Preview Newsletter
ACC AM June 2
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: LyondellBasell Industries, Celanese and Stepan - Press Releases
Jun 1, 2015 | Nasdaq
Zacks.com announces the list of stocks featured in the Analyst Blog. Every day the Zacks Equity Research analysts discuss the latest news and events impacting stocks and the financial markets. Stocks recently featured in the blog include the LyondellBasell Industries NV ( LYB ), Celanese Corporation ( CE ) and Stepan Company ( SCL ). -
(ACC Mentioned) #SB15sd Workshop Demystifies Range of Tools for Evaluating Chemicals in Products
Jun 1, 2015 | Chemistry and Materials
By Caitlin Kauffman
Kicking off Sustainable Brands ‘15 San Diego this morning was an informative workshop on evaluating product chemicals and the most useful tools for doing so. Consumers have recently become hyper-aware of chemicals used in their products, but the way they receive that information and the way the information is gathered differs according... -
Wyoming, Colorado Seek Injunction To Block Enforcement of BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wyoming and Colorado filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule from taking effect (Wyo. v. Dep't of Interior, D. Wyo, No. 2:15-CV-00043, motion for injunction 5/29/15). The motion, filed May 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, said states that regulate fracking... -
Drilling Resumes In Texas City That Tried To Ban Fracking
Jun 1, 2015 | Reuters
By Marice Richter
Drilling resumed on Monday at a hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, site in Denton, Texas, a college town that had voted to ban the oil and gas extraction process. Voters in Denton, about 30 miles (50 km) north of Dallas, approved the ban last November, a move that prompted lawsuits by the industry's Texas Oil & Gas Association... -
Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill to Restrict Local Efforts to Regulate Oil, Gas Drilling
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
A bill to curb municipal efforts to regulate oil and gas operations became law when Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed the measure hailed by the state as “reaffirming” the state as the “sole regulator” of Oklahoma's oil and natural gas industry. The law, which took immediate effect following the governor's signature May 29... -
Oklahoma Blocks Local Fracking Bans
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed a bill banning local ordinances against hydraulic fracturing or other oil and gas drilling operations. Fallin, a Republican, said the bill is meant to provide uniform state standards for oil and gas drilling rather than a mix of local rules. The state's three-person Oklahoma Corporation Commission is charged... -
Comment Deadline Extended for Shale Effluent Rule
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposed federal rule to set guidelines and standards for effluent from shale oil and shale gas sent to publicly owned water treatment plants will get an extension of its public comment period, the Environmental Protection Agency said June 1. The deadline for comments will be extended to July 17, according to an EPA notice to ... -
New York Gives Company One Month To Respond on Plan for Bitumen Boilers
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has given Global Companies LLC until the end of June to respond to a recent notice requesting a full environmental impact statement for its plan to build seven boilers to process crude oil at the Port of Albany, the company announced June 1. -
Court Says Nationwide Wetlands Permit For Keystone Section Does Not Violate Law
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lars-Eric Hedberg
A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it verified that a nationwide permit covers construction of the 485-mile southern section of the Keystone crude oil pipeline (Sierra Club, Inc. v. Bostick, 2015 BL 170048... -
Total Plans to Raise Gas Shipments, Exit Coal Mining Under New Policy
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tara Patel
Total SA plans to raise production and trading of liquefied natural gas by 2020 and pull out of coal mining as part of a new policy on fossil fuels and climate change. “Total is gas and gas is good,” Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne said June 1 in Paris. The company plans to produce and trade about 32.5 million metric tons of LNG at ... -
Clean Power Plan State Policies Expert Goes To EPA
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions' expert on the Clean Power Plan has left to take a position at U.S. EPA. In an email to contacts Friday, Kyle Aarons said he expected his new post as attorney-adviser to EPA's Office of Congressional Affairs to be eventful. -
Federal Judge Orders Discovery in Lawsuit Seeking to Compel Jobs Review of EPA Rules
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal judge ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to provide requested documents and staff for depositions in a lawsuit that seeks to compel a jobs impact review of Clean Air Act regulations (Murray Energy v. EPA, N.D. W.V., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, order issued, 5/29/15). -
EPA Issues Guidance on When to Consider Environmental Justice Nearly Four Years Late
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency issued June 1 its final guidance for rule writers and “decision-makers” on when to consider environmental justice during development of regulatory actions. The guidance clarifies several details from interim guidance the agency issued in July 2010, such as definitions of populations of concern and “when and... -
Groups Look To Defuse Disputes In Emerging Legislation
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
With lawmakers in both chambers prepping major energy bills for floor debate later this year, interest groups are scrambling to untangle policy disputes that threaten to ensnare key legislative priorities. Leaders of the primary House and Senate committees of jurisdiction have been careful to separate the more... -
Greater Range of Views on Climate Change Now Exists in Republican Presidential Field
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Two of the four most recent entrants into the Republican presidential field have bucked their party's conventional take on climate change by supporting some form of governmental action to address the problem. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) has called climate change an “urgent crisis facing the world, while former New York Gov. -
Reducing Methane Emissions: Voluntary Efforts Alone Won’t Get the Job Done
Jun 1, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
In January, the White House announced the ambitious goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent over the next ten years. It was a landmark moment and a step toward making a great impact on greenhouse emissions and their effects on the climate by reducing a potent pollutant. -
Congress Urged To Ease EPA Rule Deadlines To Prevent 'Sue And Settle'
Jun 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Judiciary Committee members are weighing a call to ease Clean Air Act rulemaking deadlines and citizen suit provisions as a way to curb what EPA critics call environmentalists' "sue and settle" strategy of filing litigation against the agency that results in settlement agreements setting deadlines for the agency to write new rules. -
Final Sulfur Dioxide Data Rule Under OMB Review
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a final rule that would instruct state and local air pollution control agencies on how to characterize sulfur dioxide concentrations in areas with the largest sources of sulfur dioxide emissions. The data requirements rule, submitted for review May 30 by the Environmental Protection... -
White House Issues Veto Threat For FY16 Spending Bill Awaiting House Floor Vote
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The House Rules Committee yesterday cleared a fiscal 2016 transportation spending bill for floor action, shortly after President Obama threatened to torpedo the legislation in its current form. In a six-page policy statement warning of a possible veto, the White House said the measure "freezes or cuts critical investment in transportation that creates...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Jun 1, 2015 | Nasdaq
Zacks.com announces the list of stocks featured in the Analyst Blog. Every day the Zacks Equity Research analysts discuss the latest news and events impacting stocks and the financial markets. Stocks recently featured in the blog include the LyondellBasell Industries NV ( LYB ), Celanese Corporation ( CE ) and Stepan Company ( SCL ).
Today, Zacks is promoting its ''Buy'' stock recommendations. Get #1Stock of the Day pick for free .
Here are highlights from Friday's Analyst Blog:
3 Chemical Growth Stocks to Revitalize Your Portfolio
The chemical industry is gradually gaining strength after being badly shaken by the global economic crisis. The highly cyclical industry - which had long been out of favor - is finally looking up, making it an attractive investment proposition for 2015.
The industry got off to a positive start in 2015 as the March quarter showed healthy demand trends for chemicals across key markets, and continued recovery in commercial construction - an end-market that has long been a weak link.
While the outlook for the European chemical industry appears foggy given sluggishness in some of the region's major economies, high energy costs and declining investments, prospects in the U.S. look healthy -- driven by a gradually convalescing economy, strength in the automotive space, a recovery in the construction market and increasing investments in shale gas-linked projects.
The American Chemistry Council ("ACC") envisions national chemical production to rise 3.7% in 2015 and 3.9% in 2016. The trade group also sees domestic chemical sales to cross the $1 trillion milestone by 2019.
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets (driven by megatrends) such as agriculture and health and nutrition in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are grappling with weak demand and input costs pressure. The industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities as chemical makers increasingly looking to diversify their business.
The shale gas boom in the U.S. has also been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country. The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to invest billions of dollars to beef up capacity.
According to the ACC, domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as $138 billion, over 60% which is from firms outside of the U.S. Such investments - many backed by Federal government support - are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Moreover, the automotive sector continues to "accelerate." This major chemical end-use market is enjoying the fruits of low gasoline prices. In particular, U.S. light vehicles (a key market) sales are expected to rise this year, riding on an improving job market, lower fuel prices, attractive financing options and pent-up demand.
A rebound across housing and non-residential construction has been another supporting factor for the chemical industry recovery. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction industry is gradually on the mend, further manifested by better-than-expected housing data for April. The recovery momentum is expected to continue moving ahead, which augurs well for chemical demand in this key market.
3 Chemical Growth PlaysGrowth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for substantial growth. With the help of our new style score system , we have picked 3 stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns.
Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Scores of 'A' or 'B' when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space.
LyondellBasell Industries NV ( LYB )
Netherlands-based LyondellBasell has a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'B.' LyondellBasell remains on track with its ethylene expansion projects across its Channelview, La Porte and Corpus Christi facilities in Texas to leverage the U.S. natural gas liquids (NGLs) advantage. The expansion program, when in full swing, is expected to expand the company's annual ethylene capacity by as much as 2.3-2.4 billion pounds in North America.
LyondellBasell has delivered positive earnings surprises in the last 4 quarters, with an average beat of around 18.3%. The stock has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 7.8%.
Celanese Corporation ( CE )
Our next pick in the space is Texas-based Celanese, armed with a Zacks Rank #1 and Growth Score 'B.' The company has surpassed expectations over the last four quarters with an average earnings surprise of 17.3%. Its long-term projected EPS growth rate is 7.2%.
Celanese remains focused on reducing costs and running its plants more efficiently amid a still challenging operating backdrop. It is also aggressively expanding its capacity in the emerging markets. Celanese is constructing a methanol plant at its Clear Lake acetyl complex with an annual capacity of 1.3 million metric ton. The company's expansion and productivity improvement initiatives are expected to support earnings growth.
Stepan Company ( SCL )
Lastly, Illinois-based Stepan is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #1 and Growth Score 'A.' The stock delivered a healthy positive earnings surprise of 32.4% in the last reported quarter. This specialty and intermediate chemicals maker is taking steps to cut costs through its efficiency program and other strategic initiatives, which should lead to higher earnings. It should also gains from lower costs of petroleum-based raw materials, which should help drive margins across its surfactant and polymer businesses.
Wrapping Up
While the chemical industry still remains buffeted by a slowdown in China and sluggishness in some parts of Europe, the industry's upturn is expected to continue this year on an improving U.S. economy, strong momentum in the automotive space and continued healing across housing and commercial construction markets.
Amid such a backdrop, it would be prudent idea to invest in the above-mentioned stocks with strong growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio.
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report >>About Zacks Equity Research
Zacks Equity Research provides the best of quantitative and qualitative analysis to help investors know what stocks to buy and which to sell for the long-term.
Continuous coverage is provided for a universe of 1,150 publicly traded stocks. Our analysts are organized by industry which gives them keen insights to developments that affect company profits and stock performance. Recommendations and target prices are six-month time horizons.
-
(ACC Mentioned) #SB15sd Workshop Demystifies Range of Tools for Evaluating Chemicals in Products
Jun 1, 2015 | Chemistry and Materials
By Caitlin Kauffman
Kicking off Sustainable Brands ‘15 San Diego this morning was an informative workshop on evaluating product chemicals and the most useful tools for doing so. Consumers have recently become hyper-aware of chemicals used in their products, but the way they receive that information and the way the information is gathered differs according to the tools brands use. The panel discussed chemical hazard, exposure and risk capabilities, software usability and other factors to consider when deciding which framework or software solution best meet a company’s chemical assessment needs.
Tony Kingsbury, of TKingsbury Consulting and a former Dow Chemical engineer, began the workshop by sharing his evaluation of 32 tools for screening and prioritizing chemicals, including US EPA’s DfE, GreenScreen, GreenSuite, GreenWERCS, SciVera, GoodGuide and Cradle-to-Cradle. He also cited Target and Walmart’s development of sustainable product standards. There are hundreds of tools available, but choosing the right one depends on a few key factors.
“You need to understand what your intent is and what you want to get out of these tools and pick the right tool accordingly. You can come up with very different answers depending on what tools you use… very different,” said Kingsbury.
Kingsbury’s findings were published in Integrated Assessment and Environmental Management (Gauthier, A.M. et al., 2014) in an article called, “Chemical Assessment State of the Science: Evaluation of 32 decision-support tools used to screen and prioritize chemicals.” He saw a clear opportunity to improve exposure tools, improvement, data gaps and the review process as only four tools received the maximum score for hazard and exposure.
“These tools often times are used to give you an answer, but they shouldn’t be. They should be a screen to look at your ingredients more deeply,” Kingsbury added. “You have to understand the context in which they’re used. Use it as a screening tool, not an answer-generator.”
He used the example of biocides, which are found in cleaning solutions, paints and shampoos, and prevent microorganisms from growing in the product. Some screens red-light biocides, but if removed, it creates a lot more harm than good because now there is bacteria or mold growing in your shampoo that you could then inhale, ingest at far greater cost. Even though they fail the screen, it’s important to look at the context the chemical is used in and at what dosage.
Tim Greiner, Managing Director of Pure Strategies, went on to discuss how software tools can help integrate and streamline chemical evaluations. His goal was to help companies think about what they want out of Sustainable Chemical Management software. The main business priorities fell into three categories: reducing risks, increased efficiency and reduced costs and improved customer reputation and relationships. He cited SC Johnson, which created its own assessment tool — GreenList — and Seagate, which requires full materials disclosure from its suppliers and provides REACH assurance to customers in two business days rather than weeks or months for others.
Greiner highlighted the five most important components of Sustainable Chemical Management software: inventory chemistry data (helping to understand data gaps); screen against restricted substance lists (RSLs); assess chemicals against hazard endpoints (can be automated or individualized); assess exposure potential; and identify less hazardous alternatives.
“We’re moving from a place of asking to tools to do compliance to now using them for product and design,” Greiner noted.
Ann Mason, Senior Director of the American Chemical Council (ACC), closed out the workshop with several key takeaways. Firstly, that not all tools are created equally.
Framework tools such as GreenScreen provide the method by which a professional would analyze the tools, whereas list-based tools are more black and white: Are you on the list or are you not on the list? Depending on which tool you use, you may get very different answers.
Mason spoke about two pilot projects conducted by the ACC, which were created to determine whether consumers make decisions based on science or perception. In the course of their projects they found a large difference in hazard ratings between list-based and data-based tools. For example, caffeine was seen as low-risk by list tools, but high risk by databases. She emphasized Kingsbury’s point that you must match the tool with the question you’re asking; product use is supremely important, as well as who is doing the using and what they’re using it for.
She used water as an example. It is essential to life but if too much is drunk too quickly or if it’s inhaled, it can be fatal. Mason reiterated that toxicity is natural — toxic evolutionary adaptations in nature are defense mechanisms.
“It’s not chemophobia that should reign,” said Mason. “It’s the dosage and the method that makes the poison, not the chemical.”
-
Wyoming, Colorado Seek Injunction To Block Enforcement of BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wyoming and Colorado filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule from taking effect (Wyo. v. Dep't of Interior, D. Wyo, No. 2:15-CV-00043, motion for injunction 5/29/15).
The motion, filed May 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, said states that regulate fracking will “suffer an immediate loss of their exclusive sovereign authority” over the process, which involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals deep underground to extract oil and natural gas.
Fracking, coupled with horizontal drilling, is widely used by energy exploration and development companies to release from shale formations oil and gas that otherwise would be uneconomical to produce.
New Protective Standards
The BLM released the final rule March 20 and said it will begin enforcing it June 24 (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15).
The final rule includes standards for protection of groundwater supplies, disclosure of chemicals used in fracking and the interim storage of recovered waste fluids from the fracking process at facilities located on federal and Indian lands.
Wyoming sued the Interior Department the same day the rule was finalized, saying it “exceeds the agency's statutory jurisdiction, conflicts with the Safe Drinking Water Act and unlawfully interferes with” the state's own fracking rules.
The suit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Colorado, North Dakota and Utah later joined the suit, although only Colorado joined Wyoming in the motion for preliminary injunction (80 DEN A-22, 4/27/15).
In creating the 2015 rule, the BLM disregarded Congress's specific limitation on federal power over the regulation of fracking, and thus, exceeded its jurisdiction, the states said in their motion.
‘Sweeping Regulatory Regime.’
“The rule creates a sweeping regulatory scheme far beyond the Bureau's authority and takes effect in less than a month,” the motion said. “Instead of deferring to the States, who have flexibility and expertise with regional geology and groundwater conditions, the Bureau has created an overlapping federal regime that produces nothing more than duplication of effort.”
If the BLM rule is imposed on all fracking plans on federal and Indian lands, oil and gas operators “will likely seek out states with less federal oversight, causing the States to lose high paying oil and gas jobs, as well as mineral lease royalties and severance tax revenues,” the states said.
Implementation of the fracking rule before a court decision on the merits in the case “will result in waste of state, federal, and industry resources without providing a benefit to the environment,” the states said.
Governor Says Rules in Place
In a statement with the filing of the motion for an injunction, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) said the state has led the nation in creating safe, responsible rules for hydraulic fracturing. Those rules “have been in place for years,” he said.
“It makes sense to wait until Wyoming's case is resolved to enact a rule that complicates compliance and hurts our economy,” he said.
The federal government has until June 12 to file a response to the motion, according to the governor's office.
-
Drilling Resumes In Texas City That Tried To Ban Fracking
Jun 1, 2015 | Reuters
By Marice Richter
Drilling resumed on Monday at a hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, site in Denton, Texas, a college town that had voted to ban the oil and gas extraction process.
Voters in Denton, about 30 miles (50 km) north of Dallas, approved the ban last November, a move that prompted lawsuits by the industry's Texas Oil & Gas Association and about a dozen bills in the Texas legislature to give sole regulatory authority for oil and gas to the state.
Vantage Energy resumed operations on Monday after a state law signed last month by Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, prohibited cities from interfering in the nation's top crude oil- and natural gas-producing state.
About a dozen supporters of Denton's ban gathered at the entryway to the site. Three were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing for refusing to move, said Denton police spokesman Ryan Grelle.
Fracking was pioneered in the underground Barnett shale natural gas formation that spans a large area of North Texas where Denton is located. The Barnett formation is one of the most productive U.S. natural gas fields.
Fracking involves injecting a mix of pressurized water, sand and other chemicals into the shale rock to release oil and natural gas.
-
Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill to Restrict Local Efforts to Regulate Oil, Gas Drilling
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
A bill to curb municipal efforts to regulate oil and gas operations became law when Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed the measure hailed by the state as “reaffirming” the state as the “sole regulator” of Oklahoma's oil and natural gas industry.
The law, which took immediate effect following the governor's signature May 29, allows the Oklahoma Corporation Commission—the state oil and gas regulator—to control regulations on oil and gas while giving municipalities room to establish “reasonable setbacks” on the condition they don't “prohibit or ban” oil and gas operations, according to the final version of the bill.
“The bill aims to preserve a unified regulatory framework for the industry and prevent a confusing patchwork of inconsistent municipal regulations across the state,” said a May 29 release from the governor's office.
State Joins Texas in Similar Restrictions
Oklahoma joins Texas in signing into law a measure designed to curtail local efforts to regulate the oil and gas industry, seen largely as a response to a ballot measure approved by the North Texas city of Denton in November 2014 banning hydraulic fracturing within its city limits (215 DEN B-12, 11/6/14).
On May 18 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law a measure granting the state exclusive jurisdiction of oil and gas operations, preempting ordinances and regulations enacted by a municipality that ban, limit or otherwise regulate an oil and gas operation unless the regulation meets one of four tests (96 DEN A-3, 5/19/15).
Authored by House Speaker Jeff Hickman (R) and Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman (R), the measure cleared the Oklahoma Senate May 21 by a 33-13 tally after the House gave its approval by a 64-32 vote in late April (79 DEN A-18, 4/24/15).
“The Corporation Commission is aggressively but fairly regulating Oklahoma's energy industry,” Fallin said.
Measure Welcomed by Industry
Chad Warmington, president of the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association, said the new law will allow the state to maintain its role as a significant contributor of oil and gas on the global stage, while giving leeway to municipalities to enact ordinances dealing with traffic, road use and noise stemming from oil and gas operations.
“This was the most important oil and gas industry bill passed during this legislative session,” Warmington said in a May 29 release issued following the governor's signature. “It protects producers and midstream companies from facing a patchwork of unreasonable regulations across the state.
“This bill was a good compromise for all involved. It maintains the [Oklahoma] Corporation Commission's role in regulating oil and gas activities, without limiting cities' ability to protect their residents.”
Local environmental groups have disputed that notion, pointing to the bill's component that repeals an 80-year-old section of the state statute (Section 137, Title 52) that had given local governments the right to regulate the oil and gas industry in their municipal jurisdictions.
Concerns About Seismicity Persist
Speaking to Bloomberg BNA in May following the bill's passage in the Senate, Oklahoma Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgwater said it was “unfathomable” that the Legislature would react to Oklahoma's increased seismicity by passing legislation “that assures local governments in our state will lose their authority to fully regulate and address the very industries that are being identified as the cause of the biggest threat and safety concern to all of these communities and their residents.”
Oklahoma is projected to encounter 941 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater in 2015, up from revised 2014 figures of 584, according to April data released by the U.S. Geological Survey.
That projection “indicates the threat is not being reduced despite efforts currently under way by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission,“ Bridgwater said in a May 21 release.
The governor said the OCC is using scientific analysis from the Oklahoma Geological Survey in addition to providing additional oversight on hundreds of underground injection wells linked to increased seismic activity.
“As more information and science become available, the Commission will use it to responsibly regulate or even put a stop to some drilling activity that could cause earthquakes or damage to the environment,” she said.
-
Oklahoma Blocks Local Fracking Bans
Jun 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed a bill banning local ordinances against hydraulic fracturing or other oil and gas drilling operations.
Fallin, a Republican, said the bill is meant to provide uniform state standards for oil and gas drilling rather than a mix of local rules. The state's three-person Oklahoma Corporation Commission is charged with regulating the state's oil industry.The oil and gas industry had pushed for the bill, the Associated Press reports, and Fallin signed it over the objections of municipalities and environmental groups in the state.
The new law comes as Oklahoma deals with a sharp increase in small earthquakes that state seismologists have recently linked to drilling operations. In a statement, Fallin said state commissioners are best able to deal with the earthquake issue, not local governments and a "patch of regulations" on oil and gas drilling.
"Corporation Commissioners are elected by the people of Oklahoma to regulate the oil and gas industry," Fallin said in a Friday statement. "They are best equipped to make decisions about drilling and its affect on seismic activity, the environment and other sensitive issues. We need to let these experts do their jobs. The alternative is to pursue a patchwork of regulations that, in some cases, could arbitrarily ban energy exploration and damage the state’s largest industry, largest employers and largest taxpayers."
Oklahoma becomes the second state to block local fracking rules, after Texas instituted a law doing so last month. Lawmakers there passed a bill banning local fracking ordinances after voters in the city of Denton approved one last November.
With the state law superseding the local ban, natural gas drilling resumed in Denton on Monday, the International Business Times reports.
-
Comment Deadline Extended for Shale Effluent Rule
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposed federal rule to set guidelines and standards for effluent from shale oil and shale gas sent to publicly owned water treatment plants will get an extension of its public comment period, the Environmental Protection Agency said June 1. The deadline for comments will be extended to July 17, according to an EPA notice to be published in the June 2 Federal Register. The proposed rule, published April 9, would apply to both natural and manmade pollutants in wastewater from unconventional oil and gas drilling and production (80 Fed. Reg. 18,557). EPA will issue the final rule in summer 2016, an agency official said (93 DEN A-10, 5/14/15).
-
New York Gives Company One Month To Respond on Plan for Bitumen Boilers
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has given Global Companies LLC until the end of June to respond to a recent notice requesting a full environmental impact statement for its plan to build seven boilers to process crude oil at the Port of Albany, the company announced June 1.
The DEC told Global in 2013 that an impact statement was not needed for the project, but the department rescinded that decision in May, citing additional information regarding the project.
Global Partners, a subsidiary of the Waltham, Mass.-based company, needs a permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act to operate the boilers, which would be used to heat bitumen to process crude oil.
The Port of Albany has become a major hub for crude oil shipments in the Northeast, including oil from the Bakken field in North Dakota, setting off a number of local and state regulatory and legal actions over the past year.
Edward J. Faneuil, executive vice president of Global Partners, said the DEC action “does not affect Global's day-to-day operations or activities at the Albany facility.”
“The permit modification application has not been denied, but the DEC has requested additional information in connection with the submission,” he said in a statement. “As always, we are committed to fully complying with all applicable environmental, health and safety regulations.”
2013 Decision Rescinded
In a May 21 letter, the DEC said it was rescinding its 2013 decision because changes in the configuration of the project “may increase the environmental impacts on nearby residents.” In addition, it said information received during a public comment period about potential emissions of sulfur compounds such as hydrogen sulfide “has the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact.”
The letter also said the DEC did not originally give adequate consideration to Global's spill prevention and control plan for potential spills involving a mixture known as dilbit, which is a combination of tar sands oil and a less viscous petrochemical.
In addition, the department said Global erroneously calculated the emissions for the project and would, therefore, need to comply with the state's new source review requirements.
The DEC letter was applauded by Environmental Advocates of New York, which described the proposed project as one of the most controversial and environmentally dangerous proposals currently before the agency.
“They tried to slip this one by, but the citizens of Albany and in other Hudson River communities stood up and said no to tar sands,” Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates, said in a statement.
Air Monitoring Study at Port
The DEC also has announced that it is conducting an air monitoring study in the Port of Albany to determine if the state's one-hour regulatory standard for hydrogen sulfide is being exceeded. The study was announced May 27, part of a series of steps to respond to crude oil transportation incidents.
The department also will develop geographic response plans along the rail corridors in the state where crude oil is being shipped. It will work with local governments in 21 counties, in addition to the federal government, to improve preparedness and response plans near the rail corridors.
The state Legislature approved a $15 million increase in the state's Oil Spill Fund as part of the 2015-2016 state budget, according to the DEC.
-
Court Says Nationwide Wetlands Permit For Keystone Section Does Not Violate Law
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lars-Eric Hedberg
A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it verified that a nationwide permit covers construction of the 485-mile southern section of the Keystone crude oil pipeline (Sierra Club, Inc. v. Bostick, 2015 BL 170048, 10th Cir., No. 14-6099, 5/29/15).
In a May 29 decision, Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected arguments by the Sierra Club, Clean Energy Future Oklahoma and the East Texas Sub Regional Planning Commission that Nationwide Permit 12 authorizes activities with more-than-minimal environmental impacts and unlawfully defers a part of the minimal-impacts analysis to project-level personnel.
The court also ruled that a NEPA analysis was not required at the verification stage and the corps did not need to include a cumulative-effects analysis in its verification letters.
Permit Covers Utility Lines
The Clean Water Act Section 404(e) dredge-and-fill nationwide permit covers the construction of utility lines in U.S. waters, so long as the activity does not result in the loss of 1/2 acre of such waters for the project.
A nationwide permit is a type of general permit issued by the corps—the other is a regional permit. Unlike an individual permit, a general permit eliminates individual review of the proposed activity and allows the permitting process to move forward with fewer delays when the permit applicant meets general and specific conditions, such as those related to federally listed threatened and endangered species.
At issue was whether the corps' environmental review and verification complied with the two laws.
Nationwide Permit Challenge
The Keystone Pipeline operator, TransCanada Corp., proposed to the corps that it would rely on the Nationwide Permit 12 to build the Gulf Coast Pipeline, which would cross more than 2,000 waterways in the route from Cushing, Okla., to Nederland, Texas, , according to the 10th Circuit opinion.
The corps verified that the nationwide permit would cover the proposed construction and, shortly thereafter, TransCanada began construction in August 2012. It has since completed the 36-inch pipeline, which has been transporting oil since January 2014 to refineries in Texas.
The groups alleged in their June 2012 complaint that the corps' issuance of the permit for the dredge and fill of U.S. waters and specifically for the Gulf Coast Project was arbitrary and capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law under Section 706 Administrative Procedure Act because the permit authorizes activities that will cause more than minimal adverse environmental effects. They also claimed that the agency failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the permit as required by NEPA.
They asked the court to declare the permit void, vacate the permit authorizations for the project, and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions to halt construction.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma first denied the groups' motion for a preliminary injunction and then granted summary judgment in favor of the corps (Sierra Club, Inc. v. Bostick, 2013 BL 35778978 ERC 1376, W.D. Okla., No. CIV-12-742, 12/30/13).
Groups Waived NEPA Claims
The 10th Circuit first found that the groups had waived their challenges that environmental assessment for the permit failed to consider the risk of oil spills and cumulative impacts of pipelines.
The court rejected the groups' argument that the oil spill issue is not waived because such a risk is obvious. It reasoned that the corps limited its assessments to the impacts authorized by the permit, such as construction and maintenance, rather than operation of the pipeline.
As to the cumulative impacts, the court found that the no commenter raised this issue during the comment period, meaning it cannot be litigated by the groups.
Moreover, the corps did not have to prepare a NEPA analysis for the entire pipeline before issuing the verification letters, because the verifications do not amount to a “major Federal action” warranting review, and NEPA regulations do not require the agency to assess impacts of the entire pipeline.
Minimal Impacts Issue
The court also rejected the groups' claim that the permit would allow for more than minimal impacts on federal waters. The court ruled that the corps' conclusion that it could assure minimal impact by applying the existing standard (loss of 1/2 acre of U.S. waters) to each water crossing as long as it was “separate and distant” was not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
Next, the court concluded that the corps permissibly interpreted Section 404(e) to allow project-level personnel to evaluate environmental impacts, a sort of partial-deferment of the minimal impact analysis, because of the difficulty it faces predicting impacts from all future activities falling within the nationwide permit.
Finally, the court found that although the district engineers did not include a written analysis of cumulative impacts in the verification letters, such analysis appears in the record. Specifically, memoranda describe the agency's analysis of pipeline impacts and impose special conditions and the letters state that the engineers analyzed all proposed pipeline crossings “relative to the definition of single and complete project for linear projects.”
Part of Larger System
The Gulf Coast Project is part of the larger Keystone Pipeline system to transport Canadian crude oil to U.S. markets.
One element of the system, the 1,200-mile Keystone XL Pipeline, is waiting for presidential approval to be constructed because it crosses the international border (89 DEN A-11, 5/8/15).
According to the State Department, it is reviewing and considering the more than 2.5 million public comments it received during the comment period for the section of the pipeline from the Canadian border to Nebraska. It also is continuing to review the Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Douglas P. Hayes Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, Boulder, argued for the environmental groups.
David C. Shilton of the U.S. Department of Justice argued for the corps.
Peter R. Steenland of Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., argued for TransCanada.
-
Total Plans to Raise Gas Shipments, Exit Coal Mining Under New Policy
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tara Patel
Total SA plans to raise production and trading of liquefied natural gas by 2020 and pull out of coal mining as part of a new policy on fossil fuels and climate change.
“Total is gas and gas is good,” Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne said June 1 in Paris. The company plans to produce and trade about 32.5 million metric tons of LNG at the turn of the decade compared with about 18.5 million tons currently. Total also intends to charter a dozen LNG tankers for future trading, two of them currently under construction.
The targets could be achieved by completing projects in Australia, Russia and elsewhere while trading shale gas exports from the U.S., where prices are expected to stay relatively low for the coming years, Pouyanne said at a news conference. Deals to boost supplies are possible though not “essential.”
Pouyanne made his remarks ahead of the World Gas Conference, set to begin later in the week, when promoters are expected to highlight the energy source as the cleanest-burning fossil fuel compared with coal and oil. Gas production is expected to grow almost everywhere but Europe by 2040, the International Energy Agency said in November. LNG exports will almost double, taking market share from pipelines, according to the Paris-based adviser to 29 developed countries.
“There will be a profound change in the world energy mix,” Pouyanne said June 1. Total will produce more natural gas than crude in the future compared with a 50-50 ratio this year. Total's gas projects under development include Yamal LNG in the Russian Arctic and in Papua New Guinea.
‘Get Out.’
“I still have a coal business and I have to get out of it,” he said. “I can't say that coal is the enemy of gas and then continue to produce coal like some of my colleagues. I will get out of coal.”
Total marketed 8.5 million metric tons of coal on the international market last year, at least 70 percent of it from South Africa, according to its latest annual report. Almost three-quarters of the coal was sold in Asia, the rest to Europe.
Total last year agreed to sell its Total Coal South Africa unit, which produced 3.3 million tons in 2014, to Exxaro Resources Ltd. and is waiting for regulators in that country to approve the deal, according to Total's head of gas, Laurent Vivier.
-
Clean Power Plan State Policies Expert Goes To EPA
Jun 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions' expert on the Clean Power Plan has left to take a position at U.S. EPA. In an email to contacts Friday, Kyle Aarons said he expected his new post as attorney-adviser to EPA's Office of Congressional Affairs to be eventful.
"I have no doubt that this Congress will keep me busy for the foreseeable future, but I'm looking forward to the challenge," he said.
EPA said that Aarons' responsibilities will include "technical, legal, and policy advice on EPA's legislative initiatives and other complex legislative issues, and helping to manage EPA's interaction with the Office of Management and Budget."
Aarons spent more than three years at C2ES focusing on state and regional climate and energy policies, including states' groundwork for EPA's existing power plant draft. The Clean Power Plan assigns states a lead role in implementing the standard, which is set to become final this summer. But many on Capitol Hill have urged state capitols not to comply with the rule, arguing that EPA has few tools to counter a "just say no" approach.
Republicans in both chambers have introduced legislation to prevent EPA from stepping forward with a federal plan if states opt not to comply. The House version -- H.R. 2042, sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) -- is expected to come to the floor late this month.
Aarons previously worked at the Pacific Gas and Electric Co., where he focused on air quality compliance, environmental auditing, and electric vehicle policy and education, according to a biography provided by C2ES.
He holds a juris doctor degree and master of public policy from the University of Michigan and a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth.
-
Federal Judge Orders Discovery in Lawsuit Seeking to Compel Jobs Review of EPA Rules
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal judge ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to provide requested documents and staff for depositions in a lawsuit that seeks to compel a jobs impact review of Clean Air Act regulations (Murray Energy v. EPA, N.D. W.V., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, order issued, 5/29/15).
The documents and interviews must be provided by July 31, Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia said in his May 29 order. Bailey chided the EPA for its failure to respond to the discovery requests made by Murray Energy Corp. and 11 other coal companies as part of their lawsuit.
“This court finds that the plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that further discovery is appropriate and necessary,” Bailey said. “In fact, little meaningful discovery has occurred, yet a motion for summary judgment has been filed.”
The coal companies have filed their lawsuit seeking to require the EPA to evaluate the impacts its various air pollution rules have on jobs as required by Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Murray Energy and the other companies contend that regulations such as proposed carbon dioxide performance standards for power plants and air toxics emissions limits for power plants and industrial boilers are causing job losses in the industry.
The EPA had sought a protective order to block discovery in the lawsuit, arguing that it was unnecessary because the only legal question to be resolved is whether the agency is required to conduct the jobs review (91 DEN A-1, 5/12/15).
The EPA has filed a motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit, but Bailey said Murray Energy does not need to respond to that motion until Oct. 21, after discovery has been completed.
-
EPA Issues Guidance on When to Consider Environmental Justice Nearly Four Years Late
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency issued June 1 its final guidance for rule writers and “decision-makers” on when to consider environmental justice during development of regulatory actions.
The guidance clarifies several details from interim guidance the agency issued in July 2010, such as definitions of populations of concern and “when and to what extent environmental justice must be considered throughout rule development,” according to an agency memorandum also released June 1. In addition, it adds recommendations for how to engage those populations in the rulemaking process, the memo from top officials at several offices to agency employees said.
While the guidance is targeted at the rulemaking process, environmental justice also is considered when developing risk assessments, analytical tools and guidance documents, the document said. The guidance, which aims to ensure consideration of the impacts of rules on low-income, minority, tribal or indigenous populations, applies to the EPA administrator, as well as lower-level officials.
“EPA strives to set the standard for adding the environmental challenges that burden so many of our people and communities,” according to the memo, signed by officials including Jim Jones and Cynthia Giles, who are EPA assistant administrators.
“Rulemaking is a critical part of how we carry out our mission of protecting the environment and health of all Americans.”
The final guidance comes nearly five years after the agency released an interim document on the role that environmental justice should play in the regulatory process and nearly four years later than the EPA said, in Plan EJ 2014, that it would finalize the document.
Guidance Explained
The final guidance delineates how to determine whether a rule will involve an environmental justice concern; when in the rulemaking process these concerns could be appropriately assessed; and how to ensure populations of concern participate “meaningfully in the process.”
It also highlights three key questions rule-writers should consider throughout the development of a regulation:
• How did the public participation process provide meaningful participation and transparency for communities with environmental justice concerns?
• How did the rule-writing group identify and consider current and new environmental and public health impacts on those populations?
• How did the above actions alter or affect the final rule?
The recommendations are consistent with environmental and civil rights laws and Executive Order No. 12,898, an order on federal environmental justice actions, the guidance said.
Recent Actions, Next Steps
Advocates have been calling for the EPA to issue the final guidance for years. It is intended to ensure that rule-writers know when to consider how a rule would uniquely affect low-income, minority, tribal or indigenous populations.
In fact, the EPA Office of the Inspector General began an investigation a year ago into the delay of the document's promulgation, among other issues. A spokesman for the inspector general's office told Bloomberg BNA that its investigation is expected to be released this fall (119 DEN A-16, 6/20/14).
But Jones and Giles said in a blog post released June 1 that even without the final agency guidance, the EPA has been considering environmental justice in its rules. For example, they pointed to the agency's environmental justice analysis for the definition of solid waste rule that was made final earlier this year, a move widely applauded by advocates.
The agency also is working on technical guidance, currently in draft form, that will explain methods for analyzing what those impacts would be (80 DEN A-8, 4/27/15).
“We take seriously our obligation to lead on environmental justice, and to set an example for others,” the assistant administrators said in the blog post.
-
Groups Look To Defuse Disputes In Emerging Legislation
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
With lawmakers in both chambers prepping major energy bills for floor debate later this year, interest groups are scrambling to untangle policy disputes that threaten to ensnare key legislative priorities.
Leaders of the primary House and Senate committees of jurisdiction have been careful to separate the more controversial policies -- such as U.S. EPA's push to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants -- from the legislative push by focusing instead on less-contentious issues, such as infrastructure, efficiency and accountability, all of which are seen as capable of drawing bipartisan support.
But the flurry of such energy-related bills introduced in recent weeks, which by some estimates tops 100, has led to a smorgasbord of legislative options, creating headaches for lawmakers and interest groups as they work to shore up support for their preferred provisions.
Even in the relatively noncontroversial area of energy efficiency, the multitude of offerings is sparking lengthy meetings among Hill staff and stakeholders.
Representatives from several groups spent four hours last month discussing a compromise to the language included in a House Energy and Power Subcommittee energy efficiency discussion draft that aims to put the brakes on the Energy Department's controversial proposal to raise efficiency standards for residential gas furnaces (E&ENews PM, March 27).
Industry officials describe the provision in the House draft as a "placeholder" that is intended to be replaced with language similar to the carefully negotiated compromise for grid-enabled water heaters that President Obama signed into law in April.
Brad Penney, the interim director of government relations for the Alliance to Save Energy, says he's optimistic about the "very active negotiations" on the furnace rule but notes there's other efficiency sticking points.
The alliance strongly opposes a provision in the draft sponsored by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) that would limit DOE's role in the process for setting building efficiency codes.
Penney said the language would hamper a key source of use reductions. "The single greatest energy savings can be obtained through good, effective building codes for newly constructed buildings," he said last week. "It would be a big step back."
The alliance wants to see building code provisions from a bill (H.R. 2177) by Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) substituted for the Blackburn-Schrader language, which Penny said would help the underlying package. "If that were done, you're looking at a totally different comprehensive bill in terms of stakeholder support," he said.
But Bree Raum, director of government relations for the American Gas Association, said the Blackburn-Shrader provision addresses long-standing concerns over DOE's reluctance to show the data and analysis it uses in making decisions on building standards.
"We would like to see that transparency," she said last week.
The ongoing energy discussion is also reopening debate on longstanding policy fights, threatening to upend one hard-fought compromise that interest groups had thought was resolved.
The House draft would repeal a provision from a 2007 energy law that would require a phaseout of fossil fuel-generated energy in new and significantly renovated federal buildings by 2030. But it doesn't include an accompanying provision negotiated by Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that would boost future efficiency targets -- a compromise that has been widely agreed to by groups across the political spectrum. Procedural angst
Some groups are questioning whether some of the compromises being made to win bipartisan backing are worth the trouble, given the dearth of Democratic support for the finished product.
The interstate natural gas pipeline industry, for example, said it's unclear whether House and Senate Republicans gained momentum for legislative language aimed at fast-tracking pipeline reviews after opting for a more moderate approach.
Martin Edwards, vice president of legislative affairs for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), noted that few Democrats in the House appeared to support draft legislation House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans introduced after members left out provisions that mandated automatic pipeline approval after certain periods of time.
House Democrats at a hearing earlier this month generally resisted the bill, saying it would give too much control to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and could subvert other agencies' mandates to protect public health or the environment. Furthermore, Democrats warned, setting deadlines on agency reviews could lead to applications being denied when, with additional time, they could have been modified to win approval.
"This bill was significantly watered down to get bipartisan support, so my question is where's the bipartisan support?" Edwards said. "What's the point of watering bills down if it doesn't get you anything?"
INGAA continues to push for language that imposes consequences for agencies that don't make pipeline permitting decisions on time.
The group has been supportive of Rep. Mike Pompeo's (R-Kan.) "Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act," H.R. 161, which passed the House in January, despite a White House veto threat. That bill would require the approval of new natural gas pipelines if federal regulators did not issue a decision within prescribed time frames. FERC would have a year to decide whether to approve or deny a pipeline, with other agencies given three or four months beyond that to complete their work on any additional permits, licenses or approvals that would be needed.
But the new House draft -- and a similar Senate bill -- simply lay out a process through which agencies can resolve conflicts or delays in FERC's process without mandating approval. Edwards said the ultimate energy bill needs to include consequences for agencies contributing to FERC's environmental reviews that don't act in a timely manner. Without teeth, the bill will allow reviews to lag, he said.
"The issue is all of the other federal and state agencies," he said. "There's a deep amount of frustration that, willfully or otherwise, folks are ignoring that fact."
INGAA is also hopeful that the final bill will include bicameral legislation that would scrap Congress' ability to oversee the construction of natural gas pipelines through national parks and some of the nation's most iconic landscapes (Greenwire, May 20).
Bipartisan House members and Republicans in the Senate have floated language that would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the secretary of the Interior to approve gas pipelines through national parks without Congress' approval. Developers have received congressional blessing to build only five gas pipelines through national parks since the 1990s, a process that at times took more than a year.
Edwards said there's also been some talk that legislation may be in the works to provide more certainty around the Obama administration's new plan for how federal agencies should integrate climate change into their National Environmental Policy Act reviews.
Notably, House Natural Resources Chairman Bob Bishop (R-Utah) has said the White House Council on Environmental Quality overstepped its authority when issuing draft guidance to federal agencies on NEPA reviews. The industry has expressed concern that such language, when finalized, could stall new gas pipelines and export terminals (E&E Daily, May 12).
"Agencies are already seeing the administration's proposal and assuming they have to implement it, based on the belief that if they don't, they'll be subject to lawsuits," Edwards said. "[Legislation could be crafted to] clarify what the proper scope of review is for agencies required to do [environmental impact statements] under NEPA."
-
Greater Range of Views on Climate Change Now Exists in Republican Presidential Field
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Two of the four most recent entrants into the Republican presidential field have bucked their party's conventional take on climate change by supporting some form of governmental action to address the problem.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) has called climate change an “urgent crisis facing the world, while former New York Gov. George Pataki first proposed the Northeast's regional cap-and-trade system. Their entrance into the primary contest reflects the variety of views on climate change held within the Republican party.
Two other candidates joining the field have taken positions on climate change that are more closely aligned with those of other declared Republican hopefuls. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) has called climate change “a beautifully concocted scheme” and “junk science.” Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said he believes carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
None of the four men seeking their party's nomination endorses the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's approach to addressing the problem—regulating carbon dioxide emissions from the fleet of the nation's power plants through the Environmental Protection Agency. They join an expanding list of declared Republican candidates.
Pataki formally announced his candidacy May 28 while Santorum jumped in a day earlier. Graham threw his name into the race June 1, while Perry is expected to formally announce his second presidential run on June 4. All four are currently polling at under 3 percent support, according to an average of national polling from the Huffington Post.
They join Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas), former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina, retired John Hopkins Hospital neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as declared Republican candidates in the presidential race. None of the contenders has endorsed the Obama's administration approach to fighting climate change, but their positions on whether it is real vary (86 DEN A-3, 5/5/15).
Lindsey Graham
Graham, senior senator from South Carolina, has faulted his party for not taking a clearer position on climate change and has said he believes the scientific consensus that human activity significantly contributes to the problem.
“What is the environmental platform of the Republican party?” Graham asked at a March 2015 event at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I'd like to have a debate within the party. Can you say that climate change is a scientifically-sound phenomenon? But can you reject the idea you have to destroy the economy to solve the problem, is sort of where I'll be taking this debate.”
The South Carolina Republican, the fifth sitting senator running for president, stands at sharp contrast with his fellow Republican candidates in calling climate change “an urgent crisis facing the world” but has also faulted Democrats, saying they make sincere debate on the topic difficult.
“You made climate change a religion rather than a problem,” Graham said to Democrats during Senate floor debate on the Keystone XL pipeline in January. “I wish you would change your mind about the pipeline and work with Republicans who are willing to work with you to deal with emissions in a realistic way and stop selling what I think is a fraud when it comes to this debate.”
Despite those fiery comments, Graham was one of just five Republicans senators to ultimately back a “sense of the Senate” amendment that human activity significantly contributes to climate change.
Graham also joined then-Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.) in pursuing comprehensive climate change legislation in 2009 and 2010 before ultimately abandoning those efforts (131 DEN B-1, 7/12/10).
Rick Santorum
Santorum, unlike Graham, has consistently opposed federal attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and congressional attempts to address climate change. He compared those who believe in climate change to those that thought the world was flat because they were so sure of their convictions.
“I always have problems when people come up and say the science is settled,” the two-term former Pennsylvania senator and runner-up for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination said May 29, according to USA Today. “That's what they said about the world being flat. When someone says the science is settled, you're not a scientist because scientists never say the science is settled.”
During a 2011 appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Santorum said it was “patently absurd” to link carbon dioxide to climate change. Other factors like sunspots, moisture in the air and El Niño were also responsible for the Earth's changing climate.
“To me, this is an opportunity for the left to create—it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is going to cool and warm,” Santorum said. “It's just an excuse for more government control of your life.”
“And I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative,” he added.
Santorum told CNN in January there was “clearly” nothing the U.S. could do to address changes in the Earth's climate given any actions would have “zero impact on it given what's going on in the rest of the world.”
The League of Conservation Voters gave Santorum a lifetime rating of 10 percent on environmental issues during his time in the Senate.
George Pataki
In sharp contrast to Santorum, Pataki said during his time as governor of New York that climate change was an immediate problem and led regional efforts to combat it.
Pataki, who served from 1995 through 2006, first floated the idea of creating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 2003 as a regional cap-and-trade approach that would be modeled after federal programs for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (182 DEN B-1, 9/19/13).
“The debate about global warming has often been marked by confrontation and litigation,” Pataki wrote a 2003 letter to fellow governors. “Today we are pursuing a course of cooperation and we are confident this will achieve meaningful reductions in harmful emissions without disrupting electricity markets.”
After leaving the governor's mansion, Pataki agreed to co-chair a Council on Foreign Relations task force on climate and national security. A report from that project urged the U.S. to take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions to spur other international efforts and encouraged Congress to pursue an emissions trading system (115 DEN A-9, 6/16/08).
“Climate change is universally recognized as both a serious challenge and as a potential opportunity,” Pataki said in an October 2007 statement announcing the task force.
Rick Perry
Perry, who led the Lone Star State for 15 years between 2000 and 2015, said during his last presidential campaign in 2011 that he was “not afraid” to be labeled a climate change denier and has compared himself to 15th century astronomer Galileo, who argued the Earth revolved around the sun when fellow scientists argued the Earth was the center of the universe.
“Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact,” Perry said during a Republican debate. “Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”
The Texas Republican has also argued the science behind human activity's role in climate change is not settled, any attempt to curtail coal use would “strangle our economy” and there is a much greater threat posed by “Iran changing the temperature of New York”—an allusion to a nuclear attack—than climate change.
“Calling [carbon dioxide] a pollutant is doing a disservice to the country, and I believe a disservice to the world,” Perry said in June 2014 Christian Science Monitor event.
-
Reducing Methane Emissions: Voluntary Efforts Alone Won’t Get the Job Done
Jun 1, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
In January, the White House announced the ambitious goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent over the next ten years. It was a landmark moment and a step toward making a great impact on greenhouse emissions and their effects on the climate by reducing a potent pollutant. Now, we await the rules EPA will propose later this summer to begin making that goal a reality.
In the coming days the EPA is expected to preview one piece of the plan the administration announced in January – Enhanced Natural Gas STAR, a program to enable companies to commit to voluntary actions to reduce emissions, and document progress toward achieving those commitments. The program is an important opportunity to ensure transparent and rigorous reporting of voluntary efforts to reduce emissions, but it is not a substitute for strong regulations and it is not the only step the administration has committed to taking. In its package of proposed rules that the administration has committed to release later this summer, the federal government will set, for the first time, methane emission limits from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, and is being called upon to implement rules to address leaks from existing sources as well.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with more than 84 times the warming power of carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released unburned. It also represents a threat to public health, and a waste of a valuable energy resource – enough natural gas is wasted through methane leaks each year to fuel nearly 6 million homes.
While companies that take voluntary action to reduce their methane emissions today may be better positioned to comply with future regulations, it is not realistic to expect significant reductions to come from a voluntary program. One of the biggest indicators? The fact that the very program EPA is proposing to advance these voluntary measures – Natural Gas STAR – has been around since 1993, but of the more than 6,000 producers in operation, fewer than 30 are participants.
The oil and gas industry repeatedly argues that it can be trusted to voluntarily take the steps needed to reduce methane emissions, and that regulation is not needed, but Natural Gas Star’s sub 1 percent participation rate proves otherwise.
We have the ability to use existing technologies to cost effectively capture methane leaks from oil and gas operations. In fact, a 2014 report by ICF International found that by adopting already available technologies and operating practices, industry could cut methane emissions by 40 percent below projected 2018 levels at an average annual cost of less than one cent per thousand cubic feet of produced natural gas.
Some companies – but not all – see that it’s in their best interest to use these technologies to reduce methane emissions in order to protect their bottom line and to meet their corporate sustainability goals. Regulations requiring adoption of these cost-effective technologies help to level the industry playing field and ensure that all companies, not just a few responsible and innovative leaders, are taking the necessary steps to reduce methane emissions.
It is critical that any voluntary program EPA proposes is rigorous and transparent. But it is even more critical that the EPA includes strong regulations, in addition to voluntary programs, when it proposes its rules later this summer. Doing so is necessary to begin meeting the White House’s methane reduction goal and protecting public health, preventing waste, and slowing global warming. While the Enhanced Natural Gas STAR preview is one small piece of the puzzle, EPA must work to get the regulatory centerpiece of the package right as well.
-
Congress Urged To Ease EPA Rule Deadlines To Prevent 'Sue And Settle'
Jun 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Judiciary Committee members are weighing a call to ease Clean Air Act rulemaking deadlines and citizen suit provisions as a way to curb what EPA critics call environmentalists' "sue and settle" strategy of filing litigation against the agency that results in settlement agreements setting deadlines for the agency to write new rules.
Andrew Grossman, an adjunct scholar at the free-market advocacy Cato Institute, said at a recent House judiciary panel regulatory review subcommittee hearing that pending bills seeking boost third party involvement in settlement talks and bolster public input mandates on the pacts do not go far enough. In his testimony, he said that Congress should overhaul the statutes that set deadlines environmentalist groups invoke in lawsuits against EPA.
"What Congress should not do is empower private parties and agencies to manipulate the litigation process to set priorities that may not reflect the public interest while avoiding the political consequences of those actions. To that end, Congress should seriously consider abolishing all mandatory deadlines that are obsolete and all recurring deadlines that agencies regularly fail to observe," Grossman said in his testimony at the May 19 hearing.
EPA often misses statutory deadlines for finalizing new and updated rules -- especially under the air law, which requires the agency to review its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every five years; to review its air toxics standards eight years after their implementation; and sets other deadlines. The Clean Water Act also requires federal review and approval of all revised state water quality standards.
If the agency misses statutory deadlines for regulatory actions, environmentalists often file lawsuits seeking either a court order imposing a deadline for action, or securing a judicially enforceable settlement with the agency setting deadlines for the agency to act -- though not specifying the contents of a rule.
EPA's critics, including Republicans, have termed the pattern "sue and settle" and say it allows environmental groups to set agency priorities by choosing which missed deadlines to sue over.
For instance, EPA is preparing to take final action on its controversial proposal to tighten its 2008 ozone NAAQS under an Oct. 1 settlement deadline, and the agency's Resource Conservation & Recovery Act disposal rule for coal ash was issued Dec. 19 last year to satisfy a court-enforced settlement.
Pending Legislation
In his testimony, Grossman argued that GOP-backed bills pending in both chambers, aimed at setting new requirements for public participation and settlements in deadline suits would not address the full extent of the problem because EPA would continue to miss statutory deadlines, which citizens can sue to enforce.
The bills, S. 378 and H.R. 712, would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to lower the bar for third parties -- such as states and regulated industries -- to intervene in judicial settlements; appoint a mediator to establish the terms of a settlement; require the relevant agency to take public comment on a draft consent decree before filing it with the court; and require the head of the agency to justify any actions it must undertake as part of the settlement to the court.
Although he backed those bills in his testimony, Grossman added that lawmakers should also rewrite environmental laws to loosen deadlines that have proved unworkable and narrow the cases where advocates can sue over past-due rules.
"Congress should consider narrowing citizen-suit provisions to exclude 'failure to act' claims that seek to compel the agency to consider generally applicable regulations or to take actions against third parties. As a matter of principle, these kinds of decisions regarding agency priorities should be set by government actors who are accountable for their actions, not by litigants and not through abusive litigation," he said. However, any such bill would face almost certain opposition from Democrats, and a veto threat from the Obama administration, which has rejected the "sue and settle" criticism. EPA's supporters earlier this year touted a Government Accountability Office report that found "limited" impact on the agency's agenda from deadline settlements, saying they did not affect the content of the eventual rules.
-
Final Sulfur Dioxide Data Rule Under OMB Review
Jun 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a final rule that would instruct state and local air pollution control agencies on how to characterize sulfur dioxide concentrations in areas with the largest sources of sulfur dioxide emissions. The data requirements rule, submitted for review May 30 by the Environmental Protection Agency, would outline procedures for ambient air monitoring or air quality modeling techniques that could be used by air agencies to collect sulfur dioxide data. The data collected by those agencies will be used by the EPA to inform future determinations regarding attainment status for the primary, one-hour sulfur dioxide standard of 75 parts per billion. The final rule is expected out by October, according to the EPA spring 2015 regulatory agenda.
-
White House Issues Veto Threat For FY16 Spending Bill Awaiting House Floor Vote
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The House Rules Committee yesterday cleared a fiscal 2016 transportation spending bill for floor action, shortly after President Obama threatened to torpedo the legislation in its current form.
In a six-page policy statement warning of a possible veto, the White House said the measure "freezes or cuts critical investment in transportation that creates jobs, helps to grow the economy and improves America's roads, bridges, transit infrastructure and aviation systems."
The veto threat, part of a broader administration attack on governmentwide spending caps locked in place with Obama's signature four years ago, drew shrugs from Rules Committee Republicans who said the caps are working as intended to reduce federal red ink.
"I think it's a pretty blunt instrument, but it's an instrument, frankly, that has been effective," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who also sits on the House Appropriations Committee and acknowledged that he would like more money to work with.
On a 9-3 party-line vote, the Rules Committee agreed to send the bill to the full House under a playbook that permits a total of 10 minutes of debate on any amendment. A motion by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the panel's ranking member, to allow House members more time to discuss proposed changes was batted down by the same 9-3 margin.
With the House expected to launch debate today on H.R. 2578, a separate spending measure covering the Commerce and Justice departments, it is uncertain whether enough time will afterward remain for lawmakers to take up the transportation legislation before next week.
The latter bill, H.R. 2577 outlines draft budgets next year for both the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It would cut discretionary transportation spending to some $17.2 billion, roughly 5 percent below this year's benchmark and far less than what the administration wants.
Specific provisions attracting White House ire include: A $1.1 billion subsidy package for Amtrak -- 18 percent below this year's level and less than half of the almost $2.5 billion requested by Obama. $100 million for Transportation Investment Generating Economy Recovery (TIGER) grants -- an 80 percent cut to the program's current $500 million budget and a fraction of the administration's $1.25 billion request. Level funding for the Federal Railroad Administration's safety and operations account, which the White House said would hurt the agency's ability to hire more safety inspectors to bird-dog shipments of crude oil by train. Language that would bar the Surface Transportation Board from approving additional phases of California's planned bullet train linking San Francisco and Los Angeles unless the agency issues a permit for the entire project.
Some of the provisions are recycled from proposals made last year that were ultimately dropped or softened in the fiscal 2015 omnibus appropriations bill signed in December. But a more stringent version of the spending caps is in effect for fiscal 2016. Congress will have less maneuvering room in this round unless lawmakers and the White House can cut a comprehensive deal to free up more money.
The White House has also threatened vetoes of three other spending bills -- including the measure to fund the Commerce and Justice departments -- that have so far come out of the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has not yet delivered its version of next year's transportation spending legislation.
The scope of most road and transit expenditures, however, is decided not through the appropriations process, but in a separate authorization bill that sets spending levels out of the Highway Trust Fund. On an annual basis, that spending now totals about $50 billion. The latest reauthorization signed late last week by Obama will keep the program afloat only through the end of July with another short-term extension expected after that.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested