Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/23/18
-
(ACC Blog) UCS Chooses to Peddle Conspiracy Theories Rather Than Be a Constructive Partner in PFAS Effort
May 23, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
You may have seen a recent conspiracy theory the Union of Concern Scientists (UCS) has been peddling in the media and on the Hill about a Jan. 31 meeting between EPA and ACC staff. -
EPA Bars Reporters from Toxic Chemicals Summit Again
May 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA staff Wednesday morning barred POLITICO and reporters from at least two other publications from entering a national summit on toxic chemicals, a day after a partial media blackout at the same event brought criticism from congressional Democrats and a pledge by the White House to investigate the incident. -
EPA Again Bars Reporters from Water Pollution Event
May 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is barring reporters from attending the second day of an event on drinking water pollution. -
Industry Awaits Guidance on Siefs After Final REACH Deadline
May 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has said that members of substance information exchange fora (Siefs) should agree new "discussion platforms", to ensure collaboration beyond next week’s final REACH registration deadline, but has yet to provide any guidance. -
Trump Wants Congress to Approve Any NAFTA Deal, Says Mnuchin
May 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Trump administration is focused on reaching a trade deal with Canada and Mexico over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and wants Congress to ultimately approve any changes, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. -
Steel Tariffs Hinder Us Energy Growth
May 23, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Mark Green
The Trump administration has installed tariffs on imported steel, and their effects on steel-intensive business and industry sectors remains to be seen. The oil and gas industry, particularly the pipeline sector, could be significantly impacted, ultimately affecting consumers and America’s energy security. -
Reorganization Will Speed Permitting, Promote Energy — Zinke
May 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Mike Lee
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke today said his reorganization plan for the sprawling department will help promote the Trump administration's goal of increasing American energy production. -
Growth in Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Poses New Policy Issues
May 22, 2018 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
When it comes to U.S. energy supplies, Congress’ default setting for decades had been worry: worry that America did not have enough energy to meet its needs and worry that OPEC would hold the U.S. hostage by jacking up the price of — or withholding — its oil. -
Cheniere Moves Forward with Third LNG Unit in Corpus Christi
May 23, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Houston's Cheniere Energy has decided to build a third unit to process liquefied natural gas at its export facility under construction in Corpus Christi. -
Keystone XL Pipeline Could be Key for Increased Bakken Production
May 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota oil producers and state officials are watching the developments of TransCanada Corp.’s controversialKeystone XL pipeline given the upcoming predictions that available Bakken Shale takeaway capacity will be filled in the coming years. -
Shuster Eyes First Week of June for WRDA Floor Consideration
May 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) told reporters today he anticipated the Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 8 (115), would get floor time the first week of June. -
House Committee Passes WRDA with No Riders
May 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today passed a modified version of a water infrastructure bill, the Water Resources Development Act, by voice vote after rejecting an amendment to help fight mercury pollution. -
NYC Considers Ban on Disposable Plastic Straws
May 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
New York City could become the next major city to ban plastic drinking straws due to plastic waste concerns. -
Bill to Give Industry a Say in Enviro Rules Passes House
May 23, 2018 | Detroit News (In E&E Greenwire)
By Jonathan Oosting
The Michigan House yesterday passed a controversial proposal that would allow oil and gas and other industry officials to review state environmental rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
May 23, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
You may have seen a recent conspiracy theory the Union of Concern Scientists (UCS) has been peddling in the media and on the Hill about a Jan. 31 meeting between EPA and ACC staff.
Their theory goes that ACC has been bending the ear of EPA in secret to prevent a government report on a class of chemicals known as PFAS from being released. These allegations are not based in fact and are incredibly irresponsible.
Here are the facts:EPA career staff from the Office of Water met with ACC and several of its member companies to discuss the agency’s “Cross-Agency Effort to Address PFAS,” which as EPA’s own website says is intended to “…build on the work that the Agency has done to establish non-regulatory drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS.”EPA and ACC did not discuss the status of or any internal administration actions being taken on the report that UCS refers to in their theory.Staff from EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) office did attend, including Richard Yamada who is the deputy assistant administrator of ORD, but Dr. Nancy Beck did not.
Criticizing Industry for being a Constructive Partner
UCS wasn’t content just trying to peddle their conspiracy theory, though. They also decided to disparage ACC’s participation at this week’s PFAS Summit at EPA. Our participation in that meeting was in an effort to be a constructive partner and resource to federal and state regulators and other important stakeholders including some NGOs.
They ignore the fact that during our presentation, ACC announced industry support for a process based on the best available science to determine, as appropriate, maximum contaminant levels and cleanup levels for PFOS, PFOA and other legacy PFAS. We also expressed our support for finalizing a significant new use rule to prohibit the import of products containing legacy PFAS substances.
These are steps industry is taking to be proactive and something you’d think UCS would be happy to hear. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case, but we hope others will continue to focus on the ways we can constructively work together to address this important issue.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/05/ucs-chooses-to-peddle-conspiracy-theories-rather-than-be-a-constructive-partner-in-pfas-effort/
-
EPA Bars Reporters from Toxic Chemicals Summit Again
May 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA staff Wednesday morning barred POLITICO and reporters from at least two other publications from entering a national summit on toxic chemicals, a day after a partial media blackout at the same event brought criticism from congressional Democrats and a pledge by the White House to investigate the incident.
The agency at the first day of the event on Tuesday allowed a select group of reporters to cover the first hour of introductory remarks, including by Administrator Scott Pruitt, but then escorted press out. EPA reversed its decision to ban media after news coverage of the policy and reports from the Associated Press that one of its journalists was forcibly ejected from the building by a security guard. Reporters were invited back for the afternoon.
The event, where attendees are discussing whether and how to regulate a class of chemicals linked to immune disorders and certain cancers, included federal and state officials, health groups and industry interests on Tuesday. Wednesday, it is limited to the agencies that handle chemical oversight and state regulators, according to an EPA statement.
But the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that “any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup” used by an agency to provide recommendations to the federal government should be open to the public.
Reporters from E&E News and Crown Publishing earlier Wednesday morning waited outside the meeting and were not permitted to enter.
“The National Leadership Summit on PFAS scheduled is not a federal advisory committee event,” EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox argued in an emailed statement. “The purpose of this event is for EPA’s state, tribal, and federal government partners and national organizations to share a range of individual perspectives on the Agency’s actions to date and path forward on [the chemicals]. The Agency looks forward to hearing from all stakeholders on these crucial issues.”
The White House said Tuesday it would "look into" EPA's decision to bar reporters from the event.
Pruitt scheduled the PFAS summit months ago, but it has attracted increased attention after POLITICO reported that senior EPA officials had helped block the release of an HHS study that would have increased warnings about the chemicals. EPA stepped in after the White House warned in January that releasing the study would create a "public relations nightmare."
Pruitt said he was unaware of that intervention, but it has added to the criticism he has faced from lawmakers and the public in recent months. The embattled administrator is facing more than a dozen federal investigations over his first-class travel, sweetheart condo rental from a lobbyist, heavy security spending and other matters.
Critics were quick to jump on Tuesday's reports of journalists being turned away.
"Concerns have been mounting for many months that EPA is refusing to do the public's business in public," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) wrote in a letter to Pruitt, citing previous efforts to limit press access and his refusal to announce official travel in advance. "However, the treatment of journalists" Tuesday "reached a new low."
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee distributed a Twitter meme accusing Pruitt of getting "distracted from the EPA's mission again."
Even some past Pruitt defenders, such as a writer for the libertarian Reason magazine, concluded the decision to deny access amounts to a self-inflicted wound.
One panel to which EPA had initially tried to bar access Tuesday featured an HHS official involved in the research that had alarmed the White House earlier this year. Patrick Breysse, the head of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within HHS, said the study will be released "soon" and that its key findings will remain unchanged from a draft that the agency was preparing to publish in January.
Breysse told POLITICO Tuesday that publication of the health study was delayed so Trump administration officials could come up with a communications strategy "that's all consistent and approved and agreed upon" across agencies including EPA and the Defense Department.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/epa-bars-reporters-from-toxic-chemicals-summit-again-565742
-
EPA Again Bars Reporters from Water Pollution Event
May 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is barring reporters from attending the second day of an event on drinking water pollution.
Journalists from The Associated Press, Politico and other outlets said EPA staff at the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters blocked them from entering the National Leadership Summit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on Wednesday. EPA communications staff had told news outlets in advance that the sessions would be closed to journalists.
The decision to ban reporters follows a high-profile incident Tuesday in which an AP reporter, Ellen Knickmeyer, was allegedly shoved by an EPA guard when she tried to enter the event.
Knickmeyer and journalists for E&E and CNN were not invited to opening remarks at the event on Tuesday morning even as invitations were extended to reporters from other news outlets, including from The Hill. Those journalists then went to the EPA headquarters to demand entry.
The EPA later apologized to Knickmeyer and allowed journalists to enter for the afternoon session Tuesday.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the decision to bar reporters entirely from Wednesday’s session, saying it isn’t a meeting covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) or otherwise appropriate for media attendance.
“The National Leadership Summit on PFAS scheduled is not a federal advisory committee event,” he said in a statement.
“The purpose of this event is for EPA’s state, tribal, and federal government partners and national organizations to share a range of individual perspectives on the Agency’s actions to date and path forward on PFOA/PFAS. The Agency looks forward to hearing from all stakeholders on these crucial issues.”
Some news outlets have argued that the meeting is subject to FACA, a law that puts certain transparency requirements on organized councils or events that agencies convene to solicit advice. Among other requirements, meetings covered by FACA must be open to the public.
FACA states that “any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup” meant to provide an agency advice is covered.
Mariah Blake, a journalist with Crown Publishing, reported that EPA staff and security guards were “very cordial” in turning away reporters Wednesday.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388974-epa-again-bars-reports-from-water-pollution-event
-
Industry Awaits Guidance on Siefs After Final REACH Deadline
May 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has said that members of substance information exchange fora (Siefs) should agree new "discussion platforms", to ensure collaboration beyond next week’s final REACH registration deadline, but has yet to provide any guidance.
From 1 June, Siefs will cease to exist in a legal context. Decisions are still pending on the format and name of new fora, in which registrants will discuss post-deadline activities. These include:dossier updates;new Echa information requests;cost sharing; andconsolidation of single submissions into joint registrations.
A Commission spokesperson told Chemical Watch that "although the formal operation of Siefs will no longer be obligatory in REACH after 1 June, the existence of discussion platforms agreed between registrants is still strongly recommended after that date."
The spokesperson added that registrants will still have obligations on data sharing and joint submissions. And they will need "a platform that will not be called a Sief and for which Sief rules do not apply".
The REACH Directors’ Contact Group – an informal group of directors from the European Commission, Echa and industry associations – is currently reviewing the situation with a focus on the platform's name and legal status, the European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, said.
Echa confirmed this, adding that the DCG is "working on a recommendation for co-registrants to continue a cooperation platform. This will first be discussed with Sherpas [group which carries out work for the DCG] then adopted by directors. Timing [is] still not known."
Deciding the legal status of a new forum could bring about certain complications, however. Cefic had previously warned that "careful consideration" should be given to antitrust issues and to ensuring that members only share information specific to certain agreed tasks.
But while the chemicals community awaits news of a formal plan, the industry body told Chemical Watch its members have agreed to maintain the Sief platform "as is" after the deadline.
Echa nudged the Commission on the issue in January. It said it is in favour of a new "collaboration platform" to replace Siefs and that it hoped to clarify the situation with the Commission before the registration deadline.
An agency spokesperson said its message to registrants is to "continue their current structures as they will be crucial for newcomers as well as for the work on updates".A decade of Siefs
Siefs have been in use since the start of REACH registration more than ten years ago. Their purpose is:to help information exchange;avoid duplication of tests;prepare joint registration dossiers; anddecide the classification and labelling of substances.
Registration is based on the principle of ‘one substance, one registration’, so each substance has one Sief, with members producing or importing at different tonnages.
The fora have expanded with the three different REACH registration phases – the previous deadlines were in 2010 and 2013 – and some Siefs now comprise hundreds or even thousands of members.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67144/industry-awaits-guidance-on-siefs-after-final-reach-deadline
-
Trump Wants Congress to Approve Any NAFTA Deal, Says Mnuchin
May 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Trump administration is focused on reaching a trade deal with Canada and Mexico over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and wants Congress to ultimately approve any changes, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
But Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said he thinks it would be smarter for the White House to bypass Congress by concluding a "skinny," or "NAFTA Lite," deal.
Meanwhile, Mnuchin said the United States will not lift new tariffs on steel and aluminum from China, even as both countries said over the weekend trade talks had been "constructive" and China had agreed to purchase more American goods and services.
'Never Was A Trade War'
In an interview Monday on CNBC, Mnuchin said China and the United States had "made very meaningful progress" in their bilateral trade talks, but it was now up to both sides to implement a final agreement. He said the United States agreed to suspend tariffs totaling $150 billion, and China agreed to suspend $50 billion in tariffs it had applied on American goods in response.
"This has been a trade dispute all along," Mnuchin said. "It never was a trade war; it's a trade dispute on significant issues."
President Trump first proposed levying a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports on March 1. Three weeks later, he issued a proclamation calling for suspending the tariffs until May 1 while negotiations were ongoing. Although the White House extended trade negotiations with Canada, Mexico and the European Union on April 30 for another 30 days, Chinese imports were hit with the tariff on May 1.
Mnuchin said there is a "massive opportunity for the U.S. to become a major supplier of energy to China." To illustrate the point, he mentioned last November's joint development agreement (JDA) with three Chinese companies to develop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from Alaska.
"They have incredible amounts of demand at these prices for our shale and our LNG," Mnuchin said. "I think we can easily get about $40 or $50 billion of energy [sales], and if we can produce and send more with infrastructure, they can even take more.”
However, during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee on Tuesday, Mnuchin said the tariff on steel and aluminum imports from China will remain in force.
"Those were not part of our discussions," he told the Senate panel. "We were merely focused on the proposed $150 billion [of tariffs]. Those are not being touched.”
He said the president has instructed the Commerce Department and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer “to have discussions with other countries. In certain places [the tariffs] have already gone into effect. In certain places they are on hold pending discussions with those other countries and getting various assurances."
In a joint statement last Saturday, China and the United States said both sides had "agreed on meaningful increases in United States agriculture and energy exports. The United States will send a team to China to work out the details." Negotiations were ongoing, the two nations said.
The JDA calls for China's state-owned Sinopec Group, the Bank of China and China Investment Corp. to work with the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. to develop the Alaska LNG project. The project has been estimated to cost $43 billion and would have the capacity to annually export up to 20 million metric tons of LNG.
'NAFTA Lite'
On NAFTA, Mnuchin said he had "good" conversations with finance ministers from both Canada and Mexico last week.
"I think there is a desire on all three parties to try to get this deal done," Mnuchin told CNBC, adding that Lighthizer "has done an enormous amount of work. We'll see where we get over the next few weeks.
"The president is involved in these discussions. I know he's had conversations with [Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau. We'll see where we get. We're still trying to get a new deal done. That is a priority for the president, but he wants a good deal and that's what he's focused on."
Earlier in the day, Barrasso, a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, told CNBC that NAFTA was a big source of debate among his Senate colleagues. While he believed the current version of NAFTA was "working well" for the U.S. economy and Trump could possibly get a "better deal" in ongoing negotiations with Canada and Mexico, Barrasso said he would "rather not" see a revised NAFTA come to Congress for its approval.
"There's ways that Lighthizer has to do kind of a 'NAFTA Lite,' if you will, without needing to go to Congress," Barrasso said. "The question is: How can NAFTA be changed to our advantage, [so it] doesn't have to go back to Congress to get another vote?
"To try to get this passed in Congress is a lot of heavy lifting. And most people in Congress, certainly on the Republican side and the trader side, would say let's leave it as it is. If you can work around the edges to improve it for the United States, absolutely do that."
Mnuchin said he had heard of the "NAFTA Lite," or "skinny" deal on NAFTA, but that for now the Trump administration is "still focused on a new NAFTA that would go through Congress.
"We easily can look at the 'skinny deal' as an alternative, and that's something that the president can consider. For the moment, the president is focused on the agreement that he wants to get between the three countries, and then we'll figure out how to get it through Congress."
Earlier this month, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) had set a May 17 deadline for Congress to receive a notification that the United States would sign a deal over NAFTA. Three days earlier, Lighthizer said significant issues remained.
"For many weeks now, the United States, Mexico and Canada have engaged in intensive, continuous discussions to renegotiate NAFTA, building on the seven rounds of rigorous negotiations that have taken place since August 2017," Lighthizer said. "The negotiations have covered a large number of very complex issues...such as intellectual property, dairy and agriculture, de minimis levels, energy, labor and more."
Trade Group Recommendations
Several trade associations, including many representing the oil and gas industry, have submitted comments on an interim final rule outlining a procedure for requesting an exemption to the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The interim final rule, conceived by the Commerce Department, was published last March in the Federal Register.
At issue are specialty steel products, which are used in oil and gas pipelines and at LNG export facilities. The oil and gas industry and its allies argue that such products meet the criteria for an exemption from the 25% tariff on steel imports because there is an insufficient supply of comparable products from domestic steel manufacturers.
Last week, the trade groups, which include the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the GPA Midstream Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, recommended a list of 11 changes to the interim final rule.
The first recommendation called for tariff exclusions to be applied both retrospectively and prospectively, with relief granted for a minimum of five years and subject to renewal thereafter. Other recommendations focused on metrics Commerce would use to determine the demand for and quality of the aforementioned specialty steel products.
"Impediments to developing, transporting, refining and distributing domestic oil and gas resources could reduce supplies of critical fuels used by consumers, the U.S. military and manufacturers, which could have the unintended consequence of negatively affecting the national security upon which these tariffs are premised," the trade groups wrote.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114473-trump-wants-congress-to-approve-any-nafta-deal-says-mnuchin
-
Steel Tariffs Hinder Us Energy Growth
May 23, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Mark Green
The Trump administration has installed tariffs on imported steel, and their effects on steel-intensive business and industry sectors remains to be seen. The oil and gas industry, particularly the pipeline sector, could be significantly impacted, ultimately affecting consumers and America’s energy security.
Here are three big problems that steel tariffs pose for the natural gas and oil industry:
1. Higher costs, project delays. You need drill pipe to drill natural gas and oil wells and pipelines to deliver that production from the field to processing plants and refineries — and it takes steel to make all that pipe. Given that a lot of that steel comes from very specialized factories abroad, tariffs on imported steel could put a serious dent in U.S. production and pipeline projects.
Potential economic impacts loom. The whole point of a tariff is to increase domestic prices so that domestic firms can compete with foreign rivals: higher costs for oil and natural gas projects. In turn, higher energy costs can ripple throughout the economy, affecting businesses and manufacturers, who’ve been helped in recent years by a thriving domestic natural gas and oil industry.
2. Will they manufacture steel in the U.S.? It’s a big question whether domestic steelmakers will ramp up production to supply users who previously relied on imported steel. Consider that expanding plants and upgrading current capacity to make the high-quality steel needed by our industry could cost tens of millions of dollars per facility.
There are a couple of reasons they might not incur those costs. One is the cyclical nature of the natural gas and oil industry and its small part of the domestic steel market: just 3 percent. Another is the fact that the next administration could eliminate the tariffs, which means a steel manufacturer can’t count on a long-term increase in demand for their product that would justify the cost of plant expansions and upgrades.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/05/23/steel_tariffs_hinder_us_energy_growth_110293.html
-
Reorganization Will Speed Permitting, Promote Energy — Zinke
May 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Mike Lee
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke today said his reorganization plan for the sprawling department will help promote the Trump administration's goal of increasing American energy production.
Zinke said he wants to group Interior's various agencies into a series of geographic regions, the same way the department organizes to fight wildfires. Planners in each region will focus on three specifics, he said: promoting recreation, preserving wildlife and natural resources, and streamlining environmental permits.
He made the comments at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference, the same forum where then-candidate Donald Trump pledged to make the United States a dominant energy producer (E&E Daily, May 27, 2016). Zinke framed the permitting changes as a way to promote oil and gas production on federal land.
That, in turn, will provide revenue to pay for the backlog of maintenance problems at the country's national parks, he said, and reduce the need for wars in energy-rich regions like the Middle East.
"We have to get better at permitting. If a project is bad, call it a bad project," Zinke said.
"But if a project is good, then government needs to get out of the way and let industry go ahead and make the investment and rebuild America. That's the promise the president has said, and that's the promise that we're going to deliver."
As an example, he cited the Memorial Bridge that stretches between Arlington, Va., and Washington. It's been slated for replacement for 17 years but has been delayed by permitting issues, Zinke said. Meanwhile, the cost has grown from $60 million to more than $200 million — one of the largest transportation projects in the National Park Service.
Zinke also acknowledged that Interior's recent offshore oil and gas lease sale, which he had predicted would be a bellwether, attracted offers for only about 2 percent of the acreage that was up for bid. The only bidders were large companies looking to consolidated their positions. The results show that most companies are looking to explore for oil onshore, he said.
"There is no doubt that offshore oil and gas is a greater risk," he said.
The remarks drew a warm welcome from the crowd made up largely of oil and gas producers. North Dakota is the second biggest oil-producing state after Texas, pumping just under 1.2 million barrels a day. About one-fifth of the state's oil comes from wells on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, which Zinke's department oversees.
Zinke is scheduled to spend four days in North Dakota and visited Theodore Roosevelt National Park yesterday with Gov. Doug Burgum (R). He was also scheduled to speak to leaders from Fort Berthold about ways to speed up pipeline permitting.
Environmentalists have called on Zinke to block a proposed oil refinery that's slated to be built about 3 miles from Theodore Roosevelt National Park. He didn't address those concerns in his remarks and didn't take any questions from reporters in Bismarck.
Zinke, a former Navy SEAL commander, emphasized it's better to produce oil and gas in the U.S. under "reasonable regulation" than in countries with fewer controls. It'll also reduce the need to send troops to the unstable regions, he said.
"I don't want your children ever to see what I've seen," he said. "To deploy our troops overseas to fight for energy when we have it here is immoral."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/23/stories/1060082519
-
Growth in Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Poses New Policy Issues
May 22, 2018 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
When it comes to U.S. energy supplies, Congress’ default setting for decades had been worry: worry that America did not have enough energy to meet its needs and worry that OPEC would hold the U.S. hostage by jacking up the price of — or withholding — its oil.
That setting has changed. With the U.S. flush with supplies of oil and natural gas over the past few years, Congress has permitted the export of domestic oil and raided the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce the budget deficit and offset costs of unrelated legislation. And now Republicans want to make it easier for producers to ship liquefied natural gas overseas.
“The thing that really moves energy policy is a supply shock, and if you look at most of the major energy policy we have, and for that matter, most of the major environmental legislation we have, it has always been in response to something bad,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a D.C. energy policy analysis firm. “It’s very seldom the case that big energy laws come from nothing, and lately we have been extraordinarily well supplied.”
Energy prosperity has returned the nation to a status it hasn’t enjoyed since the 1950s: The U.S. is a net exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for the first time since 1957 and on pace to be a net energy exporter by 2022, according to Energy Information Administration projections.
Those projections are trickling into Congress’ consciousness, motivating policy changes more in line with the Trumpian “energy dominance” economic worldview than the energy paucity illustrated by the oil embargo in the 1970s, which provided the foundation for much of the energy safety nets the country counts on in times of emergency.
But like a lottery winner who hit the Powerball jackpot, some experts caution that Congress is already spending its winnings. Its moves away from the energy safety nets now in place, they warn, could expose the nation to fuel shortages resulting from extreme weather or excessive exports.
“You have these people making these decisions thinking everything is going to be constant,” said Deborah Stine, associate director for policy outreach at Carnegie Mellon University’s Scott Institute for Energy Innovation “And it’s not going to be constant. That’s the one thing we do know: that it’s constantly changing, so you can’t assume conditions that are here today will be the same a year from now, and you’re affecting multiple industries, not just energy but energy-source industries too.”Raiding the piggy bank?
Nowhere is Congress’ shift away from an energy scarcity mindset more evident than its repeated demands to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to offset congressional spending. The SPR was a piggy bank as it was used to offset costs and allow the advance of six pieces of legislation over the past two Congresses.
Those drawdowns will cut the SPR’s 655 million barrel supply in half over the next decade even after extreme weather in 2017 showed the importance of having it in place in times of fuel supply disruptions. In response to Hurricane Harvey, the Department of Energy released 5 million barrels throughout September in “exchange agreements” meant to steady domestic prices already reeling from reduced refining capacity from the storm.
Originally established in response to the oil embargo in the 1970s, the SPR is the world’s largest oil reserve. Held in salt caverns carved out of the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Texas, the supply represents a kind of energy insurance policy. But those storage facilities are aging and need an infusion of federal dollars for maintenance and modernization, prompting some to question whether the SPR needs to continue to exist in its current form.
“I think the question now is that with the resources that the United States has with the new innovation, with the new energy portfolio that we have, does the Strategic Petroleum Reserve need to stay in its current form?” Energy Secretary Rick Perry asked House lawmakers during an April 12 budget hearing. “I am not ready to sit here and tell you I know the answer to that, but I think it is important . . . we need to have that conversation.”
In a roundabout way, Congress has already answered that question with the repeated use of the oil rainy-day fund.
In 2016 — before four of those outlined sales went into effect — the Department of Energy warned additional drawdowns of the reserve could compromise its ability to benefit the economy over the next 25 years.
“Do I like this? No, I don’t like the fact that every time they are looking for a big chunk of change, they automatically go to the SPR,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said in response to its inclusion in the budget caps agreement. “There is going to be a day where it is not able to do what we set it up for.”
Similar worries are starting to swirl around another energy backstop, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, a 1 million barrel supply of ultra-low sulfur diesel, and the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, a 1 million barrel gasoline reserve put in place after Hurricane Sandy.
The home heating reserve was only used once in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. The gasoline reserve has not been used, prompting the Trump administration to call for its liquidation in its fiscal 2019 budget request — much to the dismay of Northeast lawmakers.
“By that logic, we might as well discard the federal government’s stockpile of smallpox vaccines, because the vaccines have not been used since the stockpile was created,” New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, told Perry during an April 12 oversight hearing.Speeding Up Exports
The decline of Congress’ fear of energy scarcity can also be seen in its push to unwind decades-old laws to limit exports of oil and natural gas.
As the natural gas industry readies itself for the next phase of its economic rise, the Trump administration and Capitol Hill Republicans are looking to make the regulatory process behind LNG exports a streamlined exercise that gets the resource moving internationally as quickly as possible, arguing the changes will bolster the economy and U.S. foreign policy initiatives.
That comes in addition to the lifting of the crude oil export ban at the end of 2015, the effects of which are just now starting to show up on world oil markets.
“We have such a surplus of LNG, and we are finding more and more of it every day,” said Ohio Republican Rep. Bill Johnson. “These are job creating opportunities. These are economic growth opportunities. These are actions that recapture America’s leadership position on the world economic stage.”
Along with Energy and Commerce Republicans, Johnson introduced a bill to amend the Natural Gas Act of 1938, a law put in place some 20 years before the invention of horizontal drilling and 80 years before its wide adoption. The legislation would remove a provision of that law that requires the Energy Department to review LNG export permit applications to assure they’re in the nation’s best interests.
Republicans had complained that such reviews took too long under the Obama administration and that the public interest standard is no longer needed due to the vast supply of gas buried in shale deposits across the country.
Murkowski included a provision to aid LNG exports in her bipartisan, broad energy and natural resource bill, which is awaiting Senate floor action. That measure would require permit decisions to be made within 45 days once the federal government finishes its environmental review — an effort to codify what has become a DOE emphasis under the Trump administration and its push for “U.S. energy dominance.”
Industrial groups have opposed the congressional efforts to do away with DOE reviews and have suggested DOE should better consider the amount of exports it is approving. So far, the groups noted, DOE has yet to reject a permit application.
“We do have a short-term abundance and low prices,” said Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. “We are not saying we have a pending crisis today or for the next few years. What our arguments are all about is the longer term.”
And it may be for good reason DOE keeps approving these exports — the economic impact is limited in its negative effects, according to a 2015 DOE macroeconomic analysis of increased LNG exports. And the natural gas industry is only getting better at discovering and producing more natural gas from existing and new wells, likely preventing any drastic increases in domestic prices, according to a separate report put out by the oil industry.
The shift to export may stem in part from the noise coming from the industry. International markets present a more lucrative opportunity for gas companies than a crowded U.S. market. Combined with a lack of political resistance, Congress is hearing the industry’s push more than anything else.
Previous laws to address energy scarcity were inspired in part by complaints from consumers, who say high gas prices and electric costs hitting their pocketbooks and voiced those frustrations at their representatives, said Christina Simeone, director of policy at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
“Now, we have a lot of energy, abundant supplies and diverse sources of energy, and consumers are benefiting, but producers are not doing well,” Simeone said.A Decade’s Difference
The end of Congress’ focus on energy supplies has also allowed lawmakers to fixate on more overarching philosophical issues that were largely put aside the last time Congress passed a major energy bill.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 largely focused on policies to bolster energy and fuel efficiency. It also created the Renewable Fuel Standard, the EPA program to increase the use of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supplies.
“If you look at what the law was built for, it was built for gasoline demand that only went up in a world of ever-growing scarcity,” ClearView’s Book said. “And if you look at the reality we are in now, the reason there is so much conflict around the RFS has a lot to do with how the fundamentals have changed.”
Lawmakers, split along regional lines of corn-producing states and oil-producing states, are locked in a battle of words over the program as refineries complain the cost of compliance has become too burdensome in light of shrinking domestic demand. That fight has elevated to the White House’s radar level, and it can trace part of its problems to the U.S. oil supply improvements.
“If you have demand that is not growing and you add supply . . . that has resulted in a lower price,” Simeone said. “Again, it is consistent with this idea of we have an abundance of supply and therefore prices are low.”
The abundance has also carried over to energy efficiency mandates on the federal level. House Republicans have become more averse to legislation that would expand efficiency improvements at the state level via building and manufacturing codes and fuel efficiency mandates.
Their opposition has so far scuttled the Senate effort to pass the first major update to the nation’s energy policies in a decade; a foundational piece of that legislation looks to bolster efficiency requirements. The bill would also update a broad range of energy policies to better reflect the changed supply environment of the nation.
But for House Republicans, relatively flat electricity demand and prices gives the lawmakers cover to stick to their conservative philosophy of states’ rights when it comes to efficiency requirements.
“The world of scarcity looks really different,” Book said.
When Republicans including former Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas were writing the energy bill that passed in 2005, “they weren’t sweating the small stuff like . . . the sovereignty of states and state regulators,” Book said. “They were thinking about what if the lights went out in the Northeast or the Southwest.”
https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/oil-and-natural-gas-congress-domestic
-
Cheniere Moves Forward with Third LNG Unit in Corpus Christi
May 23, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Houston's Cheniere Energy has decided to build a third unit to process liquefied natural gas at its export facility under construction in Corpus Christi.
Limited construction began last year, and Cheniere will give its builder, Bechtel, notice to proceed with the project. It's the first commitment to build new U.S. liquefaction capacity since 2015, Cheniere said.
RELATED: Cheniere Energy strikes LNG export deals with China
The Corpus Christi facility will support as many as five processing units. Construction on the first two began in 2015.
Earlier this year, Cheniere struck two long-term deals to sell LNG to PetroChina International Co., a subsidiary of China's state-controlled oil and gas giant. Those sale contracts, which extend through 2043, supported Cheniere's decision to construct the third processing unit in Corpus Christi.
Cheniere has been exporting natural gas since 2016 through its Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana. It's now expanding that complex to support more production and exports.
The U.S. now ships LNG to at least 20 foreign markets.
Freeport LNG and Kinder Morgan are scheduled to begin exporting LNG later this year. Several other companies, including Sempra Energy, are working on projects expected to start up in the coming years.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cheniere-moves-forward-with-third-LNG-unit-in-12936838.php
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Could be Key for Increased Bakken Production
May 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota oil producers and state officials are watching the developments of TransCanada Corp.’s controversialKeystone XL pipeline given the upcoming predictions that available Bakken Shale takeaway capacity will be filled in the coming years.
"A producer in North Dakota always wants every opportunity possible, and all of the options on the table -- whether it is a 15,000 b/d added refinery or 100,000 b/d additional pipeline capacity to a different market," said North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC) President Ron Ness in remarks delivered at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck. "At any given moment you can have a bottleneck or pinch that crimps takeaway capacity."
The time when all of North Dakota's pipeline takeaway capacity is full is not far off, according to Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms. Keystone XL could play a key role at just the right time in avoiding the need to really crank up more crude by rail shipments. "We're facing that in another three to four years," he said
"We're seeing another uptick in rail, moving from two unit trains daily to six now," Helms said. "There was a point in time when we had close to 16 unit trains daily.
"Keystone could be a key part of putting that [added] oil into a pipeline and delivering it to a Midcontinent destination instead of putting it in rail cars," Helms added. "We think we are going to need the 100,000-150,000 b/d that Keystone offers, but it is also critical that the midstream sector build some outlets out of Cushing, OK, or out of other areas where Keystone is going to drop oil to move it to the Gulf Coast."
Helms said there has been a recent "explosion" of U.S. oil exports, particularly Bakken crude from the Gulf Coast. "I know of one company alone that is shipping 2 million bbl a month to China of Bakken crude, and there is demand for more," he said.
Keystone XL offers a "beautiful opportunity to help out" with getting increased Bakken supplies to the Gulf for export," Helms said.
For its part, TransCanada continues to say that it is "working with federal, state, tribal and local leaders to secure the support needed for this important project and are working to obtain all applicable permits and approvals."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114475-keystone-xl-pipeline-could-be-key-for-increased-bakken-production
-
Shuster Eyes First Week of June for WRDA Floor Consideration
May 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) told reporters today he anticipated the Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 8 (115), would get floor time the first week of June.
He downplayed the difficulties of resolving differences between his chamber's bill, which is narrowly tailored around the Army Corps of Engineers, and a broader Senate version, S. 2800 (115).
"The Senate bill is always different than the House bill so we’ll have to go to conference and figure out the differences," Shuster said. "I’m sure they got stuff in there that we might like and I’m sure they got stuff we don’t like, so we’ll have to work that out.”
"Keeping it narrow, keeping it focused on Corps projects is the way you get it through the House," he added.
Shuster indicated he was open to adding to the final bill other Corps projects that become "ripe" by obtaining stamps of approval in the form of reports from the Army’s chief of engineers. And he pledged to "take a look at" language inserted into the Senate bill that would expand the popular Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act financing program for smaller communities.
WHAT'S NEXT: The final decision on when the bill hits the floor is up to House leadership.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
House Committee Passes WRDA with No Riders
May 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today passed a modified version of a water infrastructure bill, the Water Resources Development Act, by voice vote after rejecting an amendment to help fight mercury pollution.
Both committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said that WRDA, H.R. 8, could not include any language relating to the Clean Water Act in order to pass the House floor.
At issue was an amendment from Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.), which would have created a grant program within the Army Corps of Engineers to help communities comply with water quality standards for mercury in and around Lake Superior.
The question, Nolan said, was: "Do you want to pay for it in terms of devastating effects on people here in America, or do we want to authorize this program going forward?"
But Shuster said that because the amendment deals with the Clean Water Act it could not be considered.
"I know there are people on both sides of the aisle who would like to make changes to the Clean Water Act, but keeping this bill limited to the Army Corps is the best way to get this bill passed," Shuster said.
He added he opposed the amendment "because it creates a new program."
Nolan responded that "with all due respect, opposing a good program because it doesn't eliminate another program does not really create a good rationale."
But DeFazio, too, said he was worried that allowing the amendment would allow for more Clean Water Act-related debates when the bill got to the floor.
While he supported the purpose of the amendment, DeFazio said he had to "reluctantly oppose," citing multiple efforts by Republicans this Congress to repeal the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the U.S. rule.
"To be totally truthful, I would rather not go to the floor of the House of Representatives with Clean Water Act amendments," he said.
"I believe that most amendments that will be offered, and some that have the potential to pass, like overriding the Waters of the U.S. regulation, will be negative and actually degrade water quality for most Americans."
The amendment failed in a 22-34 vote.
It is possible that the committee will work on more significant Clean Water Act-related changes in the future. A committee spokesman said Shuster was planning to introduce a separate infrastructure package later this year.
That bill could draw from President Trump's infrastructure plan, which included contentious reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
The committee did agree in a voice vote to an amendment from Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) requiring the Army Corps to conduct a "technology demonstration" for ways to combat harmful algae blooms, which affect his district near Lake Okeechobee.
"We all know that harmful algae blooms are an environmental plague that ravage ecosystems in almost every state in America," he said. "In my district specifically, harmful algae blooms do not just show up by chance or accident, they are transferred from one independent body of water to another by the Army Corps of Engineers."
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Water and Environment, said he supported the amendment because algae blooms affect his district.
"This is an important mission," Graves said. "We need to make sure we are able to prevent this collision of agricultural productivity and environmental challenges."
The committee also passed a number of amendments en bloc. One would direct the Government Accountability Office to study how the Army Corps considers natural features in their feasibility studies of flood risk management.
Since that amendment passed, Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.) agreed to withdraw another amendment he was offering that would require the Army Corps to consider "natural infrastructure," such as wetlands in feasibility studies for flood risk management, hurricane or storm damage projects. That amendment is similar to a provision included in the Senate version of the water infrastructure bill.
The amendment was co-sponsored by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who said, "there is a lot more we can do to emphasize the benefits and potential of natural infrastructure."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/23/stories/1060082523
-
NYC Considers Ban on Disposable Plastic Straws
May 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
New York City could become the next major city to ban plastic drinking straws due to plastic waste concerns.
A proposed bill set to be introduced in the City Council this week would require restaurants to stop using plastic straws or coffee stirrers and would encourage them to use biodegradable paper or metal straws instead.
City Councilman Rafael Espinal (D-Brooklyn), one of the bill’s sponsors, told the New York Daily News that eliminating straws has had “no impact” on businesses.
"The straw stays in our environment without decomposing for hundreds of years," he said. "We're seeing cities across the country and the globe phasing out plastic straws, and it has no impact on the consumer or small business."
Other cities nationwide, including Miami Beach and Seattle, have enacted bans on plastic straws over concerns about ocean pollution. UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this year that the country would ban plastic straws, become the first nation to do so.
And some companies, including airlines and restaurants, have elected to stop using the straws on their own.
The New York City Council bill would fine businesses between $100 and $400 for violating the ban. The Council is also considering a ban on the sale of disposable plastic bottles in public areas like parks and beaches, according to the New York Daily News.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388949-nyc-considers-ban-on-disposable-plastic-straws
-
Bill to Give Industry a Say in Enviro Rules Passes House
May 23, 2018 | Detroit News (In E&E Greenwire)
By Jonathan Oosting
The Michigan House yesterday passed a controversial proposal that would allow oil and gas and other industry officials to review state environmental rules.
The Republican-backed bill would create an Environmental Rules Review Committee, made up in part of six voting members from various industries, including solid waste, utilities, manufacturing, and oil and gas.
The panel would oversee rulemaking at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and could reject rules that don't "achieve their purposes in proportion to the burdens they place on individuals and businesses."
The panel would be largely advisory, and an addition in the state House would add six seats for environmental groups, local governments and the public.
But Democrats and environmentalists have panned it as the "fox guarding the henhouse."
It passed the House 57-51 and will be handed back to the state Senate after revisions. It previously passed the upper chamber 26-11.
"Corporations are people, too," said state Rep. Tommy Brann (R). "They live in the same state we do. They care about the environment. They have kids that live in Michigan" (Jonathan Oosting, Detroit News, May 22). — NS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/23/stories/1060082493
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested