GAO Finds Major Faults In Pesticides "Conditional Registration"

Sep 9: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Pesticides: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Oversight of Conditional Registrations (GAO-13-145, August 8, 2013). In background information GAO indicates that as of September 2010, more than 16,000 pesticides were registered for use in the United States, according to EPA. EPA reviews health and environmental effects data submitted by a company and may register a pesticide or, alternatively, grant a "conditional registration" for a pesticide under certain circumstances, even though some of the required data may not have been submitted or reviewed. The company must provide the missing data within a specified time. In 2010, environmental and other groups charged that EPA had overused conditional registrations and did not appear to have a reliable system to identify whether the required data had been submitted. GAO was asked to examine issues related to EPA's use of conditional registrations for pesticides. The report examines: (1) number of conditional registrations EPA has granted and the basis for these; (2) extent to which EPA ensures that companies submit the required additional data and EPA reviews the data, and (3) views of relevant stakeholders on EPA's use of conditional registrations. GAO reviewed EPA data and surveyed stakeholders, among other things.

    GAO found that the total number of conditional registrations granted is unclear, as EPA reports that its data are inaccurate for several reasons. First, the database used to track conditional registrations does not allow officials to change a pesticide's registration status from conditional to unconditional once the registrant has satisfied all requirements, thereby overstating the number of conditional registrations. Second, EPA staff have misused the term "conditional registration," incorrectly classifying pesticide registrations as conditional when, for example, they require a label change, which is not a basis in statute for a conditional registration. According to EPA documents and officials, weaknesses in guidance and training, management oversight, and data management contributed to these misclassification problems. For example, according to EPA documents, there was limited, organized management oversight to ensure that regulatory actions were not misclassified as conditional registrations. As of July 2013, EPA officials told GAO that the Agency has taken or is planning to take several actions to more accurately account for conditional registrations, including beginning to design a new automated data system to more accurately track conditional registrations.

    The extent to which EPA ensures that companies submit additional required data and EPA reviews these data is unknown. Specifically, EPA does not have a reliable system, such as an automated data system, to track key information related to conditional registrations, including whether companies have submitted additional data within required time frames. As a result, pesticides with conditional registrations could be marketed for years without EPA's receipt and review of these data. In the absence of a reliable system for managing conditional registrations, EPA relies on a variety of routine program operations, such as its review of a company's changes to a pesticide registration, to discover that data are missing. However, these methods fall short of what is needed because they are neither comprehensive nor do they ensure timely submission of these data. According to federal internal control standards, EPA's lack of a reliable system for managing conditional registrations constitutes an internal control weakness because the agency lacks an effective mechanism for program oversight and decision making.

    Stakeholders GAO surveyed -- representatives of consumer, environmental, industry, legal, producer, science, and state government groups -- generally said EPA needs to improve its conditional registration process. For example, some stated EPA should improve its data systems for tracking conditional registrations to ensure that required data are submitted and reviewed in a timely manner. However, stakeholder views varied on the benefits and disadvantages of conditionally registering pesticides. For example, some consumer, industry, legal, producer, and state government stakeholders stated that the conditional registration process promotes innovation by bringing new technologies to the marketplace more quickly. In contrast, some consumer, environmental, legal, science, and state government stakeholders voiced concerns that conditional registration allows products with safety that has not been fully evaluated into the marketplace. GAO recommends, in part, that EPA consider and implement options for an automated system to better track conditional registrations. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them.

    Access the complete 56-page report (click here). [#Toxics]

U-M Releases 7 Technical Reports On Fracking In MI

Sep 5: University of Michigan (U-M) researchers released seven technical reports that together form the most comprehensive Michigan-focused resource on hydraulic fracturing, the controversial natural gas and oil extraction process commonly known as fracking. The studies, totaling nearly 200 pages, examine seven critical topics related to the use of hydraulic fracturing in Michigan, with an emphasis on high-volume methods: technology, geology and hydrogeology, environment and ecology, public health, policy and law, economics, and public perceptions.

    The U-M researchers concluded that while considerable natural gas reserves are believed to exist in the State and high-volume hydraulic fracturing has the potential to help access them, possible impacts to the environment and to public health must be addressed. Though modern high-volume hydraulic fracturing is not widely used in Michigan today, a main premise of the U-M study is that the technique could become more widespread due to a desire for job creation, economic growth, energy independence and cleaner fuels.

    John Callewaert, project director and director of integrated assessment at U-M's Graham Sustainability Institute, which is overseeing the project said, "There's a lot of interest in high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but there really isn't much activity at the moment in Michigan. That's why now is a good time to do this assessment."

    These reports conclude the first phase of a two-year U-M project known formally as the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment. The seven documents -- which should not be characterized or cited as final products of the integrated assessment -- provide a solid informational foundation for the project's next phase, an analysis of various hydraulic fracturing policy options. That analysis is expected to be completed in mid-2014 and will be shared with government officials, industry experts, other academics, advocacy groups and the general public.

    Callewaert said, "Nothing like this has been done before in Michigan. Having this comprehensive, state-specific set of reports will be an invaluable resource that will help guide future decision-making on this issue -- and hopefully will help Michigan avoid some of the pitfalls encountered in other states." Conclusions of the reports, which were written by faculty-led, student-staffed teams from various disciplines, include:

• Technology. In view of the current low price of natural gas, the high cost of drilling deep shale formations and the absence of new oil discoveries, it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas industry in Michigan in the near-term future. However, considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood, which underlies much of Michigan and eastern Lake Huron and extends into Ontario, Canada.
  
• Geology/hydrogeology. A recent flurry of mineral rights acquisitions in the state associated with exploratory drilling suggests the potential for growth in natural gas production through high-volume hydraulic fracturing, though only a handful of such wells have been drilled to date. "Michigan is thus in a unique position to assess the future of high-volume hydraulic fracturing before the gas boom begins."
• Environment/Ecology. Potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment are significant and include increased erosion and sedimentation, increased risk of aquatic contamination from chemical spills or equipment runoff, habitat fragmentation and resulting impacts on aquatic and terrestrial organisms, loss of stream riparian zones, and reduction of surface waters available to plants and animals due to the lowering of groundwater levels.
• Public health. Possible hazards in the surrounding environment include impaired local and regional air quality, water pollution and degradation of ecosystems. Possible hazards in nearby communities include increased traffic and motor vehicle accidents, stress related to risk perception among residents, and boomtown-associated effects such as a strained health care system and road degradation.
• Policy/Law. The State is the primary source of law and policy governing hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. The operator of a high-volume hydraulically fractured well must disclose the hazardous constituents of chemical additives to the State Department of Environmental Quality for each additive within 60 days of well completion. Unlike most other states, MDEQ does not require operators to report to FracFocus.org, a nationwide chemical disclosure registry.
• Economics. The gas extraction industry creates employment and income for Michigan, but the employment effects are modest compared with other industries and not large enough to "make or break" the state's economy. In the future, the number of technical jobs in the industry will likely increase, while less-skilled laborer positions will decline.
• Public Perceptions. A slight majority of Michigan residents believe the benefits of fracking outweigh the risks, but significant concerns remain about the potential impacts to human health, the environment and groundwater quality. The public tends to view the word "fracking" as the entirety of the natural gas development process, from leasing and permitting, to drilling and well completion, to transporting and storing wastewater and chemicals. Industry and regulatory agencies hold a much narrower definition that is limited to the process of injecting hydraulic fracturing fluids into a well. These differences in perceived meaning can lead to miscommunications that ultimately increase mistrust among stakeholders.

    The researchers indicate that chief among the technical advances are directional drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which are often used together. In directional drilling, the well operator bores vertically down to the rock formation, then follows the formation horizontally. High-volume fracking—the focus of recent attention and public concern—is defined by the state of Michigan as a well that uses more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid. For reference, an Olympic-size swimming pool holds about 660,000 gallons of water.

    Since the late 1940s, an estimated 12,000 gas and oil wells have been drilled in Michigan using hydraulic fracturing, without any reported contamination issues. Most of those wells have been relatively shallow vertical wells that each used about 50,000 gallons of water. But recently, a small number of deep, directionally drilled, high-volume hydraulically fractured wells have been completed in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. Those wells sometimes use several million gallons of water, and one Michigan well required more than 20 million gallons.

    Since 2010, when the Petoskey Pioneer Well spurred interest in high-volume hydraulically fractured wells in Michigan, 19 such wells are known to have been completed in the State, according to Sara Gosman, a lecturer at the U-M Law School and author of the technical report on policy/law.

    The U-M hydraulic fracturing study is expected to cost at least $600,000 and is being funded by U-M through its Graham Sustainability Institute, Energy Institute and Risk Science Center. State regulators, oil and gas industry representatives, staffers from environmental nonprofits, and peer reviewers provided input to the technical reports, and more than 100 public comments were considered.

    Public comments are being accepted on the reports until October 7, however, U-M notes that comments will not be used to revise the technical reports. Rather, submitted comments will be used with the technical reports to inform the integrated assessment to be completed during the second phase of the project. Additionally, a free webinar for the general public will be held September 9, noon-12:30 PM ET (registration required).

    Access a lengthy release and summary of the reports from U-M (click here). Access links to all technical reports and an overview (click here). Access the U-M Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan website for complete background including comment form, videos, presentations, etc. (click here). [#MIEnergy/Frack, #Energy/Frack]

First-Of-Its-Kind Settlement For GHG & Ozone Protection Requirements

Sep 4: U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with Safeway, the nation's second largest grocery store chain, that has agreed to pay a $600,000 civil penalty and implement a corporate-wide plan to significantly reduce its emissions of ozone-depleting substances from refrigeration equipment at 659 of its stores nationwide, estimated to cost approximately $4.1 million. The settlement involves the largest number of facilities ever under the Clean Air Act's regulations governing refrigeration equipment. Safeway, headquartered in Pleasanton, CA, is the second largest grocery chain with 1,412 stores in the U.S. and 2012 revenues of $44.2 billion. The settlement covers 659 Safeway stores – all Safeway stores in the U.S. that have commercial refrigeration equipment regulated by the Clean Air Act, except for those stores in Safeway's Dominick's Division, which was the subject of a 2004 settlement with the U.S. The settlement was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.

    The settlement resolves allegations that Safeway violated the Clean Air Act by failing to promptly repair leaks of HCFC-22, a hydro-chlorofluorocarbon that is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and ozone-depleting substance used as a coolant in refrigerators, and failed to keep adequate records of the servicing of its refrigeration equipment. Safeway will now implement a corporate refrigerant compliance management system to comply with Federal stratospheric ozone regulations. Safeway will also reduce its corporate-wide average leak rate from 25 percent in 2012 to 18 percent or below in 2015. The company will also reduce the aggregate refrigerant emissions at its highest-emission stores by 10 percent each year for three years.

    Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "Safeway's new corporate commitment to reduce air pollution and help protect the ozone layer is vital and significant. Fixing leaks, improving compliance, and reducing emissions will make a real difference in protecting us from the dangers of ozone depletion, while reducing the impact on climate change." Robert Dreher, DOJ Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division said, ""This first-of-its-kind settlement will benefit all Americans by cutting emissions of ozone-depleting substances across Safeway's national supermarket chain. It can serve as a model for comprehensive solutions that improve industry compliance with the nation's Clean Air Act."

    HCFC-22 is up to 1,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming emissions. The measures that Safeway has committed to are expected to prevent over 100,000 pounds of future releases of ozone-depleting refrigerants that destroy the ozone layer. EPA regulations issued under Title VI of the Clean Air Act require that owners or operators of commercial refrigeration equipment that contains over 50 pounds of ozone-depleting refrigerants, and that has an annual leak rate greater than 35 percent repair such leaks within 30 days.

    HCFCs deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, which allows dangerous amounts of cancer-causing ultraviolet rays from the sun to strike the earth, leading to adverse health effects that include skin cancers, cataracts, and suppressed immune systems. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is implementing strict reductions of ozone-depleting refrigerants, including a production and importation ban by 2020 of HCFC-22, a common refrigerant used by supermarkets.

    The settlement is part of EPA's national enforcement initiative to control harmful air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including large grocery stores. Corporate commitments to reduce emissions from refrigeration systems have been increasing in recent years. EPA's GreenChill Partnership Program works with food retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate change by transitioning to environmentally friendlier refrigerants, using less refrigerant and eliminating leaks, and adopting green refrigeration technologies and best environmental practices.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to the consent decree and complaint (click here). [#Air, #Climate]

EPA Proposes Changes To Federal Water Quality Standards

Sep 4: U.S. EPA announced in the Federal Register [78 FR 54517-54546] that it is proposing changes to the Federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation which helps implement the Clean Water Act. EPA said the changes will improve the regulation's effectiveness in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. EPA is seeking comments from interested parties on these proposed revisions and comments must be received on or before December 3, 2013. EPA notes that the core of the current regulation has been in place since 1983; and since then, a number of issues have been raised by states, tribes, or stakeholders or identified by EPA in the implementation process that will benefit from clarification and greater specificity. The proposed rule addresses key program areas including: Administrator's determinations that new or revised WQS are necessary; designated uses; triennial reviews; antidegradation; variances to WQS; and compliance schedule authorizing provisions.

 

    EPA indicates that it has had ongoing dialogue with states, tribes and stakeholders on key issues that are central to assuring effective implementation of the WQS program. As part of this process, the Agency has considered several fundamental questions in evaluating opportunities to improve implementation of the WQS program including which recurring implementation issues would benefit most from a regulatory clarification or update, whether there are emerging issues that could be more effectively addressed through regulatory revisions, whether the regulation continues to have the appropriate balance of consistency and flexibility for states and tribes, and whether the resulting program effectively facilitates public participation in standards decisions.

 

    As a result of this evaluation and consideration of continuing input from states, tribes and stakeholders, the EPA is proposing changes to key program areas of its WQS regulation at 40 CFR part 131 that the Agency believes will result in improved regulatory clarity and more effective program implementation, and lead to environmental improvements in water quality. This proposed rulemaking requests comment on regulatory revisions in the following six key issue areas: (1) Administrator's determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions.   

• (1) EPA is proposing to amend paragraph (b) of Sec.  131.22 to add a requirement that an Administrator's determination must be signed by the Administrator or his or her duly authorized delegate, and must include a statement that the document is a determination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
  
• (2) First, EPA is proposing to amend paragraph (g) at Sec.  131.10 to provide that where a state or tribe adopts new or revised water quality standards based on a use attainability analysis (UAA), it must adopt the highest attainable use (HAU). States and tribes must also adopt criteria, as specified in Sec.  131.11(a), to protect that use. The EPA is also proposing to add a definition of HAU at Sec. 131.3(m). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to define HAU as "the aquatic life, wildlife, and/or recreation use that is both closest to the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act and attainable, as determined using best available data and information through a use attainability
  analysis defined in Sec. 131.3(g)." Second, the EPA is making appropriate edits to Sec. 131.10(g) to be clear that the factors listed in Sec. 131.10(g) must be used when a UAA is required by Sec. 131.10(j), and is restructuring Sec. 131.10(k) to clearly articulate when a UAA is not required.
  
• (3) EPA is proposing to amend the triennial review requirements of paragraph (a) of Sec. 131.20 to clarify that a state or tribe shall re-examine its water quality criteria during its triennial review to determine if any criteria should be revised in light of any new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations to assure that designated uses continue to be protected.
  
• (4) EPA is proposing to amend several provisions of Sec. 131.12 related to implementing the antidegradation requirements. These include (1) clarifying the options available to states and tribes when identifying Tier 2 high quality waters, (2) clarifying that states and tribes must conduct an alternatives analysis in order to support state and tribal decision-making on whether to authorize limited degradation of high quality water, and (3) specifying that states and tribes must develop and make available to the public implementation methods for their antidegradation policies. The EPA is also proposing to add language to Sec. 131.5(a) describing the EPA's authority to review and approve or disapprove state-adopted or tribal-adopted antidegradation policies. The language at Sec. 131.5(a) will further specify that if a state or tribe has chosen to formally adopt implementation methods as water quality standards, the EPA would review whether those implementation methods are consistent with 131.12.
  
• (5) EPA is proposing and soliciting comment on revisions to the WQS regulation that will provide more specificity and clearer requirements on the development and use of variances. Such revisions will establish requirements to help improve water quality by allowing states and tribes time to work with stakeholders to address any challenges and uncertainties associated with attaining the designated use and the associated criterion. These revisions will also provide assurance that further feasible progress toward the designated use and criterion will be made during the variance period.
  
• (6) EPA is proposing to add a new regulatory provision at Sec. 131.15 to be consistent with the decision of the EPA Administrator in In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. (1990 WL 324290 (EPA), 1990 EPA App. LEXIS 45, 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990)). This provision would clarify that a permitting authority may only issue compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits if the state or tribe has authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or tribal law in its water quality standards or implementing regulations. Any such compliance schedule authorizing provision is a WQS subject to the EPA's review and approval. The proposed provision would also clarify that individual compliance schedules issued pursuant to such authorizing provisions are not themselves WQS but must be consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state's or tribe's EPA-approved compliance schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.47.

    Access the complete FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for further details and to submit and review comments (click here). [#Water]

Major Report On GHG Emissions & Sinks From Farm & Forest Activities

Aug 27: The Climate Change Program Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of the Chief Economist released and requested public comments on the 564-page report Science-Based Methods for Entity-Scale Quantification of Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks from Agriculture and Forestry Practices. The report is the work of 38 scientists from across academia, USDA and the Federal government, who are experts in greenhouse gas (GHG) estimation in the cropland, grazing land, livestock and forest management sectors. The report has undergone technical review by an additional 29 scientists. The report outlines a set of consensus methods for quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon storage at the local farm, ranch or forest scale. It is important that the methods exhibit scientific rigor, transparency, completeness, accuracy, and cost effectiveness, as well as consistency and comparability with other USDA GHG inventory efforts.

    Comments which must be received by received by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on October 11, 2013, will be used to further refine the methods report in preparation for publication as a USDA Technical Bulletin. USDA said the comments submitted will help it gauge the appropriateness and completeness of the proposed methods as well as methodological or data concerns that should be considered. A series of questions have been provided in the supplementary information to aid review and comments.

    The Climate Change Program Office (CCPO) operates within the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA and functions as the Department-wide focal point on agriculture, rural, and forestry-related climate change activities. The CCPO ensures that USDA is a source of objective, analytical assessments of the effects of climate change and proposed response strategies. This project addresses the need for scientifically-sound, Department-wide guidelines for quantifying GHG emissions and carbon sequestration at the farm-,
forest- and entity-scale. The report and other products developed by the project will be useful in assessing the carbon and GHG related environmental service benefits of various agricultural and forestry management practices and technologies.

    USDA has created a comprehensive set of GHG inventory methods that builds upon existing estimation and inventory efforts with the aim of providing transparent and robust inventory guidelines and reporting tools. The methods address direct greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration from agriculture and forest management at the farm, ranch or forest boundary. The report does not establish a GHG crediting framework or address policy issues related to crediting GHG reductions such as additionality or leakage. The specific questions that USDA requests comments on include:

1. Are sources of GHG emissions or sinks missing? Are the methods provided complete? Are there potential inconsistencies in and across the methods?

2. Are the proposed methods suitable for estimating GHG emissions at the farm-, forest- or entity-scale while meeting the selection criteria of transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy, cost effectiveness, and ease of use?

3. Are new (or additional) data sources available for calculating emission factors?

4. Are there additional management practices for which the science and data are clear, and which should be addressed in the methods report? If yes, please provide details.

5. Are the methods appropriate across a variety of farm and forest entities as well as applicable to operations of any size?

6. Are the research gaps clearly identified? Are there additional gaps to note, or new data sources that significantly address any of the listed gaps?

    Access a brief release from USDA (click here). Access the draft report (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access additional background and supporting data for the report (click here). Access the USDA docket for this action for documents and to submit and review comments (click here). [#Agriculture, #Climate, #Land]

Subscribers & Readers Notice

Subscribers & Readers Notice:

 

WIMS is on our late Summer publication break continuing through Labor Day. We will resume publication on Tuesday, September 3, 2013.

Comments Wanted On Microwave Rule & Social Cost Of Carbon

Aug 16: The Department of Energy (DOE) has received a Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Comments [78 FR 49975-49978] involving the controversial issue of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The notice from DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy indicates that the Agency has received a petition from the Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF), requesting that DOE reconsider its final rule of Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens, published on June 17, 2013 (i.e. Microwave Final Rule). Comments on the petition must be received by DOE not later than September 16, 2013.

 

    Specifically, LLF requests that DOE reconsider the Rule because the final rule used a different Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) than the figure used in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR). LLF indicates that "The final rule uses a new valuation for SCC that is different from -- and dramatically higher than -- that used in the proposed rule during the notice and comment period." DOE is requesting comments on whether to undertake the reconsideration suggested in the petition.

    DOE explains that In developing the Microwave Rule, it issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) on February 14, 2012 (77 FR 8555). In this SNOPR, as part of its economic analysis of the proposed rule, DOE sought to monetize the cost savings associated with the reduced carbon missions that would result from the expected energy savings of the proposed rule. To do this, DOE used "the most recent values [of SCC] identified by the interagency process," which, at the time, was the SCC calculation developed by the "Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2010." The 2010 figure was developed through an interagency process in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

 

    In May 2013, subsequent to the SNOPR but prior to DOE's issuance of the final Microwave Rule, the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon released revised SCC values. (Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, 2013) As these were "the most recent (2013) SCC values from the interagency group," DOE included these revised SCC values in the Rule. (78 FR 36316).

 

    Landmark petitions DOE to reconsider the Rule on the grounds that this change in the values used in estimating the economic benefits of the Rule should have been subject to a prior opportunity for public comment because the 2013 SCC values were not the "logical outgrowth" of the 2010 SCC values. Further, Landmark asserts that without reconsideration of the Rule, DOE might now rely on its prior use of the 2013 SCC values in the Rule when it endeavors to enact new energy conservation standards in the future.

 

    Specifically, in its petition, Landmark indicates, "Landmark objects to the Department's (and unnamed other agencies) decision to utilize an "Interagency Update" to justify increasing the "social cost" of carbon dioxide without any opportunity for public comment. Finalizing such a far reaching decision without notice and public comment violates the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) and Executive Order 13563's tenets of transparency, objectivity and fairness in promulgating and finalizing regulations. Landmark submits this document as a Petition for Reconsideration. However, the egregious violations of the APA as documented in this Petition demand rescission of the Rule. Landmark respectfully requests the DOE halt implementation and begin the regulatory process anew. At a minimum, the DOE's action must be reconsidered and presented to the public for proper consideration and comment. . ."

 

    Landmark notes further that, "The new [SCC] value is important because it serves as a key data factor in all cost-benefit analyses performed involving carbon dioxide. Despite its curious and surreptitious integration into a rule pertaining to microwave ovens, this new estimate appears to apply to all federal agencies engaging in cost-benefit analyses involving carbon dioxide emissions. . . For example, in the proposed rule, the Social Cost of Carbon, under one discount rate is estimated to be $23.80 dollars per metric ton by 2015. 77 FR 8555. That number rises to $38 dollars per metric ton under the new estimates provided in the final rule. 78 FR 36351. . . 

 

    "Landmark respectfully requests DOE immediately halt implementation and rescind the Rule. In the alternative, Landmark requests DOE adhere to the mandates of the APA, and subject the changes documented in this Petition to a proper notice and comment."

 

    Access the FR announcement which includes the complete LLF petition, background, and commenting procedures (click here). Access EPA's SCC website for more information (click here). [#Energy/Efficiency, #Climate]

Risk Management & Governance Issues In Shale Gas Development

Aug 15: The National Academy of Sciences(NAS), National Research Council (NRC) established a steering committee and organized two detailed workshops to examine the range of social and decision-making issues in risk characterization and governance related to gas shale development. Central themes include risk governance in the context of: (a) risks that emerge as shale gas development expands; and (b) incomplete or declining regulatory capacity in an era of budgetary stringency.

 

    The first workshop was held on May 30 & 31 and followed the systematic approach to risk characterization recommended in a 1996 NRC report, Understanding Risk. It engaged experts and practitioners in addressing the concerns of a range of interested and affected parties to identify key issues and discussed the state and limits of scientific knowledge on those issues. The second workshop, currently being held August 15 & 16,  is engaging social scientists from several research traditions to apply a variety of insights about risk management institutions to the shale gas case, while interacting with each other and with practitioners.

 

    A rapporteur will write a summary of the risk issues raised in the first workshop, the risk management and governance concepts presented at the second workshop, and the discussions at both workshops. The summary may include a selection of signed papers by workshop presenters, after appropriate review. It would note the risk questions posed at the workshops for future analysis and the risk management challenges and opportunities identified, which could be considered in future national discussions about the development and implementation of the technology. It will not offer consensus judgments or recommendations.

 

    In background material NAS indicates that extraction of gas from shale via hydraulic fracturing (fracking) presents two faces: (1) an attractive path to inexpensive energy for the foreseeable future, and (2) a number of perceived or real potential risks to the environment and communities. To date, risk management has been almost entirely oriented toward the extraction technology -- there has been no systematic effort to characterize the full range of risks that cause citizen concern. It is also not known if the management regime for these risks is adequate, although it is apparent that it is fragmented if not fragmentary across the country.

 

    NAS indicates, "Risk characterization for shale gas development does not now follow best practices; thus, it may engender mistrust. Moreover, current governmental environmental protection institutions may be unequal to the tasks of risk management. The use of fracking technology appears headed toward a pattern of confrontation that may undermine goals for both energy production and health and environmental protection. Recent efforts by the energy policy community to address the risks, even with the addition of the ongoing EPA drinking water study, seem unlikely to address all the fundamental social and decision-making issues."

 

    NAS says, "What is needed is a risk-analytic approach aimed at more adequately informing public choices, and governance models that include more than just legislated regulation, that may hold promise for meeting the challenges of environmental protection in an era of declining regulatory capacity. Fundamental social challenges -- not just technological ones -- need to be included in the development of policies and best practices."

    Access links to the two workshops which include the agendas, video archives, PowerPoint presentations, detailed abstracts of presentations with links to references and more (click here). [#Energy/Frack]

Difficulties Mitigating Canadian Tar Sands Expansion

Aug 14: A release from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicates that President Obama has made it clear that the central factor in his decision to approve or reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is whether the pipeline project will significantly exacerbate climate pollution [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13].  NRDC says Canada is striving to present itself as a sustainable manager of the tar sands that has the tools to mitigate the substantial carbon emissions and pass President Obama's climate test. NRDC indicates, "Unfortunately, a multi-million dollar PR campaign cannot erase Canada's lackluster climate record or make it any easier to cancel out the emissions from tar sands. There is no credible mitigation plan proposed or even being considered by Canadian provincial or federal governments that would address greenhouse gas pollution from its growing tar sands industry. There are tremendous technological and policy barriers that make mitigation of Canada's tar sands carbon pollution problems highly unlikely. The gap between Canada's rhetoric and its environmental performance raise serious questions regarding the credibility of the federal government's commitments on climate."

    Canadian advocates and experts hosted a press call today to release a new backgrounder from Environmental Defence Canada -- "Mitigating climate impacts of the tar sands: political and policy barriers to greenhouse gas reduction in Canada" -- and discuss the unlikelihood of successful mitigation. Danielle Droitsch, Canada Program Director at NRDC said, "America's shrinking coal emissions are a stark contrast to the rapidly expanding tar sands industry which is dragging down any Canadian hopes of being part of a climate solution. By pushing for a dramatic expansion of tar sands oil development and the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to carry it, Canada will never meet its international climate commitments."

    Dr. Mark Jaccard, Professor of Environmental Economics at Simon Frasier University and former chair of British Columbia Utilities Commission said, "Mitigation of Canada's increasing carbon pollution is incompatible with the Harper government's policy of unchecked oil sands expansion, which is driving their push for Keystone XL. The Canadian government has failed to reign in the skyrocketing emissions from this carbon intensive industry and we are now at a point where the only acceptable alternatives for the U.S. government to reject Keystone XL."

    NRDC indicates that the tar sands are Canada's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution, and if they continue to expand as government and industry project, they will cancel out every other effort across the country to mitigate emissions. Emissions from the tar sands are projected to double by 2020, which will send Canada soaring past the 2020 climate change target it shares with the United States. Models show that in order to curb soaring tar sands pollution and meet Canada's shared 2020 climate goal with the United States, regulations on the tar sands would have to establish a price on carbon of at least $100 per tonne. But that level of regulation -- or any meaningful regulation -- is highly unlikely.

    NRDC said the Canadian government is well aware of the mounting pressure to limit carbon emissions. The government has been aggressive in its talking points, but passive in action. While they have made multiple public promises, no Federal regulations on emissions from the oil and gas sector have yet been proposed in Canada. This means that the tar sands sector is currently expanding without any attention given to soaring greenhouse gas pollution. Canada is currently on track to miss its international climate commitments by a wide margin that is greater than all of the carbon produced by the combined emissions of Canada's power plants or the combined emissions of all of Canada's passenger vehicles.

    Dr. Danny Harvey, Climate Scientist at University of Toronto, "It will be very difficult for the Canadian government to achieve its own emissions reduction target for 2020 even without tar sands expansion, and more so if it continues to pursue tar sands expansion. In any case, deep reductions in overall emissions, beyond the 2020 target, will be required in the following decades that will be impossible to achieve if we lock in 40 years of increased tar sands emissions by building more pipelines." Due to political and policy barriers, it is highly unlikely that Canada would be able to mitigate the carbon emissions from the tar sands in order to meet President Obama's climate test for Keystone XL.

    Access a release from NRDC with links to related information and the backgrounder on barriers to mitigating the climate impacts of the tar sands (click here). [#Energy/KXL, #Energy/TarSands, #Climate]

Protecting The Electric Grid From Natural Disasters

Aug 12: The White House Council of Economic Advisers and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a report that assesses how to best protect the nation's electric grid from power outages that occur during natural disasters. This week marks the tenth anniversary of one of the worst power outages in the United States, during which tens of millions of Americans were affected across parts of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

    The report -- Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages -- finds that grid resilience is increasingly important as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of severe weather and estimates the economic impact of power outages on the nation's economy. The President's Climate Action Plans calls for upgrading the country's electric grid to help make electricity more reliable, save consumers money on their energy bills, and promote clean energy sources [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13].

    Patricia Hoffman, DOE Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability said, "The U.S. electric grid is a vital component of the nation's infrastructure and delivers, transmits, and distributes electric power to millions of Americans in homes, schools, offices, and factories across the United States. Investment in a 21st century modernized electric grid has been an important focus of President Obama's administration and this report underscores the importance of continued cross-sector investment to make the grid more resilient to the causes of power outages, including severe weather."

    The new report focuses its analysis on the impact of power outages caused by severe weather between 2003 and 2012, finding:

• Weather-related outages are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy an inflation-adjusted annual average of $18 billion to $33 billion.
• Roughly 679 power outages, each affecting at least 50,000 customers, occurred due to weather events. The aging nature of the grid -- much of which was constructed over a period of more than one hundred years -- has made Americans more susceptible to outages caused by severe weather.
• In 2012, the United States suffered eleven billion-dollar weather disasters -- the second-most for any year on record, behind only 2011.
• Since 1980, the United States has sustained 144 weather disasters whose damage cost reached or exceeded $1 billion and seven of the ten costliest storms in U.S. history occurred between 2004 and 2012.

    The report calls for increased cross-sector investment in the electric grid and identifies strategies for modernizing the grid to better prevent power outages. These strategies include: conducting exercises to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of hazards to the grid; working with utilities to harden their infrastructure against wind and flood damage; increasing overall system flexibility and robustness of the grid; and supporting implementation of 21st century technologies that can quickly alert utilities when consumers experience a power outage or there is a system disruption and automatically reroute power to avoid further outages.

    These strategies are designed to build on current initiatives, including the President's "Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid,"[See WIMS 6/15/11] which set out a four-pillared strategy for modernizing the grid and directed billions of dollars toward investments in 21st century smart grid technologies, and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocation of $4.5 billion to the Energy Department for investments in modern grid technology. These investments have begun to increase the resilience and reliability of the grid in the face of severe weather.

    Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the complete 28-page report (click here). Access links to related reports on Grid Resilience To Climate Changes (click here). Access the Smart Grid website for more information (click here). [#Energy/Grid, #Climate]

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]