Science Comm. Leaders Exchange Heated Letters On EPA Subpoena

Aug 8: On August 6, House Science Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) sent a letter to Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) in response to the Committee's recent authorization and issuance of a subpoena to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy for documents related to the Clean Air Act. The subpoena, which was authorized by the Republican controlled Committee over the objections of the Democrats, is designed to force EPA to release the what Chairman Smith said is the "secret science it uses as the basis for costly air regulations." Chairman Smith said, "Over the past two years, the Committee has repeatedly requested the data the agency uses to justify virtually every Clean Air Act regulation proposed and finalized by the Obama administration. This was the first congressional subpoena the Science Committee has issued in 21 years." He said, "The two data sets in question are used to justify major costly new air regulations. As one example, by its own estimates the EPA's proposed limits on ozone will cost taxpayers $90 billion per year, making it the most costly regulation the federal government has ever issued. Some of the data in question is up to 30-years-old."

    Rep. Johnson said, "On August 2, the EPA Administrator was served with a subpoena issued by you pursuant to this authorization (attached). As you know, I strongly opposed the authorization and issuance of this subpoena.  However, as you have determined to proceed despite my strong objections, I have several questions about how this process will be conducted by the Committee.

    "As the Democratic Members of the Committee pointed out during the business meeting to authorize the subpoenas, you had previously indicated that you planned to transmit any research data obtained pursuant to the subpoena to unidentified third parties. Upon repeated questioning by Democratic Members of the Committee, you refused to identify to whom you intended to pass this data. Representative Edwards pointed out that legitimate scientific researchers already had the ability to access the Harvard University and American Cancer Society data sets."

    Rep. Johnson pointed out the problems with the two researchers identified by the Chairman the may review the data. She also pointed out that, "I would note that when the Health Effects Institute conducted a thorough re-analysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society related study, it took a team of 30 researchers three years to complete their work.  It certainly seems unlikely that one statistical researcher, acting on his own, could replicate this task in a useful timeframe." She said, "Mr. Chairman, this is no longer a dispute between the EPA and the Majority.  By your actions, this has become an attack on the personal privacy of hundreds of thousands of Americans, an attack on the scientific process, and an attack on public health. "

    Rep. Johnson concluded, "I implore you again to stop what you are doing. The actions you are taking are wrong. You are abusing Congressional power to harass the EPA Administrator. You are undermining our legitimate scientific research enterprise. You are violating the trust that hundreds of thousands of research volunteers placed in our country's premier research institutions. And for what purpose? To provide human health data to tobacco industry consultants? If you continue on this path, you will cause irreparable harm to our Committee and our country. Please reconsider the path you have chosen."

 

    Chairman Smith responded on August 8, that, "The request of the Committee, and the more recently issued subpoena, is based on the principle of transparency, which requires that the information used to justify major, costly regulations be open and available to the public. . . I have made clear that any personal health information that may be in the subpoenaed data will be protected and removed before the data are made public. However, I have also made clear that the American taxpayers have a right to see this de-identified information and determine whether the EPA is basing its regulations on sound science. . . Further, if this information cannot be made public in a manner sufficient for validation and re-analysis while protecting confidential information, EPA should not be using it to justify major regulations. I hope and expect that EPA will provide this information in a manner sufficient for independent validation and replication by the deadline included in the subpoena. . .

 

    "Ensuring public access to taxpayer funded-data that are used in regulations supports good science and good government.  Consistent with this principle, once the Committee receives the data sets, I intend to make them publically available.  Certainly, the principle of an open and transparent government is not supported by policies that allow certain groups access to the information, but prevent access to others. This is precisely what is now occurring and should be corrected."

    Access a release from Chairman Smith and the subpoena (click here). Access the release and letter form Rep. Johnson (click here). Access the release and response from Chairman Smith (click here). [#Air]

Industry Study Says KXL "No Material Impact" On GHG

Aug 8: The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have "no material impact" on U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to a brief, 6-page IHS study. The report indicates that in the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged. The study also found that any absence of oil sands on the U.S. Gulf Coast (the destination for Keystone XL) would most likely be replaced by imports of heavy crude oil from Venezuela, which has the same carbon footprint as oil sands.

    IHS (NYSE: IHS) is the leading source of information, insight and analytics in critical areas that shape today's business landscape. IHS indicates that businesses and governments in more than 165 countries around the globe rely on the comprehensive content, expert independent analysis and flexible delivery methods. IHS indicates that since 2009, the IHS CERA Oil Sands Dialogue has brought together policymakers, industry representatives, non-governmental organizations -- including environmental groups -- and other related stakeholders to advance the conversation surrounding Canadian oil sands development. The objective is to enhance understanding of critical factors and questions surrounding industry issues and foster a fact-based discussion.

    In a release, IHS indicates that the pipeline's potential impact on GHG emissions has been the subject of increased focus. President Barack Obama's June 25 climate address [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13] indicated that the relative emissions related to increased Canadian oil sands processing in U.S. markets resulting from the pipeline are a key criteria for the United States' decision whether to approve the project.

    Following his June 25 address, President Obama, in an interview with the New York Times said, ". . . I meant what I said; I'm going to evaluate this [KXL] based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release. . ."  [See WIMS 7/29/13]. 

    IHS says that its new study agrees with the conclusions of the U.S. State Department's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL that says oil sands production is expected to continue at similar levels regardless of whether Keystone XL goes forward. IHS currently expects oil sands production to grow from 1.9 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2013 to 4.3 mbd in 2030 and does not expect the Keystone XL decision to have a material impact on the production outlook.

    The IHS study points out that 3 mbd of additional oil sands pipeline capacity (not including Keystone XL) is currently proposed. Eighty percent of this proposed alternate capacity travels exclusively through Canada -- connecting the oil sands with Canada's west and east coasts -- and thus would not require U.S. government approval. Even if pipeline capacity were to lag behind oil sands growth, the study says that transportation by rail is expected to play an ongoing role and that greater investment could make rail more economic to a level approaching that of pipelines.

    The study found that with sufficient scale and investment the additional cost of transporting oil sands by rail to the U.S. Gulf Coast rather than by pipeline could be lowered from today. If heavy oil sands producers were to invest in improved rail efficiencies, the economics could be within $6 per barrel compared to pipeline (for each barrel of oil sands produced). This would place rail well within the break even range for most oil sands production. One source of improved economics could come from shipping oil sands bitumen in its pure state. A lack of pipeline capacity would incentivize such added investment.

    The study also found that, were oil sands not to be shipped to the U.S. Gulf Coast, it would result in little to no change in overall GHG emissions. The region -- which contains 50 percent of total U.S. refining -- has a large capacity to process heavy crude. This means that crude oils of similar GHG intensity would continue to be refined in the absence of oil sands.

    Venezuela is currently the largest single supplier of heavy crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast and would be the most likely alternative source of heavy crude supply absent oil sands. IHS research has found Venezuelan heavy crude to have a similar range of life-cycle GHG emissions as oil sands imported into the United States. The study says, "Venezuelan heavy oil -- and Venezuela -- would be the number one beneficiary of a negative decision on Keystone."

 

    Environmental groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oil Change International and others, cite competing arguments from a research report published by Goldman Sachs (GS) Global Investment Research team on June 2, entitled, Getting oil out of Canada: Heavy oil diffs expected to stay wide and volatile. The groups indicate that  the report casts serious doubts on the U.S. State Department's market analysis of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. They say the GS report substantially undermines the State Department draft EIS and indicates that, ". . .not building Keystone XL would likely slow the growth of tar sands extraction by virtue of lowered prices for Canadian oil. In this event, GS found that tar sands projects would likely be deferred or canceled." [See WIMS 6/11/13].

 

    Access a release from IHS on the report (click here). Access the 6-page IHS report (click here, registration required). Access the IHS CERA Oil Sands Dialogue website for more information (click here). Access the State Department KXL website for more information (click here). Access a blog posting by NRDC (click here). Access the summary of the GS investment report (click here). [#Energy/KXL]

DOE Approves 3rd LNG Export Facility In Lake Charles, LA

Aug 7: The Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it has conditionally authorized Lake Charles Exports, LLC (Lake Charles) to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries that do not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States from the Lake Charles Terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Lake Charles previously received approval to export LNG from this facility to FTA countries on July 22, 2011. Subject to environmental review and final regulatory approval, the facility is conditionally authorized to export at a rate of up to 2.0 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day (Bcf/d) for a period of 20 years. DOE granted the first authorization to export LNG to non-FTA countries in May 2011 from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana at a rate of up to 2.2 Bcf/d, and the second authorization in May 2013 from the Freeport LNG Terminal in Quintana Island, Texas at a rate of up to 1.4 Bcf/d.

    On this controversial of LNG exports [See WIMS 3/12/13], DOE indicates that the development of U.S. natural gas resources is having a transformative impact on the U.S. energy landscape, helping to improve our energy security while spurring economic development and job creation around the country. This increase in domestic natural gas production is expected to continue, with the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting a record production rate of 69.96 Bcf/d in 2013. Federal law generally requires approval of natural gas exports to countries that have an FTA with the United States. For countries that do not have an FTA with the United States, the Natural Gas Act directs DOE to grant export authorizations unless the Department finds that the proposed exports "will not be consistent with the public interest."

    DOE said it conducted an extensive, careful review of the application to export LNG from the Lake Charles LNG Terminal. Among other factors, the Department considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts -- as well as public comments for and against the application and nearly 200,000 public comments related to the associated analysis of the cumulative impacts of increased LNG exports -- and determined that exports from the terminal at a rate of up to 2.0 Bcf/d for a period of 20 years was not inconsistent with the public interest.

    DOE noted that it will continue to process the applications currently pending on a case-by-case basis, in the order of precedence previously detailed. As further information becomes available at the end of 2013, including the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook Report, the Department will assess the impact of any market developments on subsequent public interest determinations. DOE is currently reviewing proposals for some 20 export facilities.

    Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR),Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee issued a statement on the approval saying, "While I am pleased to see DOE is continuing to proceed on a case-by-case basis, with each new permit to send natural gas overseas, the Energy Department has a higher bar to prove these exports are in the best interests of American consumers and employers. I will continue  to closely monitor DOE's process going forward." Sen. Wyden noted that DOE has now approved export permits totaling 5.6 billion cubic feet per day. That is just below the 6-8 bcf per day that numerous reports and analysts have projected as the likely range for U.S. LNG exports, without impacts on domestic prices.

    On August 6, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Ranking Member of the ENR Committee, released a white paper outlining the case for LNG exports and urging swift action on permit approvals before "the nation misses a historic opportunity." The paper, entitled The Narrowing Window: America's Opportunity to Join the Global Gas Trade, includes in-depth analysis that leads to a set of pro-growth policy recommendations. She said, "We've carefully examined the issue of natural gas exports, weighing the evidence and listening to all points of view, but the analytical debate is now over. The United States has a historic opportunity to generate enormous geopolitical and economic benefits by expanding its role in the global gas trade."

    In her release, Sen. Murkowski said DOE has received more than 20 applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries. Diplomats from many of these nations, including Japan and India, have urged the Obama administration to approve export licenses as quickly as possible. She indicated that other nations around the world are already building their export capabilities. Qatar, Malaysia, Australia, and many other countries already dominate the LNG trade. Facilities required to liquefy natural gas for transport, however, are expensive, and also require costly infrastructure to import it. She said, "Limits on demand and the availability of financing create a narrowing window for the United States. If we don't move quickly, we may miss that window, and it may be a long time before it opens up again."

    Sen. Murkowski commented on the Lake Charles approval saying, "The approval of the Lake Charles export license is great news for the economy. I'm hopeful that it also shows a willingness by the Department of Energy and Secretary Moniz to make the timely review of applications a priority. We must remember that the window for building out our LNG capacity is not open-ended -- it could close if we don't seize this opportunity to have America's natural gas play a major role in the growing global gas market." She indicated in a separate release that Lake Charles Exports submitted its application 27 months ago, in May 2011. 

    Deb Nardone, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Natural Gas campaign, issued a statement saying, "It's a bad deal all around: for public health, the environment, and America's working people. The economic study the DOE itself commissioned clearly states that LNG export will transfer wealth from wage earners to fossil fuel executives. LNG export is nothing but a giveaway to the dirty fuel industry, at the expense of every day Americans. Exporting LNG to foreign buyers will lock us into decades-long contracts, which in turn will lead to more drilling -- and that means more fracking, more air and water pollution, and more climate fueled weather disasters like record fires, droughts, and superstorms like last year's Sandy.  And all this when we know that the dangers of natural gas will only become more clear as we learn more about its effects on health and the climate. . . The Sierra Club is closely monitoring the FERC proceeding and all permits and approvals that the Lake Charles facility will require, and will take action as necessary." 

    Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute (API) director of upstream and industry operations, called on DOE to move quickly to process a backlog of applications to export LNG to countries that do not have free trade agreements with the United States. He said the Department approved only the third of 19 applications since 2011. He said, "The Lake Charles permit is a welcome signal that Energy Secretary Moniz recognizes the importance of LNG exports to economic growth, but there are still thousands of jobs and billions in investments waiting on the sidelines for federal approval. America is experiencing an energy revolution thanks to our abundant natural gas resources, and LNG exports are critical to unlocking the benefits for U.S. workers and reducing the trade deficit. The law presumes that all exports are in the public interest, and the DOE has every reason to expedite approvals. LNG exports will grow the economy and help bring back millions of U.S. jobs in engineering, manufacturing, construction, and facility operations."

    Access a release from DOE and link to the full conditional authorization (click here). Access a notice from DOE and link to the FR notice of availability; the EIA analysis; the NERA analysis; and a summary of LNG export applications (click here). Access the release from Sen. Wyden (click here). Access the Aug. 6 release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the 17-page Murkowski white paper on LNG exports (click here). Access the Aug. 7 release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from API with links to related information including a report and list of the pending applications (click here). [#Energy/LNG]

AMS Releases 2012 State Of The Climate Report

Aug 6: The American Meteorological Society (AMS) released the 2012 State of the Climate report indicating that worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record. The peer-reviewed report, with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC serving as lead editors, was compiled by 384 scientists from 52 countries. The report provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice, and sky. The report is published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This year marks the 23rd edition of the report, which is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides to government, the business sector, academia, and the public to support informed decision-making.

    Acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D. said, "Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate -- carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place. This annual report is well-researched, well-respected, and well-used; it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment."

    Conditions in the Arctic were a major story of 2012, with the region experiencing unprecedented change and breaking several records. Sea ice shrank to its smallest "summer minimum" extent since satellite records began 34 years ago. In addition, more than 97 percent of the Greenland ice sheet showed some form of melt during the summer, four times greater than the 1981–2010 average melt extent. The report used dozens of climate indicators to track and identify changes and overall trends to the global climate system. The indicators include greenhouse gas concentrations, temperature of the lower and upper atmosphere, cloud cover, sea surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean salinity, sea ice extent and snow cover. Each indicator includes thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets. Highlights of the report include:

• Warm temperature trends continue near Earth's surface: Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record.
  
• La Niña dissipates into neutral conditions:  A weak La Niña dissipated during spring 2012 and, for the first time in several years, neither El Niño nor La Niña, which can dominate regional weather and climate conditions around the globe, prevailed for the majority of the year. 
  
• The Arctic continues to warm; sea ice extent reaches record low: The Arctic continued to warm at about twice the rate compared with lower latitudes. Minimum Arctic sea ice extent in September and Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in June each reached new record lows. Arctic sea ice minimum extent (1.32 million square miles, September 16) was the lowest of the satellite era. This is 18 percent lower than the previous record low extent of 1.61 million square miles that occurred in 2007 and 54 percent lower than the record high minimum ice extent of 2.90 million square miles that occurred in 1980. The temperature of permafrost, or permanently frozen land, reached record-high values in northernmost Alaska. A new melt extent record occurred July 11–12 on the Greenland ice sheet when 97 percent of the ice sheet showed some form of melt, four times greater than the average melt this time of year.
  
• Antarctica sea ice extent reaches record high: The Antarctic maximum sea ice extent reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles on September 26. This is 0.5 percent higher than the previous record high extent of 7.47 million square miles that occurred in 2006 and seven percent higher than the record low maximum sea ice extent of 6.96 million square miles that occurred in 1986.
  
• Sea surface temperatures increase: Four independent datasets indicate that the globally averaged sea surface temperature for 2012 was among the 11 warmest on record.  After a 30-year period from 1970 to 1999 of rising global sea surface temperatures, the period 2000–2012 exhibited little trend. Part of this difference is linked to the prevalence of La Niña-like conditions during the 21st century, which typically lead to lower global sea surface temperatures.
  
• Ocean heat content remains near record levels: Heat content in the upper 2,300 feet, or a little less than one-half mile, of the ocean remained near record high levels in 2012. Overall increases from 2011 to 2012 occurred between depths of 2,300 to 6,600 feet and even in the deep ocean.
  
• Sea level reaches record high: Following sharp decreases in global sea level in the first half of 2011 that were linked to the effects of La Niña, sea levels rebounded to reach record highs in 2012. Globally, sea level has been increasing at an average rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades. Sea ice concentration reached a new record low in mid-September 2012. 
  
• Ocean salinity trends continue: Continuing a trend that began in 2004, oceans were saltier than average in areas of high evaporation, including the central tropical North Pacific, and fresher than average in areas of high precipitation, including the north central Indian Ocean, suggesting that precipitation is increasing in already rainy areas and evaporation is intensifying in drier locations.
  
• Tropical cyclones near average: Global tropical cyclone activity during 2012 was near average, with a total of 84 storms, compared with the 1981–2010 average of 89. Similar to 2010 and 2011, the North Atlantic was the only hurricane basin that experienced above-normal activity.
  
• Greenhouse gases climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2012. Following a slight decline in manmade emissions associated with the global economic downturn, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production reached a record high in 2011 of 9.5 ± 0.5 petagrams (1,000,000,000,000,000 grams) of carbon , and a new record of 9.7 ± 0.5 petagrams of carbon  is estimated for 2012. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 2.1 ppm in 2012, reaching a global average of 392.6 ppm for the year. In spring 2012, for the first time, the atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm at several Arctic observational sites.
  
• Cool temperature trends continue in Earth's lower stratosphere: The average lower stratospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth's surface, for 2012 was record to near-record cold, depending on the dataset. Increasing greenhouse gases and decline of stratospheric ozone tend to cool the stratosphere while warming the planet near-surface layers.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, issued a brief statement on the report saying, "NOAA's 2012 State of the Climate report confirms once again that climate change is happening now and the evidence is all around us. The report includes findings that the U.S. had its warmest year on record, carbon pollution continues to increase, sea levels have reached record highs, and Arctic sea ice is rapidly disappearing. We can't ignore these warnings and must address climate change so that we can protect our people, local communities, and the nation's economy. These findings underscore how correct the President is when he calls for enforcement of the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution."

 

    Access a release from NOAA with links to related information  (click here). Access links to the complete report and supplemental information (click here). Access highlights from the report (click here). [#Climate]

DOE Reports On Record Growth In U.S. Wind Market; But?

Aug 6: The Department of Energy (DOE) released two new reports showcasing record growth across the U.S. wind market -- increasing America's share of clean, renewable energy and supporting tens of thousands of jobs nationwide. However, the wind industry indicates that Congressional bickering over the Production Tax Credit (PTC) is hurting the industry and policy stability is necessary going forward for the American wind energy industry to reach its full potential.

 

    According to the reports, the United States continues to be one of the world's largest and fastest growing wind markets. In 2012, wind energy became the number one source of new U.S. electricity generation capacity for the first time -- representing 43 percent of all new electric additions and accounting for $25 billion in U.S. investment.

    In a release DOE indicated that in the first four years of the Obama Administration, American electricity generation from wind and solar power more than doubled. DOE said, "President Obama's Climate Action Plan makes clear that the growth of clean, renewable wind energy remains a critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions, diversifies our energy economy and brings innovative technologies on line [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13]. The Obama Administration has committed to another doubling of the renewable electricity generation from energy resources like wind power by 2020."

    DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz said, "The tremendous growth in the U.S. wind industry over the past few years underscores the importance of consistent policy that ensures America remains a leader in clean energy innovation. As the fastest growing source of power in the United States, wind is paving the way to a cleaner, more sustainable future that protects our air and water and provides affordable, clean renewable energy to more and more Americans." The growth in the overall U.S. wind industry has led directly to more American jobs throughout a number of sectors and at factories and power plants across the country. According to industry estimates, the wind sector employs over 80,000 American workers, including workers at manufacturing facilities up and down the supply chain, as well as engineers and construction workers who build wind installations.

    DOE and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released the 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report -- detailing the latest trends in the U.S. wind power market. Last year, over 13 gigawatts (GW) of new wind power capacity were added to the U.S. grid -- nearly double the wind capacity deployed in 2011. This tremendous growth helped America's total wind power capacity surpass 60 GW at the end of 2012 -- representing enough capacity to power more than 15 million homes each year, or as many homes as in California and Washington state combined. The country's cumulative installed wind energy capacity has increased more than 22-fold since 2000.

    At the same time, the proportion of wind turbine components such as towers, blades, and gears made in America has increased dramatically. The report estimates seventy-two percent of the wind turbine equipment installed in the U.S. last year was made by domestic manufacturers, nearly tripling from 25 percent in 2006-2007. The report also finds that nine states now rely on wind power for more than 12 percent of their total annual electricity consumption -- with wind power in Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas contributing more than 20 percent. Additionally, Texas added over 1,800 megawatts of wind power last year, more than any other state. On a cumulative basis, Texas remains a clear leader with over 12 GW installed at the end of 2012 -- more than twice as much as California, the next-highest state. 

Also according to the report, technical and design innovation allowing for larger wind turbines with longer, lighter blades has steadily improved wind turbine performance and has expanded wind energy production to less windy areas. Since 1998, the average capacity of wind turbines in the U.S. has increased by 170 percent. At the same time, wind project capital and maintenance costs continue to decline, lowering the cost of wind energy to near-record lows. The price of wind under long-term power purchase contracts signed in 2011 and 2012 averaged 4 cents per kilowatt hour -- making wind competitive with a range of wholesale electricity prices seen in 2012.

    For the first time, DOE and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also issued the 2012 Market Report on Wind Technologies in Distributed Applications -- highlighting strong growth in the U.S. distributed wind energy market. Compared to traditional, centralized power plants, distributed wind energy installations directly supply power to the local grid near homes, farms, businesses and communities -- helping to improve grid reliability and efficiency. Turbines used in these applications can range in size from a few hundred watts to multi-megawatts, and can help power remote, off-grid homes and farms as well as local schools and manufacturing facilities. Over the past ten years, the U.S. distributed wind market has grown more than five-fold.

    The report finds that distributed wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 -- representing more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80 percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012. Still, most distributed wind buyers continue to choose small wind turbines, which have a rated capacity of no greater than 100 kilowatts. Last year, domestic sales from U.S. wind suppliers accounted for nearly 90 percent of new small wind generation capacity. Broadly, nine out of the top ten wind turbine models installed last year in U.S. distributed applications were made in America.

    DOE said that the wind sector's growth underscores the importance of continued policy support and clean energy tax credits to ensure that wind manufacturing and jobs remain in America. The 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report expects 2013 to be a slow year for new capacity additions, due in part to continued policy uncertainty and project development timelines. While the report notes that 2014 is expected to be more robust, as developers commission projects that will begin construction in 2013, it also notes that projections for 2015 and beyond are much less certain. On Thursday, August 8, at 3 PM ET, DOE will be discussing key findings from the reports during a special Google+ Hangout on wind energy in America.

    On July 30, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) issued the U.S. Wind Industry Second Quarter 2013 Market Report and reported that after coming to a standstill in the first half of 2013 due to Congressional delay in extending the Federal wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), activity in the U.S. wind industry is ramping back up as a strong wave of utilities sign up for more wind power. AWEA said that throughout 2012, the industry awaited a policy signal from Congress via a PTC extension, but that extension didn't come until New Year's Day of this year. As the industry had previously warned, with wind energy project timelines spanning 18-24 months, the delay had serious consequences, and its impacts have continued to ripple through the industry well into 2013.

    AWEA reports that only 1.6 megawatts (MW) of wind power were commissioned during the first half of the year and none at all during the second quarter, yet activity is now robust in areas that indicate impending project construction -- namely, requests for proposals (RFPs) and power purchase agreements (PPAs). More than 20 RFPs have been issued, and extremely competitive prices for wind energy are spurring utilities to ink contracts for even more megawatts than their initial RFPs requested. Approximately 1,300 MW are now under construction, while more than 3,600 MW in PPAs are secured. In total, utility plans for more wind announced in the first six-plus months of the year total nearly 5,000 MW.

    AWEA CEO Tom Kiernan said, "The market pattern playing out in U.S. wind energy right now tracks exactly with warnings sounded by the industry a year ago, and with studies that examined the consequences of not extending the PTC. No industry can contribute what it's capable of giving America without  stable policy, and wind energy is Exhibit A of that reality. The industry is hard at work getting geared up to meet the strong demand for more wind energy, but if it's going to generate more jobs and clean energy for America in the future, it simply must have the same kind of policy certainty under which other industries operate." AWEA indicated that construction is underway across eight states, and 2013 PPAs have been signed for projects in 11. The bulk of recent activity is occurring in the interior region of the U.S. -- from North Dakota down through Texas -- but projects in states including California, Michigan and New York are being supported through strong state policies and competitive prices. Kiernan said, "What we are seeing now is a testament to the willingness of utilities to sign long-term contracts for wind energy offered at competitive prices. But the late PTC extension caused serious harm, and we urgently need policy stability going forward for the American wind energy industry to reach its full potential."

    Access a release from DOE on the two reports (click here). Access the 92-page Technologies Market Report (click here). Access the 78-page Distributed Applications report (click here). Access more information on the Google+ Hangout and how to submit questions (click here). Access a release from AWEA (click here). Access the 2Q13 Market Report from AWEA (click here). [#Energy/Wind, #AskEnergy]

BLM Launches EIS Process For Fracking On CA Public Lands

Aug 2:  As part of a cooperative effort with the State of California and in response to a series of legal challenges, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced it will launch a broad science review and a planning review of oil and gas development on public lands managed by the Hollister Field Office in California. The process will evaluate a full range of options, including whether such development is appropriate and if so, where and how it could be carried out safely and responsibly. Information resulting from the planning and science review will further inform future oil and gas leasing decisions.

    The planning review will begin with a scoping period to solicit public input. This is the first phase of a process that may lead to the development of an environmental impact statement to amend one or more BLM resource management plans (RMPs) for field offices that have existing leases and expressions of interest in future leasing. Following publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on August 5 2013 [78 FR 47408-47409], interested parties will have 60 days to submit comments on issues related to oil and gas leasing and development. Public scoping meetings are tentatively scheduled for fall 2013. 

    The science review will be undertaken as part of a third party independent assessment of industry practices and the geology of oil and gas basins in the state. Led by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), the assessment report will consider geology, well completion techniques and the environmental impacts of those techniques. The report, anticipated in early 2014, will be peer-reviewed and published through CCST. BLM California State Director, Jim Kenna said, "The planning process, coupled with the findings of the science assessment, will improve our resource management plans. This approach goes a long way toward bringing the most current scientific information on industry practices to planning and public dialogue about oil and gas leasing and development."

    Over the last 24 months, most oil and gas leasing actions on BLM-managed public lands in California have been litigated, appealed, or protested. In particular, the Hollister Field Office is facing legal challenges that threaten its ability to conduct oil and gas leasing. The scoping period provides the public an opportunity to comment on the full suite of oil and gas leasing and development issues in the geographic area covered by the field office. In addition, the science review and planning effort will allow the BLM to revisit litigated, appealed, and protested lease sales at a later date. Applications for permits to drill on existing leases will continue to be processed during the reviews. Fifteen (15) days prior to the public scoping meetings, BLM will publish a notice of the meetings in the Federal Register, issue news releases and post notices of the dates on multiple BLM California web sites. 

    The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club said they were pleased with BLM's decision to begin developing a new "environmental impact statement" for fracking in Central California, along with a statewide independent scientific assessment of what they said is "the dangerous oil extraction process." The decision comes in the wake of a legal victory earlier this year in a suit brought by the CBD and Sierra Club, which challenged the BLM's decision to auction off about 2,500 acres of land in Monterey County to oil companies. A Federal judge ruled in April that the BLM had violated the law by not considering fracking risks or preparing an impact statement for its lease-sale decision. In mid-April the conservation groups filed a second case, challenging a subsequent and similarly flawed lease sale that covered almost 18,000 acres in the same region.

    Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center, who argued the lawsuit for the plaintiffs said, "We're pleased that federal officials are finally starting the full analysis of fracking pollution's dangers that should have been done before these public lands were auctioned off to oil companies. Fracking these sensitive places threatens California's air, water, wildlife and climate. In an era of dangerous climate change, the government should be protecting our remnant public lands, not leasing them out for fossil fuel development."

Fracking employs huge volumes of water mixed with sand and toxic chemicals to blast open rock formations and extract oil and gas. The controversial technique is already being used in hundreds — and perhaps thousands — of California oil and gas wells. Oil companies are aggressively trying to frack the Monterey Shale, a large geological formation running beneath these federal leases believed to harbor about 15 billion barrels of oil.

    Nathan Matthews, associate attorney with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program said, "The BLM's decision to conduct a full EIS on fracking and drilling in the Monterey shale is a good first step toward understanding how destructive the process can be, and to what extent it pollutes our air and water. The study will shed further light on the risks inherent in fracking and drilling for oil and gas. We should not be drilling for oil and gas unless those risks are understood and can be fully mitigated. Ultimately, for a stable climate and for public health, we need to keep oil, gas and other fossil fuels in the ground, while moving as quickly as possible to clean energy like wind and solar." 

    The groups indicated in a release that, "Fracking has been tied to water and air pollution in other states, and the process can release huge quantities of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. Increased fracking threatens to unlock vast reserves of previously inaccessible fossil fuel deposits that would contribute to global warming and bring us closer to climate disaster. Fracking also routinely employs numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol, benzene and trimenthylbenzene." They cited a recent study from the Colorado School of Public Health found that fracking contributes to serious neurological and respiratory problems in people living near fracked wells, while also putting them at higher risk of cancer. They also cited two recent studies in the journal Science found that injection wells, commonly used to dispose of contaminated fracking wastewater, can raise the risk of dangerous earthquakes.

    The Bureau's impact study will address the impacts of fracking in the region managed by the agency's Hollister field office, which encompasses 280,000 acres of public lands and 440,000 acres of split-estate lands in Central California, including areas subject to leasing in Monterey, San Benito and Fresno counties. The independent scientific review will analyze the scope and impacts of fracking Statewide. Completion of the environmental impact statement and scientific review are likely to take more than a year. It is unlikely that further oil leasing and development activities can occur in the areas covered by the impact statement until its completion. A court hearing originally scheduled for next week has been continued to allow the parties to discuss settlement of the two cases.

    Access a release from BLM (click here). Access more information on the scoping schedule (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club & CBD (click here). Access the FR notice (click here). Access the CCST website for more information as it becomes available (click here). [#Energy/Frack]

Former EPA Administrators Support Obama's Climate Plan

Aug 2:  Former Administrators of U.S. EPA -- William D. Ruckelshaus, from its founding in 1970 to 1973, and again from 1983 to 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 to 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 to 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 to 2003 -- authored an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, "A Republican Case for Climate Action." The Administrators come out in support of President Obama's Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13].

 

    The former Administrators said, "We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally. There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth's atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

    "The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes 'locked in.' A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama's June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. . .

    "Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally. . . Mr. Obama's plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste."

    Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) posted a response saying in part, "Like mayors, military leaders, business executives, and health professionals from across the country, these EPA administrators recognize that the damage done by climate change does not observe party lines. It threatens all Americans with extreme weather and economic burden. From heat waves to drought, damaged property to lost business, we all pay a price no matter where we live or how we vote: The government spent nearly $100 billion to respond to extreme weather events last year. That's more than $1,100 per average US taxpayer. . .

    "Many states have already started moving down this path. Nine Northeastern states -- including some under the guidance of Republican governors -- have established a regional carbon limit that has cut power-plant carbon by 30 percent and resulted in measures that will save consumers $1.3 billion on energy bills. Nearly 30 states -- including both red and blue -- have created renewable energy standards that helped wind power account for nearly half of all new installed energy capacity and created more than 200,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries.  

    "It is time for America to build on this progress and tackle climate change as a nation. Without this common cause, our children and grandchildren would be left to cope with the devastating consequences of unchecked climate change. We can't pass this burden on to them, especially when we can already see what climate disruption can do to people's lives. We must rise above political differences to face this challenge together. And we must act now. . ."

    Access the NYT Op-Ed (click here). Access the response from NRDC (click here). [#Climate]

Executive Order On Safety & Security Of Chemical Facilities

Aug 1: President Obama signed an Executive Order to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to workers and communities. Chemicals and the facilities that manufacture, store, distribute and use them are essential to our economy.  However, incidents such as the devastating explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas in April are tragic reminders that the handling and storage of chemicals present serious risks that must be addressed.  While the cause of the Texas explosion is under investigation, we can take some common sense steps now to improve safety and security and build on Federal agencies' ongoing work to reduce the risks associated with hazardous chemicals. 

 

    According to a White House fact sheet, the Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security directs the Federal Government to: improve operational coordination with state and local partners; enhance Federal agency coordination and information sharing; modernize policies, regulations and standards; and work with stakeholders to identify best practices. 

Improving Operational Coordination with State and Local Partners: Federal, state, local, and tribal governments have different responsibilities in addressing risks associated with chemical facilities, including response planning for potential emergencies.  To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of risk management and response measures, the Executive Order charges Federal agencies with improving coordination and information sharing with state and local governments.  For example, the Executive Order requires Federal agencies to develop a plan within 90 days that identifies ways to ensure State homeland security advisors, State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs), Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), Tribal Emergency Planning Committees (TEPCs), State regulators, and first responders have ready access to key information in a useful format to prevent, prepare for, and respond to chemical incidents.

Enhancing Federal Coordination and Information Sharing: Programs designed to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities through regulations, information reporting requirements, site inspections, and voluntary partnerships are managed by multiple Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).  To improve the collective performance of these Federal programs, the Executive Order calls upon Federal agencies to initiate innovative approaches for working together on a broad range of activities, such as identification of high-risk facilities, inspections, enforcement, and incident investigation and follow up.  For example, the Executive Order requires that the Federal agencies deploy a regional pilot program that will validate best practices and test innovative new methods for Federal interagency collaboration on chemical facility safety and security.  Additionally, Federal agencies are specifically directed to modernize the collection and sharing of chemical facility information to maximize the effectiveness of risk reduction efforts and reduce duplicative efforts.

Modernizing Policies, Regulations and Standards: The Executive Order directs Federal agencies to work with stakeholders to improve chemical safety and security through agency programs, private sector initiatives, Federal guidance, standards, and regulations.  For example, to reduce risks associated with ammonium nitrate, agencies will examine new options to address the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of this explosive chemical.  Agencies will also determine if additional chemicals should be covered by existing Federal regulatory programs, such as EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP), DHS's Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATs), and DOL's Process Safety Management Standards (PSM).  In addition, agencies will consider whether to pursue an independent, high-level assessment of the U.S. approach to chemical facility risk management to identify additional recommendations for all levels of government and industry to reduce the risk of catastrophic chemical incidents in the future.

Working with Stakeholders to Identify Best Practices: Many chemical facilities have taken steps to create safer work environments and reduce risks of chemical incidents to nearby communities. The Executive Order directs key Federal agencies to convene a wide range of interested stakeholders, including representatives from industry, state, local, and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, and the first responder community, to identify and share successes to date and best practices to reduce safety and security risks in the production and storage of potentially harmful chemicals, including through the use of safer alternatives, adoption of best practices, and potential public-private partnerships.

    The fact sheet also includes a background summary of the various Federal Programs for Chemical Facility Safety and Security including: EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP; EPA's Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA; OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM); OSHA's Chemical Plant National Emphasis Program (NEP); Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS); U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA); and the Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (DOJ/ATF) federal explosives laws. The Federal government also has a number of regulatory programs related to the safe and secure transportation of chemicals across all modes of transportation, including highway, rail, aviation, maritime, and pipeline. This fact sheet and Executive Order is focused on chemical safety and security at fixed facilities and does not address the programs focused on the transportation of hazardous materials.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) responded saying, "Knowing the President's deep commitment to the people of West, Texas after the tragic explosion of ammonium nitrate, I informed him last week of specific ideas that emanated from a hearing I chaired at the Environment and Public Works Committee. I couldn't be more gratified to learn today that he is taking executive action to follow through on the very solutions that were discussed and that I promised to pursue. As I told the President, the EPA has not updated its alert since 1997, and the best practices recommended by other federal agencies such as OSHA are not being uniformly followed. This progress shows that when we use our mandated oversight role to solve serious problems facing the American people -- and the President agrees with our solutions -- we can move forward without changing laws to protect our families and communities."

    Access the White House fact sheet (click here). Access the Executive Order (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). [#Haz, #Toxics]

Gina McCarthy's Debut Speech At Harvard Law School

Jul 30: U.S. EPA's newest Administrator Gina McCarthy delivered her first major speech as Administrator in her home town of Boston at an event hosted by the Harvard Law School. Reporting on the event has been somewhat spotty because a full text transcript was not immediately available. After considerable effort WIMS finally obtained a transcript and has posted the full text on our website (see link below). Additionally, the video of the speech is also available.

    McCarthy began her speech by thanking President Obama for his "willingness to nominate and stand by me." She immediately got into the subject of climate change and said, ". . .the president had the courage and the vision during this whole process to stand up in 100 plus degree weather at Georgetown University to give what is clearly the most important speech on climate change that any American president has ever given in which he called on all of us to take action [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13]. Most notable he told EPA to work with states, tribes, local governments, utilities, unions, folks in environmental and energy organizations, NGOs, the faith community and others – to move ahead with rules to reduce GHG emissions from new and existing power plants. He challenges us to make sure that this effort continued the development of homegrown energy while steadily and responsibly taking steps to cut carbon pollution. That way we would protect our kids' health and begin to slow the effects of climate change – leaving a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. And he told all agencies to work with communities to ensure that they are resilient enough to adapt to a changing climate. That speech is what stewardship and leadership is all about. . ."

    In reviewing some of the history of EPA, McCarthy said, "Between 1970 and 2011, aggregate emissions of common air pollutants dropped 68 percent while the U.S. Gross Domestic Product grew 212 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 167 percent, and the U.S. population grew 52 percent. So, the bad things went down while the good things went up. That sounds pretty good so far. Right? In fact, from 1970 through 1990 – programs under the clean air act have helped prevent: -More than 205 thousand premature deaths; - 843 thousand asthma attacks; [and] -18 million child respiratory illnesses.". . . And according to our analysis, benefits of the clean air act in 2020 will outweigh the costs by a ratio of more than 30-to-1. .

    "Since the Brownfields program's inception in 1995 and through June of 2013, EPA has provided tools to communities and tribes to assist them in making more than 41,550 acres ready for reuse. This helped create more than 93,100 jobs for cleanup and redevelopment activities, and leverage more than $20.8 billion in economic development. Based on historical data and grantee reporting, every $1 of the EPA Brownfields funding leverages between $17 and $18 in other public and private funding to advance cleanup and development of these properties."

    ". . .regardless of these proven successes, EPA is facing significant challenges. And we have to be ready not just to tout the successes we have accomplished, but to convince the American public that we are taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies, the most cost-effective, sustainable solutions to meet their needs and our mission moving forward. That means understanding how climate change solutions and other and environmental protections fit as part of a sound national and global environmental and economic agenda. . .

    "For too long we have been focused on a false choice: between the health of our children and the health of our economy – and we have endlessly debated that choice even in the face of 43 years of documented history that proved that it just ain't so. Today, the truth we need to embrace is that cutting carbon pollution will spark business innovation, will grow jobs, and will strengthen the economy. . .

    "As more businesses embrace the 'opportunity' of climate change, I see additional public and private sector investment being leveraged to support infrastructure and clean energy -- and these investments will, in turn, fuel the complementary goals of turning America into a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. You see it too – right? Last month when he unveiled his plan, President Obama made the case for urgent efforts to tackle climate change this way - he said and I quote: 'The question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind.' . . . Other countries have recognized the potential in clean energy and are making historic investments in their advancements. Last year, China alone invested a record $67.7 billion in clean energy - 20 percent more than they invested in 2011. Can the U.S. afford to not make that same level of commitment?. . .

    "And I know as well as anyone, that when it comes to cutting carbon, there is a lot we can learn from our states. Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based reduction programs. More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets. More than 35 have set renewable energy targets. And over 1,000 mayors across the country have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution in their cities. These local and state officials are the leading edge in this effort, and we at EPA want to build on and compliment these efforts already underway. . .

    "Innovation is exactly what's going to help solve the environmental challenges we face today. EPA will be looking at the challenges ahead with our eyes wide open –relying on smart, strategic, partnerships, collaboration, and ongoing engagement. We will approach each challenge with flexible and sustainable solutions using a pragmatic and common sense compass to guide our way. And I am confident we will succeed. We can and will continue to make a real, positive difference on the ground in communities around the country. That is the true measure of our success. . .

    "Increased drought conditions are already challenging our communities, while more frequent and intense storms are straining our ability to manage stormwater runoff, to deliver safe drinking water and to ensure proper wastewater treatment. Our pipes and water treatment systems were not built to manage the record-breaking storms that are becoming ever-more frequent. But as the President said, working here at home to update our cities and our infrastructure means local jobs. To close, I have little doubt about the continued critical importance of EPA and its mission. If EPA executes its duties and responsibilities effectively, we have a good chance of becoming an integral part of a sound, sustainable economy that will shape our future. And EPA has a good chance to support our nation's ongoing economic recovery by protecting our air, water, and land - for ourselves and our children. . ."

    Access the complete transcript of the McCarthy speech (click here). Access the video of the speech (click here). Access the Harvard Magazine summary of the event (click here). [#All]

Report On Wasteful North Dakota Gas Flaring Issue

Jul 29: A report from the Ceres organization reveals that as a result of the growth of unconventional oil production in North Dakota, large and growing volumes of natural gas and natural gas liquids are being burned off rather than sold, creating significant economic and environmental impacts. The report -- Flaring Up -- analyzes oil and gas production data published by the North Dakota Industrial Commission and calculates that volumes of flared gas more than doubled between May 2011 and May 2013. In 2012 alone, flaring resulted in the loss of approximately $1 billion in fuel and the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent of adding nearly one million cars to the road.

    The report projects that, without large-scale mitigation effort on behalf of industry and regulators, flaring will continue to grow over the next several years, despite calls from investors, policymakers and community members to curb the economically inefficient and environmentally harmful practice. Ryan Salmon, the report's lead author and manager of Ceres' oil and gas program said, "The U.S. is now one of the top 10 flaring countries in the world, primarily due to the rapid growth of flaring in North Dakota. Although the state's oil and gas industry is stepping up its efforts to curb flaring, the total volume of flared natural gas continues to grow. Investors are looking for producers and regulators to take more aggressive action to prevent the loss of this valuable fuel."

    The North Dakota Industrial Commission's latest data shows that the State's oil and gas developers flared 29 percent of the natural gas they produced during May 2013. Although the percentage of flared gas has fallen from a peak of 36 percent recorded in September 2011, overall volumes of flared gas continue to rise. During May 2011, for example, 106,000 thousand cubic feet (Mcf) of natural gas were flared each day, while in May 2013, 266,000 Mcf of natural gas were flared, 2.5 times as much.

    At current market rates, oil is approximately 30 times more valuable than natural gas. As a result, producers have chosen to flare much of the gas they produce, rather than invest in the infrastructure necessary to collect, process and market it. However, state authorities note that Bakken gas contains large quantities of higher-value natural gas liquids, which boost the price and improve the economics of capturing the natural gas in North Dakota. According to the North Dakota Pipeline Authority, Bakken natural gas contains roughly eight to 12 gallons of high-priced natural gas liquids -- including propane, butane, isobutane, and natural gasoline -- per Mcf of natural gas produced. The Ceres report calculates the value of 10 gallons, the midpoint of that range, for an average mix of natural gas liquids at $10.33. Therefore, if the value of the natural gas liquids is added to the current average $3.20/Mcf market price for natural gas, Bakken natural gas could be worth as much as $13.50 per Mcf.

    Unless the percentage of flared gas falls below 21 percent, Ceres projects that overall volumes of flared gas will continue to rise through 2020 along with rising oil production. North Dakota officials have set a public goal of reducing the amount of flared gas to no more than 10 percent of overall production by an unspecified date. However, even if the state's goal of 10 percent flaring were achieved, Flaring Up projects that the total volume of flared gas in 2020 would still exceed the amount flared in 2010.

    In March 2012, investors representing $500 billion in assets sent a letter to 21 of the industry's largest shale oil producers, urging them to reduce or eliminate flaring. The practice of natural gas flaring has also generated significant public attention after recent NASA satellite images revealed that North Dakota's gas flares can be seen from space, burning nearly as brightly as the city lights of Minneapolis and Chicago.

    Access a release from Ceres and link to the complete report and related information (click here). [#Energy/NatGas, #Climate]

President Speaks Out On Keystone XL Pipeline

Jul 27: In a far-reaching interview with President Obama conducted by Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear of The New York Times. The interview was conducted at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., on July 24, 2013. The interview covers a number of key issues facing the country but also touches on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline issue. The following is the excerpt on the pipeline issue:

NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline -- Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?

MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that's true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline -- which might take a year or two -- and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.

NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need. So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to world markets.

 

Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I'm going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.

 

NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?

 

MR. OBAMA: We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry's decision or recommendation on this issue.   

    Representative Lee Terry (R-NE), author of legislation in the House of Representatives that would approve the Keystone Pipeline, issued a statement in reaction to President Obama's interview with The New York Times saying, "The president conveniently chooses to ignore the construction jobs from steel, fabrication, and the rest of the jobs that would be created by our nation of builders if he would just approve the Keystone Pipeline. He also conveniently chooses to ignore the March draft EIS from his own State Department that said Keystone could create upwards of 42,000 jobs.

    "As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, my committee heard from the Obama Administration's own witness who testified before us that direct foreign investment from companies like TransCanada has dropped sharply in recent years. Down from 45% in 1980s, the world's direct foreign investment in the U.S. is now only 17%. Just like the President is doing to TransCanada and our nation's number one trading partner, he is telling the world that America is closed for business and we don't want your investments in our country or the jobs they would create".

    "With over 1,700 days of delays, the President is insulting Canada by saying that he needs to learn more about the project. What more could he learn after over 15,500 pages of reviews? In my opinion, the President now has zero credibility when he speaks about infrastructure projects creating jobs. What will it take for our president to focus on job creation and not job killing? President Obama needs to spend more time working with Republicans in Congress rather than traveling around the country reciting the environmental left's talking points and giving speeches that don't hire."   

    WIMS previously reported on a study by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute entitled, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, provides an in-depth look at the numbers and the uncertainty surrounding many of estimates [See WIMS 1/6/12]. The 40-page paper indicates, "The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute that, if constructed, TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline will generate enough employment to kick-start important sections of the US economy through the creation of tens of thousands -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands -- of good, well-paying jobs for American workers." That report indicated, "The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

    The 40-page, detailed analysis also indicated that, "almost half (and perhaps more) of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the United States; [and] based on the experience of Phases 1 and 2, the final processing work for KXL will probably be performed in the US with most of the steel and pipe sourced from outside of the US (notably India and South Korea)." Thee report indicates that the claim of more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs "is misleading and erroneous on a number of levels."

    Access the complete interview text published in the NYT (click here). Access a release from Rep. Terry (click here). Access the complete Cornell paper (click here). Access the State Department KXL website for more information (click here). [Energy/KXL]

NASA Visualizations Of Two GHG Emissions Scenarios

Jul 25: NASA has recently released animated visualizations of how different greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios are expected to impact the United States. The visualizations were developed to support the forthcoming third US National Climate Assessment and show projections of Earth's temperature and precipitation patterns from today through the year 2100 -- revealing how "low" versus "high" emission scenarios would impact the planet's climate. Allison Leidner, Ph.D., a scientist who coordinates NASA's involvement in the National Climate Assessment said, "These visualizations communicate a picture of the impacts of climate change in a way that words do not. When I look at the scenarios for future temperature and precipitation, I really see how dramatically our Nation's climate could change."

    The NASA Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS) developed the animations in collaboration with NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, and the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina.

    To develop these complex animations, a team of scientists used results from 15 global climate models, combined with data on monthly temperature and precipitation in the United States, to generate maps of projected conditions through the year 2100. The visualizations present projections of temperature and precipitation changes from 2000 to 2100 - compared to the historical average from 1970-1999 -- under two different scenarios of future CO2 emissions. The "higher emissions" scenario represents a fossil-fuel-intensive future in which concentrations of atmospheric CO2 exceed 800 ppm by the year 2100. The "lower emissions" scenario represents a less fossil-fuel-intensive future in which atmospheric CO2 concentrations level off at around 550 ppm by 2100. Today, atmospheric CO2 concentrations stand at around 400 ppm.

    While NASA's visualizations show significant warming in both scenarios, the projected average temperature change over the contiguous United States in the higher emissions scenario is nearly twice what is projected in the lower emissions scenario -- at 8°F (versus just 4.5°F). Dr. Kenneth E. Kunkel, Lead Scientist for Assessments at NOAA's Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites explained, "Looking at these visualizations, you see that reducing emissions does in fact have a big impact on the amount of warming by the end of the century."

    Dr. Kunkel indicated that another notable characteristic of the visualizations is that projected warming is generally greater over the North American continent, compared to the surrounding oceans. It takes longer for the oceans to warm up because the excess energy that is deposited in the oceans can be mixed over a fairly large depth. He also points out that the magnitude of temperature increase during the summer is much higher over the contiguous U.S. than in Canada and Alaska. This may be partially a result of decreasing soil moisture relating to increased evaporation, which increases as temperature rises.

    Nationwide, changes in precipitation are expected to occur under both scenarios, but be more dramatic in the higher emissions scenario—with many dry areas getting dryer, while wet areas get wetter. Dr. Leidner said. "The visualizations really bring home how regional variations tie back together. Words describe this, but when you see it, you get it." For instance, the visualizations show that New England precipitation projected to increase, while some areas of the Southwest can expect to see a 10% decrease in annual precipitation in the higher emission scenario.

    Access a announcement and link to the visualizations and related information (click here). [#Climate]

   

House Hearing On EPA's Study Of Hydraulic Fracturing Impacts

Jul 24: The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Energy and Environment Subcommittees held a joint hearing to examine the EPA's scientific processes and how the agency conducts its investigation into the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: U.S. EPA; EPA Science Advisory Board, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel; Utah Department of Natural Resources; and New York State Water Resources Institute, Cornell University.

    In its FY2010 Appropriations Committee Conference Report, Congress requested that the EPA study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, and to use the best available science and independent sources of information. The EPA is undertaking the study using a transparent, peer-reviewed process. The Agency has engaged experts in developing an approach and continues to consult with experts and stakeholders throughout the study. In 2011, EPA began research under its Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. The scope of the proposed research includes the full hydraulic fracturing water cycle, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and injection of fluids, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal. In December, 2012, the EPA released the Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report to provide the public with the latest information on the work being undertaken as part of the research study [See WIMS 12/21/12, WIMS 7/12/12]. On April 30, 2013, EPA announced in the Federal Register [78 FR 25267-25268] that it was extending the deadline for the public to submit data and scientific literature to inform the Agency's research from April 30, 2013, until November 15, 2013. EPA said it is extending the deadline in order to provide the public with more of an opportunity to provide feedback [See WIMS 4/30/13]. The draft EPA report that synthesizes the results of these studies is expected to be released for peer review and public comment in late 2014.

    Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, "It seems that each week there is more good news about the incredible benefits of the fracking energy revolution that is underway across America. However, some choose to ignore these benefits and instead focus on finding ways to restrain, if not stifle, the new development. The EPA has too often been complicit in this effort.  They have attempted to link fracking to water contamination in at least three cases, only to be forced to retract their statements after further scrutiny proved them to be unfounded."

    Environment Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart (R-UT) said, "Given EPA's rush to judgment in Wyoming, Texas, and Pennsylvania, we should question whether the agency's ongoing study is a genuine, fact-finding, scientific exercise, or a witch-hunt to find a pretext to regulate. EPA's recent announcement that it is walking away from its attempt to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater issues in Pavillion, Wyoming [See WIMS 6/21/13] is the most recent example of the agency employing a 'shoot first, ask questions later' policy toward unconventional oil and gas production.  This marks the third case in which EPA has made sweeping allegations of fracking-caused contamination, only to have to recant these claims later due to errors, omissions and breaches of protocol. At a time when so many Americans are learning to distrust our federal government, this is another blow for the credibility of our federal agencies."

    Energy Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) said, "In this manner, the agency appears headed toward developing conclusions completely divorced from any useful context. It is akin to a weatherman warning citizens to take shelter based on the possibility that a storm will occur, without including any indication of when the storm might occur, where it might hit and how likely it is to actually take place.  I am not alone in this concern, as several of the panelists on the EPA's Science Advisory Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory have similarly expressed apprehension over the lack of context the agency is providing and its neglect of risk assessment."

    Full Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her opening remarks, "Concerns about contamination of groundwater and drinking water have troubled us since the shale gas boom started over a decade ago. We must be careful not to sacrifice the quality of our natural water resources for the sake of cheaper gas.  We need clean water as much as we need affordable energy options.  Our water resources are already stretched to support our industrial and agricultural sectors, and residential and commercial development. We cannot afford to contaminate the limited drinking water supplies that we have.  It is in the best interest of everyone, especially the fracking industry, to resolve questions surrounding the fracking water cycle and the impact to groundwater and drinking water. Americans have a right to clean water and a healthier environment. The gas will be there, and it is up to the industry to make sure it can be produced in an environmentally sound manner."

    Subcommittee on Environment Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said, "Our surface and groundwater resources are under tremendous strain throughout the country. Population expansion, residential and industrial development, droughts, and limited precipitation not seen before in some areas of the country have all contributed to this strain.  These circumstances make access to clean water and the EPA's study even more important.  If we want to enjoy the advantages and economic benefits of shale gas development, we must do so with the highest regard for safety and the protection of our precious water resources. State, federal, and tribal leaders, in addition to Americans all over the country are alarmed about whether their drinking water is at risk, and they deserve answers to their questions." 

    Subcommittee on Energy Ranking Member Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stated, "We have to be careful that we extract this resource safely, without unintended, serious consequences to either our health or the environment. It would be very short-sighted to produce energy via fracking only to find out later that it caused damage. There is simply no place for politics when it comes to making sure that the water that our families rely on is safe, and the homes that we live in are not at risk of a man-made disaster."

    EPA testified that its "integrated approach of openness and scientific rigor is ensuring that the EPA study will provide the full range of policymakers with high quality, policy-relevant science that will inform their decision making. . . the President believes the prudent development of our oil and natural gas resources can make a critical contribution to meeting our nation's energy needs. . . We are pursuing this work with the best available science and the highest level of transparency. This study will continue to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process in consultation with other federal agencies, appropriate State and inter-state regulatory agencies, and with input from industry, non-governmental organizations, tribal governments, and other stakeholders. As you have heard today, we will continue to collaborate with our federal partners and work with our stakeholders to address the highest priority challenges to safely and prudently develop unconventional gas and oil resources.

    Access the Republican hearing website for testimony, statements and video (click here). Access the Democratic hearing website for testimony, statements and video (click here). Access the complete FR announcement (click here). Access EPA's Progress Report (click here). Access EPA's docket for more information and to submit and review comments (click here). Access more information on the SAB panel (click here). Access more information on the EPA hydraulic fracturing study (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Drink]