Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 16/10/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade War Expected to Curtail U.S Plastics Exports to China
Oct 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
U.S. plastics shipments to China are expected to slide next year amid an escalating trade battle between the two countries, curtailing export opportunities for Gulf Coast petrochemicals producers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Increase In Snurs Triggers CDR Rule Concerns
Oct 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The specialty chemicals group Socma is pressing the US EPA to make changes to its CDR rule as a result of changes to the TSCA new chemicals programme. -
Rac Opinions Highlight Human Data Issues
Oct 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
An animal welfare NGO has complained of a "lack of confidence in human data" that it finds "very worrying" following Echa decisions on two skin sensitising fragrance substances. -
Cefic, CIA and NGOs Urge Post-Brexit Regulatory Alignment
Oct 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
British and European trade groups and NGOs have urged heads of state and government to ensure EU27 and UK regulatory systems "remain highly aligned" after Britain withdraws from the trade bloc on 29 March. -
How DC Unleashed Fossil-Fuel Exports Despite Climate Worries
Oct 16, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's keynote speech at the World Gas Conference in June opened with a marching band and ended with an exhibition by the Harlem Globetrotters. -
US Trade Balance of Fuel Shifts from Imports to Exports
Oct 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By L.M. Sixel
The trade gap for energy products in the United States has narrowed over the past decade as the nation has shifted from importing oil and other fuels to exporting fuels to other countries. -
In the LOOP: Crude Oil Export Cargoes from Louisiana to China Dry Up
Oct 16, 2018 | Platts
By Mary Hogan and Catherine Wood
September was the second month of halted US crude exports from Louisiana to China due to higher VLCC freight rates, a narrower Dubai/LOOP Sour spread and uncertainty over possible trade tariffs imposed by China on US crude. -
Lifecycle Study Finds GHG Cuts From LNG Project, Warns Of Domestic Gas
Oct 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A new study of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed liquified natural gas (LNG) project to provide fuel for marine operations near Seattle finds that the effort would cut overall GHGs by displacing petroleum-based fuels, though the finding depends on the natural gas being sourced only from Canada. -
Trump Plan to Ramp Up Fracking, Mining in National Forests Threatens Climate
Oct 16, 2018 | EcoWatch
The Trump administration's plan to make it easier for industry to frack and mine in national forests would endanger the climate, wildlife and watersheds, the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups said in comments submitted Monday to the U.S. Forest Service. -
Are Voters Ready to Tax Pollution?
Oct 16, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Daniel Cohan
If states are “laboratories of democracy,” ballot initiatives in Washington and California next month will test whether voters are willing to tax pollution, and how the revenue should be spent. -
'Midstream Constraints' Hindering Permian and Williston, Says North Dakota Regulator
Oct 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The two hottest oil and natural gas basins in the United States, the Permian and Williston, are both working through similar bottlenecks and constraints on their respective midstream infrastructure systems, according to North Dakota's leading oil and gas regulator. -
Firefighters Sue California Gas Company Over Massive Leak
Oct 16, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Firefighters who worked in and around the site of a massive natural gas leak sued the Southern California Gas Co. on Monday, saying the utility knowingly let them be exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. -
Automation Guidance Wise to Include Railroads, But More Work Remains
Oct 16, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Ian Jefferies
The U.S. Department of Transportation recently issued new guidance for automation in the transportation sector, appropriately choosing a light-touch set of voluntary standards that will facilitate innovation to the benefit of consumers, workers and safety. -
Standards Too Weak — Evidence in Draft EPA Report
Oct 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA issued a new draft report acknowledging evidence that its current standards for airborne fine particulates are not tight enough to adequately protect public health. -
Wyoming Urged to Shield Oil and Gas Air Controls from EPA Rollback
Oct 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmental groups are urging Wyoming regulators to clarify a pending proposal to control oil and gas emissions to ensure that their plan to require leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections every six months from new and modified facilities is not undermined by EPA's proposed rollback of federal limits on methane. -
Fixing the Climate Requires More Than Technology
Oct 16, 2018 | The New York Times
By Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway
Last week’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was bad news from top to bottom. -
The Most Powerful Force for Fighting Climate Change – Now
Oct 16, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal (In Environmental Defense Fund)
By Fred Krupp
Last week gave the world a ghastly climate show-and-tell. -
U.S. Government, but Not Trump, Can Be Sued Over Climate: Judge
Oct 16, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Tina Bellon
A group of young Americans suing the federal government over lack of action to fight climate change can proceed with their lawsuit, but U.S. President Donald Trump cannot be named as a defendant, a federal judge ruled on Monday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade War Expected to Curtail U.S Plastics Exports to China
Oct 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
U.S. plastics shipments to China are expected to slide next year amid an escalating trade battle between the two countries, curtailing export opportunities for Gulf Coast petrochemicals producers.
A recent report by research firm Wood Mackenzie expects U.S. exports of plastic resins -- namely polyethylene -- to fall by as much as 50 percent next year as the Asian powerhouse ramps up imports from Middle East, South Korea, Thailand and Singapore. That, the report said, will eat into profit margins for U.S. exporters shipping to China.
The prediction comes after China in August imposed a 25 percent tariff on most U.S. polyethylene imports after the Trump administration ramped up tariffs on Chinese imports. The reported noted that U.S. exporters could find higher margins for plastic resins Europe, Latin America and Africa but cautioned that demand in those regions is "low and fragmented."Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢Read more articles like this by subscribing to the Houston Chronicle SUBSCRIBE
RELATED: Shell reaches milestone on plastics plant in Northeast, potentially a Gulf competitor
The tariffs could have major implications for U.S. petrochemicals producers, which have invested billions of dollars in new plants to take advantage of low-cost natural gas feedstocks from West Texas and elsewhere. Many companies, including LyondellBasell of Houston and Chevron Phillips Chemical of the Woodlands, are boosting production of polyethylene and other petrochemicals with an eye toward China and emerging markets in Asia where population growth is fueling demand.
Late last month, the American Chemistry Council, a trade group, said that China's tariffs on nearly $11 billion in U.S. chemicals and plastics exports could jeopardize thousands of jobs. It estimated that chemicals industry has invested more than $200 billion in 333 new projects across the U.S.
"Tariffs and quotas unnecessarily raise costs, deter innovation and economic growth, and could ultimately weaken our country's competitive advantage," the organization said in a statement.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Trade-war-expected-to-curtail-U-S-plastics-13310964.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Increase In Snurs Triggers CDR Rule Concerns
Oct 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The specialty chemicals group Socma is pressing the US EPA to make changes to its CDR rule as a result of changes to the TSCA new chemicals programme.
The comments came in response to an EPA information collection request (ICR) on its Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, which requires companies to submit, every four years, quantity and use information for substances produced in and imported into the US.
Socma pointed out that manufacturers must report if, for any year of the CDR cycle, production volume exceeds 25,000lbs per manufacturing site. However, for substances subject to a TSCA action – including a consent order or significant new use rule (Snur) – that threshold drops to 2,500lbs.
Since enactment of the Lautenberg Act in 2016, use of these regulatory instruments in the TSCA new chemicals programme has soared. And consequently, the group fears that this will "undoubtedly result in a vast increase in the number of small companies who will be subject to CDR reporting in 2020".
Compounding this concern is that the definition of a small business, as far as it relates to section 8 reporting requirements, has not been updated since 1988. And despite having acknowledged that an inflationary adjustment may be warranted, the EPA has yet to issue a rulemaking to update these size requirements.
TSCA’s finalised fees rule includes an updated small business definition based on employee numbers, but this change only relates to fees, and does not cover section 8 reporting requirements.
Socma has called on the agency to begin a prompt rulemaking to update its size standard for the CDR. And it reiterated a request for creating a "single, consistent classification system to identify small businesses" across all of TSCA.
The EPA said in the fees rule it believes a forthcoming TSCA section 8(a) rulemaking will "provide for more consideration of appropriate size standards for industries subject to TSCA and offer the public further opportunities to comment on small business size standards". It indicated plans in its semiannual regulatory agenda to propose such a rule in September, but there is no sign of it yet.Additional suggestions
Beyond Socma’s concerns, the American Chemistry Council requested that the EPA address "historical operability issues" with its electronic reporting tools.
The e-CDR web tool, said the trade group, requires "significant upgrades for a variety of reasons in order to ensure a less burdensome, more accurate CDR reporting process".
Cited issues included difficulty navigating, page time-outs, challenges submitting confidential business information (CBI) substantiation, and that login passphrases cannot be reset by EPA staff – leading to access problems when company staff roles change.
The ACC also requested that the EPA revise its burden cost estimates to reflect the generally higher actual compliance time that companies spend.
Finally, the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association (CPMA) requested that the EPA not use the CDR to collect information on chemicals and processes which "cannot reasonably be anticipated to pose a hazard of concern".
"EPA should use its broad discretion with respect to CDR reporting to focus the CDR on fewer chemicals which represent a potential risk," it wrote. "For those chemicals which pose a potential risk and are subject to EPA risk evaluation, a more detailed data collection should include processors to more accurately approximate the entire chain of commerce."
Federal collection of information is regulated by the Paperwork Reduction Act. ICRs are used to demonstrate that the collection is necessary and justifiable, and must be renewed every three years.
The existing ICR for the CDR is set to expire on 31 October. The agency collected comments in advance of that deadline, to inform its renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
OMB will make a final determination on this.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71035/increase-in-snurs-triggers-cdr-rule-concerns
-
Rac Opinions Highlight Human Data Issues
Oct 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
An animal welfare NGO has complained of a "lack of confidence in human data" that it finds "very worrying" following Echa decisions on two skin sensitising fragrance substances.
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) adopted opinions on geraniol and citral, which have related chemical structures, at its meeting on 10–14 September.
Denmark submitted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) proposals that argued for a category 1A classification in both cases. However, Rac concluded that the evidence warranted only the broader, category 1 classification, because a clear picture of the potency could not be established. Geraniol currently has no classification for skin sensitisation; citral already has the category 1 classification.
The dossiers contained significant quantities of both human and animal data. Human data from patch test studies on selected patients supported the stricter classification but Rac found it "quite a challenge" to bring together the extensive human and animal results in a weight-of-evidence approach, according to chair Tim Bowmer.
Potency is difficult to determine. The rodent local lymph node assay (LLNA) can be used to pick out chemicals that are clearly sensitising but it is "not always that easy" to put them into potency classes, added Dr Bowmer.
"In this case there are many studies and there are some contradictions with negative and positive results. Then you add in the human data, which cover various exposure situations, bioavailability and individual predisposition. So by the time you have all of the pieces of the puzzle on the table and put them together, you come to quite a complex picture," he said.Human data
"Human data, where it is available, should surely take precedence, because it does not have the issue of species differences, which we believe are more significant than issues of exposure," said Katy Taylor from Cruelty Free International. "We find it astonishing that – where there is evidence from humans that a substance could be more harmful than the animal studies suggest – this is not given more weight."
"The Danish EPA is pleased that it was agreed to classify geraniol as skin sensitiser 1, since it did not have a harmonised classification," said Toke Winther from the agency.
"When human data indicate strong potency these data should, in our view, be given a high priority, as it is concrete proof that strong sensitising effects are observed directly in the population. Also in cases where available animal data may not (clearly) support sub-categorisation as a strong sensitiser," he added.
He explained that the main issues discussed during the Rac meeting were: effects seen in animals were more moderate than those observed using human patch tests (for selected patients);although patch test studies on selected patients indicated strong sensitising effects, other available human information pointed to moderate potency;data from trials with selected patients were deemed less important than those with unselected patients; andconcerns over exposure levels in human trials.
These uncertainties prevented Rac from gaining a clear potency picture.
"Although we agree that human data are not designed for regulatory purposes and that it is not straightforward to use [them] for classification, we think it is a pity that it has proved so difficult to apply human data from dermatological clinics for classification. In general we should aim at making the best of the data we have available for the protection of human health," said Mr Winther.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71013/rac-opinions-highlight-human-data-issues
-
Cefic, CIA and NGOs Urge Post-Brexit Regulatory Alignment
Oct 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
British and European trade groups and NGOs have urged heads of state and government to ensure EU27 and UK regulatory systems "remain highly aligned" after Britain withdraws from the trade bloc on 29 March.
Their open letter, published in today's Financial Times, comes a day before a crucial EU summit at which leaders will debate progress on Brexit negotiations.
Cefic, the UK’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA) and NGOs CHEM Trust and the European Environmental Bureau said regulatory alignment will "allow for continuity and consistency for companies and regulatory bodies operating on both sides of the Channel".
It will also, they added, "ensure a framework for the continued development and implementation of high health, safety and environmental standards".REACH
In their letter they single out REACH, noting the "significant investments" that companies in the UK and on the continent have made in registrations. They have also, the group said, shared data and safety information to enable marketing and use of substances in European countries, including Britain.
The UK has made "major contributions" to building Echa’s "world-leading" database on chemicals, with British companies contributing nearly 6,000 registered substances, the letter said.
If the UK is outside of REACH after it withdraws from the EU, companies on both sides of the Channel would need to duplicate pre-existing registration duties for a UK-REACH.
"This would not only weaken the international competitiveness of both EU- and UK-based chemical companies but, more importantly, also risk divergence of health, safety and environmental levels of protection."
The "best solution", the group said, is to allow the UK "to remain within (and bound by) REACH and participating in Echa [...] as long as the UK accepts the conditions set by the EU-27".
This solution, they said, "makes sense irrespective of" the outcome of broader discussions on the UK’s position with regard to the EU single market. "A strong REACH is in everybody’s interest."Guidance
At the end of September, the British government published guidance on REACH in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal. Cefic and the CIA drafted their own advice to industry shortly after.
And last week, for the same scenario, the UK government issued technical notices on EU regulations concerning:classification, labelling and packaging (CLP);prior informed consent (Pic);persistent organic pollutants (POPs);controls on mercury; andbiocidal products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71079/cefic-cia-and-ngos-urge-post-brexit-regulatory-alignment
-
How DC Unleashed Fossil-Fuel Exports Despite Climate Worries
Oct 16, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's keynote speech at the World Gas Conference in June opened with a marching band and ended with an exhibition by the Harlem Globetrotters. It was a spectacle befitting the industry symposium. "We're sharing our energy bounty with the world," Perry gushed from a stage at the Washington Convention Center.
Long undervalued, natural gas was once burned off indiscriminately as an unwanted byproduct of oil drilling. But the fuel's fortunes have changed. Cooled to minus 162 degrees Celsius, natural gas condenses into a liquid marketed as a clean alternative to coal. In just three years, the U.S. has emerged as a top producer of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, selling shiploads of the commodity to countries such as China, which are seeking low-carbon energy sources to combat climate change.
Natural gas, it turns out, isn't so great for the climate, but that hasn't stopped America from sending its fossil fuels abroad. Since Donald Trump took office in 2017, exports of LNG and crude oil have surged, rivaling the likes of Saudi Arabia and Russia. To achieve what it calls "energy dominance," the Trump administration has taken its cues from an unlikely source: its predecessor.
When Perry hawked LNG and coal to India in April, he was advancing a dialogue the Department of Energy began under Barack Obama in 2014. Leaked administration plans for a "central institution" to promote "clean and advanced fossil fuels" abroad could combine several Obama-era initiatives.
ADVERTISEMENT
Compared to Trump, Obama is regarded as an environmental champion. But history paints a more complicated picture. As the young senator promised "change we can believe in" during the 2008 presidential campaign, change was also sweeping American oilfields. Advances in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — a way of recovering oil and gas from tight rock called shale — created a glut. Industry responded by pitching fossil-fuel exports as a "win-win" that would benefit consumers and enhance American power. Helping to deliver the message was a coalition of White House advisers: academics such as Columbia University's Jason Bordoff, energy gurus such as Daniel Yergin, and national-security experts such as John Deutch — all with links to firms profiting from the boom.
Leading the charge within government was then-Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist with longstanding ties to the oil and gas industry and an enthusiastic proponent of natural gas. Under his watch, the Energy Department moved swiftly to foster LNG exports in 2013 before shifting its focus to decades-old restrictions on the export of crude oil. Days after the Paris climate agreement was reached in 2015, Obama signed a budget bill to keep the federal government running; slipped inside was a provision allowing crude oil to be sold freely for the first time since 1975. The move was praised by an alliance of 16 companies, most of which are now capitalizing on an export-driven boom in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico.
You have 1 free articles remaining.Subscribe to The Times
What's good for corporate profits, however, may not be good for the planet. A growing body of research suggests natural gas isn't the climate panacea many promised it would be, with mounting concerns over its main component: methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 86 times more potent in the short term than carbon dioxide. In the race for energy supremacy, the U.S. has become not only the world's largest natural-gas producer but also a top exporter of oil — a fuel that remains among the most harmful for the climate and public health. As energy exports climb, so too does global consumption of fossil fuels, drawing billions in infrastructure investment that — some argue — tilts the world away from renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.
__
This story is part of a collaboration between the Center for Public Integrity, the Texas Tribune, The Associated Press and Newsy.
__
'ALL OF THE ABOVE'
As Obama's energy czar, Moniz spearheaded the administration's "all-of-the-above" policy, which endorsed drilling alongside renewable energy. When he became secretary in 2013, among his top priorities was fast-tracking approvals for natural-gas exports — as advocated by industry lobbying groups such as the American Petroleum Institute.
The Trump White House has taken the idea a step further. In August, the Energy Department announced it would automatically approve small-volume exports of LNG. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a booster of increased drilling on federal lands and offshore, has called America's energy supremacy a moral imperative.
Moniz, now in the private sector, has continued to follow an "all-of-the-above" approach. His Washington office houses his nonprofit think tank, Energy Futures Initiatives, and his for-profit firm, EJM Associates LLC. The two organizations were launched on the same day last year. EJM receives staff and administrative support from EFI. Both share an office with The Scowcroft Group, a consultancy founded by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft that specializes in emerging markets like China and whose clients include oil and gas companies.
Scowcroft and Moniz aren't just office mates. According to their websites, their for-profit firms are engaged in a three-way partnership with McLarty Associates, a trade consultancy located in the same building. A press release describes EJM as a strategic energy advisor for McLarty Associates clients.
Headed by Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty III, a Clinton White House official and former natural-gas executive, the firm has represented LNG investors Chevron and General Electric. McLarty's lobbying division has advocated for Shell on natural-gas matters and a company behind a pipeline with ties to the Kremlin. Brent Scowcroft and Mack McLarty sit on EFI's advisory board.
During a recent interview with the Center for Public Integrity and Newsy, Moniz balked at the suggestion that his ties to the fossil-fuel industry could pose a conflict of interest. He emphasized his climate credentials, saying, "I have been a champion of renewables for a long, long time."
Responding to follow-up questions, a spokesman wrote in a seven-page statement that Moniz "has no financial relationships with oil and gas producers," and that neither EFI nor EJM engages in "lobbying activities or foreign government representation." It also said, "EJM has had no discussions with McLarty on LNG export issues," but did not include a similar qualification for The Scowcroft Group. "To date, there are no joint projects with either (Scowcroft or McLarty)," the statement added.
Representatives of Scowcroft and McLarty declined to comment.
Moniz's oil-and-gas ties go back years. When named energy secretary, he terminated his work as a paid consultant for companies such as BP. At MIT, Moniz ran a think tank, largely funded by the oil and gas industry, which published one of the earliest and most influential reports on natural gas. First publicized in interim form in June 2010, it affirmed the fuel as a "bridge" to ease the country's transition from coal.
ADVERTISEMENT
The study's major sponsor was the American Clean Skies Foundation, a group created by Aubrey McClendon — then CEO of Chesapeake Energy — as part of a multimillion-dollar effort to market natural gas as a climate solution. Moniz and several co-authors aggressively promoted it.
In his statement, Moniz's spokesman said the study has "stood the test of time" and emphasized Moniz's support for an Obama-era rule that sought to rein in leaks of methane from oil and gas sites. That regulation has become the latest target of the Trump administration.
The MIT study was cited in a slew of other reports, including one from an Energy Department committee in 2011. Chairing the committee was John Deutch, a former CIA director and then-board member of Cheniere, a Houston-based company that later became the first to export LNG. Another member, author Daniel Yergin, went on to publish several studies in favor of LNG and crude-oil exports as vice chairman of IHS Markit, an industry consultancy. Yergin sat on the advisory board of Moniz's MIT think tank; Moniz was a private consultant for IHS Markit. Deutch did not respond to requests for comment, but a representative of Yergin's noted that IHS Markit is "solely responsible" for the contents of its studies, regardless of funding.
The studies helped buoy the idea of natural gas as an answer to the planet's climate woes, even though early research hinted that methane could derail that narrative. A 2018 study sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund — a green group that has partnered with the oil and gas industry to investigate leaks of the greenhouse gas — has only furthered doubts. The study found methane emissions were 60 percent higher than previously estimated. "If natural gas is a bridge fuel," said Ramón Alvarez, a co-author and associate chief scientist at EDF, "methane leaks is a major structural fault in the integrity of that bridge."
To meet the lofty targets outlined in the Paris agreement, it is widely accepted that countries must reach "zero emissions" by 2050, which means phasing out fossil fuels or developing technologies that make them climate-neutral. Environmentalists argue the expansive buildout of natural-gas infrastructure ensures the fuel's future for decades, jeopardizing the world's chances of avoiding catastrophic warming.
__
'LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD'
During a July press conference in England with British Prime Minister Theresa May, Trump struck an upbeat tone. "We've become an oil exporter, which would not have happened under the past regime or a new regime if it weren't us," he declared.
In fact, America did begin exporting large volumes of crude oil under Obama. He approved a last-minute budget deal to avert a government shutdown in 2015, which also removed restrictions on crude sales for the first time in 40 years. However, the country still imports more crude than it exports — a trend experts believe will continue.
ADVERTISEMENT
Congress had enacted the restrictions as a conservation measure in 1975 following the Arab Oil Embargo, which caused fuel shortages. Under the ban, companies had to refine crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline or secure special exemptions from the Commerce Department to sell the resource abroad.
As was the case with LNG, interest in crude exports soared when fracking took off. With oil production climbing steadily in 2012, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard was among the first to suggest the ban be thrown out. Shortly thereafter, crude-oil exports became a priority for the GOP as well as some Democrats in drilling states.
But they became an albatross for the Obama White House. Boosting crude oil — which doesn't have any of LNG's purported climate benefits — would put the administration at odds with its own climate agenda. So, in October 2015, the White House threatened to veto legislation lifting the ban, urging Congress to focus on "supporting our transition to a low-carbon economy."
Senators Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, responded by mustering congressional support for a provision in that year's budget bill allowing crude-oil exports. By December 2015, the measure was part of a $1.1 trillion spending plan — veto-proof legislation needed to keep the federal government running. In exchange for backing exports, Democrats got five-year extensions on tax credits for wind and solar.
"It didn't strike us as the best deal," said Ana Unruh Cohen, managing director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. Cohen was an aide to Senator Edward Markey, D-Mass., when interest in the ban spiked on Capitol Hill. Markey was the deal's most vocal opponent, calling it a "Trojan horse" for "pumping up Big Oil's profits."
Climate change was an afterthought in the debate over the ban, Cohen said. Both sides were fixated on how crude-oil exports would affect energy prices, not greenhouse-gas emissions. And Democrats mistakenly banked on emission-cutting policies such as the Clean Power Plan — one of several Obama-era regulations being tossed out by Trump — to drive investment in renewable energy.
Even though the Obama White House publicly discouraged efforts to undo the ban, it ultimately signed off on the deal. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program, called it a "pathetic compromise."
On January 4, 2016, ConocoPhillips — one of 16 companies that collaborated to overturn the ban — became the first to export American crude oil. This summer, the U.S. shattered records by exporting 3 million barrels of crude a day, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
In a written statement, Heitkamp said crude-oil exports have allowed the U.S. to "level the playing field in the global energy market." Obama representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
Moniz was among the first Obama administration officials to publicly question the ban, at an industry conference in December 2013. In the interview with the Center and Newsy, Moniz said his remarks reflected "proper policy," not energy-industry lobbying.
Barriers to exports already had been eroding behind the scenes. In September 2013, the Commerce Department issued a confidential ruling allowing Houston-based Peaker Energy to export condensate, a barely processed, ultralight oil hard to distinguish from crude. The agency granted approvals to two more companies in March 2014.The rulings — which didn't become public knowledge until months after they were issued — triggered speculation by an energy expert that Commerce was taking a "baby step" toward lifting the ban.
At the same time, a flurry of white papers promised crude-oil exports would not only lower energy prices but also give America an edge over energy titans such as Russia. One study from IHS Markit argued that reversing the ban would resolve a dilemma created by the fracking boom, which had flooded the market with a lighter type of crude that couldn't be easily processed by most U.S. refineries. Co-authored by Yergin, that report was funded by 20 oil and gas companies.
Industry was also marshaling forces to overturn the ban. Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, or PACE, debuted in October 2014 as a coalition of 16 companies dedicated to reversing the "outdated policy in a new era of U.S. energy abundance." At least 14 of these companies were active last year in the Permian Basin, where exports have taken drilling to new heights. The Permian boom is expected to accelerate, worsening air quality and driving up water use in a region prone to drought.
Some of the same PACE companies fund Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, a think tank founded in 2013 by former Obama energy and climate advisor Jason Bordoff, who has argued in favor of both LNG and crude-oil exports as a way to spur job growth and keep America competitive.
Of the 48 sponsors listed on the center's website, at least 29 have direct ties to the oil and gas industry. The center's board includes current and former executives from ConocoPhillips; Yergin; Chinese oil tycoon Fu Chengyu; and Charif Souki, co-founder of Cheniere and Tellurian. Only a handful of donors appear to be focused on climate change and renewable energy.
The center declined to make Bordoff available for an interview. A Columbia spokesman wrote that the center's work has focused on "how the reduction of fossil fuel use and the growth of clean energy sources are necessary to address the urgent challenge of climate change. The suggestion that some contributions from commercial entities or any other source have affected the independence of (the center's) policy analysis is false."
Bordoff has been a frequent critic of the Trump administration for its rollbacks of environmental regulations. But he's continued to advocate for LNG exports, aligning himself with free-market diehards like Perry.
Slocum, of Public Citizen, said Trump administration officials are merely capitalizing on choices made years earlier that breathed new life into "vested fossil-fuel interests."
"That's what folks in the Obama administration never really understood — that the decision they were making has implications for one or two generations," Slocum said. "That's the shortsightedness of this entire hysteria to promote exports."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/10/16/us/politics/ap-dc-blowout-dc-oil-deals.html
-
US Trade Balance of Fuel Shifts from Imports to Exports
Oct 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By L.M. Sixel
The trade gap for energy products in the United States has narrowed over the past decade as the nation has shifted from importing oil and other fuels to exporting fuels to other countries.
Between 2003 and 2007, the value of energy imports to the United States - fuels like oil, gasoline and diesel fuel - was about 10 times greater than the value of fuels the United States exported. But by 2017, imports were running only about 1.5 times higher than exports, according to the U.S. Department of Energy which got the data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Crude oil is the chief energy import into the United States, accounting for about two-thirds of the total. Other petroleum products including gasoline, diesel fuels and liquefied petroleum gas make up about 20 percent of total energy imports.
RELATED: For first time, crude exports exceed imports along Texas' Gulf Coast
The U.S. buys the most energy from Canada with last year's energy imports valued at $73 billion, followed by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Iraq, Columbia, and Russia. The seven countries made up 72 percent of all U.S. energy imports last year.
The single biggest U.S. export is petroleum products. Last year crude oil represented 16 percent of exports, coal accounted for 7 percent and natural gas represented 6 percent, the government reported.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/US-trade-balance-of-fuel-shifts-from-imports-to-13311172.php
-
In the LOOP: Crude Oil Export Cargoes from Louisiana to China Dry Up
Oct 16, 2018 | Platts
By Mary Hogan and Catherine Wood
September was the second month of halted US crude exports from Louisiana to China due to higher VLCC freight rates, a narrower Dubai/LOOP Sour spread and uncertainty over possible trade tariffs imposed by China on US crude.
In September, no cargoes departed Louisiana for China, according to cFlow, S&P Global Platts trade-flow software. Additionally, no cargoes left Louisiana for China in August, according to export data from S&P Global Platts Analytics and US Customs.
Rising VLCC freight rates from the US Gulf Coast to China may have contributed to the lack of cargoes flowing that way. Average VLCC rates for October to date reached $3.39/b, up from an average rate of $2.45/b in September and $2.37/b in August, according to Platts data. In contrast, VLCC freight rates from the USGC to Singapore have also increased in recent months, but have not hit the high levels of the China route. Average VLCC rates for October to date on the Singapore route reached $2.91/b, up from an average rate of $1.98/b in September and $1.89/b in August.
Freight rates for VLCCs carrying cargoes from the USGC and Caribbean have soared over the past two weeks on a combination of increased interest from Asian crude buyers and a very tight global VLCC market. Rates have climbed over 43%, or $1.9 million, for the USGC-Singapore route since September 27, the day before rates climbed $800,000 in one trading session.
A narrower Dubai/LOOP Sour spread has made exports to Asia in general less competitive in recent months. For October to date, Dubai’s premium to LOOP Sour fell to $2.29/b, a decrease of 21 cents/b month on month and a decline of $1.02/b from August.
In August, only one cargo bound for South Korea, one for Japan and two for India departed Louisiana, according to data from Platts Analytics and US Customs. September data from cFlow showed only one cargo headed to Asia. The Australian Spirit, bound for Ulsan, South Korea, departed Louisiana September 13, with delivery scheduled for October 28.
US crude oil exports have bounced back in recent weeks, after reaching a five-month low of 1.31 million b/d at the end of June, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration. Crude exports reached 2.576 million b/d for the week ended October 5, representing a week-on-week increase of 853,000 b/d.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/10/16/loop-china-export-louisiana/
-
Lifecycle Study Finds GHG Cuts From LNG Project, Warns Of Domestic Gas
Oct 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A new study of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed liquified natural gas (LNG) project to provide fuel for marine operations near Seattle finds that the effort would cut overall GHGs by displacing petroleum-based fuels, though the finding depends on the natural gas being sourced only from Canada.
If, instead, the gas were to come from the United States, it could result in emissions increases because the GHG profile of domestic gas is much higher than official EPA estimates and may be as much as five times higher than emissions from Canadian gas, the draft study says.
Potentially exacerbating the dynamic is that EPA and the Interior Department are rolling back or eliminating Obama-era requirements that oil and gas producers capture methane. However, this issue is not directly addressed in the Oct. 8 draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Puget Sound Energy (PSE) LNG facility in Tacoma, WA.
While the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency concludes that using LNG to operate heavy equipment associated with the project and at the Port of Tacoma results in moderately fewer GHGs emitted, it says a key assumption underlying the finding “is that the source of the gas that supplies the plant as identified by PSE as being exclusively sourced from British Columbia, Canada. The lifecycle analysis report indicates that GHG emission factors for natural gas production in the United States may be as much as five times higher than those for Canada.”
The draft report adds that research indicates “the actual realized fugitive emissions from natural gas production in the United States appear to be 60 percent higher than published fugitive emission factors,” citing a June peer-reviewed study published in Science that found methane leaks were about 2.3 percent of the sector's production in 2015, which is nearly double the 1.4 percent rate EPA estimated in its latest GHG inventory.
The local air agency says that differences in published emission factors in the two countries, combined with the new research, “could lead to an upstream natural gas operation emission rate that may be eight times higher than shown if the gas were not exclusively sourced from Canada. The net effect of these higher emission rates, if realized as part of the Proposed Action, would be an increase in GHG emissions through the lifecycle analysis rather than” a decrease.
The SEIS has attracted broader attention because it is likely the first project-specific review of the lifecycle GHG impacts of LNG after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy successfully rebuffed environmentalists' calls for a more rigorous climate review for a series of LNG export terminals. One important distinction is that those projects would have exported gas to other countries, while the Puget Sound project will use imported gas for on-site activities.
Sierra Club failed to convince an appellate court that a broad GHG review was required for a series of export projects along the Gulf Coast and in Maryland. After the latest court loss, the group vowed to continue its campaign against expanding LNG export terminals by focusing on local impacts.
The public comment period for Puget Sound study ends Nov. 21, and a public hearing is planned in Tacoma on Oct. 30. The air agency expects to complete the final EIS next year.
Emissions Estimates
The SEIS analyzes two scenarios for the LNG terminal, one that produces gas at a rate of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) and a second at 500,000 gpd.
The analysis then considers overall lifecycle GHGs, which includes direct emissions associated with LNG production as well as the upstream emissions associated with production and transport of the fuel, natural gas feedstock, natural gas fuel, diesel fuel, and electricity. This includes gas emissions due to recovery, processing and transport to the facility; diesel emissions due to crude oil recovery, transport to the refinery, refining and finished product transportation end use; and electricity emissions including recovery, processing and transport of each fuel type to power plants.
Direct emissions include “all fuel combustion emissions in addition to fugitive emissions at the plant” based on the scenario of the terminal operating 355 days per year.
The comparison to a “no action” alternative is based on the amount of marine diesel, on-road diesel and natural gas that is currently used and would be replaced by the LNG.
The Port of Tacoma is a major center for container cargo, bulk, auto and heavy lift cargo, the document says, adding that GHGs are emitted from on-road and non-road sources.
The analysis finds that building the LNG facility would result in roughly 63,000 tons of GHGs over 40 years. Once operating, the facility's lifecycle emissions -- including construction-generated emissions -- would be about 687,000 million tons per year (tpy) when producing 250,000 gpd of gas and nearly 1.4 million tpy at 500,000 gpd. The bulk of those emissions are tied to emissions from burning the gas for its end use.
However, the report finds that more GHGs would be emitted during continued port operations without the LNG project. The facility would produce 177.5 million gallons of LNG each year, replacing 89 million gallons of marine diesel oil, 8.8 million gallons of diesel fuel and the equivalent of 1.78 million gallons of LNG.
It finds that using those other fuels would produce roughly 727,000 additional tpy of GHGs, based on the 250,000 gpd scenario, and 1.44 million tpy under the 500,000 gpd option.
“When evaluating direct, upstream and end use GHG emissions, the Proposed Action would result in a reduction of GHG emissions compared to the No Action Alternative, under both 250,000 gpd and 500,000 gpd capacity scenarios. Generally, this is because replacing a diesel propulsion engine with a pure LNG propulsion engine results in reduced lifecycle GHG emissions,” the draft SEIS says. “The use of LNG produced by the Proposed Action, instead of the use of other fuels . . . is expected to result in an overall decrease in GHG emissions in the Puget Sound region.”
The report finds that a larger capacity at the LNG project would correspond with greater overall GHG reductions.
The SEIS says the end-use emissions are based on using the LNG for fuel or electricity demand “peak shaving operations,” which is similar to natural gas storage. The document compares the LNG fuel use to diesel and the peak shaving to gas storage, both on a well-to-tank basis.
The Puget Sound agency announced its plan to undertake the lifecycle GHG review in January, at the request of environmental groups. The utility PSE needs the document to obtain an air permit, and the SEIS replaces an earlier qualitative GHG analysis.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/lifecycle-study-finds-ghg-cuts-lng-project-warns-domestic-gas
-
Trump Plan to Ramp Up Fracking, Mining in National Forests Threatens Climate
Oct 16, 2018 | EcoWatch
The Trump administration's plan to make it easier for industry to frack and mine in national forests would endanger the climate, wildlife and watersheds, the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups said in comments submitted Monday to the U.S. Forest Service.
"The Forest Service shouldn't be complicit in the Trump administration's assault on America's public lands at the behest of fossil-fuel and mining companies," said Taylor McKinnon, a public-lands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. "More fracking and mining, with fewer safeguards, would be disastrous for national forests and watersheds. Instead of weakening protections, Trump should clean up the mess the mining industry has already left behind in our forests."
Analysis by Kara Clauser, Center for Biological Diversity, based on U.S. Interior Department data.
A Center for Biological Diversity analysis of federal oil and gas volume estimates shows that, outside of wilderness areas and national monuments, national forests contain 1.8 billion barrels of oil and 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would produce 2.4 billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution if fully developed—the equivalent of annual emissions from 601 coal-fired power plants.
The proposed Forest Service oil and gas rulemaking would align its procedures with controversial new Bureau of Land Management policies that have been temporarily halted by a federal court because they prevent public input. The Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations are calling on the agency to improve transparency and public involvement in decisions about drilling, fracking and mining in national forests. The groups also want the Service to fully account for the toll fossil-fuel extraction and mining would take on public health, public lands, wildlife and the climate.
"Pushing new fossil-fuel development in our national forests ignores the alarm bells that world climate scientists rang loudly last week," said McKinnon. "National forests and public lands are where we should stop fossil-fuel expansion first."
On mining, the Trump administration has sought to use policies like "critical minerals" to justify weakening protections, which would worsen mining pollution.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 40 percent of western watershed headwaters, most of which are in national forests, are already polluted with mining waste. The mining industry leads the nation in toxic releases from mines, which create permanent scars on the landscape.https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-fracking-mining-national-forests-2612772313.html
-
Are Voters Ready to Tax Pollution?
Oct 16, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Daniel Cohan
If states are “laboratories of democracy,” ballot initiatives in Washington and California next month will test whether voters are willing to tax pollution, and how the revenue should be spent. These experiments will provide crucial insights for shaping climate initiatives elsewhere.
In Washington state, Ballot Initiative 1631, also known as the Carbon Emissions Fee Measure or the Protect Washington Act, would impose a fee on the state’s largest industrial polluters. The fee would start at $15 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2020, and rise by $2 per year plus inflation thereafter.
ADVERTISEMENT
That’s nowhere near the more than $100 per ton that may be needed worldwide to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature targets. But it would demonstrate for the first time that American voters are willing to tax pollution, at least modestly in a relatively liberal state.
Economists have long argued that putting a price on pollution is the most efficient way to control it. Earlier this week, William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize in Economics for research connecting that approach to climate change.
But politicians and voters have been reluctant to accept economists’ advice. Nationally, the Republican-led House passed a resolution in July denouncing the mere idea of a carbon tax. In California next month, voters will decide whether to repeal hikes in gasoline and diesel taxes that their legislature passed last year. Earlier this year, Washington’s legislature failed to pass carbon tax legislation backed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee. No state has passed a carbon fee at the polls, including the one rejected by Washington voters in 2016.
The rematch in Washington this November provides an intriguing test case of voter preferences on carbon taxes. The new ballot initiative sets a lower price on carbon and exempts different sets of polluters than the initiative proposed in 2016. But the biggest difference lies in how the two plans would use the revenue.
Under the new initiative, Washington would use most of it to ease the transition to clean energy by funding public transit, energy efficiency, and wind and solar power. The rest would go toward protecting forests and clean water, and helping communities affected by climate change or the loss of coal jobs. The 2016 proposal would have instead cut sales taxes and taxes on manufacturers and provided rebates to low-income families.
Conservative economists, retired Republicans, and the bipartisan Citizens Climate Lobby have advocated nationwide carbon tax plans that would rebate revenue to taxpayers. They argue that “revenue neutrality” is essential to avoid growing the size of government and win durable bipartisan support.
CarbonWA followed that logic in crafting their 2016 initiative. But their proposal failed to attract enough fiscal conservatives while splittingenvironmentalists, many of whom resented the lack of funding for clean energy and vulnerable communities.
In the end, voters rejected it by an 18 point margin. As David Roberts has noted, the supposed “bipartisan appeal” of revenue-neutral approaches has repeatedly failed to materialize in Congress or at the ballot box.
Soon after the 2016 election, a poll found that nearly half of Washington’s “no” voters supported climate action but “want to wait for a better measure.” Nationally, a peer-reviewed study found that more Americans would prefer for carbon tax revenue to be used to fund clean energy or help displaced workers, rather than be rebated. That’s consistent with surveys that find overwhelming bipartisan support for solar and wind power. California leaders argue against rolling back a fuel tax hike that is improving roads and air quality. If Washington’s 2018 ballot initiative outperforms the 2016 one, it would suggest that voters really do prefer clean energy over rebates as surveys suggest.
While this year’s Washington initiative has attracted broader supportamong environmentalists, it has drawn more strident opposition from industry. Opponents led by the Western States Petroleum Association have raised more than $20 million. Most notably, $6 million of their funding comes from BP PLC, despite its claims to be “committed to a low carbon future.” BP helped found the Climate Leadership Council, which advocates a nationwide carbon tax and dividend. Another CLC founder, Royal Dutch Shell, is staying neutral this time.
The oil industry claims its opposition stems from “unfair” exemptions for aluminum smelters, paper mills, and a coal plant. They have not objected to the plan’s exemptions for marine and aviation fuels. Supporters counterthat the coal plant is slated to retire, and that exempting trade-oriented industries keeps them from moving their jobs and emissions to other states.
Whether environmentalists in 2016 or BP today, backers of theoretical carbon fees are impeding actual, reasonable proposals. At some point, cowboys will need to stop rejecting horses because they’d rather ride unicorns. No horse or climate plan is free of blemishes, but we’ll need to ride one of them on a shared path forward.
As a resident of the nation’s most polluting state, I’m in no position to tell Washingtonians how to design their carbon fee, or whether to enact one at all. It’s up to Californians to decide whether to keep fuel tax hikes that repair their roads while cutting pollution. But as an atmospheric scientist, I’m heartened to see states experimenting with what it will take to win public support for enacting and keeping practical climate solutions.
Daniel Cohan is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/411048-are-voters-ready-to-tax-pollution
-
'Midstream Constraints' Hindering Permian and Williston, Says North Dakota Regulator
Oct 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The two hottest oil and natural gas basins in the United States, the Permian and Williston, are both working through similar bottlenecks and constraints on their respective midstream infrastructure systems, according to North Dakota's leading oil and gas regulator.
"The Permian, of course, is the big dog in this fight," said Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms. "The Permian is starting to experience all of the things the Bakken has already experienced; their oil and gas export pipeline capacity is full, and their saltwater handling capacity is nearly full, so we've seen the rig count there pretty much go flat, or slightly declining."
While those comparisons mirror the situation in North Dakota, the Permian doesn't experience winter and weather-related shutting down of oil and gas activities the way Williston Basin operators do, Helms noted last week while reporting North Dakota's latest monthly production statistics.
"In the Permian, they will be able to build stuff during the five to seven months that we cannot, so it is easier to deal with the constraints when you're closer to the Gulf of Mexico and you don't have winter," he said.
These distinctions have potential financial impacts as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum alluded to at a recent petroleum conference, Helms said. He added that there is particular sensitivity to anything that would chase drilling, hydraulic fracturing or gas capture capital out of state.
"That's a metric that everything we talk about is going to be judged by," he said. "That question will be asked with every proposal we put out there." Helms added that he will make a recommendation on the state's gas capture program later this month for state Industrial Commission review.
North Dakota officials and oil and gas operators are bullish about the Bakken's future, and Helms noted that the upcoming revised U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the state in 2020 should increase the estimate of the area's long-term potential. Helms said state geological survey professionals are preparing data that can be used by the USGS researchers.
Industry estimates would indicate that the USGS is "going to have to greatly increase their potential estimates," Helms said, adding that the federal survey looks at undiscovered reserves in undrilled locations. "The number of undrilled locations goes down every year, but the productivity of those locations goes up."
Helms said Bakken wells are currently three times more productive than they were the last time the USGS did its survey in the state. "I think you can expect an overall net increase in reserves."
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116128-midstream-constraints-hindering-permian-and-williston-says-north-dakota-regulator
-
Firefighters Sue California Gas Company Over Massive Leak
Oct 16, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Firefighters who worked in and around the site of a massive natural gas leak sued the Southern California Gas Co. on Monday, saying the utility knowingly let them be exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals.
A blowout in a well at the underground Aliso Canyon storage field about 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of Los Angeles was discovered on Oct. 23, 2015, and took nearly four months to cap after spewing immense amounts of methane into the air. It was the largest known natural gas leak in United States history.
First responders said they went to the storage field and nearby communities without any protective gear because they were assured by Southern California Gas that there was no danger, according to the suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
In fact, the utility knew that the gas contained cancer-causing benzene and formaldehyde, according to the suit.
“Toxic gas rolled down hill into the residential communities in the northern San Fernando Valley” and both firefighters and residents breathed in “oily mist,” the suit claimed.
“The firefighters suffered from, and in some cases continue to suffer from, nosebleeds, migraine headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, sleeping difficulties, and breathing difficulties. Some now battle cancer,” the suit said.
The blowout sickened residents and led to the evacuation of 8,000 homes.
The suit against the gas company and its parent, Sempra Energy, alleges negligence, nuisance and fraud. It seeks unspecified damages.
“We have not been served with the complaint and have not yet had the opportunity to review it,” the gas company said in a statement.
In August, the utility reached a nearly $120 million settlement with state and local governments over the leak. It agreed to pay up to $25 million for a study of long-term health consequences; reimburse city, county and state governments for responding to the blowout; monitor chemicals in the air along the boundary of the facility for eight years; and not pass costs of the settlement along to ratepayers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighters-sue-california-gas-company-over-massive-leak/2018/10/15/4977a6f2-d0ea-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html?utm_term=.c692f387276e
-
Automation Guidance Wise to Include Railroads, But More Work Remains
Oct 16, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Ian Jefferies
The U.S. Department of Transportation recently issued new guidance for automation in the transportation sector, appropriately choosing a light-touch set of voluntary standards that will facilitate innovation to the benefit of consumers, workers and safety.
From direction to deploy driverless automobiles on highways in the next 15-20 years, to fostering an environment for trucks to incorporate artificial intelligence into their operations, DOT’s work is “good government” in action, maintaining thorough oversight without installing a system in which private actors can only challenge norms when federal regulators approve. ADVERTISEMENT
Importantly, the agency also included information and direction regarding railroads in the U.S., a critical yet often overlooked part of the automation discussion. This includes a section addressing a major issue: the need for autonomous vehicles to recognize rail tracks and grade crossings to prevent cars from being hit by trains – an all-too-common occurrence across America.
In 2017 alone, 274 people were killed at highway-rail grade crossings. While railroads continuously work to reduce these incidents, which have decreased annually in recent decades, the numbers remain too high.
The recognition that technologies across multiple transportation modes must interact is an encouraging sign that federal policymakers can keep pace with industry.
But the onus is now on automobile manufacturers and technology companies to heed Secretary Chao’s advice to ensure that semi and fully autonomous vehicles incorporate technology to force cars to stop at grade crossings and prevent them from parking on train tracks.
Department of Transportation data have shown that 94 percent of grade crossing accidents are because of risky behavior – clearly demonstrating the criticality of addressing this challenge.
A freight train cannot stop easily, and these cars will already require technology to account for highway crossings and existing traffic signals, such as stop signs and traffic lights. This performance standard, which U.S. DOT is now advocating for, simply reinforces current standards that automobiles, trucks and busses must come to a stop when crossing train tracks.
To further improve safety beyond just grade crossings, the private freight rail industry hopes to expand its place in the automation discussion. Doing so could help federal policy keep pace with innovation within the sector and ensure that railroads are on equal footing with their transportation peers, like commercial trucking.
Unbeknownst to many, freight railroads – which operate across a 140,000-mile, privately financed network responsible for moving virtually every sector of the economy – use myriad technologies that improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of incident prevention and mitigation.
The most recent government data show that the industry is amid the safest years on record, including a 41 percent reduction in accidents since 2000. Observers rightly credit investment – averaging $25 billion in recent years – for this success, much of which has gone towards technological solutions such as Positive Train Control (PTC), wayside detectors along track to assess equipment in real time and ground-penetrating radar that similarly allows railroads to evaluate infrastructure conditions.
By the end of 2018 alone, the industry will have PTC – which will automatically stop a train before certain accidents caused by human error can occur – in operation across 80 percent of the miles required to feature the system.
Modernizing the approach at the Federal Railroad Administration to regulate in a way to achieve desirable outcomes, not mandating narrow prescriptions, will generate further gains. The current paradigm, which sometimes fails to define the problem at hand, increases compliance costs and chills innovation.
Ideal policymaking would center on demonstrated outcomes – such as improving safety in a specific area – and be rooted in complete and sound science.
To be able to compete for freight business, namely in traffic that can also be moved via trucks, the ability for railroads to innovate must be seen on equal ground as highway players. Railroads enjoy fixed right of ways, often sealed from other traffic, making it an ideal destination for the type of advancement envisioned by the U.S. DOT in its newest guidance.
The public should be thankful for clear leadership from the U.S. DOT and hope for even more progress in the future.
Ian Jefferies is Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at the Association of American Railroads.
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/411430-automation-guidance-wise-to-include-railroads-but-more-work-remains
-
Standards Too Weak — Evidence in Draft EPA Report
Oct 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA issued a new draft report acknowledging evidence that its current standards for airborne fine particulates are not tight enough to adequately protect public health.
A "causal relationship" exists between short-term exposure to fine particulates and the risk of premature death, according to the draft report, formally known as an integrated science assessment.
EPA's current annual standard, set in 2012, is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. But the report notes that U.S. studies "indicate a linear relationship at levels as low as" 5 micrograms per cubic meter. Particularly vulnerable are children, based on "strong evidence of impaired lung function growth," and minorities, the draft adds.
Spanning almost 1,900 pages, the draft appears to have been posted online yesterday, but EPA press aides did not reply to an emailed request for confirmation. Its release marks a milestone in EPA's latest review of the national air quality standards for particulate matter, which are associated with an array of heart and lung ailments. While the draft stops short of making policy recommendations, it in effect offers a roundup of the scientific research to be considered in the review.
That review, required under the Clean Air Act, was launched with a workshop in 2015 and was originally supposed to conclude in 2021. But it has already fallen well behind that schedule; the draft report, for example, was originally scheduled for release in spring of last year.
In addition, EPA officials and an outside review panel known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee are now proceeding under new ground rules put in place in May by Scott Pruitt, then the agency's administrator. Those rules call for the review's completion late 2020; they also require the committee, usually known by its acronym as CASAC, to examine potential "adverse" economic and energy effects that could result from changes to the standards (Greenwire, May 10).
Environmental and public health groups say that requirement could undercut effects to strengthen air pollution limits. They also reacted with alarm last week when acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler fired what was in effect a CASAC subcommittee intended to add more scientific expertise to the review of the particulate matter standards.
An EPA spokesman has said that Wheeler's decision was consistent with the Clean Air Act and CASAC's charter. Wheeler last week also named five new members to the committee, the bulk of them from state and local regulatory agencies as opposed to the scientific research community.
The committee has tentatively scheduled a meeting for Dec. 12-13 in Washington, D.C., to consider the draft report, Chairman Tony Cox said in an email this morning.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to review the standards for particulate matter, ozone and four other common pollutants every five years, although the agency has hitherto rarely met that deadline.
The last review of the particulate matter thresholds wrapped up in 2012. At that time, EPA decided to cut the annual standard for fine particulates from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 12 but left the 24-hour standard unchanged at 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
In the latest review, "any recommendations and advice for revisions will be developed through this and other meetings and discussions," Cox, a Denver-based consultant, said in the email, "and no decisions on them have yet been made."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/16/stories/1060102671
-
Wyoming Urged to Shield Oil and Gas Air Controls from EPA Rollback
Oct 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmental groups are urging Wyoming regulators to clarify a pending proposal to control oil and gas emissions to ensure that their plan to require leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections every six months from new and modified facilities is not undermined by EPA's proposed rollback of federal limits on methane.
The issue is an example of how EPA's rollback of its 2016 new source performance standards (NSPS) is spurring renewed attention to state programs and where they could be called upon to fill gaps in federal rules.
“There is language [in the state proposal] that could be misconstrued,” Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Jon Goldstein tells InsideEPA/climate, referencing a pending revision by the state of guidance laying out presumptive best available control technology requirements for new and modified oil and gas facilities.
Goldstein cites a provision in the proposal that cross references the current NSPS' requirement for fugitive emissions control, which now requires LDAR inspections every six months. If finalized, EPA's rollback proposal would not require such inspections more than annually.
Goldstein, however, expresses confidence that state officials intend to fix the language in the upcoming final guidance, to make clear that the state will stick with the semi-annual requirement. A final document is expected sometime next month.
EDF and Wyoming Outdoor Council have already flagged the issue in Sept. 10 comments to Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality.
The groups generally commended Wyoming's proposed changes, which represent an effort to shore up LDAR protections statewide beyond a current quarterly inspection requirement that applies in the western part of the state.
But they urged tweaks to improve the “clarity and certainty” of the state plan, including explicitly stating the six month inspection requirement applies whatever happens with the federal rules.
Wyoming's pending action -- as well as the environmental groups' request -- offers an example of a state moving forward to strengthen elements of its oil and gas rules even as EPA's proposed NSPS rollback creates renewed scrutiny of state programs.
It also appears to offer an example of how state requirements that at first glance would bar programs stronger than federal rules do not necessarily preclude strong oil and gas curbs.
Wyoming, for example, has a statutory requirement barring greenhouse gas emissions rules more stringent than federal requirements -- and methane is a potent GHG gas.
But Goldstein notes that this does not derail Wyoming's effort to strengthen its inspection requirements because the state's rules are based on targeting emissions like volatile organic compounds -- not GHGs -- even though the control strategies are similar.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wyoming-urged-shield-oil-and-gas-air-controls-epa-rollback
-
Fixing the Climate Requires More Than Technology
Oct 16, 2018 | The New York Times
By Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway
Last week’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was bad news from top to bottom. Dangerous planetary warming is underway, it’s happening faster than scientists predicted, and time is running out to stop it.
The problem seems so intractable, the challenges of addressing it so monumental, as to defy solving. But the history of technology offers reasons for optimism. Major technological transformations can occur over 10 to 30 years. That’s why the time lost since 1992, when governments first signed a landmark climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is so distressing. If we had set to work then, as President George H.W. Bush promised to do by taking “concrete steps” to protect ourselves from disruptive climate change, we could have transformed our energy systems by now and significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
We can still do this. According to the new report, emissions from fossil fuels must be phased out by 2050, so there is still time to get this job done. But here’s the catch: None of the major technological transformations of the 19th and 20th centuries were the product of the private sector acting alone and responding only to the market. Railroads, radio, telegraph, telephone, electricity and the internet were all the result of public-private partnerships. None was delivered by the “invisible hand” of the marketplace. All involved significant interventions by the visible hand of government.
What does this mean for us? Right now, government is widely seen as inefficient and ineffective, and our needs are thought to be best addressed by the private sector, through entrepreneurship, venture capital and Silicon Valley-style “disruption.” But unless we acknowledge the need for a substantial government role, we are going to be stuck, because change driven solely by the marketplace is unlikely to suffice.
ADVERTISEMENT
Some might object that our current challenge is vastly different from those met by past technological changes, because we’re not just talking about a thing, like a radio or cellphone, but about changing our entire energy system. But these earlier transformations involved systems, too. Just as energy technology isn’t one thing, neither were the railroads, radio, electricity or the internet. Those systems all involved many parts, including federal, state and local policies to support them (the land grants that made the railroads possible, for instance, or role of the Federal Trade Commission in licensing radio and television stations).
What makes large-scale technological change challenging is the integration of all of those parts. Electricity wasn’t just a matter of turbines, or even turbines, power lines and transformers. Financing and regulation were also required. After electricity was introduced to the urban marketplace, the biggest obstacle to its expanded use was profitability. The private sector was able to make money bringing electricity to densely populated cities like New York, St. Louis and Chicago, but it took federal intervention, under the 1936 Rural Electrification Act, to bring it to rural communities across America.
And even then, uptake was not immediate. Rural electrification boosters insisted that hard-working farmers urgently needed electricity, but initial demand was less than expected. The Tennessee Valley Authority wanted to cut rates to drive up demand. But private utilities opposed this, worrying that low rates would threaten their financing, and the T.V.A. settled on an appliance subsidy to drive increased household consumption. Demand had to be built.
The internet was created by scientists funded by the federal government’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. Al Gore didn’t build it, but he did sponsor the 1991 legislation that made it public, which laid the foundation for the World Wide Web, Silicon Valley, smartphones and our information-driven society.
We might also imagine that earlier technologies were easier to develop because they offered immediate benefits for consumers and quick profits for business. It certainly looks that way in hindsight, because those benefits are now thoroughly integrated into our lives. But it’s not so. The historian Richard White at Stanford has shown that railroads offered almost no immediate benefit to anyone except the railroad barons, because they were built far ahead of demand, and often into places where white settlers had no interest in going. When radio was first invented, no one could figure out why any ordinary person would buy one, so programming had to be invented, which meant sponsors had to be found, which in turn contributed to the rise of modern mass media advertising.EDITORS’ PICKSA Tragedy in the Tattoo ParlorWhat I Learned from Watching My iPad’s Slow DeathThe Nazi Downstairs: A Jewish Woman’s Tale of Hiding in Her Home
ADVERTISEMENT
Demand for new technologies is rarely entirely spontaneous. If people have been living without something, it’s not always obvious to them why they now need it. They are likely to resist being told that they must spend money or endure inconvenience to change. In most cases, demand has to be developed and nurtured. A case for change has to be made, supported by public policy. The fact that many of these technological revolutions took hold in a generation’s time is partly because young people were quicker to adopt these new technologies than their elders.
But government support was essential for their success. Proof of this can be found in states that have implemented policies to stimulate the development of renewable-energy technologies and drive down greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, the nine states in the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a market-based effort to reduce power plant emissions, have cut them by a whopping 39 percent since 2009. (One of us installed solar power in our home under this plan.) In California, renewable electricity has increased to about 30 percent from about 11 percent since a law was passed in 2006requiring nearly all sectors of the economy to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
These state initiatives are important steps, but they are not enough. In the northeast, some of the emissions gains have been offset by importing power from states outside the compact and will be further undermined if the federal government approves new coal mining on public lands. And the White House is still in denial about the reality of climate change, as is a large part of Congress. Without policies to phase out fossil fuels, the increase in renewable-energy technologies might merely serve to increase our total energy supply without eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. Coal use in the United States has been decreasing, but under current policies that could easily change.
Some think that if we focus on technology, we can somehow avoid the messiness of politics and partisanship. But we won’t get the energy technologies we need and the systems to make them work in the time we need them if we don’t have the government policies to make them a reality.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway are Guggenheim fellows and are working on their new book, “The Magic of the Marketplace: The True History of a False Idea,” to be published in 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/climate-change-warming-technology.html
-
The Most Powerful Force for Fighting Climate Change – Now
Oct 16, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal (In Environmental Defense Fund)
By Fred Krupp
This was first published by the Wall Street Journal.
Last week gave the world a ghastly climate show-and-tell.
First came the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirming that our climate is already changing rapidly and telling us we have a dozen years to act if we are to manage the risk of ecological and economic devastation. Then Hurricane Michael came ashore in Florida after growing from Category 2 to Category 4 in less than 24 hours – showing one reason scientists are so concerned.
Because of the problem’s severity, some say we need a command-and-control solution, with governments telling companies how to retool. Climate change is an urgent problem, but that’s not the right approach. The world instead should harness the marketplace – the most powerful force available.
Here are three policies that would help.
Slow deforestation and restore damaged forests. Properly managed woodlands help avoid emissions by not burning the trees and also draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Forests could deliver a quarter or more of the carbon emissions reductions needed by 2030 – but only if rain forests are more valuable alive than dead.
California is considering a proposal to create incentives that enable this while setting the global standard for social and environmental safeguards. My organization, Environmental Defense Fund, is also working with landowners on strategies that allow them to contribute to the solution and profit from it.
Cut short-term climate pollutants such as methane. These gases stay in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide but trap far more heat while there. Methane, the chief component of natural gas, is responsible for a quarter of all current warming.
The largest industrial source of methane pollution is the global oil-and-gas industry, so EDF is launching a satellite to measure and map these emissions world-wide. Our goal is a 45 percent reduction in methane pollution from oil and gas by 2025.Sign up for my biweekly Innovation newsletter
This would deliver the same climate benefit over the next 20 years as closing about one-third of the world’s coal-fired power plants.
Stop letting companies pollute for free. In most of the world, there is no economic incentive for corporations to reduce pollution. But if they had to pay every time they put a ton of emissions into the atmosphere, they’d find creative ways to reduce pollution
By itself, a tax on pollution doesn’t guarantee reductions, so any carbon pricing policy must include enforceable limits to ensure emissions are cut as much as the science demands. As the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus makes clear, pricing carbon is a much cheaper way of hitting climate goals than command-and-control regulations.
Scientists, investors and philanthropists also are exploring ways to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. It’s a challenge, but a system that pays a bounty for carbon soaked out of the sky would spur a race to develop and commercialize this promising concept.
Some people would get rich, and that’s OK. If videogames and iPhone apps can create wealth, so can saving the world.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/10/16/most-powerful-force-fighting-climate-change-now
-
U.S. Government, but Not Trump, Can Be Sued Over Climate: Judge
Oct 16, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Tina Bellon
A group of young Americans suing the federal government over lack of action to fight climate change can proceed with their lawsuit, but U.S. President Donald Trump cannot be named as a defendant, a federal judge ruled on Monday.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, came before the case is scheduled to go to trial in federal court on Oct. 29.
Twenty-one children and young adults, who were between 8 and 19 years of age when the lawsuit was filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, accused federal officials and oil industry executives of violating their due process rights by knowing for decades that carbon pollution poisons the environment, but doing nothing about it.
Aiken said the case revealed a delicate balance of power between the judicial and other government agencies. The judge said those concerns were not enough to warrant a dismissal of the entire case, but she concluded that the inclusion of Trump as the sitting U.S. president violated the proper separation of powers.
ADVERTISEMENT
The original lawsuit had named President Barack Obama as a defendant. After Trump took office, the lawsuit was amended to instead name Trump as a defendant.
The lawsuit still includes the heads of other U.S. agencies. The names of the heads of those agencies were also amended with the change to the Trump administration.
This is your last free article.Subscribe to The Times
The potentially far-reaching case is one of a handful seeking to have courts address global warming and its causes.
The U.S. Justice Department said it was reviewing Monday's decision and in a statement called the lawsuit an unconstitutional attempt to control the entire country's climate and energy policy through a single court.
A spokeswoman for the plaintiffs did not return a request for comment on Monday's decision.
The federal government in a court filing on Friday asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the case while it is seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that extreme weather events, such as flooding, caused them emotional trauma and damage to their health, safety, cultural practices, food security and economic stability.
The government argued those injuries are widespread environmental phenomena affecting all other people on the planet and said the issue did not belong in court.
The federal defendants also contended that letting the case proceed would be too burdensome, would unconstitutionally pit the courts against the executive branch, and would require improper "agency decision-making" by forcing officials to answer questions about climate change.
Aiken in her Monday decision rejected those arguments, saying the plaintiffs had offered extensive expert declarations to link their injuries to fossil fuel-induced climate change.
She also said there was sufficient evidence that government actions, such as coal leasing, oil development and fossil fuel industry subsidies, led to the children's injuries.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/10/16/us/politics/16reuters-usa-climatechange-lawsuit.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested