Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/27/2018
-
EPA Releases Policy for Assigning TSCA ‘Unique Identifiers’
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has published its policy for assigning a ‘unique identifier’ to substances that have their identities protected as confidential business information (CBI) under TSCA. -
Apec Identifies At-The-Border Import Barriers to Chemical Trade
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
An Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) working group on regulatory convergence has identified what it sees as the main at-the-border barriers to chemical trade in the region and outlined ways it might tackle them. -
Think Tank Presses Congress to Oversee CPSC on Flame Retardants
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US non-profit libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), is calling on Congress to oversee the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) work on organohalogen flame retardants. -
CPSC Exempts Engineered Wood Products from Third-Party Testing
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Frank Zaworski
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a final rule exempting certain engineered wood products from mandatory third-party testing, used to demonstrate compliance with lead, heavy metal and phthalate requirements in children’s products. -
Ten SVHCs Added to EU REACH Candidate List
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has added ten substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the REACH candidate list. This now contains 191 substances. -
Enforcement Project to Check EU Internet Chemical Sales
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU national enforcement authority (NEA) inspectors will concentrate on online sales of substances, mixtures and articles under the eighth REACH Enforcement project (Ref-8). -
Germany Calls for Revamp of Socio-Economic Analyses of Authorisations
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The methodology used by Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) to calculate the impact of chemicals is "too simplistic" and does not convey any meaningful information regarding risk, a senior German ministry official has said. -
China Seen as 'in the Driver's Seat' on LNG Markets
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
China's pivotal role in world markets for liquefied natural gas was a recurrent theme in events yesterday at the World Gas Conference in Washington, D.C. Conspicuously absent from the agenda? Chinese voices. -
Onshore Energy Bills Pass Key Committee Vote
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
A House panel today passed three bills that aim to boost onshore energy independence and expedite the oil and gas permitting process, despite pushback from Democrats. -
Natural Gas a Destination Fuel, Not Just Bridge to Renewables, Say Energy Chiefs
Jun 27, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The energy industry has to counter the view that renewables are the only way to reduce carbon emissions and instead make the case for natural gas to remove any doubts about its long-term benefits, a group of the leading global CEOs said Tuesday. -
Execs Worry Trump's Trade Moves Could Burst U.S. Gas Bubble
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
President Trump's escalating trade threats have riled big oil and gas companies as they worry the administration's policies could squander the United States' opportunities in a booming global market. -
Trump Team Accused of Using Politics for Industry Gain
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's work boosting U.S. natural gas exports to Europe has raised the hackles of some European gas executives who accuse the Trump administration of cloaking its commercial interests in a mantle of global security. -
Regulators to Industry: Help Ensure Ample Gas Supply
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump and Mike Lee
Texas energy regulators issued a notice this week urging operators of pipelines and power plants to help make sure there's sufficient natural gas available to keep the lights on this summer. -
Grid Hackers Can Expect Retaliation, CEO Warns
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
If hackers hit the U.S. power grid, they'll be hit right back, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning said yesterday. -
Trump Safety Pick Squeaks Through Committee
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee this morning narrowly approved Heidi King as the nation's top transportation safety official. -
Pruitt restricts EPA veto power on wetland permits
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Administrator Scott Pruitt has moved to restrict EPA's ability to nix water pollution permits, in a rebuke of how the Obama administration used the agency's veto power. -
NRDC Sues EPA Over Guidance Scrapping HFC Restrictions
Jun 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is suing EPA over a guidance document that says the agency will not enforce 2015 limits on refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, with the group arguing the agency is “unlawfully revoking” certain restrictions on the substances that were left in place by an appellate court ruling. -
Okla. Oil CEO Spurred Pruitt on Climate Study
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
EPA officials and an Oklahoma oil industry executive quietly collaborated on a plan to scrutinize uncertainty in climate science. -
Ewire: Skeptics' Failed Plan to Derail Key Climate Science Report
Jun 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
Hard-line conservative advocates had a plan to bring down a major climate science report and thus call into question mainstream scientific findings on climate risks, according to a news story, and it involved firing a career EPA employee who worked with an inter-agency group developing the National Climate Assessment (NCA). -
Next Steps in the Never-Ending Lawsuit
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Some federal appeals court judges aren't happy with EPA's pace in either repealing or replacing the Clean Power Plan. -
Report Questions Rigor of EPA's Ozone Standard
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
As EPA launches a review of its ground-level ozone standard that has already drawn congressional attention, a new report questions whether the existing 70-parts-per-billion threshold is tight enough to adequately protect the public. -
Ruling in Big Oil Case Leaves Cities, Activists Reeling
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Cities hoping to force oil companies to pay for climate change damages are facing a new reality after a federal judge Monday threw out similar lawsuits against fossil fuel businesses.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
EPA Releases Policy for Assigning TSCA ‘Unique Identifiers’
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has published its policy for assigning a ‘unique identifier’ to substances that have their identities protected as confidential business information (CBI) under TSCA.
And, as part of its work on confidential substances, the agency has begun consulting on guidance designed to help companies generate suitable generic names for protected chemicals.
The agency has been working for more than a year to develop a workable system of unique identifiers (UIDs). The intention is to allow the public to link up the available non-confidential information about confidential substances, while at the same time maintaining their identity protection. Such a system is required under the recently amended TSCA.
The EPA looked at three options and went for the the ‘third’, which was supported by five industry groups and preferred by the NGO that weighed in on the policy.
The process entails assigning a single UID to each substance protected as CBI and applying it to pertinent information, both confidential and non-confidential. In cases where the application of the identifier could allow the public to work out a substance’s identity, the agency would omit the UID.
In the notice of its policy, the EPA says it believes this approach is the best of the options, as it "appropriately balances" the two purposes of the provision. They are:to promote transparency; andto protect information the agency has determined can be treated confidentially.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to publish annually a list of substances for which it has approved claims of protected chemical identity, including their UIDs and the expiration date of the claim. The agency plans to release its first list in November.Response to comments
Responding to comments that any process should ensure chemical identities are not "inappropriately disclosed", the agency has also shared details on how it would apply UIDs. This includes a records search and review of the documents for any mention of the protected identity, and labelling any relevant documents that do not reveal this with the identifier.
The EPA anticipates that on "fairly rare" occasions it will identify documents that mention the confidential identity in a public version. These, it said, will be "set aside for additional screening".
This screening would involve consideration of whether the substance’s confidential status is no longer warranted. But if there is "no such public information undermining the approved CBI claim", the agency would not apply the UID to the document, as so doing could result in the substance’s identity becoming discoverable.
The agency also addressed comments raised by the NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) that it adopt what it calls a ‘straightforward approach’. Under this, the EPA would apply the UID uniformly, regardless of whether this would result in the disclosure of approved CBI claims.
However, the EPA said it did not believe such an approach was in keeping with Congress’s intent.Generic names guidance
The EPA has also issued for public comment a document to guide companies in creating "structurally descriptive generic names". These are to be provided to the public when a chemical's identity is protected.
These generic names, which will identify the substances on the TSCA inventory, are intended to describe substances "as specifically as practicable" without disclosing the features of the structure that are claimed as confidential.
Creation of the document, Guidance for creating generic names for confidential chemical substance identity reporting under TSCA, was stipulated by the 2016 amendments to the law.
The agency will accept comments on it until 27 August.Confidential identitiesl
TSCA allows companies to request to keep a substance’s identity confidential. If the EPA grants this, the substance is listed in the public portion of the TSCA inventory by an accession number and a generic chemical name that masks the specific substance identity.
Under section 14 of the new TSCA, the EPA must:develop a system to assign a UID to each specific chemical identity for which it has approved a confidentiality request;apply that identifier consistently to all information relevant to the applicable substance;annually publish a list of confidential substances with their UIDs, including the expiration date for the claim;ensure that any non-confidential information received uses UIDs to identify the substance; andfor any expired confidentiality claim, link the chemical identity back to its unique identifier.
But in a May 2017 Federal Register notice, the agency said two requirements – to apply the unique identifier to all non-confidential information related to the substance, while ensuring the identity is protected from disclosure – "do not appear to be completely reconciled in the statute". And it cited several examples where universally applying them to every information submission could result in CBI, including the chemical identity, being revealed.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68082/epa-releases-policy-for-assigning-tsca-unique-identifiers
-
Apec Identifies At-The-Border Import Barriers to Chemical Trade
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
An Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) working group on regulatory convergence has identified what it sees as the main at-the-border barriers to chemical trade in the region and outlined ways it might tackle them.
In the final report of Apec's 20th Chemical Dialogue meeting in Papua New Guinea, the co-chair says the increasing number of such barriers has been having a tangible effect on the region's trade for some time.
The main factors identified at the February meeting, are contained in an as-yet unpublished draft summary. They include:inconsistent coordination between customs and the main chemical regulatory agency, for example, when allocating responsibility for assessment;inconsistent assessment requirements ranging from full inspections to importer self-declarations; andunique specific requirements for chemical imports.
The working group draft action plan suggests:developing best practice principles for imports;identifying best practice case studies;surveying customs and regulatory officials on chemical import training; andlooking at capacity building and training to promote best practice.
The conference also heard about updates to Apec's GHS clearinghouse website. This provides information on the requirements of the Globally Harmonized System of classification and labelling of chemicals.
The website has received 146,000 visits since its launch in 2010 to January this year.
Apec's 21 member economies are Australia; Brunei; Canada; Chile; China; Indonesia; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; the Philippines; the Russian Federation; South Korea; Singapore; Taiwan; Thailand; the US; and Vietnam.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68061/apec-identifies-at-the-border-import-barriers-to-chemical-trade
-
Think Tank Presses Congress to Oversee CPSC on Flame Retardants
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US non-profit libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), is calling on Congress to oversee the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) work on organohalogen flame retardants.
The request follows the CPSC’s divisive September decision to grant an NGO petition to prohibit the use of any additive, nonpolymeric OFR in four consumer products categories. This triggers the formation of a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to provide scientific evidence to support the drafting of a regulation that could see OFRs banned from these applications.
But in a blog post, the CEI says that banning the full class of substances "makes no scientific sense". And the group says that the NGO petitioners’ claims that trace exposures to flame retardants pose health risks, and that they provide no benefit, "fall apart under scrutiny".
The CEI has urged Congress to hold oversight hearings to "ensure that the CPSC staff rely on the ‘best available, peer-reviewed science’ for conducting the CHAP."
It also pressed it to confirm Ann Marie Buerkle as the chairman of the CPSC, and approve the nomination of Peter Feldman to fill the commissioner seat left open after the departure of Joe Mohorovic. This would swing the CPSC’s majority to the Republicans – in contrast to the Democratic majority that voted to grant the OFR petition.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68092/think-tank-presses-congress-to-oversee-cpsc-on-flame-retardants
-
CPSC Exempts Engineered Wood Products from Third-Party Testing
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Frank Zaworski
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a final rule exempting certain engineered wood products from mandatory third-party testing, used to demonstrate compliance with lead, heavy metal and phthalate requirements in children’s products.
The final rule applies to products that incorporate untreated and unfinished engineered wood products (EWPs). These include:particle board;hardwood plywood; andmedium-density fibreboard made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste.
The CPSC says such products do not contain lead, regulated elements or specified phthalates that exceed limits set out in its statutes for toys, children's products and childcare articles. It can therefore reduce third-party testing costs by exempting these products from it.
The new rule takes effect on 23 July.Reducing testing burdens
The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) requires that product manufacturers certify compliance based on third-party testing. But, in 2011, Congress directed the CPSC to seek ways to reduce the burden of the testing.
In recent years, the agency has lifted phthalate testing requirements for seven plastics, and exempteduntreated woods from certain testing requirements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68086/cpsc-exempts-engineered-wood-products-from-third-party-testing
-
Ten SVHCs Added to EU REACH Candidate List
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has added ten substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the REACH candidate list. This now contains 191 substances.
Four of the substances – octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5); dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6); and Bbnzo[ghi]perylene – were added due to their persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties. A fifth – terphenyl hydrogenated – has only vPVB properties.
Echa's Member State Committee identified siloxanes D4, D5 and D6 as SVHCs last week despite strong criticism from industry. The latter said the committee "had not taken full account of the whole body of scientific evidence" and cited "extremely low" levels in the real environment.
The use of D4 and D5 is already restricted in wash-off personal care products at a concentration equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight.
The agency added three other substances to the candidate list due to their toxic for reproduction properties. These are lead; disodium octaborate; and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP). DCHP is also included in the list due to its endocrine disrupting effects on human health.
The remaining two – ethylenediamine (EDA) and benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 1,2 anhydride (trimellitic anhydride) (TMA) – were added due to their respiratory sensitising properties.
The European Commission identified TMA and DCHP as SVHCs in April, following referrals from the MSC.
The Commission said in its implementing Regulation on TMA that the data presented and discussed in the Annex XV dossier show it causes serious and permanent impairment of lung functions if the exposure is prolonged and no intervention takes place. This view is in line with the majority opinion of the MSC.
Sweden made the original proposal to identify DCHP as an SVHC due to its ED properties affecting human health (Article 57(f)), but later withdrew it. Then MSC failed to reach a unanimous agreement on its identification under Article 57(f).
The country also proposed the identification of lead as an SVHC. The metal is forbidden in the EU in small items due to a higher health risk for children from ingestion.Uses in products
The substances D4, D5 and D6 are used in washing and cleaning products, polishes, waxes, cosmetics and personal care; and D5 is also used in textile treatment products and dyes, Echa said.
Benzo[ghi]perylene is not registered under REACH and normally not produced intentionally but occurs as a constituent or impurity in other substances.
Further uses are:lead: metals, welding and soldering products, metal surface treatment products and polymers;disodium octaborate: anti-freeze products, heat transfer fluids, lubricants and greases, washing and cleaning products;terphenyl hydrogenated: plastic additives, solvents, in coatings/inks, in adhesives and sealants, and heat transfer fluids;EDA: adhesives and sealants, coating products, fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay, pH regulators and water treatment products;TMA: manufacture of esters and polymers;DCHP: plastisol, PVC, rubber and plastic articles. Also as a phlegmatiser and dispersing agent for formulations of organic peroxides.
Echa last updated the candidate list on 16 January, when it added seven SVHCs.
The list comprises substances that may have serious effects on human health or the environment. They are candidates for possible inclusion in the authorisation list (Annex XIV). Companies using chemicals on Annex XIV will need to apply for permission to continue to use them if there are no alternatives.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68081/ten-svhcs-added-to-eu-reach-candidate-list
-
Enforcement Project to Check EU Internet Chemical Sales
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU national enforcement authority (NEA) inspectors will concentrate on online sales of substances, mixtures and articles under the eighth REACH Enforcement project (Ref-8).
It follows on from the 2017 Echa Enforcement Forum project that checked more than 1,300 online adverts for hazardous chemical mixtures across the EU and found over 82% were non-compliant under the CLP Regulation.
Of the 1,083 non-compliant internet adverts, 903 did not mention the type or types of hazard indicated on the product label.
Ref-8 was agreed at the Forum meeting on 19-20 June. In a subsequent interview with Chemical Watch, Forum vice chair Sinead McMickan said: "The project will include substances restricted under Annex XVII of REACH and possibly also cover some aspects of CLP, such as CLP obligations."
She added that the full scope is yet to be defined, but the project will run in 2020 with publication of the report expected by the end of 2021.Authorisation project
At its meeting, the Forum also agreed that inspections for the pilot project on authorisation focusing on chromium VI compounds and other substances will take place in 2020, a year later than first planned.
"This will allow us to target decisions granted and the downstream user notifications under Article 66 should have been submitted by that date so it will be a better time," Ms McMickan said.
REACH Article 66 stipulates that downstream users of an authorised chemical must notify Echa within three months of the first supply of the substance.
For the project, inspectors will target companies that are using substances of concern without the required authorisation. They will also check that authorisation holders and their downstream users comply with the conditions of the authorisation decision.
Other substances to be targeted will be agreed at the November Forum meeting, Ms McMickan said.Ref-5
During the June meeting, Forum members discussed preliminary results of the Ref-5 project on exposure scenarios, extended safety data sheets and the implementation of risk management measures and operational conditions.
The aim of the project, which started in January last year, was to check communication in the supply chain and consistency of the extended safety data sheets with the content of the chemical safety reports. The project also looked at whether risk management measures recommended in the exposure scenarios are implemented in the workplace.
A total of 898 inspections were carried out in 29 countries in collaboration with labour and environmental inspectors. The report is currently being prepared and its adoption and publication are slated for the end of the year.
The results of the Ref-5 project will be presented at the next Forum meeting on 14 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68079/enforcement-project-to-check-eu-internet-chemical-sales
-
Germany Calls for Revamp of Socio-Economic Analyses of Authorisations
Jun 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The methodology used by Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) to calculate the impact of chemicals is "too simplistic" and does not convey any meaningful information regarding risk, a senior German ministry official has said.
And, at this month’s REACH Review conference, Jörg Lebsanft, from Germany’s federal environment ministry (BMU), called on the European Commission to start a political discussion on the consequences of Seac’s methodology.
In preparing Opinions on chemicals, the committee evaluates the costs and benefits of legislative actions such as restriction and authorisation.
So far, it has approved all of the authorisation requests it has received, arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks.
But Mr Lebsanft, who is head of division for chemical risk assessment and risk management at the BMU, told the conference in Brussels Seac uses ‘monetisation’ to compare the risks and benefits of suppliers continuing to place chemicals on the market. And this, he said, has "profound" implications.
It should also discuss whether improvements can be made to more accurately reflect the adverse effects to individuals and the environment, he said.
Using a "willingness to pay" (WTP) approach, the committee transforms the risks of a chemical being on the market into a monetary value. This is the price consumers are prepared to pay for a certain product in return for it posing less risk to human health.
To calculate monetised risk, the estimated number of persons harmed is multiplied by the price of the adverse health or impact.
Using this methodology, however, the same value may be obtained for "extremely high or very low" individual risks depending on the number of exposed people, Mr Lebsanft said. As a result, he added, severe health risks do not hinder a recommendation for authorisation if the economic benefits are large enough.
Furthermore, he said, it does not consider the distribution of risks and benefits as "the people who take the risks do not necessarily enjoy the benefits".
In authorisation applications, the applicant normally calculates the cost attached to it being denied. But, the positive impacts of alternative products are not taken into account, Mr Lebsanft said.
"These consequences have never been discussed at the political level," he told the conference. He called on the Commission to "describe the consequences of the current Seac approach" and seek open dialogue with member states, European parliament and other stakeholders.
Speaking at the Brussels conference, Michael Flueh, head of REACH unit at DG Grow, said he would take the comments back to the Commission "and see what we can do". However, sources say an overhaul of Seac "is not on the agenda".
Nevertheless, an Echa spokesperson told Chemical Watch the agency plans to "engage directly" with Mr Lebsanft on the subject.Methodology in question
Germany advocated a review of Seac's methodology in a position paper last year. This paper said that Seac had even recommended an authorisation despite a lack of information on risk. And the committee assumed that all people exposed to the chemical would suffer adverse health effects.
It also argued that the economic benefits for the user have become a dominant factor in Seac's opinions, while the degree of risk to individuals "no longer seems to be important". It is "especially problematic" that the question of whether the economic benefits affect the same people as those impacted by the risks plays "no discernible role".
It is not possible to monetise many of the negative impacts, the paper said, and the political discussions should question whether Seac should continue to give opinions based on benefits outweighing the risks.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68094/germany-calls-for-revamp-of-socio-economic-analyses-of-authorisations
-
China Seen as 'in the Driver's Seat' on LNG Markets
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
China's pivotal role in world markets for liquefied natural gas was a recurrent theme in events yesterday at the World Gas Conference in Washington, D.C. Conspicuously absent from the agenda? Chinese voices.
The buyer's market for LNG was on display in a series of sessions on the booming market for the fuel, with the heads of producing and exporting companies like BP PLC, Cheniere Energy Inc., Qatargas and ConocoPhillips speaking on the changes in world gas flows that have driven a new "commodification" of a fuel that not long ago was traded largely via pipelines between neighbors.
The shift has led to a strengthening of short-term and spot markets for LNG and put new power in buyers' hands to delink natural gas prices from oil trading hubs. It is also leading the global gas industry into some serious soul-searching about how its climate credentials line up against those of dirtier coal and cleaner renewables, the speakers said.
China is expected to become the world's biggest importer of natural gas next year through a combination of pipeline and LNG imports as it aggressively moves to counter the smog problem created by its heavily coal-fired economy, according to an International Energy Agency report issued this week (Energywire, June 26).
China is "in the driver's seat" on LNG, said Peter Coleman, CEO and managing director of Woodside Energy, an Australian oil and gas producer juggling three export projects in the country's remote western region.
China and to a lesser extent India are in an advantaged position on LNG because they have domestic natural gas resources, pipeline imports and LNG import terminals, allowing them to put multimodal competition to work on the commodity's price, he said.
That stands in contrast to Japan and South Korea, the other two top world LNG buyers, which lack domestic resources and have been unable to build gas pipelines due to earthquakes and other geographic challenges. That has put them largely at the mercy of LNG shippers.
Cheniere Energy has a long-term purchase agreement with China National Petroleum Corp. and is angling to grow its Chinese exports, but CEO Jack Fusco said that even outside that deal, many of the company's cargoes have landed in China on short-term markets.
Looking to the industry's future, several speakers speculated that Asian markets will remain important over the coming decades as natural gas use for power and other uses grows.
A keynote event today puts a spokesman for Beijing Gas Group on a panel along with representatives from Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and elsewhere to discuss Asia-Pacific gas demand.
But otherwise, Chinese representation at the meeting is largely confined to smaller events like technical discussions around shale gas technologies and gas research.
That leaves others to speculate on questions like how Chinese buyers might balance gas's environmental and price performance and the interests of national and private companies in securing long-term and spot supplies.
Looming in the background are questions around how recent trade frictions between the United States and China, which have not so far targeted LNG flows, might affect them (Greenwire, June 22).
"We're still in this turbulent time in terms of where this lands and how it settles out," Darren Woods, Exxon Mobil's CEO, said in reference to the U.S.-China trade tensions and their impact on gas trade. "We're trying to keep a level-headed voice in the conversation."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086573
-
Onshore Energy Bills Pass Key Committee Vote
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
A House panel today passed three bills that aim to boost onshore energy independence and expedite the oil and gas permitting process, despite pushback from Democrats.
The Natural Resources Committee approved 17-13 Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney's "Removing Barriers to Energy Independence Act," which would institute fees for administrative protests to oil and gas lease sales, as well as permits to drill and right of way applications.
The first-term Republican argued the energy industry is "severely burdened" by "frivolous" administrative challenges, and her bill would set a minimum filing fee of $150 for a 10-page protest, as well as a $5 charge for each additional page.
But Democrats, including Rep. Don McEachin of Virginia, said H.R. 6087 would infringe on the free speech of individuals and nonprofit groups. The legislation is "an assault on the participatory process at the core of our democracy," McEachin said.
The panel considered three amendments to Cheney's bill, approving only technical changes. The panel's top Democrat, Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, unsuccessfully offered language that would exempt from fees individuals living within 30 miles and a nonprofit office within 100 miles of the parcel in which the protest was filed.
That measure failed on a roll-call vote, 12-20.
Another unsuccessful amendment from Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) would have required oil and gas operators to pay a fee to the government for "an expression of interest submission" to drill. Huffman argued that it would bring a measure of fairness to the legislation. But lawmakers rejected the language by an identical 12-20 vote.
The panel reported out 18-12 Utah Republican Rep. John Curtis' H.R. 6088, the "Streamlining Permitting Efficiencies in Energy Development (SPEED) Act."
The legislation would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to ease the way for projects with a small environmental footprint.
Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) offered a successful amendment that eliminated some language that would have given the Interior secretary overly broad authority, he said.
Again, Democrats put forward unsuccessful amendments. One provision would have directed Interior to study within a year of enactment whether the legislation lowered gas prices, while another would have required operators to estimate the change in sales of oil due to tariffs on imported steel and U.S. exports of crude oil.
"This bill offers a sweeping sweetheart deal for oil and gas developers," said Huffman, who tried to insert language into the legislation that would require certification that an oil and gas operator does not have a financial relationship with the Interior secretary or the secretary's immediate family.
The measure, which failed 12-18, was a nod to a recent Politico report that detailed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's role in a real estate deal backed by Halliburton Co. Chairman David Lesar. Democrats have asserted the former Montana lawmaker used his current office for personal financial gain (E&E Daily, June 22).
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) said Interior already has rules in place that would prevent such conflicts of interest, making Huffman's measure redundant.
The panel this morning also advanced 18-13 New Mexico Republican Rep. Steve Pearce's H.R. 6107, the "Ending Duplicative Permitting Act."
The proposal would allow energy producers to skip Bureau of Land Management permits if they are extracting resources on nonfederal surface lands when less than 50 percent of the subsurface minerals are not federally owned.
The panel adopted a technical amendment to the bill but rejected a Democratic measure that would have required operators to certify to Interior that the state had certain rules related to the venting and flaring of methane emissions.
That amendment, from Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), failed in a 12-19 vote.
The Wilderness Society blasted the trio of bills in a blog post: "While the House Natural Resources Committee should be safeguarding our shared resources and providing oversight of the Trump administration's actions, a host of new legislation being considered by the committee would hasten the sellout of our public lands by penalizing states and citizens who don't want to see drilling dominate our land and coasts and relaxing or eliminating safety requirements that protect our health and environment."
But groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and Western Energy Alliance praised the legislation from Republicans.
"API supports legislation that removes unnecessary obstacles to safe and responsible energy development and by doing so, promotes U.S. job growth, increases domestic oil and natural gas production, generates revenues for federal, state and tribal governments, and strengthens our national security," said Erik Milito, API's group director of upstream and industry operations. "These bills do just that."
The committee this morning also approved H.R. 5859, from Tipton, by 16-11. The "Education and Energy Act" would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to dedicate a portion of mineral and geothermal lease revenue to elementary and secondary education, as well as public higher education.
The panel passed an amendment to the measure from Tipton that would ensure any funds a county receives under the bill would not be considered when calculating payments to the county under the 2000 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
Due to time constraints, the committee today was unable to get to H.R. 5291, from Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.).
The "Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunity Act" would establish an offshore wind career training grant program. Bishop said they would consider the legislation at a later markup.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086645
-
Natural Gas a Destination Fuel, Not Just Bridge to Renewables, Say Energy Chiefs
Jun 27, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The energy industry has to counter the view that renewables are the only way to reduce carbon emissions and instead make the case for natural gas to remove any doubts about its long-term benefits, a group of the leading global CEOs said Tuesday.
During a panel discussion at the World Gas Conference (WGC) in Washington, DC, BP plc CEO Bob Dudley shared an afternoon plenary with Qatar Petroleum CEO Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi, Total SA CEO Patrick Pouyanne, ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance and Equinor ASA’s Tor Martin Anfinnsen, executive vice president of marketing, midstream and processing.
“Gas is going to be more and more important than ever as part of the energy mix going forward,” Dudley said. “We know that because gas is very abundant, and it’s affordable...And if you use it instead of coal for power generation, you could cut the sector’s carbon emissions by half.”
BP earlier this month issued its esteemed Statistical Review of World Energy, which reported that natural gas last year accounted for the largest increment in global energy consumption, followed by renewables and then oil. The gas trade also expanded by 6.2%, with growth in liquefied natural gas outpacing the pipeline trade, as it did in 2016. More accessibility and integration should help to underpin the long-term use of gas, BP researchers found.
Gas can help the globe move toward a “cleaner” energy future, and any attempt to discount its value is “really unfortunate,” Dudley said. “I think it deprives the world of one of the key means” to meet the goals set by nearly 200 nations in late 2015 at the Conference of Parties, or COP21, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The need to resolve the dangers of climate change -- and use gas to do so -- was stressed at the afternoon plenary.
Renewables are important, “but it cannot be a race to just renewables,” Dudley said. “It has to be a race to reduce emissions.” Part of ensuring that operators fully articulate the central role for gas to help solve the climate change issue involves getting ahead on the game on methane emissions, he said.
Another challenge is “helping people recognize gas as a destination fuel, not just a transition fuel. It’s part of the low-carbon future, not just a tool for getting there.”
To further the goal to make gas a destination fuel and not only a bridge to renewables, companies need to push forward to construct adequate infrastructure for gas and build a global market. They also have to invest in carbon capture and storage, as well as push for carbon pricing, the BP CEO said.
Partnering natural gas with renewable power systems is “a great combination,” Dudley said. But renewables cannot do the job alone.
“This idea of natural gas as a transition fuel to renewables is strange,” Pouyanne said. “Natural gas is a solution” to climate change, as it’s been “scientifically proven.”
ConocoPhillips’ Lance, who runs the largest independent in the world, said, “We don’t believe the existential threat to our business is right around the corner” from renewables growth. “We see rising usage of natural gas.”
Qatar Petroleum, already one of the world’s largest gas producers, has begun an expansion to increase output by about 33% in the next 10 years. Demand is only rising, said Al-Kaabi.
“Human beings need energy,” he said “Gas should be seen as a destination fuel not just as a transport fuel or bridge fuel.”
There will continue to be a “huge demand” for gas going forward. The gas “glut” that some experts see “will be over” by the mid 2020s at the latest, Al-Kaabi said. “I think we realized last winter that the market needs more gas probably earlier than we thought,” referring to the longer-than-expected cold temperatures that lingered across North America into April.
The challenge is to ensure there is enough infrastructure, said the Qatar executive.
“I think the market for gas is there, and it’s going to be there for a long time,” Al-Kaabi said “The challenge is to have what is required…” to ensure it can be adequately and safely delivered to worldwide destinations.
The board of Equinor, formerly Statoil, changed its name earlier this year to acknowledge the transition to low-carbon fuels. “There is a place for gas,” Anfinnsen said. “It is a challenge. But we do believe gas can play a role even in a low- or no-emissions carbon future.”
Technologies now include separating gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2) and then capturing the CO2 and storing it. The carbon capture “can make zero carbon energy at a large scale,” Anfinnsen said. “Storage capacity in reservoirs is vast...and it’s a proven, safe and secure technology.”
The bottom line is, “we don’t have to be green to be clean,” said the Equinor executive. “We are succeeding in efforts that will make natural gas both competitive and an important part of the fuel mix in the future and beyond 2050. Even in a deep, decarbonized economy...But it has to be supported by policy at national and international levels.”
Everyone on the panel acknowledged that the industry has to do more to combat methane emissions.
“The industry has a problem and the whole industry has to have a better reputation,” Dudley said. “I’m confident in the work we’re doing.”
(NGI is an exhibitor during the week-long WGC, and is hosting Booth 1208, featuring its newsletters, data and maps. Be sure to check out our latest service, Mexico Gas Price Index, as well as an on-site TV screen streaming live World Cup soccer action. Enter to win an autographed and framed Lionel Messi jersey.)
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114857-natural-gas-a-destination-fuel-not-just-bridge-to-renewables-say-energy-chiefs
-
Execs Worry Trump's Trade Moves Could Burst U.S. Gas Bubble
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
President Trump's escalating trade threats have riled big oil and gas companies as they worry the administration's policies could squander the United States' opportunities in a booming global market.
The World Gas Conference taking place in Washington, D.C., this week is the first time in 30 years that the United States has played host to the international industry gathering. While it underscores the ascent of the United States as one of the world's leading suppliers of natural gas — supporting a global shift away from coal — it also provided a platform for executives wary of Trump's moves on trade.
Given the conference's crowd of high-level diplomats and the world's biggest investors and energy firms, the message company executives delivered was aimed in part at the audience and at the president's residence just a mile away.
"When tariffs come on and the threats of trade wars, you run the risk of making those projects less competitive," Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods said. "The world is very well served with low tariffs and free trade."
"The risk of trade skirmishes or trade wars starts to weigh," Chevron Corp. CEO Michael Wirth said. "From a demand standpoint, I think that's a risk."
Still, the natural gas market is trending upward. The International Energy Agency said in a report released yesterday that the liquefied natural gas trade will expand 30 percent in the next five years, with the United States contributing one-fifth of that growth. While other commodities face potential retaliatory tariffs in the wake of Trump's many battles, the fuel has largely avoided such treatment.
Negotiations with China crystallize that dynamic: China left LNG off a list of possible goods to hit with tariffs in response to the $50 billion of duties the White House has sought on Chinese products. China will surpass Japan as the world's leading natural gas importer. The United States, meanwhile, will provide more export growth than any other nation through 2022. Trade between China and the United States is therefore likely to remain robust.
"The market will find, as it generally does, the appropriate level," Energy Secretary Rick Perry told reporters after his keynote speech at the conference. When asked about energy companies' concerns over how Trump's steel tariffs will affect infrastructure projects, Perry responded, "The president is smart enough to know what he's doing."
Natural gas firms, which increasingly means the large oil majors like Exxon Mobil, aren't as confident. The Trump administration has pursued trade policies counter to its energy export goals, such as imposing tariffs on imported steel products used in pipelines that U.S. manufacturers don't produce. It also is pursuing domestic policies that would prop up financially strapped coal and nuclear power plants, which compete directly with natural gas in electricity generation.
"Domestic and international markets need to be allowed to do what they do best," Wirth said.
Demand for natural gas is increasing in countries like China in part because of the fuel's relative climate and air quality benefits compared with coal. IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said expanding natural gas supplies that displace coal could have a positive effect on slowing climate change — he said companies could plug half of the 76 million tons of methane leaks from natural gas at no cost, which is the equivalent of retiring two-thirds of Asia's coal-fired power plants.
U.S. natural gas does have one key advantage over its competitors — it's tied to the Henry Hub, a distribution point on the natural gas pipeline network. That gives a semblance of stability amid fractured, regionally based natural gas pricing systems indexed to oil.
But Trump has laid waste to stability in the past. That could matter, given the central role U.S. energy plays in his foreign policy with respect to geopolitical and trade strategy.
Consider China. U.S. exports to China last year hit 0.28 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day, accounting for 14.6 percent of gross LNG exports by vessel, consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC said in a note Monday, citing U.S. Energy Information Administration figures. The firm said U.S. shipments jumped to 0.34 Bcf per day through March of this year. China, meanwhile, is expected to drive nearly 40 percent of global natural demand growth in the next five years, according to IEA.
"Thus, although Chinese economic and environmental goals may prioritize continued LNG flows from the U.S., LNG seems a likely candidate for inclusion in a subsequent escalation, if only because of the imbalance in goods trade between the two countries," ClearView said.
Whether China or any other nation responds by hitting U.S. natural gas, which the Trump administration has used as a bargaining chip to reduce trade deficits with other nations, remains unclear. Woods, of Exxon Mobil, took a moment to defend the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the Trump administration wants to renegotiate — or possibly terminate. Magnolia LNG's chief executive told Bloomberg News that the saber rattling already has had a chilling effect on its potential buyers in China.
The uncertainty Trump has caused creates opportunities for other countries to swoop into the growing natural gas market.
"My message to you is that Canada is open for business and open for trade," Canadian Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said at the conference.
IEA's Birol agreed that the wrinkles Trump has presented could thwart the U.S. role in the forming global natural gas market. That, in turn, could complicate the Trump administration's "energy dominance" goal of churning out more fuel and technology exports, particularly for fossil fuels.
Proposed steel tariffs, for example, could stymie large infrastructure like export terminals and pipelines, said Birol and his colleague Jean-Baptiste Dubreuil, IEA's senior natural gas analyst. Those decisions and investments must be made within the next two years to avoid a "tight" global supply. Countries that fail to capitalize on that window could lose out to competitors.
"This may well have implications in the timeliness of those projects to be implemented," Birol said. "And losing time in some cases may well mean losing market share."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086585
-
Trump Team Accused of Using Politics for Industry Gain
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's work boosting U.S. natural gas exports to Europe has raised the hackles of some European gas executives who accuse the Trump administration of cloaking its commercial interests in a mantle of global security.
Perry said at a global natural gas conference in Washington, D.C., yesterday that the United States' rise as a natural gas producer would be a boon to other countries — in terms of both energy access and national security.
"We're empowering our friends, our allies and our trading partners," he told attendees at the World Gas Conference.
But in closed-door remarks in meetings on the sidelines of the conference, the Energy secretary offered U.S. gas as a hedge against Russian exports. That message divides Western Europeans who support Russia's construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Eastern and Central Europeans who look east with trepidation.
President Trump himself has frequently offered U.S. liquefied natural gas as a means of weaning Europe off Russian gas. Trump made that point to Central and Eastern European representatives at the Three Seas Initiative summit in Poland last year and touted U.S. exports earlier this year in sanctions against Russia over election meddling.
In meetings this week on the sidelines of the conference, Perry's message to Europeans has been: Use gas from the United States, not Russia.
European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič told reporters Monday that Perry quizzed him in a bilateral meeting at Energy Department headquarters about Europe's readiness to accept U.S. LNG.
And in a separate meeting with the Central and Eastern European members of the Three Seas Initiative that Šefčovič also attended, participants discussed key infrastructure projects that would help deploy gas from a variety of sources, including LNG exports, and agreed that the Nord Stream 2 project would undermine national security.
The proposed pipeline would circumvent Ukraine in carrying gas from Russia to Germany for sale across Europe. Eastern countries see it as a threat to their energy access. Perry discussed the issue last night in a separate bilateral meeting with his Russian counterpart, Alexander Novak.
Šefčovič said Perry doubled down on U.S. gas exports during Monday's meetings.
"I think that it's quite clear in meetings we had with the secretary but also with these Three Seas high-level meeting that the U.S. sees itself as a very important energy player," he said. "We heard very impressive statistics about how the U.S. was planning to become number one in producing natural gas and oil and very strong assurance that the U.S. is ready to provide energy with no political strings attached as a very fair trader."
But Trump's recent decision to slap tariffs on the European Union and other trading partners — including allies — for steel and aluminum caused worry that U.S. trade might come with strings attached, after all. The European Union has announced retaliatory measures.
"For me, it is a very disappointing development," said Šefčovič, "because I was here a year and a half ago when we were discussing [the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership], and I was promoting this free-trade agreement within the United States and the European Union, and now I am here and we are discussing sanctions; we are discussing tariffs.
"So I hope we will make it through this very rough patch in our relationship," he said.
Šefčovič said he stressed to Perry the importance of easing or eliminating the DOE licensing process for LNG exports, which he said had been a "nuisance" for would-be European investors. And he noted that high prices in Asia have diverted shipments there, raising doubts that American supply will be as reliable as European demand for LNG. Šefčovič is set to meet with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross today.Commercial or political interests?
The European Union is stressing the need for diversification of sources and routes for natural gas at this week's conference, rather than a move away from Russian gas. A trilateral meeting is planned between the European Commission, Russia and Ukraine to chart a way forward for Russia-E.U. exports into the next decade.
But there is some worry that the United States might impose sanctions on countries that do business with Russia. And European executives at this week's conference expressed frustration that the United States might insert itself by putting pressure on its European allies over a project like Nord Stream 2.
"We as Europeans perceive that that is something that Europeans and Russians should solve, and not Americans," said Markus Mitteregger, CEO of RAG AG, a Germany-based energy company. Projects like Nord Stream 2 are "an extension of a relationship," he said.
"I don't know why Mr. Trump is trying to bring trouble into such a commercial thing," he said. But he suspected the United States of trying to undermine the Russian-E.U. supply relationship to clear the way for U.S. imports.
"It's pretty obvious that it's a commercial issue and not a political issue," he said.
Gregor Pett, executive vice president for market analytics for Germany-based Uniper Global Commodities SE, which invests in Nord Stream 2, said relying on LNG alone is too risky. So is relying on a single source.
"Why should I swap dependency from Russia to dependency from the U.S.?" he asked. Pett said Russia had always been a reliable gas supplier to Germany, but Trump's recent moves to enact tariffs have injected uncertainty into that trading relationship.
"Why should I have the confidence that the United States would continue to be the reliable partner it always was?" he said, stressing that he was speaking as a citizen of Europe and not for his company. The United States has been a good friend to Europe since World War II, he said. "Will that still be the case?" he asked.
But U.S. analysts rejected the suggestion that the Trump administration might be creating the perception that its rejection of Nord Stream 2 is somehow linked to its aspirations for U.S. LNG exports. The project is an aggressive move by Russia against Ukraine, they say, and was opposed by the Obama administration, as well. Some Eastern European nations, they note, have offered to pay a premium for U.S. LNG to break Russia's stranglehold on their energy markets.
"These issues are not linked," said Fred Hutchison, president and CEO of LNG Allies.
"This administration's all in for LNG, everyplace it can go and every lever it can pull," he said. "But this administration, last administration and anybody with any sense sees that Nord Stream 2 is not a commercial project but a political one."
Amy Myers Jaffe, a senior fellow on energy and the environment with the Council on Foreign Relations, said Germany has many of the same concerns about Russia the United States does on issues like meddling in elections.
"Some of it has to do with what your philosophy is for engaging Russia," she said. "From Germany's point of view, commercially engaging Russia is seen as a way of ameliorating some of the other tensions. And I don't think the Trump administration views it that way."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086591
-
Regulators to Industry: Help Ensure Ample Gas Supply
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump and Mike Lee
Texas energy regulators issued a notice this week urging operators of pipelines and power plants to help make sure there's sufficient natural gas available to keep the lights on this summer.
In a joint letter, the heads of the state's Railroad Commission and Public Utility Commission asked that certain pipeline testing be scheduled outside months with peak electricity generation.
Christi Craddick, chairwoman of the RRC, and DeAnn Walker, chairwoman of the PUC, said discussions between their offices revealed "a potential threat to our state's ability to meet overall electricity demand during peak months."
"Specifically, we have been made aware of possible fuel supply interruptions for a number of vital natural gas power plants due to scheduled maintenance on pipelines," the regulators wrote. "We want to ensure that we have the pipeline transmission capacity to deliver the natural gas that fuels electric service for Texans during peak demand months this summer."
The notice was an unusual move for the RRC, which oversees pipelines. It also provided the latest indication that Texas' main power market, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, faces a potentially tight summer in terms of power reserves (Energywire, May 2). Vistra Energy Corp. closed a number of coal-fueled generating units this year, which helped to narrow the margin of surplus capacity compared with some past projections. Meanwhile, ERCOT has said its region could hit an all-time peak demand this summer.
Through May, natural gas accounted for almost 41 percent of 2018 power use in the ERCOT region. That was followed by coal at just over 23 percent and wind at just under 23 percent. Nuclear was about 12 percent.
The letter from Craddick and Walker this week said power generation operators should seek to optimize their performance through collaboration with vendors such as fuel suppliers. The situation may be associated by some with comments from Energy Secretary Rick Perry and others about the importance of power generation fueled by coal and nuclear energy. At the same time, pipeline-heavy Texas is different from a region such as New England that doesn't have the same type of energy infrastructure.
The RRC and PUC each has a division monitoring the Texas situation, the regulators wrote, and those divisions "are ready to assist in meeting natural gas supply and transmission needs for electric generators."
This sort of energy planning might typically be associated with winter, but the looming summer led to this week's statement from regulators. ERCOT's summer season runs from June through September.
"We have plenty of natural gas in this state," Craddick said in a video statement, adding, "We're working on transmission. This is about making sure that we have enough gas where we need it at the appropriate time."
In a news release, she called integrity testing of gas transmission pipelines "a critical part of our safety requirements" that "should be scheduled to maximize operational availability."
Walker said in a statement that "teamwork is the key to a successful summer for all Texans."
In May, Walker voiced support for the competitive ERCOT structure, though she noted that lawmakers could consider future changes. She indicated she wanted to see how the ERCOT market works this summer. At some point, the PUC also could pursue market modifications.
Andrew Barlow, a PUC spokesman, said Walker hasn't changed her belief that ERCOT has the resources it needs to maintain the load-versus-supply equation throughout the summer. But Barlow said the PUC sees a duty to be engaged with market participants to make sure they're fully aware of opportunities and responsibilities.
David Tuttle, a research fellow at the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, noted the importance of gas in power generation yesterday.
"The joint request by the RRC and PUC is a prudent measure to help assure grid reliability this summer when the Texas grid may be particularly tight on generation," Tuttle said via email.
But Ed Hirs, an energy economist with the University of Houston, said yesterday that the PUC may be hedging in the face of expected high demand and a potential shortfall. Hirs has argued that generators in the main Texas market have an economic incentive to remove capacity and potentially see higher prices, and he has called for a redesign.
Hirs also suggested pipeline companies would seek to schedule maintenance so as to be largely available when needed during peak times.
"I would think that most pipeline operators plan to be in full operation" during the busy season, he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086577
-
Grid Hackers Can Expect Retaliation, CEO Warns
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
If hackers hit the U.S. power grid, they'll be hit right back, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning said yesterday.
"I can tell you the capability exists today, if somebody tries to take us down, they will have a bad day," Fanning told attendees at the Aspen Institute's weeklong Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.
Fanning offered a rare window into the battle playing out between hackers and private companies, which he described as "the most underreported war in our history."
He suggested the Department of Defense should hold hackers accountable for crossing red lines at key U.S. companies, counterattacking either on the ground or in cyberspace. "This crossfire you never hear about, and yet it is happening every day," Fanning said.
He pointed to a series of attempted cyber incursions at nuclear power plants and other critical infrastructure sites last year, dubbed Nuclear 17 (Energywire, June 27, 2017). While that hacking campaign stopped short of causing physical damage, the attackers' focus on some of America's most sensitive facilities rang alarm bells in the utility industry and the defense community.
"You may have heard of that Nuclear 17, where there was a clear attack on nuclear facilities here in America," Fanning said. "We fought that off. These things are happening."
As co-chairman of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, Fanning regularly meets with other energy industry leaders and U.S. intelligence officials to discuss the latest threats and vulnerabilities to the North American grid.
Although he said it would be "extraordinarily hard" for hackers to wreak havoc on U.S. infrastructure networks, his perch gives him access to top-secret information on the art of the possible.
"When the Ukraine electric system was taken over maliciously [in 2015], we believe by Russia, the United States and my industry knew about that two years before, at least the capability," Fanning said. "And we put in place defenses."
That December 2015 cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid cut off electricity to roughly a quarter-million people for several hours.
The following year, the hackers struck again, crippling a transmission substation north of Kiev with custom-built malware and knocking out the lights in the region overnight.
Fanning indicated the military — working "right next to" utilities — would mount an aggressive response to any similar strike on U.S. soil.
"We must play offense, not defense, on all of these issues, and we are doing that," he said. "We have in-depth defense plans in place to deal with everything that we're facing, that we know of, right now."
Fanning offered an unusually frank assessment of the consequences for hacking into America's most sensitive networks. Many executives tend to shy away from talk of cyber retaliation, even that mounted by the DOD, as it's illegal for U.S. companies to "hack back" against their adversaries.
On Monday, the cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc. distanced itself from claims that its subsidiary Mandiant hacked into the computers of Chinese army spies to gather intelligence for a blockbuster report on Chinese cyber espionage five years ago. The company was responding to New York Times reporter David Sanger, who said in a new book on cyber warfare that Mandiant investigators "reached back" into the networks of the "APT1" hacking group. Sanger suggested Mandiant took screenshots from the webcams of APT1 hackers, catching soldiers in Unit 61398 of China's People's Liberation Army red-handed.
"To state this unequivocally, Mandiant did not employ 'hack back' techniques as part of our investigation of APT1, does not 'hack back' in our incident response practice, and does not endorse the practice of 'hacking back,'" FireEye said in a blog post.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086575
-
Trump Safety Pick Squeaks Through Committee
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee this morning narrowly approved Heidi King as the nation's top transportation safety official.
The vote to approve King as administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was 14-13, with many Democrats signaling their opposition.
The loudest voice in the "no" camp was Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who expressed grave concerns about King's commitment to recalling defective Takata Corp. air bags, which have led to 15 deaths and hundreds of injuries nationwide, including six deaths in the Sunshine State.
Nelson said he had repeatedly asked King to demonstrate she would take the issue seriously, and she had finally sent him a letter yesterday with a "minimum plan of action."
"Now, this I certainly appreciate as a step in the right direction," Nelson said. "But the long delay in coming up with a plan like that indicates that she lacks the fire in the belly needed to protect consumers."
He added, "An air bag exploding in your face is not a trivial matter. We desperately need someone in this position who is a champion for consumers. Sadly, this senator has concluded that Ms. King is not that person."
King would lead NHTSA as the agency forges ahead with an expected proposal to freeze fuel economy standards at 2020 levels.
A former General Electric Co. executive and House Energy and Commerce Committee economist, King currently serves as deputy administrator of NHTSA.
In that No. 2 role, she has helped lead negotiations for revised tailpipe rules among NHTSA, EPA and the California Air Resources Board.
Under questioning from Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) at a previous hearing, King refused to say whether she agrees with mainstream climate science (E&E Daily, May 17).
Hassan saw that as problematic, given that transportation recently eclipsed the power sector as the country's biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation panel also easily approved Peter Feldman to fill the fifth and final spot as a commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086605
-
Pruitt restricts EPA veto power on wetland permits
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Administrator Scott Pruitt has moved to restrict EPA's ability to nix water pollution permits, in a rebuke of how the Obama administration used the agency's veto power.
Under the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers is the permitting agency for dredging and filling in waterways and wetlands, but EPA has the ability to veto permit specifications it does not agree with under Section 404(c) of the law.
For decades, EPA policy didn't explicitly prevent the agency from moving forward with vetoes before, during or after the permitting process.
A new memo from Pruitt to EPA's Office of Water and regional administrators would change that.
It eliminates EPA's ability to move against a project before a permit application has been filed with the Army Corps and eliminates the agency's ability to retroactively veto a project post-permit.
"When the EPA uses its authority preemptively and without the benefit of the fully developed factual record or attempts to reimagine its authority in ways that diverge from statutory text or congressional intent, it diverts its attention from its core mission and engages in decision-making without a full understanding of the impacts of those decisions," Pruitt's memo said.
Before initiating the veto process, Pruitt is also requiring regional administrators to review a project's environmental impact statement (EIS) and obtain approval from headquarters.
"Today's memo refocuses EPA on its core mission of protecting public health and the environment in a way that is fair and consistent with due process," Pruitt said in a statement. "We must ensure that EPA exercises its authority under the Clean Water Act in a careful, predictable, and prudent manner."
EPA has issued 13 vetoes since 1980, the majority of which came during the Reagan administration, but two separate actions under President Obama rankled industry and conservatives.
In 2011, EPA rejected permits for the Spruce mine, a mountaintop-removal coal operation in West Virginia, several years after the Army Corps approved them.
Then, in 2014, the agency — relying on a watershed assessment — proposed restrictions to protect Alaska's Bristol Bay from mining. The company behind the massive Pebble project had yet to formally submit a permit application.
Pruitt directly addresses EPA's process for Pebble mine in his memo, concluding that, "I believe that it is critical for the agency to participate in the EIS process and review the final EIS in detail before determining whether to proceed with the section 404(c) process in this case."'Vital step'
Such a timeline could get Pruitt off the hook for making a final decision on Pebble — a project that has been controversial for more than a decade.
He has already been in hot water for proposing to withdraw the proposed Obama restrictions and then deciding to keep them in place pending environmental review.
The Army Corps is still in the scoping phase of that process, and the EIS will likely not be completed for another four to five years.
Pebble spokesman Mike Heatwole called Pruitt's memo a "strong policy decision regarding the problems with preemptive and retroactive 404c actions."
He said, "We are pleased with the confirmation that EPA judgement on Pebble will be based on a full EIS review of our project rather than the flawed, hypothetical [Bristol Bay watershed assessment]."
The National Mining Association similarly celebrated Pruitt's move, calling it "a vital step forward in returning certainty and order to the permitting process in the U.S."
Spokeswoman Ashley Burke wrote in an email, "Even the mere threat of retroactive and preemptive veto actions has harmed America's competitiveness when it comes to attracting investment in U.S.-based mining projects, adding volatile obstacles into what is already an extensive, established process at the state and federal levels."
But former EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran, who oversaw the Pebble veto process, slammed the new memo. He called it "disingenuous" to say a veto issued before a permit application is filed circumvents due process.
McLerran argued that EPA's assessment underwent a more rigorous review than environmental impact statements do, noting that the agency held numerous public meetings and submitted the document to peer review.
Waiting to start the veto process until after the Army Corps is nearly done with a permit application, McLerran said, would waste federal resources and be unfair to the applicants.
"This veto is not a creation of EPA, it is part of the statute created by Congress," he said. "The intent of the statute is very, very clear that if there are significant effects from the placement of fill material, you should give an early warning that saves everyone time and money."
In litigation related to the Spruce mine veto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relied on a literal interpretation of the Clean Air Act, saying EPA could veto the Army Corps' permits "whenever" it pleased.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086637
-
NRDC Sues EPA Over Guidance Scrapping HFC Restrictions
Jun 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is suing EPA over a guidance document that says the agency will not enforce 2015 limits on refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, with the group arguing the agency is “unlawfully revoking” certain restrictions on the substances that were left in place by an appellate court ruling.
The June 26 suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit, responds to an April guidancefrom EPA in which the agency seeks to implement an adverse August 2017 ruling that largely vacated an Obama-era rule limiting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
In the guidance, EPA says it plans a rulemaking to respond to the ruling but that in the interim, it will not implement any of the 2015 rule's provisions that list HFCs as unacceptable for a range of uses under the Significant New Alternatives Policy program.
That program was originally used to phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and replace them with HFCs, but the Obama administration sought to expand its reach to phase out HFCs, which do not harm the ozone layer but are potent short-term GHGs.
The court's split panel ruling in Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, et al. said the agency lacks authority to require manufacturers that have already “replaced” an ODS with a non-ODS to then switch to a new substitute.
However, it also rejected challenges that the HFC listings were “arbitrary and capricious” and sought to limit its ruling by saying EPA retains authority to restrict the use of HFCs if a manufacturer is still using ODS.
In part because it is difficult to distinguish between companies that use HFCs and those that use ODS, EPA's guidance effectively treats the Obama administration's HFC listings as vacated.
A June 26 blog post by NRDC's Lissa Lynch argues that EPA's “high-handed action goes way beyond the partial vacatur ordered by the court,” noting that more than 200,000 commercial refrigeration systems still use ODS, and the 2015 rule would have prevented operators from replacing those systems with HFCs.
Lynch also says that scrapping the valid portions of the 2015 rule though “guidance” without conducting a notice-and-comment rulemaking is “a clear violation of basic administrative law.”
NRDC, as well as chemical companies that support the Obama-era HFC rule, on June 25 asked the Supreme Court to review the Mexichem ruling, with the groups stressing the climate-related impacts of HFCs and arguing that the D.C. Circuit improperly imposed its own restrictive view of EPA's Clean Air Act authority.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nrdc-sues-epa-over-guidance-scrapping-hfc-restrictions
-
Okla. Oil CEO Spurred Pruitt on Climate Study
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
EPA officials and an Oklahoma oil industry executive quietly collaborated on a plan to scrutinize uncertainty in climate science.
Newly released emails show that Randy Foutch, CEO of Tulsa-based Laredo Petroleum Inc., pitched EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last year on an academic effort to assess the accuracy of climate models. Pruitt's staff subsequently consulted with Foutch and officials at the University of Texas, Austin, Energy Institute, where Foutch sits on an advisory board, according to emails recently released to the Natural Resources Defense Council under a Freedom of Information Act request. The effort came as Pruitt publicly played up the uncertainties in climate science and pushed a separate "red team, blue team" effort aimed at poking holes in established climate research.
Foutch sent an email to Pruitt in April 2017, suggesting the agency could help develop a study that would assess climate models that are used to make future predictions about global warming. That email was sent to Andy Miller, a career employee and EPA's associate director for climate in the Office of Research and Development to inquire about Foutch's idea. Miller spent months communicating directly with Foutch about climate models and the study, the emails show.
"On April 20, 2017, Mr. Randy Foutch (CEO of Laredo Petroleum) sent an email to Administrator Pruitt suggesting an academic-based study of climate model accuracy be undertaken, and seeking guidance on how to submit a proposal for such a study," he wrote. "Mr. Foutch's email was forwarded to me to respond on behalf of the Administrator."
Over the course of the next year, officials from EPA and the university talked about how the effort might take shape.
"[A]t various points we discussed with the EPA (by phone many months ago, and also in person in April) the possibility of convening a group of experts from around the nation (or world) to look at climate modeling through the lens of uncertainty," said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute and a mechanical engineering professor. "The scope of such an effort varied in our conversations from something as simple as a one-off meeting to something as grand as a multi-year, multi-million dollar collective effort."
Under Pruitt, EPA has worked to reshape the way the agency uses science and has reworked its science advisory boards to amplify industry voices. These emails show how Pruitt's staff worked with the oil and gas industry to develop new research that could ultimately be used to attack regulations. Climate models are used to predict future conditions under climate change, such as sea-level rise, heat waves and drought intensity; the projections also inform government policies and regulations. Those who reject established climate science have long turned to model accuracy as a way to infuse doubt into the field of research.
Webber said his university would be uniquely positioned to conduct a new analysis of climate models.
"[W]e work closely with government agencies, industry, and environmental groups, so we thought we could provide safe harbor for an intellectual conversation," he wrote in response to emailed questions. "If industry hosted such a gathering, then environmental groups might be suspicious; if government hosts the meeting then industry might be suspicious; and so forth. But the idea was that if UT brought people together, we could play the role of a fair arbiter or mediator."
The effort appears to be stalled, at least for now. Webber said the university doesn't have many climate modeling experts and couldn't conduct a rigorous study on its own. EPA officials did not comment on the specifics of the effort, other than to say that "there is no study underway or being discussed."'Lack of trust'
Emails show that EPA officials participated in a conference call about the climate initiative in January 2018 with UT Austin Energy Institute officials, as well as energy executives serving on the school's advisory board. The call included: Ron Hulme, CEO of Parallel Resource Partners, a private equity firm focused on the oil and gas sector; Jack Randall, managing partner of Jefferies Randall & Dewey Inc. and director of XTO Energy; and Jack Broodo, business president of feedstocks and energy at Dow Chemical Co.
Also included were two UT professors — Webber and Tom Edgar, a chemical engineering professor and director of the school's Energy Institute.
Richard Yamada, Pruitt's deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development, was also on the call. Yamada previously worked for Republicans on the House Science Committee who have spent years targeting the work of federal climate scientists. At EPA, Yamada has helped advance a number of the committee's priorities, including the proposed science transparency rule that would restrict the type of research the agency is allowed to use in crafting regulations.
Miller, the EPA career official, wrote that an objective of the call was to find an area of common ground between scientists and industry.
"I conveyed these perspectives to Mr. Foutch in a subsequent conversation, and we agreed that a core problem is a lack of trust between the scientific and practitioner communities," he wrote in a summary sent to other EPA officials in advance of a phone call with the institute. "Mr. Foutch and I also agreed with many of the people I had talked with that providing an opportunity for frank discussions between these two communities could be a step toward an expanded dialog across what has become a highly politicized and seemingly impenetrable barrier. We also agreed that the perspectives of both communities were critical if any progress was to be made on the issue of climate change."
EPA officials were careful to characterize the effort as being independent of Pruitt's proposed "red team" climate debate. After communicating for months, EPA officials and Foutch agreed to pause their project, which Miller referred to a "climate dialog," because of the media attention of the climate science debate that Pruitt was planning. But as the "red team" project stalled after pressure from the White House late last year, Miller and Foutch revived the project.Controversy over fracking study
The Energy Institute at UT Austin has been criticized in the past for close connection to the oil and gas industry and for producing research aligned with industry claims. In 2012, the school produced a groundwater study that showed no pollution from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The Public Accountability Initiative, a nonpartisan watchdog research group, claimed that study had relied on misleading, selective language that yielded industry-friendly talking points not supported by the research itself.
The Energy Institute report only focused on the process of fracking itself, not other aspects such as disposal of wastewater. The institute professor who wrote the report was also a paid member of an energy company board, the Public Accountability Initiative noted in its analysis of the report.
Foutch had told EPA officials that he was affiliated with the University of Texas.
"Following my reply to Mr. Foutch, he contacted me directly and we began a series of discussions about such a study," Miller wrote in an email. "Mr. Foutch noted that, in addition to his position as CEO, he was also the Vice Chair (now Chair) of the Advisory Board for the University of Texas-Austin Energy."
Foutch did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned that a valid analysis of climate studies should not be led by EPA, but rather by NOAA or NASA.
What's more, if a federal agency wanted to conduct a study of this nature, it should put out a proposal, not talk to only one academic institution, he said. More notable and strange, he said, is that the entire process originates with a fossil fuel company executive.
"There is nothing wrong with doing studies on certain kinds of precision on either climate models or any other kind of models, and that's being done all the time by lots of different places. What seems a little odd is that there is this immediate response to fossil fuel industry people who are trying to get the EPA, which is obviously a government agency, to do specifically this study related to an institute that they advise," he said.
EPA's Miller mentioned in the emails that he reached out to researchers at NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences and EPA to "gather additional perspectives on this idea." The emails do not reveal those perspectives because his summary was redacted before they were publicly disclosed.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060086547
-
Ewire: Skeptics' Failed Plan to Derail Key Climate Science Report
Jun 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
Hard-line conservative advocates had a plan to bring down a major climate science report and thus call into question mainstream scientific findings on climate risks, according to a news story, and it involved firing a career EPA employee who worked with an inter-agency group developing the National Climate Assessment (NCA).
“The attempt was unsuccessful, even after a member of President Donald Trump’s EPA landing team emailed Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, in June,” according to a Politico story that described the failed attempt citing a June 2017 email from former Trump EPA transition team member David Schnare.
Schnare's email to Jackson urged the agency to “recall and replace” Lisa Matthews, a career agency staffer who works with the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) that produces the NCA.
Her “position has management responsibility over the entire committee and can stop action on the rewrite of the National Climate Assessment, a quiet effort now under way to impose the IPCC view of the science on the U.S. government,” Schnare wrote, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Reached by Politico, Schnare said that “if” he did anything, it was only on behalf of House science committee Chairman Lamar Smith's (R-TX) office, which devised the strategy along with officials with E&E Legal Institute, a group that dismisses mainstream climate change science.
The Trump administration released the first volume of the NCA in November, which found it “extremely likely” that human-released greenhouse gases are the dominant force behind observed global warming.
GCRP is also crafting the second volume of the NCA, which will focus on climate risks in the U.S., as well as adaptation and mitigation efforts. The National Academy of Sciences in March offered general praise for a draft version of that report, while also calling for it to offer more examples of actions that have been taken by government and other parties to respond to climate change.
Matthews told Politico she was unfamiliar with the matter and that her position as executive secretary on the committee is largely administrative, not a decision-making job. Matthews' primary role at EPA is as a senior adviser and state liaison in the Office of Research and Development.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-skeptics-failed-plan-derail-key-climate-science-report
-
Next Steps in the Never-Ending Lawsuit
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Some federal appeals court judges aren't happy with EPA's pace in either repealing or replacing the Clean Power Plan.
Yesterday, two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated they would no longer vote to keep litigation over the Clean Power Plan on hold. A third judge said he was concerned about how the Supreme Court stay of the rule was allowing EPA to avoid regulating greenhouse gases.
That rebuke was welcomed by environmentalists who want the court to issue an opinion upholding the Obama-era climate rule.
"It is really refreshing to see them call [EPA] out," said Joanne Spalding, the deputy director of Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program.
The judges' comments came as the court voted yesterday to hold the case in abeyance for another 60 days. Environmental groups have argued for months that keeping the case on hold is allowing EPA to avoid its legal obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, June 26). It was the fifth time the court voted to temporarily stay the case.
Attorneys familiar with the Clean Power Plan litigation say the judges' remarks could put pressure on EPA to pick up the pace on releasing a final repeal of the rule or to formally propose a replacement plan.
While Pruitt has widely touted his efforts to eliminate the Clean Power Plan — a rule he ardently fought against as Oklahoma attorney general — the agency has only released a proposed repeal and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking suggesting it plans to issue a less stringent replacement rule. The agency projected it would have completed action on the Clean Power Plan by the end of this year, but EPA observers question whether a host of scandals at the agency have distracted the administrator and his staff from working on the rule. If Pruitt were to leave in the near future, the task of shepherding the agency through the legal fallout would fall to his successor.
It's unclear whether the judges' most recent comments reflect a broader shift among the full panel of judges and whether there's enough dissatisfaction that the court would kick-start the case.
"If these two judges are going public with level of disagreement with extended stay, they must have been having this conversation for a while," one attorney noted.
If the D.C. Circuit does decide to act on the case in the next two months, here are a few of the things that could happen if EPA either continues on its current track or takes new action.
If EPA doesn't advance on repeal or replacement within 60 days, the court could issue a decision on whether EPA had the authority to craft the Clean Power Plan. That decision could side either partly or fully with supporters or opponents of the rule. A decision in the case could then lift a stay on the rule put in place by the Supreme Court as litigation in the D.C. Circuit was ongoing.
The court has already heard oral arguments in the case and may have come to a decision and is simply holding off on releasing it, so attorneys said it is possible the court could issue a decision in 60 days.
The D.C. Circuit could dismiss the case and remand it to EPA. Judges in the case have previously discussed this as a potential outcome.
If the appeals court remands the case back to EPA, then the case would be over and there would be no legal decision by the court on whether EPA acted legally in developing its regulation on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. This would also mean that the Clean Power Plan would likely go back into effect if EPA had not come up with a replacement to amend the rule, according to two attorneys.
If the case is dismissed "without prejudice," then it means the case can be filed again, said Spalding.
One attorney noted that the Clean Power Plan case is unusual because regulations typically remain in effect while they are challenged in court.
EPA could also take new action within 60 days. Attorneys tracking the case say finalizing a repeal is the only action EPA would have time to take in the 60 days of this latest abeyance.
"[T]hey don't even have a proposal for a replacement, they can't do that expeditiously. The only thing they are set up to do is repeal. They are going to have to decide: Will they just repeal it?" said Spalding.
If EPA finalizes a repeal, the D.C. Circuit could decide the current Clean Power Plan case is moot. Then environmental groups and others critical of EPA's lack of power plant regulation for greenhouse gases could begin a new round of litigation.
Ultimately, the D.C. Circuit could hold the case in abeyance again, despite opposition from several judges. This decision could buy EPA some more time to craft a replacement rule, which many lawyers have suggested might be less vulnerable to legal challenge than an outright repeal.
EPA is "probably a bit conflicted on how to act because of this long-standing conflict between hardcore climate denialist people and the anti-regulatory people and the traditionalist people who want a weaker rule that provides legal cover," one lawyer said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086549
-
Report Questions Rigor of EPA's Ozone Standard
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
As EPA launches a review of its ground-level ozone standard that has already drawn congressional attention, a new report questions whether the existing 70-parts-per-billion threshold is tight enough to adequately protect the public.
"Levels of air pollution that meet current federal air quality standards can be harmful to health, especially with prolonged exposure," according to the report, released this morning by Environment America and two other organizations.
In 2016, 73 million Americans in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Baltimore and dozens of other metro areas experienced more than 100 days in which levels of ozone and/or particulate matter pollution were classified by EPA as "moderate" or higher, the report says. While those levels don't necessarily exceed current air quality standards, they could present a health risk, the report's authors argue.
They point, for example, to a 2017 Harvard University study of millions of Medicare recipients, which linked higher death rates to increases in daily ozone exposure, even at levels below the 70-ppb cutoff. They also cite the World Health Organization's conclusion more than a decade ago that there is no safe level of exposure to particulate pollution.
In addition, EPA's methods for calculating levels used in its air quality index — which involves averaging eight hours' worth of ozone data and 24 hours of particulate matter readings — "may mask short-term spikes in pollution that can damage health," the report says.
The EPA index ranks air quality on a six-part, color-coded scale as good (green), moderate (yellow), unhealthy for sensitive groups (orange), unhealthy (red), very unhealthy (purple) and hazardous (maroon). For both pollutants, the exposure levels that rank as "moderate" may approach but don't exceed EPA's respective air quality standards of 70 ppb for ozone and 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air for fine particulate matter.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is linked to asthma attacks in children and aggravated breathing problems in adults with emphysema or other chronic respiratory diseases. Exposure to particulates is connected to a wide array of health and lung problems that in some cases can lead to premature death.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for both pollutants every five years to determine whether they are strong enough to protect the public in light of what's known about their health effects. The report's release coincides with EPA's formal launch this week of a fresh review of the ozone standard under an accelerated timetable imposed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as part of a broader revamp of the agency's handling of NAAQS assessments (Greenwire, June 25).
The current 70-ppb standard was put in place in 2015. While the agency says the outcome of the latest review is not predetermined, the new rules are already fueling speculation inside and outside of EPA that the ultimate goal is to loosen that standard and possibly return it to the previous level of 75 ppb. Industry groups, who note that significant chunks of the country still don't meet that earlier limit, have so far been unsuccessful in their campaign to delay implementation of the 70-ppb standard until the middle of the next decade.
"I'm deeply concerned that the ozone NAAQS review process will be yet another bow to industry and another opportunity for Mr. Pruitt to cherry-pick science to continue to help his industry friends," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement this week.
A spokesman for EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) did not reply to emails this week seeking comment. But Barrasso's predecessor as the committee's chief answered in the affirmative Monday when asked whether he would like the review to lead to a relaxed ozone standard. "Yes, the answer's yes," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a brief interview.
Pruitt's new rules also apply to EPA's latest review of the particulate matter standards, which began in 2014 and had been scheduled for completion in 2022. Under Pruitt's timetable, which puts a priority on meeting the five-year deadline set by the Clean Air Act, both reviews are now supposed to be finished by late 2020.
Also involved in producing the report released today, which is titled "Trouble in the Air," were the Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG Education Fund.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086639
-
Ruling in Big Oil Case Leaves Cities, Activists Reeling
Jun 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Cities hoping to force oil companies to pay for climate change damages are facing a new reality after a federal judge Monday threw out similar lawsuits against fossil fuel businesses.
Judge William Alsup's ruling against San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California didn't set a legal precedent that judges in other locales must consider. But it still could affect courts considering 11 other cases from municipalities suing oil companies in California, Colorado, Washington and New York, legal experts said.
"Certainly from a soft-persuasion perspective, I think it could influence what other judges decide," said Jessica Wentz, staff attorney with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "They might look at his reasoning and see some sort of logic to it and apply some of the reasoning to their own decisions."
San Francisco and Oakland in their cases against Chevron Corp., BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC contended that the companies make and sell products that when combusted create a public nuisance. The cities also argued that the companies for decades knew the dangers of warming and hid that information while protecting their assets.
Alsup, a Clinton appointee who in March held a high-profile "tutorial" on climate science, in his ruling accepted climate change as a danger but said that evaluating blame for it is a political issue and not one for the courts.
Advocates for climate action said they hoped it represented just one loss in what's likely a long process seeking to hold oil companies responsible.
"It's definitely a setback, there's no doubt, particularly for communities like San Francisco and Oakland that are experiencing, like so many communities are, the cost of climate change in real time," said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "These things do take time." In lawsuits against the tobacco companies and in other cases, he added, "persistence paid off."Appeal expected
Several legal experts said they think the cities would appeal. Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker on Monday said that her city was "considering all options, including an appeal." San Francisco said it was evaluating its next step.
If the cities do appeal, it would go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California.
That court already is considering whether to take up cases from more than two dozen fossil fuel companies and trade associations sued by Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Marin County, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County in California. Federal Judge Vince Chhabria — located in the same courthouse as Alsup — earlier this year ruled that those cases belonged in state court, where they started. The oil interests appealed that decision.
Alsup in February ruled that the San Francisco and Oakland cases belonged in federal court. If those cities appealed Alsup's decision keeping the cases in federal court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could decide to look at the conflicting decisions of Alsup and Chhabria on where the cases belong, said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
"It will be an important decision," he said.
It's not clear, however, whether San Francisco and Oakland would be allowed to appeal Alsup's decision to keep those cases in federal court, as they did not appeal when it first happened, said Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. If allowed to appeal on those grounds, she said, "I think they will prevail."
If the California city cases are allowed to stay in state court, they have a better shot, Carlson said, because "state law is much more favorable for the plaintiffs than federal law."
If only the Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Marin County, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County cases are allowed to proceed in state court, and end up with a ruling that conflicts with Alsup's decision, that ultimately could send the cases to the U.S. Supreme Court, experts said.Pros and cons of fossil fuels
Alsup spent several paragraphs in his ruling detailing the science of climate change and its impacts. He said that all parties agreed fossil fuels "have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco."
The question of whether producers of fossil fuels should pay for eventual harms from sea-level rise ultimately isn't one for the courts, Alsup said, but is better addressed by Congress and the White House.
Experts disagreed about whether that was the right call.
Carlson in an email said that Alsup's arguments on separation of powers and interference with foreign affairs "are incorrect and Judge Alsup's reasoning, at least, will be overturned on appeal."
The appeals court, however, could also decide that the cases are pre-empted by federal law, she said. The Supreme Court in deciding the case American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut ruled that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because EPA regulates those through the Clean Air Act. In that case, states sought to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector.
Richard Daynard, law professor at Northeastern University and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project that supported litigation against the tobacco companies, said Alsup's decision was "very thoughtful."
Alsup in his ruling discussed the benefits of fossil fuels and said those must get weighed against their detriments in terms of deciding whether production of the fuels creates a nuisance. Alsup essentially said that "we can't call this a public nuisance" because there's a good side and bad side to fossil fuels, Daynard said.
"To the extent a lawyer can't come up with a good argument on why he's wrong," Daynard said, "this way of dealing with climate change is blocked."Blame for what they knew
Alsup in his ruling did not delve deeply into the part of the cities' suits that accused the companies of hiding what they knew about climate dangers and misleading the public. Experts disagreed about what that meant. Frumhoff said that's an important part of the cases.
"Companies knew of the harms for more than 30 years," Frumhoff said. "They could have warned the public and acted to reduce those harms, but they chose not to. They chose to misinform on climate science and to oppose regulations that would have limited emissions."
Oil companies also successfully lobbied for subsidies that have made fuels available at low cost without accounting for climate damages, he said.
"One has to say that but for their actions we'd be in a very different world today, with respect to the availability of clean energy options and sensible limits on emissions," Frumhoff said. Alsup "really didn't wrestle with the question of company responsibility."
However, Daynard said that's a difficult argument to make in court. Even if it could be proved that Exxon Mobil and the other companies knew about and hid climate dangers, cities would need to prove that absent the oil companies' behavior, Congress would have imposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions. But the Constitution in essence prohibits questioning legislators about their decisions.
"Without it, it's very hard to see how you could ever establish this point," Daynard said. "It may be totally impossible."
There's another angle to the cases, Frumhoff said. The suits possibly are putting pressure on oil companies to consider putting a price on carbon. Americans for Carbon Dividends, a nonprofit, is advocating a carbon tax in a proposal that would give oil companies relief from liability. Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell have signed on to the group.
"It's an indication, whether you agree with the proposal or not, that the pressure of these kinds of lawsuits might be relevant to driving interests that would not otherwise be realized in federal climate policy," Frumhoff said. "The potential implications for these lawsuits — if they get past motions to dismiss — to drive and support sensible climate policies is part of the reason why they're so powerful."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/27/stories/1060086583
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested