Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Brands 2015: Evaluating Chemicals in Products
Jun 1, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Heading to Sustainable Brands 2015? Where business leaders will gather to share insights on sustainability, including discussions about key ingredients used to make everyday products? http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/sustainable-brands-2015-evaluating-chemicals-in-products/ -
Chemical Regulation Reform Gains Momentum in Both Chambers of US Congress
Jun 1, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
A bipartisan effort to reform the US’s nearly 40-year-old chemicals regulation is progressing in both chambers of Congress. -
June Votes on Tap for Climate, Coal Ash, TSCA
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones and Sam Pearson
The House is scheduled to vote on key energy- and environment-related issues this month, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says in a new memo. -
PHMSA, Pipeline Company Take a Chance on Transparency
Jun 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
The owner of the ruptured California pipeline and its federal regulator are trying a new tactic in dealing with the Santa Barbara oil spill: transparency. -
Power Sector Slips in Cybersecurity 'Fundamentals' -- Report
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Power companies and public utilities took fewer cybersecurity precautions last year, even as threats to the sector increased more than sixfold, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. -
GOP Push For Rule Review Panel Could Overcome Hurdle Of Veto Threats
Jun 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Senate Republicans' bid to create a new bicameral select committee on regulatory reform could give EPA's critics a platform to launch increased oversight of the agency's rules, helping to inform an "omnibus" rule review bill that could have enough support to overcome existing White House veto threats on narrower reform legislation. -
U.S. LNG Gets Ready for the Global Stage
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The first U.S. shipment of liquefied natural gas set to leave America's shores at the end of 2015 should fulfill its longtime promise of going global. -
Maryland Bans Fracking
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Maryland’s ban on hydraulic fracturing became law after Gov. Larry Hogan (R) decided not to veto it. -
Md. Fracking Ban Goes into Effect After Veto Deadline Passes
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Maryland will impose a two-year fracking moratorium after Republican Gov. Larry Hogan declined to veto a measure on the idea. -
Western States Ask Court to Block BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Two states suing over the Obama administration's new hydraulic fracturing regulations are now asking a federal court to block the scheduled summer rollout of the rule. -
Kansas Governor Signs Bill to Comply with Power Plant Rules
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Kansas will formulate a plan to comply with the Obama administration's climate rule for power plants despite ongoing opposition to it within state government. -
Despite Hostility Toward EPA, Kan. Will Forge its Own Clean Power Plan Response
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
When U.S. EPA announced its ambitious effort to cut the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) called the proposed regulation "a war against middle America." -
Oil Giants Call for Global Carbon Pollution Fees
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Six major European oil companies are asking the United Nations to help impose carbon dioxide emission pricing in all countries. -
Big Energy Pushes Carbon Trading Scheme
Jun 1, 2015 | Politico
By Sara Stefanini and Kalina Oroschakoff
Six of the world’s leading oil and gas companies are offering to help set up a carbon pricing system that would encourage a switch to cleaner fuels — and also shift away from polluting coal — a sign they want a seat at the table for the upcoming climate summit in Paris.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Brands 2015: Evaluating Chemicals in Products
Jun 1, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Heading to Sustainable Brands 2015? Where business leaders will gather to share insights on sustainability, including discussions about key ingredients used to make everyday products?
Chemistry provides many sustainability benefits to the products people use every day. There are a number of tools available and used to evaluate the safety of the chemicals used in these products. Some of the tools look at authoritative lists to determine whether a chemical is appropriate for use in a given product, others assess the hazard profile of the chemical or material. And some go a step further – to evaluate exposure to a chemical or materials and potential risk to people or the environment.
A panel session at Sustainable Brands today at 9 a.m. PT, “Evaluating the Chemicals in Your Products: Comparing and Contrasting Leading Tools,” featuring experts from the American Chemistry Council and Pure Strategies, will investigate a host of tools commonly used by large retailers and brands, including U.S. EPA’s DfE, GreenScreen, GreenSuite, GreenWERCS, SciVera, and GoodGuide.
Workshop participants will walk away with a deeper understanding of the available chemical evaluation tools, their scope, and what questions they should ask their tool suppliers to help manage chemicals and risk. The session will highlight specific results these tools generate when evaluating chemicals commonly used in consumer products. Reports prepared by the authors on this subject will be available at the session.
- See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/sustainable-brands-2015-evaluating-chemicals-in-products/#sthash.gPD0Lyva.dpuf
-
Chemical Regulation Reform Gains Momentum in Both Chambers of US Congress
Jun 1, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
A bipartisan effort to reform the US’s nearly 40-year-old chemicals regulation is progressing in both chambers of Congress. The Senate bill appears to have the support of more than 60 senators – enough to pass and also survive the obstructive tactics of a filibuster. The measure next heads to the Senate floor. Meanwhile, a counterpart bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives has passed a legislative hurdleand will now be considered by the energy and commerce committee. The House measure bears some similarities to the Senate version, but is not as sweeping.
‘The Senate bill is much more exhaustive or complete – it addresses a number of current holes,’ says Jim Aidala, the former assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances under President Clinton. While both bills should make it more easy for the Environmental Protection Agency to request chemical test data from industry and others, the Senate version offers particulars about how to prioritise, evaluate and regulate chemicals in a timely manner, while the House version does not.
If reform isn’t enacted into law this year, observers suggest that its prospects become much dimmer because 2016 is a US presidential election year.
-
June Votes on Tap for Climate, Coal Ash, TSCA
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones and Sam Pearson
The House is scheduled to vote on key energy- and environment-related issues this month, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says in a new memo.
The busy agenda starts this week with a planned debate on H.R. 1335, which would reauthorize and reform the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The White House has threatened to veto the measure (E&E Daily, June 1).
The week of June 22 will see floor consideration of three major pieces of legislation, starting with Kentucky Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield's H.R. 2042.
The legislation would allow states to opt-out of U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants until the courts finish their review. The agency would also be unable to implement a federal plan in those states (E&ENews PM, April 30).
West Virginia Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Joe Manchin (D) are helping spearhead a companion bill in that chamber.
Then, the House will vote on West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley's H.R. 1734 to amend EPA's new rule for the disposal of coal power plant combustion waste.
Advertisement
Even though EPA decided to regulate coal ash as nonhazardous, much like industry wanted, House Republicans say tweaks are necessary. Utilities and coal ash recyclers support the move. Environmentalists say the tweaks amount to negative, significant changes (Greenwire, April 15).
A Senate version has yet to emerge, but Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) has talked about pushing for a coal ash amendment to upcoming energy legislation.
The third bill on tap that week is H.R. 2576, by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), head of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. A full House Energy and Commerce Committee vote is set for this week (E&E Daily, June 1).
Senate leadership has not yet taken action on S. 697, the chamber's committee-passed TSCA reform measure.
Senate backers of TSCA reform had pushed for a possible June floor debate, but it's not clear whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will find time for the proposal this month. Shimkus has said the House's speedier action may prod McConnell into carving out floor time for the Senate plan.
-
PHMSA, Pipeline Company Take a Chance on Transparency
Jun 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
The owner of the ruptured California pipeline and its federal regulator are trying a new tactic in dealing with the Santa Barbara oil spill: transparency.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Plains All American Pipeline have been issuing daily clean-up reports and even held an open house on Saturday, efforts that show they’re working to share more information with the public than has been seen after other oil spills.
But for angry environmentalists and frustrated lawmakers, better communication after a spill is no substitute for steps that will stop pipeline accidents from occurring in the first place.
The spill represents a big test for PHMSA, which is already under pressure to change its image, after the White House late Friday went outside the agency’s ranks and the pipeline industry to nominate a new leader for the obscure federal agency that has long lacked a permanent chief.
The May 19 rupture of Plains’ Line 901 that sent more than 100,000 gallons of crude spilling onto the beloved Refugio beach in Santa Barbara County put PHMSA under the microscope. The obscure federal agency, which oversees pipeline safety, moved quickly to answer public and activist concerns about its policing of Plains — which ranked as No. 5 among companies for the most accidents, a POLITICO investigation of PHMSA showed — by holding a rare press briefing to tout its corrective order against the company.
“We’re going to make sure they do things right,” PHMSA Deputy Associate Administrator Linda Daugherty told reporters in a briefing.
Plains has also adopted a proactive stance, a striking contrast with ExxonMobil after its pipeline rupture in Arkansas two years ago and Enbridge after its massive pipeline breach in Michigan in 2010.
Plains’ Senior Safety Director Patrick Hodgins has shot out regular statements for more than a week, seeking to show the company is being proactive. He’s emphasized that more than half of the company’s 175 reported pipeline incidents involved 5 barrels or less of oil, and vowed Saturday that the 16 employees he sent to the community open house would take the public’s input into account as the spill cleanup continues.
Hodgins was out in front again Thursday as PHMSA investigators oversaw the removal of more than 40 feet of the failed California pipeline that was sent to Ohio for testing to determine the cause of the spill.
“We understand that the community is interested in this effort, however we are not in a position to discuss what the pipe looks like — or anything about the affected piece of pipe — until after the investigation is completed,” he said in a statement.
With the pipeline excavated and the probe ramping up, however, PHMSA faces another public test on whether it can shed its image as a closed-off bureaucracy that caters more to the interests of the companies it regulates than the communities hurt by spills. Environmental groups that held an anti-fossil fuel protest in Santa Barbara on Sunday are watching closely.
The new openness from PHMSA and Plains is “certainly encouraging,” said the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Anthony Swift, but “it’s too early to tell whether this constitutes a meaningful change for either party.”
Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Dirty Fuels campaign, urged an end to what she called “the culture of limited regulations and limited enforcement” by allotting more resources for federal pipeline safety regulators.
“While it’s great that the public has now been informed about this disaster … a company cleaning up its own mess isn’t something to celebrate,” she said. “Avoiding the mess in the first place would be.”
After seven months without a permanent leader, the White House announced on Friday that President Barack Obama will nominate Marie Therese Dominguez, currently a principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, to head the agency.
A key in determining the spill’s cause will be the results of an inspection of the California pipeline conducted by a Plains’ contractor on May 5, just days before it failed. In its corrective action order last month, PHMSA gave Plains 45 days to review those test results, analyze its inspection data from the last decade and submit detailed documentation of the review.
What’s not clear is whether PHMSA will release that information. It angered activists in 2013 when it deferred to ExxonMobil and refused to publicly release in-line inspection reports about the pipeline that ruptured that year and spewed more than 200,000 gallons of oil into the town of Mayflower, Ark.
Those Exxon reports shed light on the cause of the incident, and local officials were shocked that a federal agency refused to make the data public. Eventually, then-GOP Rep. Tim Griffin took matters into his own hands, releasing the data publicly on his website.
“They politely requested that I not” share the data, Griffin said in an interview earlier this year. “And I did.”
History could repeat itself in Santa Barbara. PHMSA has told POLITICO that it will have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to see the results of the May 5 inspection, citing its ongoing investigation into the California spill and the potential for the results to “contain confidential business, proprietary or personal information.”
Democratic Rep. Lois Capps, whose California district includes Santa Barbara, is already pressuring PHMSA to publicly release the results.
“I urge you to make available to my office and the public any and all analyses and supporting documents submitted by Plains or produced by PHMSA regarding this incident,” Capps wrote to acting PHMSA Administrator Timothy Butters on Thursday. She pressed the agency to expedite the completion of that May 5 analysis, which is expected to yield early results to PHMSA and Plains within four weeks.
The agency has asked an expert from the Oak Ridge National Laboratories to help assess both the inspection results and the third-party reading of the data that Plains is required to provide, PHMSA spokeswoman Artealia Gilliard said.
Oak Ridge also conducted a 2012 analysis of the pipeline safety issue that both Capps and California’s two Democratic senators raised on Thursday: whether automatic shut-off valves would have limited the volume of oil that gushed from the pipeline. Its report concluded that automatic valves on new or replaced pipelines “can also be an effective strategy for mitigating potential socioeconomic and environmental damage” from oil spills.
“This technology has long been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board, and we would like to ensure that it is fully deployed to mitigate disasters like this one,” Democratic California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), wrote to PHMSA on Thursday.
PHMSA does not require automatic shut-off valves on oil lines, a factor that helped the Plains pipe’s previous owner to skirt the California county’s calls in for their installation. Congress required PHMSA more than three years ago to develop rules requiring the valves’ addition to natural gas lines, but that mandate is one of several that the agency has yet to complete.
Plains’ senior safety director has sought to counter calls for a new valve mandate as well. Adding automatic shut-off capability to oil pipes “could have the unintended consequence of pressuring the line beyond its maximum operating pressure,” Hodgins said last week. “We liken this pressure to slamming a car into ‘park’ when driving down the freeway.”
That may represent a new faster pace for the debate in the once-sleepy world of oil and gas pipeline safety. But critics aren’t convinced that PHMSA is changing, let alone the industry.
“I think it’s more window dressing,” National Wildlife Federation senior counsel Jim Murphy said.
“It might be a slight indication that they don’t have a total tin ear when it comes to these things,” he continued. “But when it comes to real changes … PHMSA doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to do those. It’s one thing to hold a press conference to make it look like you’re being responsive — it’s another thing to look at the problem you have and to come up with solutions.”
-
Power Sector Slips in Cybersecurity 'Fundamentals' -- Report
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Power companies and public utilities took fewer cybersecurity precautions last year, even as threats to the sector increased more than sixfold, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
A PwC survey of more than 9,700 executives and information technology directors in a range of industries found that utilities developed fewer cyber training programs and information security strategies in 2014 compared with the previous year.
"Some of the other technology fundamentals that we like to see in place -- intrusion detection tools, employee awareness tools, those sorts of capabilities -- we see declines in a lot of those areas," said Brad Bauch, PwC U.S. power and utilities security leader and a key contributor to the report, describing the year-over-year decline as a "general weakening of fundamental security safeguards."
"It does give me reason to be concerned," he added.
Meanwhile, PwC found that the average number of detected cyber "incidents" per power and utility organization shot up from 1,179 in 2013 to more than 7,300 the following year -- or roughly 20 new threats to computer security per day.
The uptick in detected attacks isn't all bad news, however, as Bauch said it is likely a result of better security monitoring capabilities among utilities.
Advertisement
The PwC findings, part of its Global State of Information Security Survey released last week, also "counterintuitively" showed power-sector respondents suffering fewer financial losses from security incidents throughout the year -- an average of $1.2 million, down 51 percent from 2013.
Still, the report concluded that "all things considered, many power and utilities companies seem to be unready for the increasing risks of today's interconnected world."
Unlike most other critical infrastructure industries, the U.S. bulk electric power operators face enforceable cybersecurity regulations developed through the North American Electric Reliability Corp. Large investor-owned utility holding companies such as Dominion Resources Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. pump millions of dollars into security measures each year and have designated cybersecurity experts on staff to stay ahead of NERC rules.
A representative for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association -- which represents some utilities too small to fall under NERC's standards -- said the organization had not seen any slippage in cybersecurity readiness over the past year.
Bauch suggested recent intrusions affecting big-box stores and major banks may be pushing utilities to take a closer look at their cyber postures. Last summer, for instance, a cyberattack on JPMorgan Chase and Co. rooted out financial data for 76 million households, by the company's estimates. A destructive cyberattack against Sony Pictures late last year, in which thousands of company documents were deleted and thousands of emails leaked, also garnered widespread attention after the United States attributed the hack to North Korea.
"It used to be the NERC [critical infrastructure protection] standards driving a lot of the change and activity, but over the last year and a half or two years, that has transitioned to the breaches that we read about every day," Bauch said. "I think that is starting to make the executives nervous, because there's a belief -- right, wrong or indifferent -- that financial services and retail were more secure than utilities or energy companies. And look what happened to them."
-
GOP Push For Rule Review Panel Could Overcome Hurdle Of Veto Threats
Jun 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Senate Republicans' bid to create a new bicameral select committee on regulatory reform could give EPA's critics a platform to launch increased oversight of the agency's rules, helping to inform an "omnibus" rule review bill that could have enough support to overcome existing White House veto threats on narrower reform legislation.
"I've seen nothing to indicate that any of these bills have much of a chance as stand-alone legislation," says one EPA supporter of the already introduced measures that target various rules or agency programs. But "the idea of an 'omnibus' regulatory bill" that the suggested panel could inform "is certainly worth monitoring," the source says.
Overhauling the regulatory process has long been a goal of many Republicans who fault the agency for alleged overreach with its air, water, climate and other regulations. Pending legislative measures to address these concerns include bills to block or revise EPA regulations, and to boost Congress' powers to review rules.
House and Senate committees with oversight of EPA have held hearings on various regulations that the GOP members of the panels oppose. But a concurrent resolution introduced in the Senate May 20 by Mike Rounds (R-SD), seven GOP co-sponsors, and Joe Manchin (D-WY) would create a new regulatory review panel.
The resolution, S. Con. Res. 17, would establish a 30-member joint select committee, composed of 15 senators and 15 House members that would be tasked with making recommendations to the full Congress on regulatory reform measures -- including a proposal for a standing committee with the power to review and block pending rules.
The select committee would consider the disparate regulatory reform proposals that have already been introduced and make recommendations to the full Congress on legislation, which could potentially lead to an omnibus bill.
So far in the 114th Congress such proposals have generally moved as distinct bills with different sponsors, rather than advancing as a coordinated slate -- which observers say could be hurting their chance at passage.
The White House has already threatened to veto H.R. 185, which cleared the House in January, and H.R. 527, which is still pending in committee. H.R. 527 would expand rulemaking analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, while H.R. 185 would require agencies crafting new rules to conduct additional analysis, weigh alternatives and choose the lowest cost alternative within statutory guidelines. Agencies would have to consider factors such as the problem the rule would address and the risks and benefits involved when crafting new rules.
Forming a select committee that could then hold hearings and pursue oversight could potentially help in leading to recommendations for a broader reform bill that might be able to overcome a veto threat.
The resolution says the select committee would "(1) conduct a systematic review of the process by which rules are promulgated by agencies; (2) hold hearings on the effects of and how to reduce regulatory overreach in all sectors of the economy; (3) conduct a review of the Code of Federal Regulations to identify rules and sets of rules that should be repealed; and (4) submit to the Senate and House of Representatives" recommendations on legislation.
When Democrats controlled Congress in 2007 they established a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which they used to call for steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The committee existed until 2011, but the new Republican majority did not renew the select panel when it took over the 112th Congress.
Select Committee
Since concurrent resolutions lack the force of law and therefore do not require the president's signature, S. Con. Res. 17 would go into effect with majority votes from both chamber, giving it better prospects compared to the bills advanced so far this year, which have faced Democratic opposition and the veto threats.
But even though a concurrent resolution can clear regardless of the White House's position, Congress cannot create new authority to block agency rules through that procedure -- meaning legislation enacting its recommendations would still be subject to a veto, posing a hurdle for any omnibus regulatory review bill. The key would be gaining enough support for an omnibus package to override a Senate filibuster or President Obama's veto.
The most detailed option for future action outlined in S. Con. Res. 17 is for a permanent select committee with the power to force agencies to rewrite proposed rules in order to "accomplish the intent of the agency or address the recommendations or objections of the Committee." But this might be even more difficult to approve than the existing legislation as it would give Congress new standing authority over any future executive branch rules.
"The resolution might pass, but the resolution seems to be about planning the plan rather than being an actual plan-- It's a new way to say they're working on regulatory reform, but it looks like the endgame would be similar to what's going on already," the pro-EPA advocate says.
A former White House Office of Management & Budget official says that if such reforms do become law, agencies might try to dodge them by crafting more policy reforms as guidance instead of rules subject to legislative and judicial review.
"I think the broader issue is that we -- and I'm one of them -- have put a number of regulatory requirements on agencies, and if you keep on adding to those, the agencies will find a way around them, and the way around them is to issue more and more guidance. I think they have to look at the downsides of putting any more conditions on them, and I think the downsides are considerable," the former official says.
Supporters of other pending reform bills have cited EPA rules -- especially its power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rules and its final rule defining jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act -- as major reasons for expanding legislators' review of regulations, and such rules would almost certainly be among the first examined by a select committee.
The most recent such bill, S. 1393, is aimed solely at EPA and would force the agency to craft analyses of its rules' compliance costs based on an assumption that no currently pending or unimplemented rules will go into effect before the rule in question is finalized. Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who introduced the legislation, said in a May 20 statement that he is pushing the bill as a direct response to the agency's proposal to tighten air standards for ozone.
Thune says EPA's regulatory impact analysis for the Nov. 25 ozone proposal "assumed . . . that numerous other regulations would be fully implemented, despite the possibility that these regulations may have been subject to delay, modification, or dismissal prior to finalization," and that the current ozone national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per bill (ppb), which many areas have yet to attain, would be fully implemented.
"Such inclusions likely caused the [analysis] to significantly underestimate the true cost of a lower ozone standard," Thune said. EPA is slated by Oct. 1 to decide whether to move ahead with its proposal to tighten the standard to a level between 65 and 70 ppb.
Regulatory Reform
The House fiscal year 2016 budget resolution also included a section advocating regulatory reform legislation, citing EPA's pending greenhouse gas rules for power plants as examples of costly policies.
Some regulatory reform bills have garnered Democratic support, such as H.R. 484, which would create an expedited procedure for Congress to vacate or amend through joint resolutions agency rules identified by the Government Accountability Office as "duplicative."
Rep. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) co-sponsored the bill, and eight Democrats in total voted in favor of the measure in a 250-175 House floor vote on Jan. 13. But the low number of Democrats that backed the bill highlight the tough prospects the GOP faces in trying to win the minority's backing for regulatory review bills.
Other pending legislation includes H.R. 1155, which would establish a panel to identify "unnecessarily burdensome" rules; H.R. 348, which would accelerate environmental reviews of permits; and H.R. 712, which would set new requirements for public participation in settlements between citizen groups and agencies that would set deadlines for rulemaking -- a practice Republicans have termed "sue and settle" but which EPA and environmentalists have countered does not affect the content of rules.
-
U.S. LNG Gets Ready for the Global Stage
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The first U.S. shipment of liquefied natural gas set to leave America's shores at the end of 2015 should fulfill its longtime promise of going global.
Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana expects to ship its first LNG tanker around December as demand for the super-cooled fuel perks up.
The news has motivated commodity traders who have positioned themselves for increased trading activity and a push toward more LNG contracts based on current price of gas, known as spot pricing.
Analysts from Goldman Sachs predict LNG will outpace iron ore as the second most valuable physical commodity after oil this year.
However, some traders have urged caution: "It is still a very young market and long-term supply contracts are still going to be key, at least up until 2020," said one London-based LNG shipbroker (Sheppard/Raval, Financial Times, May 28). -- KS
-
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Maryland’s ban on hydraulic fracturing became law after Gov. Larry Hogan (R) decided not to veto it.
The bill bans fracking for two and a half years, and requires the state to write standards to regulate the practice for when the ban lifts.
Maryland is the second state in recent months to ban fracking. New York recently filed the final paperwork to ban fracking, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) pledged last year.
There has been little demand for fracking in Maryland since the practice took off nationally in certain areas of oil and natural gas shale deposits.
But neighboring Pennsylvania has been one of the most active states for fracking thanks to the Marcellus shale formation, and West Virginia has also hosted fracking.
A portion of the shale formation crosses into western Maryland’s panhandle region.
A spokeswoman for Hogan told the Maryland Daily Record Friday that he would not take action on the bill the state House and Senate passed in May with veto-proof margins.
Under Maryland’s constitution, the law took effect Saturday due to Hogan’s inaction.
Environmentalists applauded Hogan’s decision.
Maryland officials are working on fracking rules, and proposed strict standards last year under Gov. Martin O’Malley (D).
“Gov. Hogan is rightly following the will of the public in allowing Maryland’s first statutory moratorium on fracking to become law,” Shilpa Joshi, Maryland campaign coordinator at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said in a statement.
“I am relieved and delighted that Gov. Hogan will allow mine and Delegate [David] Fraser-Hidalgo's bill for a two-year moratorium on fracking to become law without his signature,” said Sen. Karen Montgomery (D), the sponsor of the fracking ban.
-
Md. Fracking Ban Goes into Effect After Veto Deadline Passes
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Maryland will impose a two-year fracking moratorium after Republican Gov. Larry Hogan declined to veto a measure on the idea.
H.B. 449 requires the state Department of Environmental Quality to write regulations on shale gas drilling by the end of 2016 but prohibits the department from issuing drilling permits until Oct. 1, 2017.
Hogan, who supported gas drilling when he was running for office last fall, was faced with veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the state General Assembly and opted not to sign the bill, his spokeswoman said Friday.
The new law could embolden activists who have tried to block drilling in other parts of the country.
"Passing a moratorium under a pro-fracking Governor is a testament to the effectiveness that organizing can have," Mitch Jones, with the environmental group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.
The bill by Rep. David Fraser-Hidalgo (D) initially called for an eight-year moratorium, but the time period was shortened during negotiations in the state House and Senate.
The gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation, which has turned Pennsylvania and other Eastern states into energy producers, extends under two counties in western Maryland. The state Department of Environmental Quality spent three years studying whether to allow drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which was used to tap the Marcellus.
Former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who left office in November, opted to allow drilling under tight restrictions (EnergyWire, Nov. 26, 2014).
Environmental groups, landowners and western Maryland's tourism industry lined up behind the moratorium, saying the delay would allow scientists to study the long-term effects of drilling (EnergyWire, March 12).
Hogan's decision to allow the bill to pass was probably eased by the drop in gas prices, which has slowed drilling around the country. Also, it will take the Department of Environmental Quality months to complete the regulations, so there's less political cost to a two-year moratorium.
-
Western States Ask Court to Block BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Two states suing over the Obama administration's new hydraulic fracturing regulations are now asking a federal court to block the scheduled summer rollout of the rule.
Wyoming and Colorado on Friday filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to halt the rule's implementation while the states' legal challenge is underway.
"Wyoming has led the way in creating safe, responsible rules for hydraulic fracturing -- rules that have been in place for years," said Gov. Matt Mead (R) in a statement Friday. "It makes sense to wait until Wyoming's case is resolved to enact a rule that complicates compliance and hurts our economy.
Two industry groups, who are also suing over the rule, asked the same court for an injunction two weeks ago (EnergyWire, May 18). The cases may be consolidated, and a decision on the injunction is expected within weeks.
The fracking rule, in the works for years at the Bureau of Land Management, was met with instant litigation when it was unveiled in March. The rule aims to regulate well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and Indian lands, but critics argue that the rule creates a mess of bureaucracy with little environmental benefit.
Industry advocates are particularly concerned that BLM didn't adequately consider certain added costs oil and gas companies will face under the new standards, and many state and tribal governments argue that the rule duplicates their own efforts to regulate fracking.
In Friday's filing, Wyoming and Colorado focus on their claim that BLM exceeded its authority in drafting the fracking rule in the first place. They say the agency is attempting to regulate fracking, despite the fact that it is a form of underground injection -- a process governed solely by U.S. EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 subsequently exempted fracking from EPA oversight, leaving it to the states.
"With the passage of the Energy Policy Act, Congress intended to remove the federal government from the realm of fracking, leaving the matter to the states to regulate," the states said in a filing last week. "The states have a right to the benefit they procured in the Energy Policy Act."
Once the fracking rule takes effect, the states argue, they will suffer irreparable harm to their sovereign authority, along with economic harm from permitting delays.
North Dakota, where about a third of oil production occurs on tribal and public lands, is also party to the state lawsuit. Utah has announced plans to join, and other states and tribes have indicated interest.
-
Kansas Governor Signs Bill to Comply with Power Plant Rules
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Kansas will formulate a plan to comply with the Obama administration's climate rule for power plants despite ongoing opposition to it within state government.
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill last week directing the state's Department of Health and Environment and the Kansas Corporation Commission to work on a strategy to meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan, which looks to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The bill acknowledges the state attorney general's lawsuit against the forthcoming rule, telling agencies to find ways to delay compliance as long as possible, the Topeka Capital-Journalreported.
Kansas is one of a dozen states suing against the rule, which is due out later this summer. Republican officials and lawmakers there are not allies of Obama on climate issues, saying last week that they couldn't identify environmental or health benefits associated with the plan.
Under the Clean Power Plan, the federal government sets carbon emission reduction targets for states, which then put together plans to meet those goals. States that don't write their own plans are given reduction strategies from the federal government, something Brownback said he is trying to avoid in Kansas.
“You’re seeing an administration trying to rush out a rule while they’re still in power,” Brownback said at a bill signing last week. “We just need to protect the rights of the state of Kansas and its residents from the continued pattern of federal intrusion and overreach.”
Oklahoma is the only state so far to definitively say it will not comply with the Clean Power Plan. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential Republican presidential candidate, wrote President Obama last month and told him the plan was "unworkable" for his state.
-
Despite Hostility Toward EPA, Kan. Will Forge its Own Clean Power Plan Response
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
When U.S. EPA announced its ambitious effort to cut the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) called the proposed regulation "a war against middle America."
And yet, one day before he signed a new law eliminating his state's renewable portfolio standard and replacing it with voluntary goals, the deeply conservative governor also signed a measure setting a path for Kansas to develop its own state implementation plan for the federal regulation. Brownback signed both measures into law last week.
The law puts Kansas on a path different than the "Just say no" approach Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is urging states to take with EPA's Clean Power Plan. So far, the governors of Oklahoma and Texas have said they'll follow McConnell's lead and refuse to submit an implementation plan to EPA, forcing federal regulators to come up with the state strategies themselves.
The new Kansas law creates a legislative "study committee" that will consult the state's Department of Health and Environment as it crafts a plan to meet EPA's emissions goals. The panel, which includes top members from the state House and Senate's environment- and energy-related committees, would be able to reject the Kansas plan or call for revisions. The state's attorney general and state corporation commission would play a role in reviewing the strategy, as well.
However, regardless of where the review process stands, the department would be able to submit its latest proposal to EPA when the implementation plans are due.
Kansas is the fourth state to pass a law this year giving the Legislature some sort of consultation role in how its environmental regulators craft a plan to meet EPA's power plant regulations. Like measures passed in Arizona, Arkansas and North Dakota, the Kansas law falls short of the full legislative veto power that the influential American Legislative Exchange Council has called for (ClimateWire, April 10).
West Virginia enacted an ALEC-style law earlier this year, as did Pennsylvania in 2014 (ClimateWire, March 5). The initial version of the Kansas measure would have done so, as well, barring environmental regulators from formulating an implementation plan without "specific statutory authority."'Needless delays and possible inaction'?
Speaking after the bill signing, legislative leaders said that in the end, despite their concerns about the Clean Power Plan, they wanted the state to develop its own approach to the regulation. "We didn't want to have a federal plan put upon us. We wanted to be prepared with a state plan if one was needed," said Republican state Sen. Robert Olson, who chairs the Senate's Utilities Committee, according to public radio station KCUR.
The Kansas Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about the Clean Power Plan's impact on electricity prices and reliability but endorsed the new law for similar reasons.
"We support a strong response in the best interests of the state and the many affected ratepayers," said CEO Mike O'Neal in his testimony at an April hearing.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R). Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
Within the prism of the state's energy politics, the Kansas Sierra Club's legislative director, Zack Pistora, viewed the new law as a win. "It comes down to, we're going to come forth with a Kansas plan to address emissions. And that's a positive thing," he said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, which has long bird-dogged ALEC's EPA-related model legislation, had a similar view, since the law falls short of authorizing full legislative veto power. "If I were a company funding ALEC, I would cancel my membership with such a poor return on investment this year," said Aliya Haq, who has been tracking the progress of ALEC bills for NRDC.
But Bill Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in the end, he doesn't see much difference between legislative panels and full legislatures approving, rejecting or consulting on state implementation plans. "These reviews can be needlessly complicating and could significantly postpone the submittal of state plans to EPA within the established federal deadlines," he said.
"Generally speaking, these planning processes have worked very well in the past without the extra layer of review. At issue is the extent to which the extra layers of review cause needless delays and possible inaction," Becker added.
Of course, for some of the people advocating for this type of legislative oversight, delay and possible inaction are the entire point of the measures.
-
Oil Giants Call for Global Carbon Pollution Fees
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Six major European oil companies are asking the United Nations to help impose carbon dioxide emission pricing in all countries.
The oil giants said their request to the U.N. represents the best way they could contribute to reducing carbon emissions and fighting climate change.
The Friday letter comes six months before U.N. member countries are due to meet in Paris to hammer out an international agreement to cut greenhouse gases and help nations cope with the effects of climate change.
“If governments act to price carbon, this discourages high carbon options and encourages the most efficient ways of reducing emissions widely, including reduced demand for the most carbon intensive fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, the use of natural gas in place of coal, increased investment in carbon capture and storage, renewable energy, smart buildings and grids, off-grid access to energy, cleaner cars and new mobility business models and behaviors,” they wrote.
The letter was signed by representatives of the United Kingdom’s BG Group and BP, Italy’s Eni, the UK-Netherlands's Royal Dutch Shell, Norway’s Statoil and France’s Total.
They specifically asked for carbon pricing systems in the countries that do not have them and for them to be implemented in a way so the systems could eventually be integrated internationally.
The oil producers offered their help and expertise to the U.N. and any countries in implementing carbon pricing, which could include taxes on carbon emissions, cap-and-trade systems or other policies that charge companies to pollute.
While it could make oil production more expensive, carbon pricing could also encourage the production and use of natural gas, another major product for the oil companies.
“Pricing carbon obviously adds a cost to our production and our products — but carbon pricing policy frameworks will contribute to provide our businesses and their many stakeholders with a clear roadmap for future investment, a level playing field for all energy sources across geographies and a clear role in securing a more sustainable future,” they said.
-
Big Energy Pushes Carbon Trading Scheme
Jun 1, 2015 | Politico
By Sara Stefanini and Kalina Oroschakoff
Six of the world’s leading oil and gas companies are offering to help set up a carbon pricing system that would encourage a switch to cleaner fuels — and also shift away from polluting coal — a sign they want a seat at the table for the upcoming climate summit in Paris.
In an unusually united front, the six released a joint letter to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat Monday, emphasizing their view that carbon pricing is the fairest and most efficient way to achieve the climate change targets currently under negotiation.
“To support progress towards these outcomes, our companies would like to open direct dialogue with the UN and willing governments,” the chief executives for BP, BG Group, Shell, Statoil, Eni and Total said in the letter. Two leading American companies, Chevron and ExxonMobil, did not take part, according to the Financial Times.
The statement coincides with the start of the triennial World Gas Conference in Paris and a 10-day meeting in Bonn to hammer out the technicalities of agreements governments are hoping to reach at the COP21 summit in December.
The companies believe a robust carbon pricing system is key to shifting energy use away from the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, to the cleanest, gas. Governments, they say, need to create “even-handed” pricing schemes that can eventually be linked up across jurisdictions. None of the six are large coal producers, all have significant investments in gas.
Pressure to strengthen the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) has mounted in recent years, as the cost of both coal imports and carbon allowances has tumbled. The result has been that companies have chosen to continue burning coal and paying for the allowances, with the outcome that cleaner gas is being squeezed out of the mix.
“In Europe we have a shrinking market, so you need to make choices, so we target the most polluting fuels,” said a Brussels-based source familiar with the companies, adding that there is a disconnect between the billions of euros invested in renewables every year and the amount of coal in Europe’s energy mix. Coal accounts for about a fifth of EU energy production.
The ETS reform agreed to last month in Brussels will not be enough to encourage this fuel switching, according to the companies. Many analysts feel that the price for emitting a metric ton of carbon will rise from less than €10 now to more than €20 within a decade, but that still may not be enough to spur decarbonization. Instead, Europe needs to look at examples of emissions performance standards already adopted in the US and UK.
The companies’ argument is that by putting a price on carbon emissions, governments will not need to subsidize certain fuels over others. “They don’t ask for special treatment for any particular source of energy, but an introduction of a widespread carbon price,” said David Nicholas, a spokesman for BP.
The International Emissions Trading Association backed the call for stronger carbon pricing and links between different schemes, saying it will result in faster emissions cuts.
Reinhard Bütikofer, MEP and chair of the European Green Party, said the companies were welcome to join the talks on how to fix the bloc’s ETS, but he was also wary of the intentions behind their letter.
“The recent letter to the UN by Europe’s six biggest fossil fuel companies shows they’re getting nervous. And they should be,” Bütikofer said. “Asking the UN to let them help devise a plan to stop global warming is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. Why should fossil fuel companies be given a privileged position in the formulation of a UN climate agreement?”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested