Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Facing Economic Slowing
Mar 27, 2015 | NASDAQ
By Steven Hansen
Here we are in THE Great Bull Market (although it is becoming a rough ride recently) which has for months been oblivious to an obvious slowing of the USA economy. The purported forward looking markets have divorced themselves from economic reality. -
Manufacturing Group Taps Tesoro CEO to Serve as Chairman
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King
Tesoro Corp. Chairman, President and CEO Gregory Goff has been selected to lead the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers board. -
(ACC Mentioned) A Bipartisan Push on Toxic Chemicals Makes Some Democrats Fume
Mar 27, 2015 | Bloomberg - Business
By Paul Barrett
For a snapshot of the strangeness of Washington, circa 2015, consider the recently introduced Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. -
Petition to Reject Udall-Vitter Chemical Bill Has 80,000 Signatures
Mar 27, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch
By Lydia Wheeler
An online petition asking Senate Democrats to reject a bipartisan bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws has gained 81,026 signatures. -
Men Exposed to Endocrine Disrupters at Work Show Cancer Risk -- Study
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Men who are exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals at work for at least 30 years have a higher risk of lymphatic cancer, according to a long-term study by European researchers. -
OVERNIGHT CYBERSECURITY: House Intel Approves Cyber Bill
Mar 26, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett and Elise Viebeck
The House Intelligence Committee unanimously approved its cyber threat data-sharing bill during a Thursday morning markup. -
Chairman of 'Grossly Mismanaged' Chemical Safety Board Resigns
Mar 27, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity
By Jim Morris
Felled by charges of mismanagement, the chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board has resigned. -
(ACC Mentioned) Oil Price Crash 'Welcome News' for Manufacturers Dependent on Feedstocks
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The U.S. petrochemical sector is weathering the oil price crash nicely, as it stands to benefit from both cheaper oil and natural gas in the long run. -
Shaheen, Portman Finally Get Efficiency Bill Through Almost-Empty Senate
Mar 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
After years of frustration that came to typify Congress’ paralysis on energy policy, the Senate finally passed a bipartisan energy efficiency bill before dawn Friday — and all it took was a dash to the floor after lawmakers had been exhausted by their overnight budget “vote-a-rama.” -
While You Were Sleeping -- Portman, Shaheen Sneak Efficiency Bill Through Senate
Mar 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
In a surprise win for Sens. Rob Portman and Jeanne Shaheen, the pair passed the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, S. 535 — a “mini” version of the efficiency bill they’ve been trying to get through the Senate for nearly four years. -
Senate Passes Water Heaters, Buildings Bill
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
The Senate this morning passed a minor energy efficiency bill aimed at protecting rural energy-savings programs and encouraging tenants and landlords to work together to reduce their energy use. -
E&E Daily's Juliano Recaps Key 'Vote-a-Rama' Amendments
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - TV
What does last night's marathon session of amendment votes on the Senate's annual budget resolution foreshadow about the future of energy and environment policy coming out of the upper chamber this year? -
Ohio Regulators Tell Lawmakers to Butt Out on EPA's Clean Power Plan
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Despite Ohio's antipathy toward U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power plan, under no circumstances do state regulators want the General Assembly to pass any law that would interfere with eventual compliance. -
Wis. Wades Into Clean Power Plan Legal Fight
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Wisconsin has asked to join 13 states supporting coal company Murray Energy Corp.'s court challenge to block U.S. EPA from finalizing a rule to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. -
EPA Finds Almost 700 Chemicals Used in Fracking
Mar 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A years-long Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis found that almost 700 chemical additives are used in hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. -
Federal Fracking Rule Pelted with Lawsuits; More on the Way
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
An anticipated cascade of litigation targeting the Obama administration's new drilling rule gained speed yesterday as a Wyoming lawsuit became the second legal challenge on court dockets so far. -
Wyoming Sues to Stop Federal Fracking Rule
Mar 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Wyoming’s attorney general is going to court to challenge the federal Interior Department’s right to regulate hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. -
GOP Lawmakers Shut Down Debate on Oil Train Safety Bill
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Republican state lawmakers in Minnesota yesterday blocked an attempt to debate an oil train safety bill.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Facing Economic Slowing
Mar 27, 2015 | NASDAQ
By Steven Hansen
Here we are in THE Great Bull Market (although it is becoming a rough ride recently) which has for months been oblivious to an obvious slowing of the USA economy. The purported forward looking markets have divorced themselves from economic reality.
I realize many ignore (or literally despise) ECRI and their Weekly Leading Index which has been forecasting a slowing economy for almost a half year - yet, the slowing economy has arrived. As ECRI's index is advertised to have a six month view, its continued weakness does not bode well for the rest of 2015. Even the Fed, who historically have been insensitive to economic change, has noticed - here is a quote from their latest meeting statement:
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in January suggests that economic growth has moderated somewhat.
There is no question that weather and the labor issues at the West Coast Ports have been headwinds to the economy over the last few months. It is hard for many to imagine how the port labor issues could slow an economy - but a domino effect has rippled through the economy. There is almost NO product or service anywhere in the world where 100% of the elements necessary for performance were completely from that country. The world is becoming increasingly globalized & interdependent, and constraints to trade will negatively correlate to economic activity.
What proportion of this current economic slowdown is transient (caused by the weather or labor issues) or from a boom / bust economic cycle? Much of the data used in coincident indicators are subject to backward revision - and by the time the coincident indicator is based on final data - a half year has passed.
Even forward looking indicators such as the Leading Economic Index from the Conference Board is based 40% on data subject to backward revision. Further, many elements of this index are not from real time data releases - so turning points or rate of change may not be evident for months.
In any event, the Conference Board Leading Economic Index and the American Chemistry Council Chemical Activity Barometer leading index join ECRI in predicting slower growth for the next 6 months or more.
What I am currently watching is rail counts which look ugly. Rail is a real time reflection of economic activity. Rail is reported in two major categories - carloads and intermodal (trailers or containers on railcars). Intermodal has been heavily affected by the West Coast Ports - and over the last few weeks has returned to the growth ranges seen before the West Coast issues. But carloads (chemicals, coal, oil, motor vehicles, grain, farm products, etc.) are struggling. Even removing coal and grains from the analysis shows a CONTRACTION. Here again, the problem is that weather does affect rail car loadings, and the port issues cascades throughout the supply chain (so it affects much more than the initial intermodal movements from the ports).
[click on image to enlarge]
I believe the clues are too abundant to poo-poo that the USA has entered an economic soft spot. Many long view economic sectors we watch remain in positive territory - so there is no evidence that the USA is headed towards a recessionary cycle. But one always worries that economies are ripe for an economic shock when there is economic softness.
Other Economic News this Week:
The Econintersect Economic Index for March 2015 continues to show a growing economy, but the rate of growth is decelerating. All tracked sectors of the economy are expanding - but most sectors are showing some slowing in their rate of growth. The negative effects of the recently solved West Coast Port slowdown (a labor dispute which had been going on for months) can be seen be seen in much of the raw data - and it will be an economic drag on 1Q2015 GDP. Although beyond our forecast view, we expect a slight economic bounce in the coming months as a trillion dollars annually of cargo begins to traverse the West Coast Ports again in a normal flow.
The ECRI WLI growth index remains slightly in negative territory which implies the economy will have little growth 6 months from today.Current ECRI WLI Growth Index
The market was expecting the weekly initial unemployment claims at 282,000 to 300,000 (consensus 293,000) vs the 282,000 reported. The more important (because of the volatility in the weekly reported claims and seasonality errors in adjusting the data) 4 week moving average moved from 304,750 (reported last week as 304,750) to 297,000. The rolling averages have been equal to or under 300,000 for most of the last 6 months.
-
Manufacturing Group Taps Tesoro CEO to Serve as Chairman
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King
Tesoro Corp. Chairman, President and CEO Gregory Goff has been selected to lead the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers board.
Goff was formerly vice chairman of the trade group's executive committee, which governs the association when the board is not in session. In his new role, which carries a two-year term, Goff replaces outgoing AFPM Chairman David Lamp, president and CEO of Northern Tier Energy GP LLC.
"Greg's extensive experience in the energy industry well positions him to lead AFPM during a time of political transition in Washington, D.C.," Lamp said in a statement yesterday. "During his tenure on the AFPM executive committee, Greg has helped redefine the association and its role in educating policymakers on the issues that impact our industry."
Goff has served as Tesoro's president and CEO since May 2010. Prior to joining the San Antonio refiner, Goff held leadership positions for ConocoPhillips Co. He is a graduate of the University of Utah.
"I look forward to continuing to work with the AFPM to ensure that consumers maintain access to the fuels and products that they rely upon while assisting the industry to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment," Goff said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Bipartisan Push on Toxic Chemicals Makes Some Democrats Fume
Mar 27, 2015 | Bloomberg - Business
By Paul Barrett
For a snapshot of the strangeness of Washington, circa 2015, consider the recently introduced Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Named for the late Democratic senator from New Jersey, the bill would reform the nation’s 40-year-old chemical-safety law. A bipartisan consensus favoring the measure seems to be forming in the Senate. Hurray for Congress getting something done!
Not so fast. An unlikely fracas among Democrats threatens to arrest progress in a classic case of ambition for the perfect undermining achievement of the good.
The old law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, has an egregious loophole allowing thousands of untested chemicals, including some known health hazards, to remain in widely marketed products. If the Environmental Protection Agency seeks to test a chemical, it has to jump through an array of hoops seemingly designed to discourage the most nimble of bureaucrats.
For more than a decade, until his death in June 2013 at the age of 89, Lautenberg of New Jersey, home of numerous chemical plants, labored on reform bills to give the EPA additional authority. Republican and industry opposition doomed his efforts. Inheriting the cause, Senator Tom Udall (D.-N.M.) went to work on improvements that might pass.
Over time, industry intransigence softened, as California and other states stepped into the federal vacuum and sought to regulate hazards at the state level. Reversing their usual attachment to “states’ rights,” Republicans embraced a developing industry desire for uniform federal rules that would preempt a patchwork of state prohibitions. The trade-off: a strengthened EPA in exchange for coast-to-coast consistency. Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, an industry advocate, worked out a series of compromises with Udall, leading to the introduction on March 10 of the bill honoring Lautenberg’s legacy.
Then came the backlash on the left. Certain environmental advocates took to social media to allege that the Udall-Vitter bill represented a sell-out to the chemicals industry. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) lent credibility to the sniping by declaring that digital forensics traced its authorship to the American Chemical Council, a powerful trade group. “It was clear from the computer coding that the final draft originated at the American Chemical Council itself,” she told The Hill newspaper on March 17. “Maybe I’m old fashioned,” she added, “but I do not believe that a regulated industry should be so intimately involved in writing a bill that regulates them.”
Udall’s office immediately denied that he had taken dictation from lobbyists. The Environmental Defense Fund, a New York-based nonprofit, backed Udall, explaining that he had scrupulously sought the views of both industry and green advocates. All the computer coding showed was that someone at the American Chemical Council saved a draft of the legislation and sent it back to Udall’s staff with comments, according to EDF, which supports the legislation as acceptable, if imperfect.
“The gotcha story of industry ‘writing’ the bill was irresistible to some,” observes EDF spokesman Keith Gaby. “People see it on Twitter and it threatens to become accepted as the truth, even though everyone in Washington knows it is flat wrong.”
“What’s been stunning,” Gaby adds, “is that everyone watched for over a year as many groups on all sides have given input into the bill, and it moved strongly toward the environmental position.”
On March 18, Boxer testified against the Udall-Vitter proposal during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, calling it “worse than current law.” She warned that the bill would inhibit aggressive regulation by individual states. Urging a tougher alternative she has co-authored with Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Boxer said of the Udall-Vitter measure: “I have never seen such an unprecedented level of opposition to any bill.”
Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, likewise decried the Udall-Vitter proposal as having “originated in the chemical industry." The "motivation behind this bill," he added, "is not to protect American workers and families from the thousands of chemicals those companies make, and which scientists find in all of us.”
Setting aside the hyperbole, here are some of the things the bill would do, according to Richard Denison, EDF’s lead senior scientist: mandate EPA safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce, require a safety finding for new chemicals before they can be sold, replace the existing law’s “burdensome cost-benefit safety standard—which prevented EPA from banning asbestos—with a pure, health-based safety standard,” and mandate protection of vulnerable populations such as infants and pregnant women.
So far, the Udall-Vitter reform package has 20 cosponsors, divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The early backing virtually assures that the measure will make it out of committee and to the Republican-controlled Senate floor. It faces higher hurdles in the more heavily Tea Party-influenced House, where Republican firebrands resist any legislation that President Barack Obama might conceivably sign. But before it encounters the right-wing gauntlet in the House, the bill has to get past liberals who favor their version of the ideal over what may be feasible.
-
Petition to Reject Udall-Vitter Chemical Bill Has 80,000 Signatures
Mar 27, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch
By Lydia Wheeler
An online petition asking Senate Democrats to reject a bipartisan bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws has gained 81,026 signatures.
Credo Action, which refers to itself as a social change organization, posted the petition on its website to stop the Senate from passing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) earlier this month.
The group is calling the proposed legislation, which aims to give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the nation’s most dangerous chemicals, “a sham chemical safety bill.”
“The Udall-Vitter chemical safety bill is a giveaway to the chemical industry that would stop states from protecting their residents from toxic chemicals,” the petition says. “Reject this dangerous, industry-sellout bill.”
Democrats, led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), have long sought reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, though the effort has repeatedly stalled in previous years.
The Udall-Vitter bill, named after Lautenberg, would force the Environmental Protection Agency to base chemical safety decisions solely on considerations of risk to public health and the environment, and eliminates TSCA's "least burdensome" requirement for regulating a chemical, which prevented the EPA from banning asbestos.
Opponents of the bill, however, say it would stop states from being able to issue their own protects and fails to address asbestos, the known carcinogen the EPA has unable to ban.
Displeased with the Udall-Vitter bill, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced their own legislation, The Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, which would require the EPA to act quickly to consider a ban on asbestos and maintains states’ rights to protect people from dangerous toxic chemicals.
Instead of singling out one chemical, Udall has argued his bill gives the EPA the strongest possible authority to protect Americans from harmful substances like asbestos, BPA, styrene and other threats to public health.
-
Men Exposed to Endocrine Disrupters at Work Show Cancer Risk -- Study
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Men who are exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals at work for at least 30 years have a higher risk of lymphatic cancer, according to a long-term study by European researchers.
Lead author Laura Costas of the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona used interviews of 2,178 people diagnosed with lymphoma and 2,457 similar people who were cancer-free between 1998 and 2004 in six European counties. The scientists' findings were published in the British Journal of Cancer.
Survey respondents were asked to list the full-time jobs they held for at least one year. Then, researchers determined which of the positions would likely have exposed them to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Because these chemicals are so widely used, the researchers worked to identify only positions that would have resulted in exposure levels above a normally occuring background level.
While the scientists found no overall association between exposure to one of the chemicals and lymphoma risk, as the duration of exposure increased, the risk of developing lymphoma did, as well. They also found that men were exposed to a hormone-disrupting chemical for more than 30 years were 32 percent more likely to develop lymphoma (Kathryn Doyle, Reuters, March 26). -- SP
-
OVERNIGHT CYBERSECURITY: House Intel Approves Cyber Bill
Mar 26, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett and Elise Viebeck
THE BIG STORIES:
--INTEL GIVES THUMBS UP: The House Intelligence Committee unanimously approved its cyber threat data-sharing bill during a Thursday morning markup. "We're off to a great start," Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters after the markup. "I think the prospect for successful passage of cyber legislation have gone up dramatically." The panel unveiled its bill, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, earlier this week. The measure grants legal liability protections for companies when sharing cyberattacker information with civilian agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Treasury Department. Committee leaders adopted one manager's amendment during the markup that incorporated privacy-strengthening suggestions from the White House and committee members on both sides of the aisle. "We think that we've met the concerns that have been raised in the administration and hope that they'll have a favorable response," Schiff said Thursday. The White House's stance on the bill could determine its fate. To read more, click here.--ANOTHER DATA BREACH BILL: A co-chairman of the House Cybersecurity Caucus is planning to introduce a data breach bill that would not create federal security standards for private companies. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) announced that he will release two cyber-related measures on Thursday: one to require companies to disclose data breaches to affected customers within 30 days of discovery, and another to establish a cyber-related office within the executive office of the president. Langevin's data breach notification measure will compete directly with legislation approved Wednesday by the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Trade. That bill, from Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), would require companies to inform affected customers of a data breach within 30 days once the networks are secured. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act would also require companies to maintain reasonable security practices. Langevin said Thursday that he believes data security should continue to be regulated at the state level. To read more, click here.
--'VOTE-A-RAMA' MOSTLY SILENT ON CYBER: The Senate's "vote-a-rama" on the budget Thursday had yet to feature any cyber debate as the normal working day wound to a close. The upper chamber is expected to go late into the night, however, and Sens. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) have offered one cyber-related budget amendment. The amendment would create a cybersecurity deficit-neutral reserve fund to encourage cyber threat info sharing. Except that it wouldn't. All votes during Thursday's marathon are purely symbolic, nonbinding and will have no force of law. It's mostly a chance for lawmakers to make floor speeches and weigh in on the record about a wide range of topics. Why? Because Congress.
UPDATE ON CYBER POLICY:
LIABILITY PROTECTION for private companies is a crucial element to improving the U.S. cybersecurity posture, a top administration official told lawmakers Thursday. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson endorsed the idea of a legal safe harbor in multiple comments before a House Appropriations subcommittee. "That is something we support doing," Johnson said during the hearing. "If we are to make significant advances here, some kind of liability protection provided by Congress is appropriate. I'm a big proponent of that." Lawmakers are working on three bills to boost data-sharing about cyber threats between the public and private sectors, and all three include some form of liability protection. To read more, click here.
LIGHTER CLICK:
PLAY AROUND with this identity theft visualizer, made with data analysis platform Silk. Create your own charts and maps that show the dramatic rise in identity fraud around the country. Or check out the ones already created. If you're traveling to Florida anytime soon, keep in mind that 17 of the top 50 metro areas for identity theft per capita are in the Sunshine State. -
Chairman of 'Grossly Mismanaged' Chemical Safety Board Resigns
Mar 27, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity
By Jim Morris
Felled by charges of mismanagement, the chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board has resigned.
The departure of Rafael Moure-Eraso was first reported on the board’s Twitter account Thursday evening. In a prepared statement Friday morning, Moure-Eraso said, “It has been a privilege to serve the agency since June 2010. My wishes are for the continued success and productivity of the Board.” Moure-Eraso’s five-year term was to have ended in June.
The board is an independent agency modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board. It issues recommendations to regulatory agencies following industrial accidents.
Nearly two years ago, the Center for Public Integrity published a lengthy piece describing the slow pace of board investigations and reports of sinking staff morale. A former board member told the Center the board was "grossly mismanaged." The Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general has been investigating board officials’ use of personal email accounts for agency business, a violation of the Federal Records Act.
In recent weeks, members of Congress had stepped up cries for the chairman’s ouster. On Wednesday, the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said the board was “in desperate need of new leadership...Dr. Moure-Eraso’s mismanagement of the CSB, abuse of power, employee retaliation, and lack of honesty in his communications with Congress are among the many reasons why his resignation is the right step for this federal agency.”
In a March 18 letter, 14 members of the committee asked President Obama to remove Moure-Eraso and two other top board officials – Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb – from their positions. A board spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday on Horowitz’s and Loeb’s status.
On March 3, Obama nominated Vanessa Allen Sutherland to become board chairman when Moure-Eraso’s term expired. Sutherland has been chief counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration since 2011.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Oil Price Crash 'Welcome News' for Manufacturers Dependent on Feedstocks
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The U.S. petrochemical sector is weathering the oil price crash nicely, as it stands to benefit from both cheaper oil and natural gas in the long run.
That's the overarching message from the 30th annual World Petrochemical Conference that wraps up here today. The gathering of chemical industry professionals is hosted by IHS Chemical.
As rigs are laid down by the hundreds and oil field layoffs mount, work continues on projects in the Gulf of Mexico region and beyond that will use natural gas, natural gas liquids and other petroleum products, expanding capacities at chemical plants by large degrees. Executives overseeing these projects say this new source of demand is still growing and will play a larger role in oil and gas markets in the near future.
Some manufacturers that leverage crude oil and other petroleum products as feedstock have taken a temporary hit from the price crash roiling oil and gas producers now.
Oil and natural gas can make up 60 to 80 percent of the cost involved in producing plastics precursors and other chemicals used in a host of applications, including paints and fabrics. Professionals here reported a short hit to demand as customers halted orders, in anticipation of prices for chemical inputs falling along with the price of crude. Makers of naphtha, a product closely tied to crude oil, have encountered this problem in particular, with prices falling by about 50 percent in late 2014.
Major chemical manufacturers reported hits to earnings when oil prices plummeted in the fourth quarter of last year. But these companies are nevertheless optimistic about the future.
Matthew Aguiar, a senior vice president at ExxonMobil Chemical, largely brushed off the oil price crash in his presentation to the conference. He reported that construction to expand capacity at the company's massive Baytown chemical complex is ongoing. He and others in the industry see nothing but upside to cheaper oil in the longer term.
"All of us are seeing a drop in our feedstock costs," Aguiar said. Though many are starting to question the strength of future global oil demand, Aguiar said his firm is still anticipating a "positive long-term outlook for chemical demand" as the gap in living standards between developed and developing nations continually narrows.
He said the oil price crash comes as "welcome news" to chemical companies that depend on it for their operations. Cheaper pricing for crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids means U.S. feedstock costs are "continuing to remain among the lowest in the world."
IHS Chemical Vice President Mark Eramo said the outlook is especially positive for makers of propylene and ethylene. He echoed Aguiar's take on anticipated new demand for these projects, noting growing interest from the automobile manufacturing sector. French oil company Total recently took a stake in direct plastics manufacturing with the aim of selling products to automakers.
Major new sources of demand include India and China, despite slowing economic growth in these countries. Eramo acknowledged that both of those nations are rapidly expanding their own domestic production of oil- and natural-gas-based chemicals and plastics products, but his research indicates that new internal capacity additions won't be enough to meet future demand in either India or China, necessitating rising imports if those countries are to close the gap.Boomerang benefit for natural gas
U.S. chemical companies see cheaper oil and natural gas fueling export growth.
The American Chemistry Council sees U.S. exports of chemicals, plastics and plastics precursors doubling to 2030. ExxonMobil believes worldwide ethylene production may double from where it stands today by 2040, while the world will need to add "four new major petrochemical complexes every year in order to keep pace with this growth," Aguiar said.
The Baytown expansion alone, which is expected to be finished by 2017, will increase ethane cracking capacity there by 1.5 million tons per year. There are at least a half dozen similar capacity expansion projects underway in the Houston-Baytown-Mont Belvieu region.
Natural gas producers stand to benefit the most from rising petroleum products demand for chemicals, plastics and fertilizer manufacturing. Natural gas is used to pull nitrogen from the atmosphere, sequestering it into solid-state fertilizers employed for industrial agriculture.
The University of Texas, Austin's Center for Energy Economics updated its forecast for U.S. natural gas demand in February, to account for the cancellation of major proposed gas-to-liquids projects that followed in the wake of the oil price bust.
CEE thinks the long-term outlook is still favorable for gas drillers, counting 112 separate projects that could boost gas demand by more than 23 billion cubic feet per year by 2020 over where industrial gas demand stood in 2012. This assessment does not include rising demand for use in liquefied natural gas or for power generation.
-
Shaheen, Portman Finally Get Efficiency Bill Through Almost-Empty Senate
Mar 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
After years of frustration that came to typify Congress’ paralysis on energy policy, the Senate finally passed a bipartisan energy efficiency bill before dawn Friday — and all it took was a dash to the floor after lawmakers had been exhausted by their overnight budget “vote-a-rama.”
A trimmed-down version of Sens. Rob Portman’s and Jeanne Shaheen’s broadly supported yet long-struggling energy efficiency bill cleared the Senate on unanimous consent early Friday morning. It happened after 4 a.m., when Portman and Shaheen were the only senators on the floor.
Despite the hour, it was a cheerful moment for the pair, who have been trying to pass their efficiency legislation for years, only to see it fall prey to unrelated partisan spats over issues like Obamacare. Noticing reporters watching from the gallery above, the Ohio Republican and New Hampshire Democrat waved. And after Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), the presiding officer, decreed that “the measure has passed,” Shaheen could clearly be heard over her microphone whispering a long “yes.”
The legislation that passed Friday morning had previously cleared the Senate as an attachment to the doomed Keystone XL pipeline bill that President Barack Obama vetoed last month.
The new standalone bill still must clear the House, which last year approved a similar package in a broad bipartisan vote. Portman tried in December to move that bill using unanimous consent, but the now-retired Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) blocked it.
The new bill includes a compromise provision exempting some water heaters from Energy Department efficiency regulations set to take effect next month, an accord struck among manufacturers, rural power users and environmentalists.
The House has introduced similar legislation with bipartisan backing, but it has not yet moved through committee.
Two other provisions in the Senate bill aim to boost energy efficiency efforts in buildings.
Portman and Shaheen say they plan to renew their attempt to pass a broader efficiency bill including major industrial users in the coming months.
-
While You Were Sleeping -- Portman, Shaheen Sneak Efficiency Bill Through Senate
Mar 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
In a surprise win for Sens. Rob Portman and Jeanne Shaheen, the pair passed the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, S. 535 — a “mini” version of the efficiency bill they’ve been trying to get through the Senate for nearly four years.
The two senators suspiciously appeared on the Senate floor about a half hour after the chamber passed its fiscal 2016 budget resolution early this morning — yes, your morning host has been up the whole time — and every other lawmaker had since departed except for Sen. John Boozman, who was serving as the presiding officer. At around 4:10 a.m., Portman and Shaheen took positions at the podiums designated for their respective party leaders and then Portman called up S. 535. Once the title was read, it was passed on the voice vote of the Ohio Republican’s singular “aye.” After Boozman decreed that “the measure has passed,” Shaheen could clearly be heard over her microphone whispering a long “yes.”
Portman and Shaheen were the only senators on the floor. The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act (here: http://1.usa.gov/1bAzSGd) covers buildings and grid-enabled water heaters while the larger Portman-Shaheen bill — the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, S. 720 — also covered industrial efficiency.
-
Senate Passes Water Heaters, Buildings Bill
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
The Senate this morning passed a minor energy efficiency bill aimed at protecting rural energy-savings programs and encouraging tenants and landlords to work together to reduce their energy use.
It took until 4 a.m., with just days remaining until a deadline. But this is Congress; would you have it any other way?
After a 15-hour marathon voting on budget amendments, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) came to the floor to bring to an end an even longer battle the two have been waging. They finally secured unanimous support for a bill to modify a Department of Energy efficiency standard for large water heaters that rural cooperatives warned would have prevented them from expanding popular demand-response programs (Greenwire, Feb. 24). The bill, S. 535, also would establish a voluntary Tenant Star certification program similar to the existing Energy Star program designed to encourage efficiency in leased buildings.
While the provisions enjoy broad bipartisan support, the senators struggled for months to get them enacted because the bill ran into various behind-the-scenes objections. But the DOE water heater rule is scheduled to go into effect April 15 -- and Congress just adjourned for a two-week recess -- and the time pressure apparently convinced senators to drop their objections.
The House passed similar legislation on a wide bipartisan margin last year, and it could adopt the Senate bill as soon as it returns on April 13.
-
E&E Daily's Juliano Recaps Key 'Vote-a-Rama' Amendments
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - TV
What does last night's marathon session of amendment votes on the Senate's annual budget resolution foreshadow about the future of energy and environment policy coming out of the upper chamber this year? On today's The Cutting Edge, E&E Dailyreporter Nick Juliano, recaps the key votes including measures on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the "Waters of the United States" proposed rule and climate change. Juliano also discusses the political and policy impacts of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) decision to not seek re-election.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. An evening full of amendment votes tied to the Senate's annual budget resolution, and E&E Daily's Nick Juliano was on the Hill last night covering them all. Nick, we'll get to that in a moment, but first I want to start with the news this morning that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced he will not be seeking re-election. What does this do for the power struggle in the Senate, and what does it do for the legislation that we might see over the next 22 months?
Nick Juliano: Sure, yeah. I mean this was big news this morning. It really sort of shook a D.C. that's a little groggy from last night's vote-a-rama but, you know, certainly woke everybody before they might've had their coffee, in my case at least. I mean, you know this is huge. This is the first time since I think 2007 that a member of one of the four main party leaders on the House or Senate has left their post, so you know we're going to have jockeying for who's going to take his place. You know, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are sort of his number ... Dick Durbin's number two and Schumer's number three. They're seen as jockeying. Patty Murray's a member of leadership; she may get into the mix. There's going to be a lot of fun ahead, I guess, as the leadership race develops.
Monica Trauzzi: Yeah, and that Nevada seat will also be an interesting one to keep an eye on.
Nick Juliano: Mm-hmm.
Monica Trauzzi: So let's get to those votes last night. The Senate voted on a handful of energy and environment-related amendments. The Clean Power Plan was targeted. How did it turn out?
Nick Juliano: Sure. So Senator McConnell had an amendment that basically said EPA cannot deny highway funds to states that don't go along with the Clean Power Plan, and this is part of a case that he's sort of been building over essentially the course of this month. You know at the beginning of the month we read an op-ed in one of his home state newspapers that said states should not go along with this plan he thinks is illegal. He thinks courts will throw it out, so he wants governors to adopt that position. He wrote a letter to the National Governors Association how this amendment was trying to sort of test this proposition. You know it passed. It got 57 votes, enough to be attached to the budget 'cause there's no filibuster under those rules. But when it comes time to actually do something that will count, they're still going to need 60 votes, and they haven't been able to quite find that number yet. Now there was another climate amendment that was considered. McConnell was co-sponsoring with Senator Rob Portman that would have explicitly said states have the option to opt out of EPA's power plan if they can show harm to their economy or concerns about electric reliability, things like that. That was something that we thought would maybe see a vote. It was sort of unclear throughout the night and ended up being sort of left on the covenant floor with quite a few other things.
Monica Trauzzi: Right. And Senator Portman, as you reported earlier this week, he's kind of walking this tightrope on climate change. Politically, did he sort of buy himself cover heading into his re-election bid?
Nick Juliano: It's sort of tough to say. I mean, he was an interesting one to watch this week because Democrats had a few more amendments that they brought up on sort of the science of climate change and this question of, is it real? Is it something that humans are contributing to? Is it something that we need to deal with through government policy? You know, again, these are all nonbinding amendments that just sort of float this idea and say, what do you think about it? But Senator Portman joined Democrats on a few of those amendments that sort of accosted this idea. He's also a critic of the EPA rule, so you know he says these things are consistent. I talked to him about this yesterday. He says, "You know, I think this is a problem. We need to address it. EPA isn't going about it in the right way." He talks of things, like energy efficiency, that has been one of his big issues for months, and actually on that front he did get a very small win last night with a little efficiency bill was one of the sort of last pieces of business they took care of before wrapping up the week.
Monica Trauzzi: And earlier this week there were votes on "Waters of the U.S." and climate change, and how did those turn out?
Nick Juliano: Mm-hmm. Sure. Yeah, so the climate ones I was just talking about ...
Monica Trauzzi: [Crosstalk] [Inaudible] ... talked about.
Nick Juliano: Oh, "Waters of the U.S.," this is EPA's rule to you know to deal with sort of the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, which is a question that has been fairly unresolved for years, and it's a pretty complicated issue. EPA has a proposal that they've been working on more or less throughout the Obama administration to try and sort of clear up this question of what streams, what wetlands do automatic protection under this federal law. Republicans don't like the rule, as they don't like most of what's coming out of EPA under President Obama. Notably last night they think they may have found their 60th vote when there was an amendment that came up. Senator Amy Klobuchar, she's a Democrat from Minnesota, has been critical of the rule but on a similar test vote two years ago she sided with most Democrats in essentially voting to maintain the water rule. Now again this was, you know, it's not a perfect proxy but it provides an indication. I asked Senator Klobuchar about this last night. She says, "You know, I look at things on a case-by-case basis. We'll have to see when it gets time later this year to talk about appropriation's riders or something like that." But she's certainly one to watch.
Monica Trauzzi: And like you said, these votes were all nonbinding, but they do kind of tell us what senators are thinking about and what they're thinking is on particular issues. What did last night's vote-a-rama kind of predict on what we might see on energy policies on the Senate this year?
Nick Juliano: Mm-hmm. Yeah, so I mean the big take-aways in terms of what may actually be able to be accomplished in terms of sort of regulatory reforms that Republicans would like to achieve, they look to the appropriations process. So 60 may be in play on "Waters to the U.S." They're going to have to sort of tinker, I think, with it on their approach to the climate rule that will all come together. You know, separately Senator Mikulski and Senator Cantwell have been working for the last couple of months and will continue to work over the recess on trying to put together a larger energy bill. A lot of the issues that are going to be addressed on that front didn't necessarily come up this week. That's going to deal a lot with things like infrastructure and energy efficiency and energy production. We didn't see things like offshore drilling. So it's sort of a situation where you can't cover everything even when you're voting back to back for 16 hours at a time.
Monica Trauzzi: [Laughs] All right. Thank you so much, Nick. I know it was a very long night for you; we appreciate your time.
Nick Juliano: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
[End of Audio]
-
Ohio Regulators Tell Lawmakers to Butt Out on EPA's Clean Power Plan
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Despite Ohio's antipathy toward U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power plan, under no circumstances do state regulators want the General Assembly to pass any law that would interfere with eventual compliance.
"We do not think that the plan is legal, and we have mounted a legal challenge," said Asim Haque, vice chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. "This is in fact an energy policy."
The PUCO, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine "are all on the same page," he said.
"However, we want to be as constructive in shaping the final rule as possible," he said in an interview yesterday in Washington, D.C.
"In the event the Clean Power Plan survives legal challenge, we want to ensure that the concerns of the state of Ohio are relayed to EPA and are potentially represented in the final rule," Haque said.
He and Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler recently testified before a special joint committee established to weigh the costs and benefits of the state's renewable energy and energy efficiency mandates.
Keep up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go toE&E's Power Plan Hub.
They were asked by lawmakers whether they should be thinking about legislative action on the Clean Power Plan or efforts to control carbon emissions.
Haque said Butler, whose agency would have to craft a compliance plan, replied, "No. Because we're not exactly sure how this final rule is going to shake out, and we do not want you Legislature to essentially do something that would tie our hands associated with the legal challenge or potential compliance."
The General Assembly last year passed a bill placing a two-year freeze on the state's renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. It also established the Energy Mandates Study Committee made up of legislators from both chambers. The committee has a deadline of Sept. 30 to recommend legislation to ease the mandates.
Under EPA's proposal, Ohio would have to reduce its power-sector carbon emissions rate 27.7 percent between 2012 and 2030 -- less than the majority of states. Ohio's power plants produce the fourth most emissions per year, according to EPA data on sources affected by the rule.
Efforts to cut back on renewables and efficiency could complicate regulators' efforts to comply with the EPA rule, as both are pathways suggested for compliance by the agency (EnergyWire, June 3, 2014).
The PUCO and Ohio EPA "have been working together since the rule was released" conducting analyses, Haque said. Among those analyses is modeling that "put a price on carbon at a regional level," across the entire footprint of the PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator.
"Our numbers were quite staggering," Haque said, finding that in 2025, compliance with the EPA rule "would elicit a 39 percent increase in wholesale energy prices."
Ohio used the same program as PJM to model compliance, and Haque said the state's results fell into the "spectrum of possibilities" that PJM itself came up with in its own models. "Ours is on the very expensive end of the spectrum," he said.
-
Wis. Wades Into Clean Power Plan Legal Fight
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Wisconsin has asked to join 13 states supporting coal company Murray Energy Corp.'s court challenge to block U.S. EPA from finalizing a rule to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The state's attorney general, Brad Schimel (R), submitted a motion to intervene this week to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Wisconsin wants to throw its backing behind Murray ahead of oral arguments scheduled for April 16.
Keep up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go toE&E's Power Plan Hub.
Republican Gov. Scott Walker (R) told EPA in December that Wisconsin has already made major investments in clean power and should get credit for that work. The likely GOP presidential candidate said in a State of the State speech in January that Wisconsin would soon file suit against the Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, Jan. 16).
The D.C. Circuit has consolidated the Murray challenge with another one brought by West Virginia and 11 other states. In total, 15 states are part of the efforts to block the regulation.
EPA wants Wisconsin to reduce its power sector carbon emissions rate 34 percent by 2030. Schimel argues the rule would hurt the state's economy, particularly its manufacturing sector. Wisconsin's Public Service Commission has predicted the Clean Power Plan could increase electricity rates 29 percent.
Schimel took office in January and said he has just had time to review the rule and consult with state officials. Arkansas also made a motion to intervene on Feb. 12, which the court approved on March 9 (ClimateWire, March 11).
Also on Wednesday, attorneys general in 19 states made another bid to scuttle the rules, writing that EPA should withdraw its proposed standards for new power plants, which were written under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act and technically expected in January.
The new plant rule is a prerequisite for the Clean Power Plan. EPA plans to finalize the new plant regulation this summer, but the states argue that if EPA had submitted the proposal on time, it would have been invalidated by the courts, making the Clean Power Plan unlawful.
The states signing on to the letter include 14 of the 15 involved in legal challenges, as well as Arizona, Georgia, North Dakota, Texas and Utah.
-
EPA Finds Almost 700 Chemicals Used in Fracking
Mar 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A years-long Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis found that almost 700 chemical additives are used in hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas.
Ninety-eight percent of the fluid injected into wells in the fracking process are water and sand, which is used to keep fractures open and get oil and gas out of shale.
But the EPA’s analysis released Friday provides the federal government’s first comprehensive look at the remainder of the chemicals, which the industry says are used to protect equipment, reduce bacteria and keep fluid flowing, among other purposes.
The EPA’s analysis was based on more than two years of data from FracFocus, an industry-backed website that frackers in 20 states must use to publicly disclose the chemicals they inject into wells.
“Collectively, this report and the related products provide a detailed picture of the information available on chemicals and water use amounts, and we feel that this report will be a really important resource for states, industry and communities working to safeguard our drinking water resources,” Tom Burke, a research and development official at the EPA, told reporters Friday.
The EPA’s researchers analyzed more than 30,000 disclosures from fracking operations.
Hydrochloric acid, methanol, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates were the most common additives the EPA found, and they were reported in 65 percent of the disclosures.
The chemicals used in fracking are one of the top concerns of environmentalists, health advocates and others who are opposed to the practice or want it more strictly regulated.
The Friday report was one piece of a wide-ranging assessment the EPA is conducting into fracking. The practice is exempt from many environmental rules under a 2005 law, but the EPA can still conduct research into it.
The analysis did not make any judgements about the chemicals or their safety.
“This report really focuses on the first step, and that is collecting information about what is used and the volumes of what is used,” Burke said when asked about whether the chemicals are dangerous. “As part of our broader assessment, we will definitely be focusing on toxicity, though.”
Researchers also found that fracking can be a water intensive operation.
The files the EPA analyzed found that each well required between 30,000 and 7.2 million gallons of water.
And, because of the limits of FracFocus, such as the states that do not use it and frackers’ ability to keep certain chemicals confidential, Burke warned that the EPA could be missing a lot.
“We think that the information on chemicals, proppants and culumative water volumes from FracFocus 1.0 may actually be an underestimate of what’s actually used in the United States during this time period, because not all states are actually required to report chemicals,” he said.
-
Federal Fracking Rule Pelted with Lawsuits; More on the Way
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
An anticipated cascade of litigation targeting the Obama administration's new drilling rule gained speed yesterday as a Wyoming lawsuit became the second legal challenge on court dockets so far.
Wyoming's suit accuses the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management of abusing its power in crafting new requirements for fracking and drilling on public and American Indian lands. The challenge joins an industry lawsuit filed minutes after the rule's unveiling in kicking off what is likely to be a protracted legal battle over the controversial regulatory scheme.
The rule, in the works for more than three years, establishes new requirements for hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure, well construction and wastewater management. Stakeholders across the spectrum --- states, tribes, environmentalists and industry -- have criticized the new Interior regulation as either an expensive federal overreach or a missed opportunity to protect the environment as high-volume fracking gains popularity across the country (EnergyWire, March 23).
The opening legal shots come from the parties with the most to lose: Wyoming, with its 4 million oil- and gas-producing acres of federal lands, and independent producers, the companies most vulnerable to the sting of the projected $11,000-per-well cost to comply with the new rule.
The industry lawsuit, filed by the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance last week, argues that Interior's rule creates "arbitrary and unnecessary burdens" that duplicate state law and infringe on state powers. The filing urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to strike down the new rule as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act for imposing steep costs on industry without significant environmental gains.
Wyoming's challenge follows similar lines, contending that BLM has overstepped its authority. The lawsuit argues that the agency's attempt to regulate fracking violates the Safe Drinking Water Act, which assigns underground injection control issues to U.S. EPA, and the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempts hydraulic fracturing from EPA's UIC program.
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who is representing industry in the first lawsuit, said Wyoming's decision to enter the fray demonstrated the high level of concern over the rule.
"Wyoming's willingness to fight these regulations in federal court is evidence of the extent to which Interior's action represents regulatory overreach and an untenable infringement on state sovereignty," Barron said in a statement.
In a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing yesterday, BLM Director Neil Kornze said the agency this week began discussions with Wyoming officials to allow the state to manage regulation of certain aspects of drilling covered by the new rule as part of a "variance" process included in the final version.'Litigation is always an option'
With state and industry suits already filed, all eyes are now on environmentalists to see when or whether they challenge the rule. Many groups have been tempered in their response to the rollout, noting that the rule is an important "first step" toward regulating fracking but expressing overall disappointment because of its narrow focus.
"The bottom line is: these rules fail to protect the nation's public lands -- home to our last wild places, and sources of drinking water for millions of people -- from the risks of fracking," said Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Amy Mall in a statement after the release. "More than ever, this underscores the urgent need to get better protections in place around the country -- at the local, state and federal levels."
Attorneys for frequent litigants like NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity have remained tight-lipped about any plans to challenge the rule but did not rule out litigation.
"We'll be looking at the fracking rule very closely over the coming days," said CBD attorney Clare Lakewood. "If the dangerous flaws we identified in the draft are not rectified in this final version, litigation is always an option that is open to us."
Some state regulators, meanwhile, have been more open about their plans to consider a challenge to the rule.
North Dakota regulators voted this week to direct the state attorney general to study the possibility of filing a lawsuit or joining an existing suit. Wyoming said the same thing last week and had filed suit within days. While North Dakota has only a half-million acres of federal land with oil and gas production, many of those federal acres are in the state's Bakken Shale sweet spot, accounting for prolific volumes of oil production.
North Dakota is also the epicenter of the tribal element of the battle over the fracking rule. The Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, situated in the heart of the Bakken Shale in western North Dakota, has been skeptical of the fracking rule from the start, arguing that it improperly lumps in American Indian lands with public lands. Some tribes, including the MHA Nation, have crafted their own oil and gas regulations in recent years and argue that federal permitting creates a bottleneck.
"Just last week, BLM increased this bureaucracy by adding new hydraulic fracturing requirements that will further slow production, cost jobs, lower royalties and inefficiently use Federal funding," tribal Chairman Mark Fox said in testimony Tuesday to a House Appropriations subcommittee.
The Ute Indian Tribe of Utah echoed that complaint in its own testimony this week, asking Congress to fund a tribal energy permitting clearinghouse to expedite production. So far, though, the MHA Nation and Utes have stayed mum on prospective litigation.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe of Colorado, meanwhile, has issued the strongest litigation threat among tribes so far.
"Tribal staff is reviewing this new rule to see if and how the Tribe's suggestions have been addressed," Souther Ute officials said in a statement. "The Tribe is prepared to take steps that the Tribal Council ultimately deems necessary and appropriate to advance the Tribe's best interests."Follow-up lawsuits
Beyond immediate challenges to the regulations, some lawyers view the fracking rule as a path toward new, localized litigation.
Carl Pernicone and Kathleen Wilkinson, partners who work on the hydraulic fracturing team for the New York-based firm Wilson Elser, said the rule can be used by both industry and environmentalists to bolster future claims. For industry, the rule encapsulates the federal government's position that the risks of unconventional drilling can be mitigated.
"Could the industry turn this statement to its advantage in its ongoing battles with fracking opponents in states over proposed moratoria, bans and other restrictions on fracking?" the attorneys wrote in a recent client note. "Might it not argue that, like the BLM, it too believes that we can responsibly 'obtain the benefits of mineral development while protecting other resources'?"
On the other hand, they said in an interview with EnergyWire, the rule gives environmentalists a benchmark that could be used to pressure regulators to enhance state-level rules for drilling and fracking.
Indeed, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said during the rule's rollout that state lawmakers and regulators now have the responsibility to ensure the safety of drilling on state and private lands.
The rule may also spur some provision-specific litigation, including challenges to industry trade secret claims or protests of the rule's variance process, Pernicone said. The variance provision allows states and tribes to use their own regulations in place of BLM's rule for certain aspects of drilling if their rules are as strong and receive BLM approval.
"Whenever you have a case-by-case analysis, what factors will go into that review?" Pernicone said. "There's enough open moving parts in this that it could very well have some [legal] issues to deal with."
-
Wyoming Sues to Stop Federal Fracking Rule
Mar 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Wyoming’s attorney general is going to court to challenge the federal Interior Department’s right to regulate hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas.
The lawsuit in federal court joins one filed by two oil and gas drilling associations against the rule, which was unveiled March 20.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance filed theircomplaint less than an hour after Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced its regulation for fracking on federal and American Indian land.
The state has its own rules on fracking that extend to wells federal land, and it is particularly proud of the strength of its regulations.
Wyoming’s lawsuit filed Thursday contends that the BLM’s rule “exceeds the agency’s statutory jurisdiction, conflicts with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and unlawfully interferes with the state of Wyoming’s hydraulic fracturing regulations.”
Peter Michael, the state’s attorney general, argues in the complaint that the Safe Drinking Water Act gives authority over underground injection exclusively to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states, while the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts fracking’s underground injection from EPA’s regulations.
The law firm representing drillers against the rule said it was happy to see Wyoming sue as well.
“The state’s leadership in regulating oil and gas development, and particularly the process of hydraulic fracturing, disproves the myth of the regulatory gap upon which Interior’s final rule is premised,” Mark Barron, an attorney with BakerHostetler, said in a statement.
“Wyoming’s willingness to fight these regulations in federal court is evidence of the extent to which Interior’s action represents regulatory overreach and an untenable infringement on state sovereignty,” Barron said.
In unveiling the rule, Interior said states with regulations at least as strong as the federal ones will be able to obtain waivers for specific provisions of the standards.
-
GOP Lawmakers Shut Down Debate on Oil Train Safety Bill
Mar 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Republican state lawmakers in Minnesota yesterday blocked an attempt to debate an oil train safety bill.
The bill to improve railway crossing safety was introduced last week, and Republican legislators said they did not have enough time to prepare a response to the bill.
A recent report showed 326,170 Minnesotans live within half-mile "danger zones" of railroad tracks that are used by trains carrying crude from western North Dakota.
Democratic state Rep. Paul Marquart, who proposed the bill, said residents need assurance that they are safe.
"Our residents want to know help is on the way," Marquart said. "Communities have a lot smaller margin of error than they have had in the past."
In addition to the safety improvements, the bill also calls for added assessments and property taxes to railroads to fund the improvements (Fargo Forum, March 26). -- MH
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested