Category Archives: Keeping Watch on Earth News

Sorting Out Air Quality Regulations After Cap-And-Trade’s Renewal

Repost from Bay Area Monitor – Bay Area League of Women Voters

Sorting Out Air Quality Regulations After Cap-And-Trade’s Renewal

By Leslie Stewart, October-November edition
Communities for a Better Environment’s Andrés Soto (in red shirt) speaks at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s board of directors meeting on September 20. A large number of stakeholders attended to participate in a lively discussion about emissions regulation. | Photo by Alec MacDonald.

Now that the dust is settling from the legislative tumult surrounding renewal of California’s cap-and-trade program, participants are taking stock of the changed landscape for air quality regulation, both statewide and regionally. Legislation passed this summer sets a more ambitious goal for greenhouse gas reductions through cap-and-trade, while also shifting some duties for regional air districts. Under the new laws, these local agencies will see a reduced role in greenhouse gas regulation, but an added responsibility for implementing a statewide community-focused air quality monitoring and enforcement program.

The cap-and-trade program is a complicated balancing act between protecting the environment — specifically by reducing greenhouse gas emissions — and retaining industries that contribute to the state’s economic base. As the limit on permitted greenhouse gas emissions decreases (the “cap”), businesses which exceed the limit must obtain allowances (the “trade”), either through state auctions or from other businesses which are under the cap and therefore have extra allowances. The state opted to give some allowances away for free, initially to ease adoption by industries and utilities, and now to reduce the financial burden on companies which may otherwise decide to relocate.

Passed in July, Assembly Bill 398 (E. Garcia) extended cap-and-trade to 2030 from the program’s original sunset year of 2020. This created more certainty for industry, which was increasingly reluctant to pay for allowances, fearing these might lose value if the program ended soon. The bill also raised the bar for the state’s Air Resources Board. The agency’s goal for 2020 has been to decrease greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels; AB 398 adds a target for 2030, requiring a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels. Stanley Young, ARB’s director of communications, noted that “the cap has decreased by two to three percent over the previous years of the program, and will drop by four percent by 2020, but then will need to drop exponentially to achieve this goal.”

Additionally, it is now up to ARB, rather than regional air districts, to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from any source covered by cap-and-trade, whether in industry, agriculture, or elsewhere. Many environmental groups and agencies that were generally supportive of cap-and-trade renewal, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, opposed this aspect of AB 398. Following its passage, the Air District announced it expected to shelve a proposed regional cap on refinery emissions, Rule 12-16, which environmental groups had been working toward for five years.

“Victory snatched away at the last minute,” was Andrés Soto’s description of the regional air district restrictions in AB 398. Soto is a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment, a strong proponent of Rule 12-16. However, his organization is refocusing. Soto noted that “local air districts can’t touch CO₂ reductions, but methane and other gases can still be regulated regionally.” CBE is planning a new campaign to pressure the Air District to cap non-CO₂ refinery emissions at current levels before permitting any new refinery infrastructure projects.

Meanwhile, Tom Addison of the Air District’s Legislative Affairs division commented, “Given passage of AB 398 and its restrictions on local air districts, we are considering how best to coordinate with ARB on actions on greenhouse gases moving forward. Our climate problems are so large and pressing that it makes sense for everyone to work together to address them.”

Greenhouse gases are not the only emissions from industry, and often the attempts to curb them get intertwined with grassroots efforts to limit the local impact of other categories of air pollution. However, not everyone agrees with this approach, since greenhouse gases harm the environment on a global level, not a local one. As ARB’s Young asserted, “We have an equally ambitious goal to address toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants, but the system works better when you do that separately [from greenhouse gases].”

That separation was the rationale for AB 398’s companion bill, AB 617 (C. Garcia). The bill requires the state to set up a uniform databank, where data gathered from emission monitoring throughout California will be publicly available. The databank will inform a new ARB strategy to reduce toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants, including identifying the most environmentally-burdened communities and locations where additional monitoring is needed.

When the state identifies those sites, local air districts will be required to set up new monitoring there, and also create community-specific pollution reduction plans. Districts may also require individual facilities to set up monitoring at their fencelines. As Young pointed out, “there has been a technical revolution in air monitoring, so that viable, accurate, and consistent monitoring can be done at the community level.”

Under AB 617, ARB will coordinate all these efforts through the newly formed Community Air Protection Program. Its director, Karen Magliano, sees the new program as “fundamentally transforming community-based planning, by bringing in the communities themselves at all levels.” She explained that “we want to look at the problem at a granular level — implementation will be a shared responsibility.”

According to Addison, the Air District is concerned about some aspects of that shared responsibility, especially the financial ones. “We are very supportive of the general philosophy behind AB 617, and some pieces we’re enthusiastic about,” he noted. “For example, AB 617 increases the penalties for strict liability violations. However, there is no additional funding [for districts], and a host of new requirements.” Air District staff subsequently noted that a budget trailer bill signed into law on September 17 contains some AB 617 implementation funding, yet it is unclear whether that funding will be adequate.

Not all of the responsibilities in AB 617 are brand-new to the Air District. Some fenceline and community monitors — measures which will be required by AB 617 in any state-identified communities — are already in place around several Bay Area facilities, because of industry-community agreements or as compliance with the Air District’s Rule 12-15, passed in 2015. Addison observed that better coordination of data reporting on emissions sources is already happening as well. “More data is always helpful, but we want to have that without being forced to divert resources from other programs,” he explained.

Designing community emission reduction plans will be a new task for the Air District, and Addison is concerned that the tool is limited. However, he was quick to add, “We are committed to trying to improve public health and working to implement the bill. Cutting emissions for disproportionately impacted communities is something we have long aimed at.”

Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, is also focused on making the community plans work. “The community action plans rely a lot on implementation by air districts — it’s important that they yield strong measures to help the communities in the areas most impacted by pollution,” he observed. “The concern is not only identifying the problem, but moving quickly to implement solutions.”

Magavern added another area which may require community watchdogs. AB 617 mandates that regional air districts require facilities to use Best Available Retrofit Technology, starting with those which have gone longest since being permitted. “We need to be sure that districts are actually requiring that equipment be updated, and not just letting them use credits,” Magavern warned. Overall, however, he is “cautiously optimistic that AB 617 will yield significant improvements in air quality — but we need to be actively involved to be sure that actually happens.”

Leslie Stewart covers air quality and energy for the Monitor.

Please share!

Welfare Kings? Study Finds Half of New Oil Production Unprofitable Without Government Handouts

Repost from DeSmogBlog

Welfare Kings? Study Finds Half of New Oil Production Unprofitable Without Government Handouts

By Justin Mikulka • Tuesday, October 3, 2017 – 13:03
Oil derrick with 'welfare' spelled on Scrabble tiles.
Oil derrick with ‘welfare’ spelled on Scrabble tiles. [Main image is a derivative of “Creative Commons Oil Rig” by SMelindo, used under CC BY 2.0]
new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Energy found that 50 percent of new oil production in America would be unprofitable if not for government subsidies. The study, performed by researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Earth Track, Inc., found that, at prices of $50 per barrel, light oil produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) was heavily dependent on subsidies.

In fact, forty percent of the Permian basin in Texas would be economically unviable without subsidies, and for the home of Bakken crude production, Williston Basin, that number jumps to 59 percent, according to the researchers.

In addition, the study highlights what this additional fossil fuel production means for impacts to the climate:

…continued subsidies for oil investment could produce oil (and associated gas) that, once burned, will yield CO2 emissions equivalent to nearly 1 percent of the remaining global carbon budget for all sectors of all economies.”

At current oil prices, perhaps the most effective “keep it in the ground” strategy might be to stop subsidizing oil production.

But what happens with these subsidies when the price of oil is over $100 per barrel, as it was several years ago? The authors of the study report that, under such a scenario, government subsidies are simply “transfer payments” to oil investors. The oil would be profitable without the subsidies, which become, at that point, simply free cash for investors.

While this study provides valuable insight into how subsidies affect oil production and the climate, it notes that its conclusions are not unique. The authors point out: “As others have found regardless of the oil price, the majority of taxpayer resources provided to the industry end up as company profits.”

US Taxpayers Subsidizing Oil Exports to China

Since the U.S. crude oil export ban was lifted in 2016, exports have risen much faster than most purported experts predicted, with volumes recently topping 1.5 million barrels per day. Much of these exports are the heavily subsidized light sweet oils produced by fracking in the oil fields of Texas and North Dakota.

And while major oil producers such as Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources and major Trump donortestified in Congress that it was unlikely U.S. oil would be exported to China, that has quickly proven to be false.

Bloomberg recently reported that Wang Pei, an executive for Chinese oil and gas company Sinopec, said, “Our refining system really likes U.S. crude.”

That appetite for oil in China and other nations like India isn’t shrinking, spurring the U.S. oil and gas industry to ramp up production to export far greater amounts.

Why are U.S. oil producers so keen to export their oil to other countries? Terry Morrison of Occidental Petroleum recently made the answer clear, saying, “It’s an alternative outlet for your production, i.e. better prices.” Better prices. At this point, American taxpayers are now subsidizing oil production so that oil companies can sell it to other countries like China for higher prices.

As the Midland Reporter-Telegram notes, “analysts are forecasting Permian Basin crude production will increase between 400,000 and 700,000 barrels per day in the coming years,” with the majority likely for export. However, as the Nature Energy study pointed out, 40 percent of that production is dependent on subsidies making it economically viable in the first place.

Taxpayer-funded subsidies don’t just incentivize oil production for export. As previously noted on DeSmog, taxpayers are also subsidizing the expansion of ports in Texas to provide access for loading oil onto the largest oil tankers, also destined for foreign shores.

India just received its first shipment of American oil and as DNA India reported, “Officials here said the U.S. crude supply will help India to keep oil prices low and stable to benefit consumers.” Then, U.S. taxpayers are ponying up money for oil production to benefit foreign consumers. This seems like a bad deal for U.S. taxpayers and a horrible deal for the climate — but another big win for the oil industry.

Subsidies Impact Everything

The oil industry, led by its lobbying group the American Petroleum Institute, has long denied that it receives anything akin to a “subsidy.” In January former ExxonMobil CEO and now Secretary of State Rex Tillerson repeated this industry talking point during a Senate confirmation hearing. In response to a question from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tillerson said, “I’m not aware of anything the fossil fuel industry gets that I would characterize as a subsidy.”

Yet this new study notes that subsidies aren’t simply cash being handed to oil companies. Subsidies often come in the form of tax breaks, which is just one of the many ways oil companies receive government handouts.

Another subsidy of sorts noted in the report relates to the fact that the oil industry isn’t required to have nearly enough insurance to cover accidents like the deadly crude oil train explosion and fire in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The study notes that “the July 2013 crude oil train explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec involved a Class II railroad with only $25 million in liability insurance. Costs of $2 billion or more will likely be shifted to the public.”

However, some of the main impacts of this ongoing support of the oil industry are the ongoing impacts to the climate, the environment, and public health. Should America be subsidizing oil for India and China, two countries that have crippling air pollution issues? What additional costs will be incurred due to climate change thanks to these subsidies?

Increased oil and gas production in the U.S. also means increased water consumption, increased contaminated fracking wasteincreased spills, increased oil trains, increased earthquakes, and increased flaring.

newly released poll from the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 61 percent of Americans “think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address.” This latest study points to one major way the government could do that: by making the oil and gas industry pay the true costs of production instead of relying on U.S. taxpayers to insure its profits.

Please share!

NO LNG Exports in Coos Bay – last day for comments

Repost from NO LNG Exports

NO LNG Exports in Coos Bay – last day for comments

Today is the last day to submit comments on dredging in Coos Bay. Check out the talking points in the link below and make sure to send in your comments about dredging to coosbaychannelmodEIS@usace.army.mil with the subject “Coos Bay Channel Modification Project EIS” before today ends.

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental effects of approving a major dredging project on the Bay. The Jordan Cove LNG Export Project proposes to widen and deepen the Coos Bay Federal Navigation for LNG Tankers. The project would be funded in part by $60 million state grant, meaning taxpayers would foot the bill for a project that would largely benefit a Canadian corporation.

Read talking points for your comments in the link here:http://www.rogueclimate.org/savethebay…

  • Submit Comments on Dredging in Coos Bay
  • Submit Comments on Dredging in Coos Bay
  • See more at ROGUECLIMATE.ORG
4
Comment
13

NO LNG Exports

on Monday

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 the Canadian Company behind the Pacific Connector gas pipeline and LNG export terminal filed their application with the federal government, marking their third attempt to build a 235 mile pipeline through southern Oregon to ship fracked gas overseas.

You can help stand up to Jordan Cove by filing as an Intervenor on the project today!

Individuals, impacted landowners, conservation organizations and community groups can file as intervenors allow

See More

OCT12

Thu 4 PMMrytle Creek LibrFriends of Myrtle Creek Library, 231 NE Division St, Myrtle Creek, OR 97457
2 people interested

 

Please share!