report adds that states have additional flexibility of complying with their targets by employing strategies not used to set the targets, including building new gas plants, co-firing coal with biomass, demand response, combined heat and power and non-utility energy efficiency programs.
Further, AEEI's report notes that “there is some historic evidence that the EPA allows for flexibility in compliance so that reliability can be maintained, as long as states provide contingency plans in their [compliance plans] for just such cases and implement those contingency measures to ensure that overall regulatory goals are attained or nearly so over time.”
-
EPA's Haze Emissions Plan For Oklahoma, Texas Spurs Divided Reaction
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
EPA Region 6's proposal to impose a federal implementation plan (FIP) on Oklahoma and Texas in order to force cuts in haze-forming emissions is spurring a divided reaction, with some power companies saying it unlawfully exceeds Clean Air Act mandates while environmentalists back the plan but say it could be even more stringent.
The competing arguments over the haze FIP are outlined in early comments filed on the plan and in testimony at hearings the agency recently held on the proposal in both states. In a Jan. 23 Federal Register notice, the agency announced that it is granting multiple requests to extend from Feb. 17 to April 20 the deadline for public input on the plan.
EPA's Dec. 16 proposed FIP would partially approve and partially reject a revision to Texas' state implementation plan (SIP) outlining how the state will comply with the agency's haze reduction program. The agency also said it would partially disapprove Oklahoma's haze SIP and impose a FIP for the provisions it is rejecting.
The regional haze program requires states to craft plans to reduce haze-forming emissions such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) air pollution in order to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. EPA's FIP covers SO2 emissions at several power plants in Texas in an attempt to drive down haze levels.
One environmentalist has said the FIP could guide how EPA decides whether states are meeting their requirements under the haze program to show "reasonable progress" in reducing emissions, a shift from previous long-running fights over whether SIPs include adequate pollution control measures.
The FIP outlines the emissions controls on power plants that the agency says are vital to meeting haze program requirements. EPA held two open meetings Jan. 13, in Austin, TX, and Jan. 15, in Oklahoma City, OK, to provide additional information about the proposal and to accept comments into the rulemaking record.
Luminant, a Texas-based electric utility that has ownership of four of the power plants affected by the FIP, said in testimony for both hearings that EPA's proposal "does not reflect the flexibility and discretion that States are granted to determine 'reasonable progress' under the Clean Air Act and EPA's own regional haze regulations."
Further, Luminant says the proposal treats Texas "differently" than other states and "reflects a drastic shift" in how EPA reviews state regional haze SIPs, adding that the proposal "creates new standards and requirements that EPA has not imposed on other States in review of their SIPs for the first planning period."
'Reasonable Progress'
Luminant also argues that under the FIP, Texas would have to demonstrate reasonable progress goals at individual sources, which is "contrary to the statute, regulations, and guidance for reasonable progress," and that EPA doesn't account for visibility goals that have already been achieved, or that compliance with EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will result in lower SO2 emission levels.
Xcel Energy subsidiary Southwestern Public Service Company, which owns two power plants -- one of which is included in the FIP -- in its testimony for the hearings raised concerns including the cost of meeting the FIP and the difficulty in meeting the FIP at the same time as EPA's proposed climate rule for existing power plants.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, meanwhile, in its Jan. 13 testimony said the state's plan would achieve better visibility than the goals EPA has proposed for 2018, among other concerns.
Region 6's proposed FIP is drawing support from some lawmakers and environmentalists, with Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) filing Dec. 19 comments saying Texas' haze SIP fell short of Clean Air Act requirements.
Although environmentalists laud EPA in their testimony, several ask the agency to do more by including additional Texas power plants in the FIP and requiring cuts in nitrogen oxides as well as SO2.
For example, Glenn Hooks, director of the Sierra Club of Arkansas, encouraged EPA in his Jan. 15 testimony at the hearing in Oklahoma City to force Texas to reduce emissions from several coal-fired power plants near the Arkansas border that are not currently addressed by the proposed FIP.
-
New GOP Bill Would Give States Power to Develop Federal Lands
Feb 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Nine Senate Republicans today proposed a bill that would let states decide to develop fossil-fuel as well as renewable energy resources on federal lands.
The legislation offered by Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe, represents the Republicans’ latest attempt to surmount what they warn is a concerted effort by the Obama administration to cut back oil and gas production on federal lands by cordoning off significant new parcels for protection.
“The states, not the federal government, are the ones best equipped to tend to the extensive unused and unprotected lands across the nation that the federal government has staked a claim to,” Inhofe said in a statement on the bill, which is also backed by Sens. David Vitter, Mike Lee, Shelley Moore Capito, James Lankford, Jess Sessions, Mike Crapo, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz. -
Amid a Lack of Fracking Data, the State Should Halt New Operations
Feb 12, 2015 | The Los Angeles Times
By The Editorial Board
The wastewater from oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other extraction processes is supposed to be injected only into wells where the groundwater is already too toxic to be used for drinking or irrigation, even if heavily treated. But last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified 10 California wells where that rule had been ignored.
Since then, the number of wells where wastewater was improperly injected has ballooned to 490, though 109 of them are no longer in use. That's more than a fourth of all the wells — known as injection wells — currently used to dispose of industrial wastewater. It represents a tremendous failure by the state, which wrongly issued injection permits for wells in areas with protected groundwater.
A separate Times analysis of the wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, should increase Californians' concerns about its potential for tainting usable water. On average, the “flowback fluid” from fracking operations contains levels of benzene about 700 times the levels considered safe for human use.
But how much of that has found its way into protected aquifers? Shockingly, no one knows. The state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources does not know how much, if any, of the waste pumped into the improperly permitted wells was from fracking. Industries are required to report the amount and composition of the waste they inject into wells; the state should compile this information in a timely manner and make it readily available to the public.
Industry spokesmen point out that by and large, the protected wells drain into aquifers that already have significant levels of pollution; they downplay suggestions that this groundwater would be used for irrigation or drinking. No one should be buying that argument. The technology for treating water is continually improving, and the state's drought has led to calls for using aquifers once considered too dirty to tap.
The resources division must move swiftly to close wells that were supposed to be protected, even those it believes the EPA may exempt in the future. If the EPA eventually agrees, the wells can be reopened. For now, conserving potentially useful water should be a top priority.
The division has vowed to overhaul its sloppy operations. Gov. Jerry Brown should appoint an independent overseer to make sure it does so quickly. This page has called previously for a moratorium on new fracking operations until the state has thoroughly studied their safety; that's increasingly seeming like a wise idea.
-
Climate Change Talks Draw New Wish List of Proposals
Feb 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Negotiators in Geneva this week opened the door for a wish list of new climate change proposals to be put on the table ahead of a major U.N. summit in December.
Rather than whittling down the issues that will be put to the nearly 200 countries that take part in the talks, delegates at the Geneva meeting added a raft of new and sometime contradictory language that must be sorted out before the high-stakes December negotiations in Paris.
Representatives from poor nations again inserted language calling for new support from richer countries, and others urged deeper emissions cuts in the coming decades.
The working text of issues ballooned in size from the 38-page draft that came out of last year’s climate conference in Lima, Peru, to 86 pages, an increase that will pose new challenges to negotiators who will work over the next 10 months to reach a compromise.
The co-chairs of the United Nations process, Daniel Reifsnyder of the United States and Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria, had originally hoped to streamline the text at the Geneva meeting. But they soon reversed course, encouraging delegates to submit additions to the text in an effort to build trust as negotiators work toward a global pact to stem soaring temperatures and rising seas.
While U.N. officials touted the Geneva meeting as a success, there were already rumblings Friday that the expanded text will complicate the negotiations in the coming months as delegates try to narrow the debate. And some officials, including those from the European Union, expressed frustration that the Geneva summit did not focus on actual negotiations between countries over the meat of the document.
Still, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, sounded a positive note.
“I am extremely encouraged by the constructive spirit and the speed at which negotiators have worked during the past week,” she said.
Indeed, the negotiations unfolded more quickly than most observers expected, with the bulk of the additions being completed on Tuesday. But that was likely a consequence of the way the meeting was structured, with delegates focusing on countries’ preferred additions to the text, not the often-tense drudgery of haggling over issues already on the table.
The text, which was formalized for the first time at the Geneva meeting, will be further edited at three negotiating sessions before Paris. The next formal negotiating session is scheduled for June in Bonn, Germany, with other sessions slated for September and October.
Countries hope to reach a long-term agreement to address climate change at the December meeting in Paris, and although it’s unclear exactly what the final deal would look like, it would be based on the individual domestic plans countries must formally submit in the first quarter of this year. The final agreement would take effect in 2020.
In a news conference Friday, Figueres acknowledged that the expanded text could make the June negotiations “a little bit more difficult,” but she praised the Geneva talks for officially formalizing the document.
She said the Geneva talks were “all in all, a very good investment of time, with of course the downside that in June they do have 86 pages to deal with.”
The Geneva text will be translated into six languages and circulated to the nearly 200 countries participating in the U.N. process.
The document also serves to formally alert countries of the possibility that a legally binding protocol could be adopted in Paris. Under U.N. rules, nations must be notified of that possibility at least six months in advance. But the legal nature of the possible Paris agreement nonetheless remains unclear and will likely not be determined until much later this year.
The additions to the text were numerous, but delegates added new language calling for deeper cuts over time in an effort to significantly slash emissions in the second half of the century, perhaps through a series of five-year review cycles.
And developing countries called for more institutional support from wealthy nations, including better systems to help them adapt to the effects of a warming planet.
Outside groups remain hopeful that the U.N. process will be a success.
“At this early stage, the palpable positive spirit coming out of Geneva is a much better measure of progress than the current length of the negotiating text,” Jennifer Morgan, global director of the World Resources Institute’s climate program, said in a statement.
-
Proposed Next Steps for the House Republican Energy Framework
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - Pundit's Blog
By Deborah D. Stine
As I read an article in The Hill about the House Republican Energy framework, I was watching pitches from budding entrepreneurs at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) Innovation Summit that took place Feb. 9 to 11. ARPA-E focuses on high-risk investments that are not yet ready for private-sector investment, providing a road map for future investment. The following sentence in the House Republican Energy framework struck me as particularly relevant to the ARPA-E Summit:
The committee supports solutions that harness new technologies and private sector innovation for more efficient energy usage in households, businesses, and the federal government.
This, to me, is one of the most important goals that the country can have — harnessing new technologies and focusing on the challenge of energy efficiency. I believe there is bipartisan agreement on this goal; however, the House Republican energy leadership needs to think more innovatively as it takes the next steps on its framework — specifically focusing on providing additional support for bringing energy innovation to the marketplace and while acting nationally, recognizing that it needs to do so in partnership with regions, states and local communities to build their innovation ecosystems.
Supporting innovators
The pitch I was watching at the time was that of Avideh Zakhor, an ARPA-E awardee from University of California, Berkeley, which provides fast, automated energy audits of commercial and industrial buildings using a human wearable backpack. This technology would replace someone walking around a building identifying ways to make it more energy efficient with just a simple clipboard checklist producing a faster, less expensive and more accurate analysis.
As someone who conducted those energy audits with the aforementioned clipboard as an engineering intern, I could immediately see the potential of such a device. During a very hot summer in Southern California, I walked through industrial facilities identifying ways to reduce their energy consumption for the Southern California Gas company. The goal then was to encourage facilities to reduce their energy consumption to reduce the need to build new power plants. Certainly, an important goal even today, given the degree of investment required for such facilities — not to mention the challenges involved in locating such facilities.
Zakhor received some solid advice from a "Shark Tank"-type panel of potential investors, who told her that this was a crowded space — that is, lots of other researchers are working on developing technologies to enhance energy efficiency in buildings and the importance of keeping up with the latest developments. Another suggestion from one of the potential investors was possibly using a robot to conduct the analysis instead of a human roaming the building.
This is just one of many energy efficiency innovations developed at universities and other institutions throughout the country that can provide the next generation of energy technologies to improve the nation's energy efficiency.
At Carnegie Mellon University, my home institution, we have our own set of energy innovations to reduce energy consumption, including furniture that can absorb heat during the day and then release it at night, and software solutions that provide energy efficiency guidance to building managers, workers at their desktop and consumers at their homes based not on general information but actual, real-world data.
And as I discussed in a previous column, social science research also plays an important role — it is not just enough to develop a technology; we need to better understand human behavior for these technologies to reach their potential. Anyone who has children knows that although we might have a light switch, a technology whose use can immediately reduce energy consumption, we still need some way to encourage that child to use that light switch. So at Carnegie Mellon, we have psychologists on our research staff to help us better understand this human component.
These innovations, however, also need help to make the transition from these institutions to the marketplace — to cross what is known as the "valley of death." The support provided by ARPA-E helps that occur through its Technology-to-Market program that provides researchers with the tools needed to take the next step, such as the program in which Zakhor participated.
ARPA-E is not the only agency that has been helping researchers get their products to the market. In conjunction with the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, the White House announcedpartnerships through a Clean Energy Investment Fund to catalyze energy efficiency and other energy innovations into the marketplace — helping them cross the valley of death. And the National Science Foundation's I-Corps program also helps researchers connect their innovations with the marketplace. A very important part of the I-Corps program is its I-Corps Sites program that focuses not only on the national innovation ecosystem, but on infrastructure, resources and networking opportunities that develop local innovation ecosystems.
Regional, state and local partnerships
This brings up another key point. The Republican House Energy framework focuses on national energy policy, stating, for example, that "Our energy landscape has changed, but our national energy policy has not kept pace." As I indicated in a previous column for The Hill, however, we need to "Think nationally, act regionally."
Although it is true that our energy landscape has changed, particularly due to presence of shale gas and an electricity mix increasingly reliant on natural gas and renewables, I'm not sure that we can also say that our national energy policy has not kept pace. That is, if you think of national policy being more than federal policy.
Innovative actions are taking place at the regional, state and local levels, with each responding to varying public societal and economic goals and perceptions of risk. These activities and perceptions need to be taken into consideration, and national policy needs to be financially supportive of these innovative efforts. The Republican House Energy framework does mention these policymakers, but only in a directive tone: "Policymakers and regulators at the federal, state, and local level need to ensure that through these new realities, families and businesses in every corner of the country have continued access to safe, reliable, and affordable electricity." Rather than directions to state and local governments, perhaps Congress can instead view state and local governments as partners in achieving our national energy goals.
While we tend to think about other policy arenas like health and education policy from a local perspective, this is less the case for energy policy. Yet each region has a different energy mix and related opportunities and challenges. As illustrated in this video, what is a wise decision for one region may not be appropriate for another. Just as with these other policy arenas, each region, state and community should make its own decisions regarding energy policy.
Next steps
As the Republican House Energy committee continues development of its energy framework, I urge the committee to support:Increased investment in energy innovation and tech-to-market educational and support activities that help those innovations reach the marketplace;Development of regional, state and local industry, government, environmental and community partnerships that establish best practices and regionally focused energy research and policies; andWhite House efforts to catalyze $2 billion of expanded private-sector investment through its Clean Energy Investment Initiative.
Stine is associate director for policy outreach at the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation and professor of the Practice, Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.
-
Senate Receives EPA Nominees For Data, International Offices
Feb 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
The Senate has formally received President Obama's nomination of Ann Dunkin to head EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and Jane Nishida to be the next top Office of International and Tribal Affairs official, renewing an attempt to win confirmation of their nominations that failed to move in the 113th Congress.
According to the Congressional Record, the two nominations were received Feb. 12, shortly after the Senate chamber received formal notification Jan. 27 of the president's decision to nominate acting EPA Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg to take the position on a permanent basis.
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee will hold hearings on the nominees that will likely give GOP lawmakers a chance to reiterate their criticisms of a host of EPA policies.
Nominees for other top-level assistant administrator positions currently vacant or held by acting officials, including the heads of the air, water and finance offices, have yet to be formally submitted.
In lieu of permanent appointees at those positions, EPA is relying heavily on career staff to serve as interim officials; the agency now has seven such offices with no Senate-confirmed appointee. They include the deputy administrator; the assistant administrators for air and radiation, water, administration and resource management, research and development, and international and tribal affairs; the chief financial officer (CFO); and the chief information officer.
Currently filling those spots as interim appointees are Meiburg; Janet McCabe as acting air chief; acting CFO David Bloom; and acting research head Lek Kadeli. The information, tribal and water offices have no formally appointed acting leader, though Nishida, now the principal deputy assistant administrator for tribal affairs, Ken Kopocis, the deputy assistant administrator for water who spent three years as the nominee to be assistant administrator, are serving as the departments' de facto heads.
Dunkin would serve as the assistant administrator in charge of OEI, which identifies and implements “innovative information technology and information management solutions that strengthen EPA's ability to achieve its goals,” according to a description on OEI's website. The office manages the agency's Toxics Release Inventory to which industry reports annual chemical releases, as well as other programs.
Renee Wynn is the current acting chief information officer overseeing OEI, with Ron Borsellino as acting principal deputy, the website says.
Nishida meanwhile would head the Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA), which is responsible for implementing “technical and policy options” for dealing with international environmental concerns, according to OITA's website, as well as coordinating the agency's work with Native American tribal governments.
EPA also announced Feb. 13 that Randy Hill will be the permanent deputy assistant administrator at OITA, after serving as one of the four judges on the agency's Environmental Appeals Board.
He has formerly been deputy director in the office of enforcement and the office of wastewater management, and the permanent deputy director of the wastewater office.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested