Union Gas Receives Approval to Transport Natural Gas from Ohio to Ontario

Union Gas recently received approval from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for a 15-year contract to move natural gas from supply basins located near Ohio, into the Union Gas Dawn Hub on the proposed NEXUS Gas Transmission system (NEXUS), starting November, 2017.

Over the past five years, there has been a significant increase in the development and production of natural gas within the Appalachian Basis in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The proposed NEXUS project, which is being developed jointly by Spectra Energy and DTE Energy, will connect Ontario gas consumers to these new and growing supplies and provide Ontario consumers with greater supply diversity, security and cost competitiveness.

The goal is to ensure that Ontario gas consumers, including homes, businesses and industry, have secure access to a diverse supply of competitively-priced natural gas. 

Abundant North American supplies are keeping prices low for natural gas consumers. In fact, the price Union Gas customers pay for natural gas has steadily declined and is lower today than it was 10 years ago. In addition.  (State of Ohio)

Mapping System Highlights Energy Infrastructure

EIA’s mapping system highlights energy infrastructure across the United States

Source: EIA Energy Mapping System

---

For the next two weeks (Dec. 21–Dec. 31), Today in Energy will feature a selection of our favorite articles from 2015. Today's article was originally published on Jun. 16, 2015.

EIA's energy mapping system is a data-intensive visual reference tool that includes several map layers defining energy infrastructure components across the United States. Using this series of maps, viewers can see crude oil, petroleum, natural gas, or hydrocarbon gas liquid pipelines, terminals, and ports in their area, as well as high voltage electric transmission lines. The mapping system combines information from many government agencies as well as public and private sources. Understanding infrastructure components is helpful as energy supply and consumption patterns change.

• Crude oil
• Petroleum products
• Natural gas
• Electricity
• Storage

Source: EIA Energy Mapping System

Crude oil pipelines and rail terminal locations are based on publicly available data.

These map layers can be presented over several base layers with geographic, topographic, street, or satellite image detail, as well as with state, county, and congressional district borders.

Each state's map is also included as part of EIA's State Energy Data System. For instance, within North Dakota, viewers can see several components of energy infrastructure (pipelines, rail terminals, transmission lines) in addition to parts of the energy system, such as the locations of natural gas processing plants, coal mines, and wind power plants (including individual turbines).

(DOE-EIA)

Oil Export Ban Lifted

Congress’s bipartisan spending bill lifted the ban on crude oil exports.  The annual appropriations bill included a provision to lift the ban that had been put in place in 1975 to protect consumers from international crises like the OPEC oil embargo.

The deal allowed a five-year renewable energy tax credit extension.

The Democratic leadership traded this ban for a small extension of taxes that support renewable energy. (The Hill, 12/16/2015)

Data On Spent Nuclear Fuel In the USA

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form GC-859, Nuclear Fuel Data Survey

---

The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently released data from its Nuclear Fuel Data Survey on the amount, type, and characteristics of spent nuclear fuel once it is discharged from a reactor. As nuclear electricity generation has continued to increase, the inventory of discharged spent fuel from nuclear reactors has grown steadily since the 1970s.

The latest Nuclear Fuel Data Survey data show that a total of 241,468 fuel assemblies, with an initial loading weight of about 70,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU), were discharged from and stored at 118 commercial nuclear reactors operating in the United States from 1968 through June 2013. Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina have the highest amount of stored nuclear material, with more than 4,000 MTU in each state.

Nuclear reactors are fueled by fissionable material, most commonly uranium, that has been enriched and formed into fuel rods. These rods are bundled together to form fuel assemblies, which are loaded into the reactor core and irradiated. These assemblies are used in the reactors for multiple cycles, with each cycle typically lasting between 18 and 24 months. After being irradiated, the spent fuel assemblies are highly radioactive and must be properly stored.

There are two storage methods used for spent fuel: spent fuel pools and dry cask storage. The spent-fuel-pool approach involves storing spent fuel assemblies in large pools of water that cool the assemblies and provideshielding from the radiation. Dry cask storage allows spent fuel already cooled in a spent fuel pool for several years to be stored inside a container, called a cask, filled with inert gas. Each cask is surrounded by steel, concrete, or other material to provide shielding from radiation. All spent fuel storage is regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Approximately two-thirds of total spent nuclear fuel is from pressurized-water reactors, and about one-third is fromboiling-water reactors. In the United States, nearly all spent nuclear fuel is currently stored on-site at commercial nuclear power plants. A very small amount, less than 1%, has been shipped to away-from-reactor, off-site facilities.

(DOE-EIA)

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form GC-859, Nuclear Fuel Data Survey
Note: Includes discharges stored at commercial sites only

COP-21 Paris Climate Conference

The COP-21 is drawing about 10,000 government representatives to the Le Bourget conference center in a northeastern Parisian suburb, plus 7,000 observers per week and 3,000 journalists.  French President Francois Hollande and President Obama made kick off speeches. 

Key Points On the COP-21 Agenda 

1)      Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – The Paris agreement is anticipated to be a bottom-up treaty, with each country setting goals based on their unique national circumstances. These Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, will form the basis of the country-specific commitments under the new UN climate treaty. It is also expected that periodic review of these commitments will be instituted along with measuring, reporting, and verification to ensure the integrity and ambition of the commitments.  While may seem to be making INDCs, there are many questions as to whether countries will live up to these commitments.  Even the US commitment is being questions by experts as not adding up to the 26-28% reduction.  

2)      Green Climate Fund – Financing issues are among the most controversial in Paris, and they could easily derail any agreement. Many developing country INDCs are conditioned on financial support and technology transfer.  The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was proposed at COP-15 in Copenhagen in 2009, refined in subsequent meetings, and became operational in 2014. GCF aims to provide support to developing country efforts to reduce their GHG emissions and to adapt climate change.  However, this breaks down, it is clear that a significant portion of the expected funds—certainly tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars over many years—would be coming from public sources and would have to be appropriated by Congress. 

3)      Intellectual property – Developing countries have used this provision deftly to justify their attempts to weaken intellectual property rights (IPR) protections, ostensibly to remove the supposed “barriers” to technology transfer raised by IPR. Compulsory licensing and a fund supported by developed countries to buy down IP are two of many proposals being bruited. IPR serve as a fundamental catalyst of innovation, and study after study has shown that it is not a barrier to technology transfer. A weakened IPR regime such as that being proposed above would provide precious little incentive for companies to invest in advanced technologies if after years of research and development and millions or even billions of dollars invested, their inventions could be expropriated outright by companies in developing countries and manufactured and sold around the world at reduced cost. Under such a circumstance, some of the most innovative companies in the developed world would simply abandon the development of advanced energy technologies. 

4)      Technology Transfer – Tied to INDCs and the Green Fund, Technology Transfer is one fundamental issue that could bridge the gap.  It frankly is a better way to move toward a positive goal transforming our energy economy:  engage developing countries with advanced technology transfer to help them grow their economies more efficiently and cleanly.   

5)      Verification – An issue that does not receive the attention it deserves is measuring, reporting, and verification of climate policies. As things stand now, the system of MRV that is likely to come out of Paris will focus not on whether a country meets its emissions goal, but on whether it implements the policies and measures designed to meet its goal. In other words, MRV is more about process than results. MRV will be especially challenging in developing countries. Transparency is a key to open markets and planning, and businesses will be reticent to invest in developing economies without assurances that its investments in emission reduction and offset projects are real and that government activities in support of INDCs have integrity. 

6)      Binding Legal Commitments Or Non-binding Political Agreement – The Paris Agreement will not be a treaty.  The Paris Agreement will be a multilateral international agreement that will include almost every country in the world. Yet some believe that If the outcome of the Paris Conference is to make promises to reduce emissions legally binding, then the Paris Agreement must be submitted to the Senate for approval as a treaty under Article II.  This will continue to be a contentious point of negotiating among parties and one that US Senators will be watching closely.

( (Frank Maisano)

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg & Richard Branson Form Breakthrough Energy Coalition

A group of 28 investors, led by Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates, have unveiled an effort to help companies, including developing countries, widely deploy new clean energy technology.

Gates’s effort, dubbed the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, includes big names like Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg, climate activist Tom Steyer and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson.

Private companies will ultimately develop these energy breakthroughs, but their work will rely on the kind of basic research that only governments can fund.  The group has not commited to any particular funding levels, though it will be the single biggest cooperative research and development partnership in history.  (The Hill, 11/29/2015)

USA & 19 Countries Pledge Increase in Clean Energy Fund

President Obama and 19 world leaders at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Paris committed to double the amount of money they put into clean energy research and development.  The commitment is part of a proposed worldwide pact to fight global warming.

The commitment would put the countries’ funding for low- or zero-carbon technologies like wind power and nuclear energy at about $20 billion in five years, with about half of that amount spent by the United States. Dubbed Mission Innovation, it relies on research and development strategies that have proven successful in the United States.

The increased funding, about 15 percent per year starting in 2017, would rely on Congress for funding.  (The Hill, 11/29/2015)  [Joint Launch Statement]

President Obama (Warren Buffet) Rejects Keystone Pipeline

President Obama on Friday rejected the application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, ending the seven-year saga over the controversial plan to transport oil sands from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The State Department decided that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States.  President Obama agreed with that decision.

The president believes the pipeline would not do enough to create jobs, would damage American energy security, would undercut the country’s leadership on preventing climate change and would not make a meaningful, long-term contribution to our economy.

Traditional environmental groups might be celebrating a supposed victory, but we suspect that the WARREN BUFFETT EFFECT had a lot to do with this decision.

All three of the Democratic candidates for president opposed the project. Though former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held off on publicizing her opinion until September, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have long opposed it. The Republican candidates overwhelmingly favor Keystone.  (The Hill, 11/6/2015)

Court Issues Nationwide Stay of EPA Water Rule

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay against the enforcement of a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defining the scope of the “waters of the United States” subject to federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This rule — the so-called WOTUS rule — represents the EPA and Army Corps’ effort to clarify the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction in light of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 concluding that the agencies had adopted an unduly broad interpretation of the scope of their authority. Numerous challenges against the WOTUS rule are pending in courts around the country.

There is some question as to whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the rule under the CWA. Specifically, there is a question whether, under the terms of the CWA, challenges to the rule are to be brought in district or circuit courts. Other courts considering WOTUS rule challenges have split on this question. Also interesting is that those parties seeking a stay — those opposing the rule — are also those who are arguing that the challenges should be heard in district courts, and that Sixth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear the initial challenge.

The majority concluded that the opponents of the WOTUS rule have shown a sufficient likelihood of prevailing in their challenge to justify the stay. Judge McKeague, joined by Judge Griffin, wrote for the court:

[W]e conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims. Petitioners first claim that the Rule’s treatment of tributaries, “adjacent waters,” and waters having a “significant nexus” to navigable waters is at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos, where the Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s upholding of wetlands regulation by the Army Corps of Engineers. Even assuming, for present purposes, as the parties do, that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos represents the best instruction on the permissible parameters of “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act,it is far from clear that the new Rule’s distance limitations are harmonious with the instruction.

Moreover, the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted is facially suspect. Petitioners contend the proposed rule that was published, on which interested persons were invited to comment, did not include any proposed distance limitations in its use of terms like “adjacent waters” and significant nexus.” Consequently, petitioners contend, the Final Rule cannot be considered a “logical outgrowth” of the rule proposed, as required to satisfy the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553. See Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 174 (2007). As a further consequence of this defect, petitioners contend, the record compiled by respondents is devoid of specific scientific support for the distance limitations that were included in the Final Rule. They contend the Rule is therefore not the product of reasoned decision-making and is vulnerable to attack as impermissibly “arbitrary or capricious” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

The majority also concluded that there were good reasons to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of challenges to the rule.

What is of greater concern to us, in balancing the harms, is the burden—potentially visited nationwide on governmental bodies, state and federal, as well as private parties—and the impact on the public in general, implicated by the Rule’s effective redrawing of jurisdictional lines over certain of the nation’s waters. Given that the definitions of “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States” have been clouded by uncertainty, in spite of (or exacerbated by) a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last thirty years, we appreciate the need for the new Rule. See Rapanos, 547 U.S. 715; Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985). In one sense, the clarification that the new Rule strives to achieve is long overdue. We also accept that respondent agencies have conscientiously endeavored, within their technical expertise and experience, and based on reliable peer-reviewed science, to promulgate new standards to protect water quality that conform to the Supreme Court’s guidance. Yet, the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the Rule’s definitional changes counsels strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being.

The court also noted that (as discussed here), the rule has already been stayed in 13 states. A nationwide stay serves the additional purpose of maintaining nationwide uniformity while the litigation proceeds.

Judge Keith dissented from the court’s opinion on the grounds that the court should not issue a stay against the rule until it determines that it has jurisdiction under the CWA to review the rule. In response, the majority argued that it has the discretionary power to issue a stay pending the resolution of the jurisdictional question, and that briefing on that matter is underway.  (Wash Post, 10/9/2015)

24 States Sue EPA Over President Obama's Coal Regulations

A coalition of 24 states and a coal mining company filed lawsuits Friday to challenge President Obama’s climate change rule for power plants. The climate rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. Each state has been assigned a specific emissions goal based on its unique circumstances, with flexibility in how the goals are met.

The litigants accuse the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of going far beyond the authority Congress granted to it by ordering a significant transformation of states’ electricity generation, moving away from fossil fuels like coal and toward lower-carbon sources like wind and solar power.

The states joining West Virginia are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona and North Carolina.

They are asking the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the rule. They also want the court to immediately stop its implementation while it works its way through the courts.

The EPA said its rule is legal and will pass all court challenges.

The attorneys general of 15 liberal states, along with the District of Columbia and New York City, are planning to intervene in the lawsuit to support the EPA.  Those state and city officials, led by New York State, said in August that they “fully anticipate defending the rules if they are challenged in court.”  (The Hill, 10/23/2015)

House Passes Bill To Lift Federal Prohibition on Crude Oil Exports

The House on Friday approved a bill, sponsored by Joe Barton (R-TX), to lift the federal prohibition on crude oil exports. Lawmakers voted 261-159 to end the 40-year-old crude oil export ban, arguing that the measure is necessary to help prop up the American oil industry by allowing its product to hit the world market.

The House’s Friday vote was the latest step in the lengthy congressional debate over lifting the export ban.  Industry (American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers) cheered the vote while environmentalists (League of Conservation Voters and others) think that pumping more oil out of the ground will be bad for the environment.

Suppoerts believe that lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports will offer our global allies and trading partners an alternative source of energy, shrink global dependence on oil sourced from hostile regimes, and put America on level fitting with all other producing nation. (The Hill, 10/9/2015)

West Coast Petroleum Markets Differ by Supply, Demand, and Distribution

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, PADD 5 Transportation Fuels Markets
Note: Gasoline supply includes ethanol.

---

The U.S. Energy Information Administration released a PADD 5 Transportation Fuels Markets study on September 30 that examines supply, demand, and distribution of petroleum-based transportation fuels in Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) 5, which encompasses California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii.

PADD 5's large and diverse geography contains several regional markets, each with its own distinct supply and demand situation:

• Southern California and Southern Nevada
• Northern California and Northern Nevada
• Pacific Northwest, which includes Washington and Oregon
• Arizona
• Hawaii
• Alaska

The sub-PADD markets are relatively isolated from each other and have different characteristics. Examining the markets at this level allows for insights into the dynamics of each market and how it relates to the PADD as a whole. For instance, PADD 5 includes Hawaii and Alaska, which use a disproportionally higher amount of jet fuel than other markets.

For each regional market as well as PADD 5 as a whole, the study considers supply, demand, supply logistics, and infrastructure. Supply includes in-region refinery production, receipts of fuels produced in other U.S. areas and in other PADD 5 regional markets, and imports. Demand includes in-region consumption, transfers of fuels to other parts of the United States (other PADDs) and to other regional markets within PADD 5, and exports to the global market. Distribution infrastructure includes storage terminals, pipelines, rail facilities, marine loading and unloading facilities, and marine vessel availability.

This study is the first in a series that the U.S. Energy Information Administration plans to conduct to enhance public understanding of the important features of petroleum product markets and to inform EIA's own analyses of those markets. The information provided in this first study will be especially valuable during periods of petroleum supply disruption and market change.  (DOE-EIA)

Let’s Modernize Our Environmental Laws

Gregg Easterbrook makes some interesting observations in his New York Times Op Ed where he states:

"Our major environmental laws are a generation or more out of date — written for conditions of the past, not the present. The Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1970, has not been amended since 1990, a quarter-century ago. The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, has not been updated since 1987. The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, was last amended in 1982. The National Environmental Policy Act, the law that mandates environmental impact statements, was passed in 1970 and last amended in 1982."

"Protection of nature and of public health are data-driven sciences — yet environmental laws are grounded in obsolete information. Like generals fighting the last battle, regulators and their opponents keep rehashing disputes of the 1960s and 1970s, the period when the enabling statutes of environmental protection were being debated by Congress."

(Read More)

National Energy Action Month 2015

In celebration of National Energy Action Month, President Obama issued this Presidential Proclamation.  Visit the U.S. Department of Energy's website to learn more about National Energy Action Month. 

Presidential Proclamation

As Americans, we have a profound obligation to our children and our grandchildren -- to help them live better lives than we did, and to ensure the choices we make do not limit the range of their dreams.  The key to realizing a future in which our young people are not held back by choices of the past lies in the promise of a clean, sustainable America.  During National Energy Action Month, we rededicate ourselves to bolstering energy efficiency, investing in innovative clean power, and working together to preserve our planet for generations to come.

My Administration remains committed to securing a stable, energy-independent future for our Nation -- and while there is much work to be done, we have made significant advances in recent years.  The United States is now the world's top producer of oil and natural gas, and we have set strict fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, which are helping to wean us off our decades-old addiction to foreign oil.  We are transitioning away from energy sources that contribute to climate change and threaten our health and safety -- instead moving toward clean energy sources and ambitiously investing in alternatives like wind and solar.  Taking our place as a major player in clean energy, we are harnessing over 3 times as much electricity from wind and 20 times as much from the sun as we did in 2008.  We also remain dedicated to ensuring the safe and secure use of nuclear power, which generates over 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity.  And we will continue working to improve our energy efficiency, double our energy productivity, and explore any and all ways of saving consumers money while reducing our total energy consumption.  These efforts are vital to preserving our way of life and will help protect our environment and boost our Nation's economy.

As the world's second-largest emitter, America must recognize the role we play in contributing to our planet's changing climate and do all we can to make our air cleaner and safer for our children to breathe.  Through our historic announcement with China last November, the United States agreed to double the pace at which we cut our emissions, while China committed for the first time to limiting theirs.  In addition, this past summer, as part of our Clean Power Plan, I announced the first set of nationwide standards aimed at reducing the carbon emitted from our country's existing power plants.  This plan will aid in our fight against climate change while strengthening our economy and helping fulfill our moral obligation to leave our kids and grandkids with a stable planet.   And we are leading by example in Washington:  I signed an Executive Order earlier this year that aims to cut the Federal Government's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent and increase its share of electricity consumption from renewable sources to 30 percent over the next 10 years.

Last year, the global economy grew while global emissions remained flat for the first time ever, and we have seen that our goals of addressing energy challenges and driving economic progress are mutually compatible.  In that spirit, I will keep fighting to build a more sustainable society for all people by investing in clean sources of energy -- including wind, which could provide as much as 35 percent of our electricity and supply renewable power in all 50 States by 2050 -- as well as solar, which has added jobs 10 times faster than any other sector of our economy.  Additionally, I recently committed to getting 20 percent of our country's energy from renewables -- beyond hydroelectric power -- by 2030.  My Administration will continue supporting technology, including new and advanced nuclear technology, that moves us closer to a brighter energy future, advances energy efficiency, and develops cleaner fuels.

Though we may never see the full realization of our ambition in our time, we can still have the satisfaction of knowing we did everything within our power to leave this world better than it was.  During National Energy Action Month, let us recommit to forging the future that is within our capacity to reach by supporting clean, renewable, and independent means of energy production and by taking control of our own energy consumption.  Everything we have is at stake -- and we must fight for it.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2015 as National Energy Action Month.  I call upon the citizens of the United States to recognize this month by working together to achieve greater energy security, a more robust economy, and a healthier environment for our children.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.

BARACK OBAMA

Justice Department Fines BP $20.8 Billion For Gulf Oil Spill

The Justice Department has detailed a record-setting civil settlement with BP over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that will cost the London-based oil company $20.8 billion.  The historic civil penalty sends a clear message of accountability for those who pollute the U.S. environment.

The highlights of the settlement include $8.1 billion in natural resource damages, including $1 billion BP agreed to pay earlier; $5.5 billion plus interest for Clean Water Act penalties; and $5.9 billion under a separate agreement to cover state and local government claims.

The settlement does not, however, include $4 billion that BP agreed to pay earlier to settle criminal charges or the billions more it has spent cleaning up the oil spill and settling separate civil claims with private individuals.  The Justice Department settlement includes $700 million to address natural resource problems that might come to light later. 

The settlement ends a chapter of the BP oil spill, which occurred April 20, 2010, when a blowout on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig killed 11 workers, set the rig on fire and triggered the spill. It took 87 days to stop the oil from surging into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

The government said that the oil slick at one point grew to the size of Virginia and fouled 1,300 miles of coastline.

The Clean Water Act fine was by far the largest in history, amounting to $1,725 a barrel. That fell well short of the maximum allowable fine, $4,300 a barrel in cases of gross negligence.

The settlement is not designed to discourage any valid economic activity, but the massive fines are designed to let other companies know they are going to be responsible for the harm that occurs should accidents like this happen in the future.  (Wash Post, 10/5/2015)

EPA Strengthens Ozone Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb) from 75 ppb to protect public health. The updated standards will reduce Americans’ exposure to ozone, improving public health protection, particularly for at risk groups including children, older adults, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma. Ground-level ozone forms when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the air.

EPA examined nearly 2,300 studies in this review of the ozone standards including more than 1,000 new studies published since the last review of the standards in 2008. Scientific evidence shows that ozone can cause a number of harmful effects on the respiratory system, including difficulty breathing and inflammation of the airways.

The revised standards could significantly improve public health protection, resulting in fewer premature deaths, and thousands fewer missed school and work days and asthma attacks. For people with lung diseases like COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or the 23 million Americans and 6 million children living with asthma, these effects can aggravate their diseases, leading to increased medication use, emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Evidence also indicates that long-term exposure to ozone is likely to be one of many causes of asthma development. And studies show that ozone exposure is likely to cause premature death.  The public health benefits of the updated standards, estimated at $2.9 to 5.9 billion annually in 2025, outweigh the estimated annual costs of $1.4 billion. 

Local communities, states, and the federal government have made substantial progress in reducing ground-level ozone. Nationally, from 1980 to 2014, average ozone levels have fallen 33 percent, while the economy has continued to grow. 

To ensure that people are alerted when ozone reaches unhealthy levels, EPA is extending the ozone monitoring season for 32 states and the District of Columbia. This is particularly important for at-risk groups, including children and people with asthma because it will provide information so families can take steps to protect their health on smoggy days. 

EPA also is strengthening the “secondary ozone standard” to 70 ppb, which will improve protection for trees, plants and ecosystems. New studies since the last review of the standards add to evidence showing that repeated exposure to ozone reduces growth and has other harmful effects on plants and trees. These types of effects have the potential to harm ecosystems and the benefits they provide. 

The Clean Air Act provides states with time to meet the standards. Depending on the severity of their ozone problem, areas would have until between 2020 and 2037 to meet the standards.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the ozone standards every five years to determine whether they should be revised in light of the latest science. Today’s action comes after a thorough review and public comment process.  The agency received more than 430,000 written comments on the proposed standards and held three public hearings. 

More information: http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/

To view the video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6chlLb59zA

Two Senate Energy Bills

On July 30, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted to send to the full Senate two energy bills that originated in the Committee. One, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 (EPMA) is broad in its substantive scope, incremental in its approach, and received bipartisan support in the Committee.

The other, the Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act of 2015 (OPENS Act) focuses on petroleum, would reverse a longstanding federal ban on export of crude oil and make substantial changes in the outer continental shelf oil and gas lease program. The latter bill (in Committee, at least) received party line support from Republicans and opposition from Democrats. 

I. The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015: “Something for Everyone” Legislation

EPMA was jointly introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, the Ranking Member. It was reported out of Committee on an 18-4 vote, with ten Republicans and eight Democrats voting in support.

The legislation reflects the incremental approach to development of energy policy in other bills that have become law over the past two years – dating back to when Senator Murkowski was the Ranking Member and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or) was the Chair. Two bills from 2013, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act and the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, garnered bipartisan support for sensible reforms that removed regulatory obstacles to development of hydropower resources. But where those bills were narrowly focused, EPMA is sprawling.

EPMA’s provisions defy easy summarization; the Committee’s section-by-section analysis covers 18 pages and the bill itself exceeds 350 pages. Whether the legislation is intended to promote an “all of the above” national energy policy or simply to gain congressional support the old-fashioned way – by including something on everyone’s wish list – the result is a bill that addresses nearly every energy resource in some manner.

EPMA is divided into five titles, the first four of which are focused on energy issues:

• Title I, “Efficiency,” includes subtitles addressing Buildings, Appliances, and Manufacturing, respectively. Title I is dominated by provisions related to energy use in federal buildings, requirements for studies, and reauthorization of existing programs. For example, the Weatherization Assistance Program under Section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA) would be extended through fiscal year 2020 with an authorized appropriation of $350 million annually.

• Title II, “Infrastructure,” addresses cybersecurity, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, trade, electricity and energy storage, and computing. The latter category sets forth perhaps the most ambitious goal: the development of two or more “exascale” computing systems – systems capable of an “exaFLOPS” (a billion billion calculations per second). The bearing on energy policy is left to the imagination, although one can imagine many energy control applications. The most significant provision with respect to “trade,” Section 2201, would require the Secretary of Energy to issue a final decision on any application for export of natural gas to non-free trade countries within 45 days after FERC or the Maritime Administration has concluded environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the associated liquefied natural gas export facility.

• Title III, “Supply,” is devoted almost entirely to renewable energy, including hydroelectric, geothermal, marine hydrokinetic, and biomass. The only provision specific to fossil fuels is Section 3101, which amends and reauthorizes a statute concerning research into the commercial viability of methane hydrate as an energy source. Although production of methane from methane hydrate remains largely theoretical, the potential is immense:

  Methane hydrate is a cage-like lattice of ice inside of which are trapped molecules of methane, the chief constituent of natural gas. If methane hydrate is either warmed or depressurized, it will revert back to water and natural gas. When brought to the earth’s surface, one cubic meter of gas hydrate releases 164 cubic meters of natural gas.

  While global estimates vary considerably, the energy content of methane occurring in hydrate form is immense, possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels.

• Title IV, “Accountability,” offers a smorgasbord of requirements for studies, reports and information gathering.  

Title V, by contrast, would permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund and would establish a new National Park Service Maintenance and Revitalization Conservation Fund. Authorization for both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund will expire by statute on September 15, 2015. Title V is an outlier in EPMA: its only relationship to the “modernization” of energy policy is the funding source. The two existing funds are statutorily authorized to receive revenue from rentals, royalties and other sums paid under leases under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Under EPMA, the new National Park Service Maintenance and Revitalization Conservation Fund likewise would receive a portion of the revenue -- $150 million per fiscal year -- under Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Fund could be used only “for high-priority deferred maintenance needs” of the National Park Service “that support critical infrastructure and visitor services.” Use of the Fund for land acquisition would be prohibited.

For such wide-ranging energy legislation, little in EPMA directly addresses nuclear energy. Section 3501 would require the Department of Energy to submit a report to Congress on “assessing the capability of the Department to host privately funded fusion and fission reactor prototypes up to 20 megawatts thermal output and related demonstration facilities at sites owned by the Department.”

II. The Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act of 2015: A Turnabout in Petroleum Policy?

On the same day the Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted on EPMA, the Committee voted out a separate bill with a much narrower focus, more significant change to established energy policy, and lacking bipartisan support. The Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act of 2015 (OPENS Act) would repeal a nearly 40-year ban on exports of U.S. crude oil and would make substantial changes to the oil and gas leasing program on the Outer Continental Shelf. It passed out of Committee on a 12-10 party-line vote.

A. The export ban: has it run its course?

The export ban was enacted as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) in reaction to the oil embargo of 1973 by Arab nations belonging to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. EPCA’s energy policy initiatives have proven to be enduring: in addition to the export ban, EPCA created Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The ban on export of crude oil produced in the United States is not without exceptions. Most notably, legislation signed into law by President Clinton in 1995 reversed a ban on export of crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope; that ban was put in place in 1973 as part of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act.

Most recently, the U.S. Commerce Department informed members of Congress earlier this month that it intends to approve a limited program through which Mexico’s national oil company, PEMEX, will be able to trade heavy Mexican crude for light crude produced in the United States. PEMEX has sought approval to trade up to 100,000 barrels per day. Mexico’s crude production has declined and has shifted from light crude toward heavier crude, leaving the nation’s refineries short of the light crude for which they were designed. Refineries in the U.S. Gulf region are generally better suited to processing heavier crudes, rather than the light crudes produced in increasing volumes from U.S. shale plays.

Nonetheless, the ban on crude oil exports has largely remained intact. With U.S. crude oil production soaring from 5,350 thousand barrels per day (bbd) in 2009 to 8,715 thousand barrels per day in 2014, however, pressure to modify or repeal the ban has been mounting.

Since speaking to the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings in January 2014, Senator Murkowski has been an open advocate for repeal of the ban on crude oil exports.

Section 501(a) of the OPENS Act would sweep the 40-year ban aside in one sentence:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote the efficient exploration, production, storage, supply, and distribution of energy resources, any domestic crude oil or condensate (other than crude oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) may be exported without a Federal license to countries not subject to sanctions by the United States.

B. The Outer Continental Shelf: expanding opportunities and sharing revenue

The OPENS Act would expand and enhance opportunities for oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, in a new “Nearshore Beaufort Sea Planning Area” and in the “South Atlantic Planning Area” off the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to implement, with some modifications, the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2017-2022). The Secretary also would be required to make available for leasing “any outer Continental Shelf planning area in the Gulf of Mexico that – (i) is estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000 barrels of oil; or (ii) is estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.”

For such required lease sales that are not part of the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2017-2022), analysis under NEPA would be restricted: the Secretary would not be required to identify any non-leasing alternatives to the proposed action, and would only be required to consider one preferred leasing action and one alternative leasing proposal.

The OPENS Act also would expand a precedent from Section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 requiring that revenue from certain oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico be shared with Gulf states. Sections 104, 203 and 305 of the OPENS Act expand the revenue sharing concept respectively within the Gulf, Alaska and the four states adjoining the South Atlantic Planning Area.

III. Conclusion

The legislative future of both bills is uncertain. Although bipartisan support for EPMA in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee bodes well for passage by the Senate, it remains to be seen whether the plethora of new or reauthorized loan and grant programs, pilot programs, studies and new agency offices authorized by EPMA’s “something for everyone” approach will win favor in the more conservative House.  (Marten Law, 8/26/2015)