Skip to Content
Pipeline Fighters Hub

Extracted

EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 2/20/24

Mark Hefflinger, Bold Alliance (Photo: Bryon Houlgrave/Des Moines Register

By Mark Hefflinger

February 20, 2024

Share this Page

image

PIPELINE NEWS

WASHINGTON UPDATES

  • Reuters: Second Trump presidency would axe Biden climate agenda, gut energy regulators

  • Politico: Biden vs. Trump: Do young climate voters care?

  • New York Times: Republican Attacks on Biden’s Climate Law Raise Concerns Ahead of Election

  • ABC News: Sen. Joe Manchin announces he won’t run for president in 2024

  • The Hill: Do gas exports help or hurt American prices?

  • Grist: Biden’s climate law fines oil companies for methane pollution. The bill is coming due.

  • E&E News: House Republicans Blast Interior For Tardy Answers 

  • Politico: Adam Schiff Steps Out On Climate 

  • Wall Street Journal: America’s Oil Power Might Be Near Its Peak

  • E&E News: DOE hydrogen hubs need better community engagement — report

STATE UPDATES

  • Bismarck Tribune: North Dakota to give $300K to public relations firm to boost carbon capture message; DRC questions the move

  • KCUR: These ethanol plants want to bury CO2 in Kansas to cut their carbon footprints

  • The Hill: California Proposes Fracking Phaseout, Making Good On Newsom’s Pledge 

  • E&E News: California Bill Would Replace ‘Natural Gas’ With ‘Methane’ In State Laws 

  • Santa Barbara Independent: ExxonMobil Dismisses Court Bid to Truck Oil in Santa Barbara

  • InsideClimate News: To Live and Die in Philadelphia: Sonya Sanders Grew Up Next Door to a Giant Refinery. She’s Still Suffering From Environmental Trauma.

  • Michigan Public: Critics say DTE Energy’s “Natural Gas Balance” program is more marketing than emissions reducing

  • KCAU: Lawsuit settled over 2018 train derailment, oil spill in northwest Iowa

EXTRACTION

  • Guardian: ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters

  • Business Insider: The death of oil demand has been exaggerated and supply won’t be able to keep up without more investment, Morningstar says

  • Canadian Press: 7 First Nations in Alta. want answers on carbon capture and storage plans

  • BBC: Climate change: Plan to capture, ship and bury power station’s CO2

  • Business Insider: A Methane Well That Leaked For 6 Months Has Released A Year’s Worth Of Emissions For 791,000 Cars: Report. 

  • Wall Street Journal: The War Over Burying Nuclear Waste in America’s Busiest Oil Field

CLIMATE FINANCE

  • Energy Monitor: US state pensions risk “hard earned savings” by ignoring climate risks

  • New York Times: More Wall Street Firms Are Flip-Flopping on Climate. Here’s Why.

  • New York Times: Nature Has Value. Could We Literally Invest in It?

TODAY IN GREENWASHING

  • Cycling Magazine: An Olympic speed skater on why the Enbridge Tour Alberta for Cancer is so important to him

OPINION

PIPELINE NEWS

InsideClimate News: Enbridge Wants Line 5 Shutdown Order Overturned on Tribal Land in Northern Wisconsin
Phil McKenna, Noel Lyn Smith, 2/20/24

“Eleven years after easements for a pipeline buried beneath the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin expired, five years after the tribe first sounded alarms over the risk of an imminent oil spill into their namesake river and eight months after a federal judge ordered a shutdown, Canadian pipeline giant Enbridge was back in federal court last week arguing that the flow of oil through its 71-year-old Line 5 pipeline be allowed to continue,” InsideClimate News reports. “…Citing a legal argument rarely used in pipeline disputes, Enbridge argued that a 1977 treaty between the United States and Canada prohibited any disruption in the flow of oil between the two countries. Some legal scholars say century-old treaties between the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the U.S. government should supersede the 1977 pipeline treaty and that Enbridge lacks the legal standing to bring a nation-to-nation treaty before the court. “I think basically it’s a ‘Hail Mary’ from Enbridge,” Matthew Fletcher, a federal Indian law professor at the University of Michigan and a visiting professor at Harvard University, told ICN… “However, if the appeals court judges accept Enbridge’s argument—which the Canadian Government is also arguing—the implications could be wide ranging. “It would really limit the ability of state governments and tribal nations and others to protect the interests that have been widely accepted for many years,” Debbie Chizewer, an attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental advocacy and litigation organization not involved in the ongoing lawsuit, told ICN. “If you can’t protect your land from a trespass because of the oil pipelines, what’s the point of having your own land?”

Sierra Club Iowa Chapter: CO2 Pipeline Eminent Domain Reform
2/18/24

“A bill, HF 2522, that has passed the Judiciary Committee in the Iowa House would establish a new procedure to protect landowners from eminent domain for projects under the jurisdiction of the Iowa Utilities Board,” according to the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter. “This new procedure would allow a landowner to seek a declaratory order from court even before the Utilities Board has made a decision whether to permit the proposed project. Under current procedure a utility or private developer makes an application to the Board to permit a project (e.g., a carbon dioxide pipeline) and requests the right to take property for the project by eminent domain.  But a decision on whether eminent domain will be granted is made by the Board only after the decision on the permit is issued.  A landowner is under the stress of uncertainty about eminent domain until the process is complete. The new procedure established by HF2522 would allow a landowner to obtain a decision by a neutral court up front as to whether eminent domain would be granted. What you can do: Ask your State Representative to support HF2522.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Green methanol: A carbon dioxide pipeline alternative?
JARED STRONG, 2/16/24

“A company that wants to help ethanol producers harness their carbon dioxide emissions to produce an additional renewable fuel says its technology is a viable alternative to proposed carbon dioxide pipelines. CapCO2 Solutions is nearing completion of its first “green methanol” project at an ethanol plant in Illinois,” the Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. “The company hopes that a successful launch there this summer will lead ethanol producers in Iowa to follow suit. “We think it’s a far more attractive solution for most ethanol plants than trying to ship (carbon dioxide) somewhere,” Jeff Bonar, the company’s chief executive, told the Dispatch… “CapCO2 estimates that its “methanol modules” — pre-built shipping containers with the equipment to convert carbon dioxide into methanol — have the potential to reduce the carbon scores of the facilities’ ethanol by a similar amount as currently proposed carbon pipelines. But rather than piping the greenhouse gas out of state for underground sequestration, it would be used to create a new product the facilities could sell. Methanol is used to produce a variety of products — ranging from plastic to paint to insulation to cosmetics — and it also a potential source of renewable fuel. Because the fuel can have little or no sulfur, some shipping companies in recent years have considered using it to power their ocean vessels. CapCO2’s modules cost about $12 million apiece, Bonar told the Dispatch, and are created with technology licensed from a European company… “Some pipeline opponents have argued that methanol is a better option that allays their concerns about pipeline safety, damage to land for construction and the use of eminent domain to build them. The leaders of several ethanol production facilities in Iowa who have considered methanol production did not respond to requests to comment for this article. “People are interested in learning about it, but they don’t see it as a near-term solution,” Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates for the ethanol industry, told the Dispatch. “This is a new technology. You can’t really go anywhere in the world and see one of these plants operating.”

Norfolk Daily News: Public invited to pipeline hearing
2/18/24

“The Stanton County Board of Commissioners has scheduled a public hearing on a conditional use permit application for an 8.05-mile carbon dioxide transmitting pipeline on properties in the county,” the Norfolk Daily News reports. “The hearing is scheduled as part of the commissioners’ meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at 9:30 a.m. at the Stanton County Courthouse in Stanton. Testimony will be heard concerning the application by SCS Carbon Transport LLC to construct the pipeline. Those wanting to make comments concerning the application are invited to present them at this time. According to a notice of public hearing from the county clerk, “if you do not voice your concerns, the county board of commissioners will consider this to mean you have no objections and will act accordingly.”

North Dakota Monitor: Poll on North Dakota environment shows its extremes
JEFF BEACH, 2/20/24

“North Dakota, a state of meteorological extremes, also has disparate views on the environment, a new poll suggests,” the North Dakota Monitor reports. “A statewide survey released Tuesday by the North Dakota News Cooperative gathered opinions on topics such as climate change, electric vehicles and capturing and storing greenhouse gas emissions… “A project by Summit Carbon Solutions to capture greenhouse gas emissions in five states and store it underground in western North Dakota has brought a lot of attention to carbon capture and storage. But the poll shows many North Dakotans have yet to form an opinion on the topic. In the poll, 40% of responders did not take a position on the issue. Overall, only 16% of all voters say capture and storage of emissions will reduce the effects of climate change while 27% say it will have no effect. On party lines, 36% of Democrats say capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground will reduce the effects of climate change while 37% of Republicans say it will not. Summit is still working to gain government approval in North Dakota and other states. While Summit says it has secured about 80% of the route through voluntary easements in North Dakota, there remain some landowners who are adamantly opposed.  That project would focus on permanent storage of carbon emissions, but geologist Kathy Neset told the Monitor capturing carbon for use in North Dakota’s oilfields is key to the future of North Dakota’s oil and gas industry. She admits there is some mistrust of pipeline companies.  “I think people have been soured and it will be remedied by facts,” she told the Monitor. 

Bismarck Tribune: Fort Berthold landowners seek to intervene in lawsuit between Marathon, feds involving pipeline
JOEY HARRIS, 2/17/24

“Twenty-six private landowners are seeking to intervene in a federal lawsuit over a shuttered oil pipeline that runs through the Fort Berthold Reservation in northwest North Dakota,” the Bismarck Tribune reports. “The group argues its interests are not being adequately represented by the federal Department of the Interior. The agency was sued by the Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Co. — owned by oil giant Marathon Petroleum — in 2021 over the agency’s decision to vacate the terms of a settlement made in prior months regarding right-of-way contracts that lapsed about a decade ago. The landowners worry their claim to $187 million could end up being negotiated away in the suit if they do not have input, according to legal filings. The pipeline moved oil from various spots in the Bakken fields to the Mandan Refinery — also owned by Marathon — for almost seven decades. The right-of-ways for the reservation section of the line were first approved in 1953 and negotiated every 20 years thereafter for renewal… “In 2018, members of the Fort Berthold Allottee Land and Mineral Owners Association sued Marathon in federal court alleging the company was trespassing on their land by continuing to operate the pipeline without agreements.”

DeSmog: What’s at Stake if the U.S. OK’s Building This Gas Pipeline to Mexico
Sara Sneath, 2/15/24

“In a rural area of West Texas, near the Mexico border, a cluster of geothermal springs once served as an oasis to the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas,” DeSmog reports. “…The pristine site is in the proposed pathway of the 48-inch-diameter Saguaro Connector Pipeline, which would send natural gas produced in Texas’s Permian Basin 155 miles west, across the U.S.-Mexico border, to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Puerto Libertad, Mexico. “Our concern is that the pipeline is going to go through the hot springs,” Christa Mancias-Zapata, the executive director of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, told DeSmog. “Anywhere you go in that area is a sacred site to our people.” Local opposition to the pipeline, which would pass near the edge of the small town of Van Horn, is widespread. But a back-and-forth in permitting documentation between federal agencies and the company proposing the pipeline, ONEOK Inc, indicates a conflict within the White House with how to weigh its climate impacts, which could send up to 2.8 billion cubic feet of fracked gas per day to Mexico’s Pacific coast for export as LNG… “Two months ago, the U.S. Department of State recommended that a Presidential Permit be issued for the pipeline without first seeing a lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis for the project, despite initially requesting that ONEOK perform one. Public Citizen’s energy program director Tyson Slocum wrote to the State Department requesting an explanation of why the agency approved the project without the full greenhouse gas life cycle analysis. “Despite these very clear specific and actually quite robust statutory protections requiring regulatory review of these projects, the federal government refuses to do it,” Slocum told DeSmog. “The administration can no longer get away with refusing to do basic diligence in its requirement that LNG exports must satisfy the public interest. It’s clear they don’t.”

Knoxville News Sentinel: TVA moves forward with natural gas and new pipeline to replace Kingston coal plant by 2027
Daniel Dassow, 2/19/24

“Tennessee Valley Authority staff solidified plans to close the massive Kingston Fossil Plant by 2027 and replace its coal generators with a natural gas plant, some solar panels and battery storage,” the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. “…Years before it took public comments on what should replace the Kingston plant, TVA entered into a partnership with Enbridge to build a new natural gas pipeline that could feed the plant’s replacement… “In order to supply natural gas for a new Kingston plant, TVA is working with pipeline operator Enbridge to build a 122-mile natural gas pipeline across eight Middle and East Tennessee counties. The Ridgeline Expansion Project is subject to approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If all permitting goes through, Enbridge plans to begin construction of the pipeline in 2025 and complete it in fall 2026. The pipeline route would closely follow an existing East Tennessee Natural Gas pipeline to minimize impacts to landowners and the environment, though climate advocacy groups have criticized the plans. “Rural Tennesseans have long borne the burden for powering our state with dirty and expensive fossil fuels, and this project continues that legacy,” said Emily Sherwood, a field organizer for the Sierra Club, in a release. “As the largest public utility in the nation, it’s time for TVA to shift their energy generation to clean and safe energy sources that center the needs of the communities they are charged to serve.”

Sentinel-Record: Regulators attribute gas pipeline failures to corrosion
David Showers, 2/17/24

“Information the U.S. Department of Transportation provided in response to a records request blamed corrosion for the 2019 and 2023 ruptures in the more than 50-year-old natural gas transmission network in northeast Garland County,” the Sentinel-Record reports. 

WASHINGTON UPDATES

Reuters: Second Trump presidency would axe Biden climate agenda, gut energy regulators
Valerie Volcovici and Gram Slattery, 2/16/24

“U.S. President Joe Biden has spent years implementing programs to fight climate change by advancing renewable energy and imposing tougher regulations on fossil fuels,” Reuters reports. “Much of that work could go up in smoke if his likely rival Donald Trump beats him at the polls in November, Republican policy advisers told Reuters. Former President Trump, who is on track to clinch the Republican nomination, would re-enter the White House with a raft of executive orders to expand oil, gas and coal development, they told Reuters. That would include ending a pause on new LNG export permits, scrapping electric vehicle mandates and once again withdrawing the United States from a United Nations pact to fight global warming, they told Reuters… “Some advisers are also pushing Trump to turn over some federally-owned land, potentially including national forests, to the states, one person involved in those discussions told Reuters. Reuters spoke with a dozen Republican policy consultants and former Trump administration officials who are helping lay the groundwork for a second Trump presidency to sketch out the administration’s likely approach to energy and environmental issues… “The talking points also tap a deep U.S. political divide between a progressive left pushing for a move away from fossil fuels, and a conservative right incensed by environmental regulations they say kill blue-collar jobs. “This is a great way to split off working class Americans from the Democrats, especially unionized households,” Stephen Moore, an economist and fellow at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, who has advised Trump’s campaign in an unofficial capacity in recent months, told Reuters.

Politico: Biden vs. Trump: Do young climate voters care?
ZACK COLMAN, 2/18/24

“Environmental activists urging President Joe Biden to wage a stronger fight against climate change are facing an agonizing strategic decision: How hard can they push him without risking throwing the election to Donald Trump?,” Politico reports. “Despite delivering the largest-ever investment in climate action through Congress, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into technologies such as wind power and electric cars, Biden and his appointees have faced loud protests from activists dismayed by administration actions boosting oil and gas production. Unhappiness is especially rife among the young climate-minded voters who Democrats worry will either sit out the November election or back a third-party candidate. Biden has made recent moves to shore up his support from the Democrats’ green wing, including a pause on new approvals for natural gas export projects. But environmental leaders wonder how aggressively they can prod Biden to go further without causing fatal damage to his campaign — for instance, by pressuring him into positions that would feed Trump’s accusations that his green agenda is endangering the economy. Protests decrying the administration’s pro-fossil-fuel actions also run the risk of further demoralizing activists who see any compromises as dooming the planet… “But Biden’s challenge was evident Monday when 100 members of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement descended on his campaign’s headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware. Police arrested 20 protesters who had entered the campaign office with signs imploring Biden to “Lead or Lose” and to fund climate efforts rather than sending money to Israel. The activists also demanded that the president declare a “climate emergency.” That move, they said, would unlock executive powers allowing Biden to cancel fossil fuel development on federal lands and direct manufacturers to make renewable energy products.

New York Times: Republican Attacks on Biden’s Climate Law Raise Concerns Ahead of Election
Madeleine Ngo, 2/19/24

“The United States has experienced a surge in clean energy projects, representing more than $200 billion in new investments since President Biden signed an expansive climate bill into law more than a year ago. But the election and the potential for a Republican takeover is prompting concern that key parts of the law could be upended,” the New York Times reports. “Former President Donald J. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, has repeatedly attacked central elements of the Inflation Reduction Act, including tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles. As a result, corporate executives have begun facing questions in recent weeks about the possibility that the legislation could be rolled back or changed in ways that could affect their clean energy investment decisions… “But a Republican administration would most likely try to influence the programs in other ways, such as through regulatory changes that would not require an act of Congress. That could have a significant impact on which companies and industries benefit from the programs and could impede achievement of the Biden administration’s climate goals… “We’ve got to win the presidency and both houses” of Congress, Representative Frank Pallone Jr., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told the TImes. “Otherwise it’s all going to be on the chopping block.” “…Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, which represents fossil fuel interests, told the TImes a “large swath” of the law’s provisions would most likely be on Republicans’ “target list.”

ABC News: Sen. Joe Manchin announces he won’t run for president in 2024
Kelsey Walsh, 2/16/24

“Sen. Joe Manchin, the Democrat from West Virginia, announced Friday he will not launch a 2024 bid for the White House as an independent — removing what would have been a major challenge for President Joe Biden’s campaign,” ABC News reports. “I will not be seeking a third-party run. I will not be involved in a presidential,” Manchin said at an event at West Virginia University. Manchin told the crowd that he will focus on putting his efforts behind his daughter’s Super PAC “Americans Together.” “…Had Manchin run for president as a third-party candidate, it would have likely pulled marginal support from Biden and subtly shift the election toward former President Donald Trump, according to analysis from 538… “On Friday, Manchin said the system isn’t set up for a third-party candidate… “Manchin kept to his promise by making a decision on his political future ahead of the largest day in the presidential primary, Super Tuesday… “Manchin did not declare that he’s leaving the Democratic Party, although offered a fair share of criticism during his speech.”

The Hill: Do gas exports help or hurt American prices?
SAUL ELBEIN, 2/17/24

“Has the boom in American natural gas exports come at the expense of American households? That question has become a major point of contention in the heated debate over the Biden administration’s decision to halt permitting for new gas export terminals,” The Hill reports. “Proponents of the exports argue they help keep prices down for Americans by calming global markets and incentivizing U.S. oil and gas companies to produce more fuel. Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) told The Hill that despite nearly a decade of gas exports, “we’ve had a competitive advantage worldwide while prices have remained very, very low inside the U.S.” Pfluger, who represents the Permian Basin, one of the major sources of gas being exported, sponsored a bill approved by the House on Thursday that would strip the president of the authority to approve or disapprove new gas exports. Proponents hope the measure, which is unlikely to advance in the Democrat-controlled Senate, would open the floodgates for both terminal construction and liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Export opponents, on the other hand, contend that they make the U.S. gas supply — and the prices Americans pay for the fuel — less stable by tying them to the increasingly tumultuous world beyond the country’s borders.” 

Grist: Biden’s climate law fines oil companies for methane pollution. The bill is coming due.
Naveena Sadasivam, 2/20/24

“The Inflation Reduction Act, the 2021 U.S. climate law abbreviated IRA, primarily reduces emissions through financial incentives, rather than binding rules. But in addition to all its well-known carrots, lawmakers quietly included a smaller number of sticks — particularly when it comes to the potent greenhouse gas methane, which has proven to be a pesky source of increasing climate pollution with each passing year. New research suggests that those sticks could soon batter the oil and gas industry, which is responsible for a third of all methane emissions in the U.S.,” Grist reports. “…A new analysis by Geofinancial Analytics, a private data provider, found that some companies may be liable for tens of millions of dollars in fees — a possibility that could bankrupt some operators. The analysis, which relied on satellite data, found that the top 25 oil and gas producers in the country would together have been liable for as much as $1.1 billion if the methane fee was applied to emissions for a one-year period ending in March 2023… “Still, a 2022 Congressional analysis found that, despite the exemptions, the rule should effectively penalize about a third of all methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas infrastructure. As a result, industry trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute, which represents a large swath of the oil and gas industry, have pilloried the rule and backed a proposal to repeal the fee.”  

E&E News: House Republicans Blast Interior For Tardy Answers 
MICHAEL DOYLE, 2/16/24

“The Interior Department has dragged its feet in responding to congressional inquiries, Republican members of the House Natural Resources Committee charged Thursday,” E&E News reports. “Calling them ‘shameful and unacceptable,’ the 22 GOP lawmakers declared that there was ‘no justifiable reason’ for delays that in some cases have stretched on for months. In a letter to both Interior and the Office of Management and Budget, the committee members asked that all pending responses to the ‘questions for the record’ be handed over by March 1. “The alarming disregard for the American public’s right to the timely presentation of the full scope of the hearing is not acceptable,” wrote Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and his colleagues. The lawmakers pointed to questions that arose following a full-committee appearance by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland on April 19, 2023, to discuss the Biden administration’s fiscal 2024 budget request. The responses to those written questions for the record were ‘only just received on January 12, 2024, nearly nine months after her testimony,’ said the letter.”

Politico: Adam Schiff Steps Out On Climate 
BLANCA BEGERT, CAMILLE VON KAENEL, 2/15/24

“Rep. Adam Schiff on Thursday proposed ending federal subsidies for oil and gas production, offering federal wildfire insurance and requiring insurance companies to disclose their fossil fuel investments as part of his campaign for California’s open U.S. Senate seat,” Politico reports. “Schiff’s plan, obtained exclusively by POLITICO, is the most extensive climate platform put out by any of the top candidates. Schiff holds a commanding lead in recent polling ahead of California’s top-two primary on March 5 while Rep. Katie Porter is tied for second with Republican Steve Garvey. Porter, Schiff and Rep. Barbara Lee, who have all signed on to a stalled Green New Deal proposal in Congress, have been mostly in lockstep on the environment, a safe priority in deep-blue California. Schiff said boosting electric vehicles, investing in renewable energy and banning fossil fuel leasing off the coast of California would lower costs for consumers while creating jobs and reducing greenhouse gases. “The climate crisis is the single greatest existential threat facing our state, our nation, and our planet,  he said in a statement.” 

Wall Street Journal: America’s Oil Power Might Be Near Its Peak
Bob Henderson, 2/19/24

“A U.S. shale boom that helped suppress oil-price surges over the past two years is waning,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “The country’s crude oil output is expected to increase by just 170,000 barrels a day in 2024 from last year, down from a jump of 1 million barrels a day in 2023, according to federal record-keepers. That is the smallest annual increase since 2016, not counting the pandemic… “Now, that growth is expected to slow dramatically. Declining oil prices led producers to lay down rigs last year. Then, many of the operators that had been drilling with abandon were acquired by bigger players looking for ways to expand in the U.S. Those big public companies have given priority to returning cash to shareholders over drilling new wells. “The ease in growth has gone, unless somebody comes up with a very dramatic new technical innovation,” Paul Horsnell, head of commodities research at Standard Chartered Bank, told the Journal. Last week, Morgan Stanley analysts lowered their estimate for U.S. oil output this year and raised their forecast for Brent crude to a range of $80 to $85 a barrel, from $75 to $80.” 

E&E News: DOE hydrogen hubs need better community engagement — report
Christian Robles, 2/16/24

“The Department of Energy should improve its efforts to work with local communities in building proposed hydrogen hubs, according to a new report,” E&E News reports. “The analysis published by the think tank EFI Foundation — which is led by former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz — said hydrogen hub developers should create binding agreements guaranteeing specific community benefits that include “extra environmental protections.” With $7 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law, DOE announced seven hubs last October that plan to make hydrogen fuel with low carbon emissions. Community engagement is considered an important part of the process because the hubs are aiming to build new hydrogen production plants that could generate pollution, as well as create jobs. According to the EFI Foundation, DOE should update guidance for community benefits plans — which detail each hubs’ goals to protect the environment and build a workforce. The plans, which each hub was required to include with its application, should include citizen panels and other forms of community engagement, the report concluded.”

STATE UPDATES

Bismarck Tribune: North Dakota to give $300K to public relations firm to boost carbon capture message; DRC questions the move
JOEY HARRIS, 2/20/24

“Pushback from some landowners and environmental groups for more than a year has frustrated officials hoping to bring carbon capture projects to North Dakota. Now the state will seek to bolster its messaging,” the Bismarck Tribune reports. “The North Dakota Industrial Commission will award $300,000 to a public relations firm to help the state promote efforts to capture and store — or use — the carbon dioxide emissions from some of its main industries. The three-member regulatory body is made up of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner. The money will come from the Lignite Research Council, Oil and Gas Research Council, and Renewable Energy Council — advisory boards to the Industrial Commission… “Dakota Resource Council Executive Director Scott Skokos is critical of the funds being used for a messaging program. The group that advocates for the environment and landowner rights has been active in opposing Summit Carbon Solutions’ planned multistate pipeline to bring CO2 from ethanol plants in five Midwestern states for storage in North Dakota. “Tax dollars that come from the oil industry are not for the oil industry, they’re for the people … (this is) essentially those industries getting taxed and then being given back that money to promote their own industries,” he told the Tribune… “Skokos, with the DRC, told the Tribune he sees the state education effort as evidence that the pipeline’s supporters are losing the messaging battle. “They don’t do this for other industries that are prominent in North Dakota like wind. There’s been many controversial wind farms with opposition from landowners over the last five to 10 years and they’re not putting out ads to support the wind industry even though it’s a large tax base-producing industry,” he told the Tribune… “Skokos told the Tribune his group does not oppose all carbon capture projects, especially those that can store emissions nearby, but he believes it is too soon to say that large CO2 pipelines are definitely safe. “These are so new, we’ve never built one as big as Summit … there’s a lot of small carbon capture pipelines, but there’s not a lot of large interstate carbon capture pipelines and we never tested it at this scale,” he told the Tribune.

KCUR: These ethanol plants want to bury CO2 in Kansas to cut their carbon footprints
Calen Moore, Celia Llopis-Jepsen, 2/20/24

“Two companies seek to build the first sites in Kansas where carbon dioxide emissions get pumped deep underground to keep them out of the atmosphere, a practice that proponents argue will combat climate change but that many environmental groups oppose,” KCUR reports. “The fledgling carbon sequestration industry is picking up pace globally, and geologists say rock formations beneath Kansas offer a bonanza of suitable locations for it. “Kansas has abundant geology that would be compatible with long-term permanent CO2 storage,” Brendan Bream, a senior scientist at the Kansas Geological Survey, told KCUR… “The two proposals for the state’s first carbon sequestration wells are linked to ethanol plants in central Kansas… “The wells would also mark a new chapter in Kansas’ foray into the world of carbon capture. So far, the state has three CO2 pipelines in southwest and southeast Kansas, and one well that repurposes the emissions from a Garden City ethanol plant into a tool for forcing hard-to-get fossil fuels out of the ground… “The two pending applications in Kansas are relatively small compared to massive multistate pipeline proposals that have grabbed headlines elsewhere in the Midwest… “PureField Ingredients, an ethanol and wheat protein maker in Russell, Kansas, submitted its application last spring to pipe emissions from the edge of town to a well that it would drill six miles away… “The second application to build a carbon sequestration well in Kansas comes from an ethanol plant in Pratt, which also declined an interview request… “But hundreds of environmental groups have come out against carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration. They say it diverts federal money that could be spent on long-existing climate solutions with stronger track records, such as wind energy and farming practices that pack carbon into soil.”

The Hill: California Proposes Fracking Phaseout, Making Good On Newsom’s Pledge 
SHARON UDASIN, 2/19/24

“California regulators have released official plans for phasing out fracking in the Golden State — nearly three years after Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) declared his intentions to do so,” The Hill reports. “The proposed regulation would amend the state’s Public Resources Code by including a clause ‘to phase out permits to conduct well stimulation treatments,’ according to a notice from the California Department of Conservation’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). Well stimulation treatments are processes employed at oil and gas wells to boost production, including hydraulic fracturing — also known as fracking — as well as acid fracturing and acid matrix techniques. ‘While these methods are highly effective at increasing well productivity, there has been significant public concern about their potential environmental and health effects,’ an initial statement of reasons from CalGEM said.” 

E&E News: California Bill Would Replace ‘Natural Gas’ With ‘Methane’ In State Laws 
Blanca Begert, 2/20/24

“A bill introduced Thursday by California state Sen. Henry Stern would replace the term ‘natural gas’ with the term ‘methane’ throughout all of the state’s energy codes,” E&E News reports. “S.B. 1237 would change references to natural gas in state laws to emphasize that it’s almost entirely made up of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The natural gas industry has branded the fuel as sustainable, since it is cleaner burning than coal and petroleum products. But methane is the second-biggest driver of climate change, after carbon dioxide, and traps heat 86 times more effectively than CO2 over 20-year time scales. Public polling has shown the word ‘natural’ gives people the impression that natural gas is safe for the environment.”

Santa Barbara Independent: ExxonMobil Dismisses Court Bid to Truck Oil in Santa Barbara
Ryan P. Cruz, 2/16/24

“ExxonMobil is abandoning its legal challenge against Santa Barbara County, effectively ending the company’s proposal to transport truckloads of oil up and down the coast, which the company had proposed in order to revive three shutdown drilling platforms off the Gaviota shore,” the Santa Barbara Independent reports. “The proposal would have allowed the company to truck millions of gallons of oil per week on Highway 101 and Route 166, an alternate way to move the crude oil after the pipeline broke in 2015, causing a massive oil spill emanating from Refugio. When the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors denied the trucking plan, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit challenging the decision. On Thursday, ExxonMobil notified the U.S. District Court that it would be dismissing its lawsuit, which had created an immense amount of pushback from environmental advocates, including those from the Environmental Defense Center and the Center for Biological Diversity. “ExxonMobil’s plan to restart its offshore platforms and truck millions of gallons per week through Santa Barbara county was reckless, dangerous and totally unwelcome by this community,” Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center, told the Independent…. “Exxon has long been one of the most heinous polluters of Chumash homelands,” Mati Waiya, executive director of the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation, told the Independent “We celebrate this massive victory against Exxon and warn any and all future resource extractors that we will not stop fighting.”

InsideClimate News: To Live and Die in Philadelphia: Sonya Sanders Grew Up Next Door to a Giant Refinery. She’s Still Suffering From Environmental Trauma.
Victoria St. Martin, 2/19/24

“Sonya Sanders knows better than most the physical toll of living next door to an ecological hazard,” InsideClimate News reports. “For a century and a half, the towering stacks at the former PES Refinery in her old South Philadelphia neighborhood spat flames, belched smoke and poisoned the air over her working-class community that now has outsized rates of cancer, asthma and other rare diseases.  Among those lost: Sander’s husband, Ray Williams, whose rare bone cancer, she believes, was caused by the polluted refinery air, even though he never smoked and never drank. Diagnosed, he was given only five years to live, but lived for 12. He died in March 2020.  Sanders’ life in the refinery’s shadows, the death of her husband and her new work as an environmental and climate activist have left her among an increasing number of people suffering from what researchers and therapists are calling eco-anxiety and, in even more extreme cases, environmental trauma. While the largest and oldest refinery on the East Coast closed after a fire nearly destroyed it in 2019, Sanders, 51, continues to work daily on coping with what has been diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder, even though she moved to a new home five miles away. “I feel everything closing in. Panic attacks. I feel like my heart races and like I’m having a heart attack but I’m not,” she told ICN, describing her worst moments, which come when she considers the deaths that have ravaged her old neighborhood. “It feels like everything is spinning.” Post-traumatic stress, panic attacks, depression and other conditions experienced by those who’ve been exposed to environmental harms are the subject of an expanding field of research into the emotional toll of climate change and other threats to the environment. Eco-anxiety, experts told ICN, can refer to a range of generalized emotional health issues related to concerns about the future of the planet because of climate change. Although it is not a physical or mental disorder, and accordingly defies diagnosis, the American Psychological Association defines it as “a chronic fear of environmental doom” that can take many forms.”

Michigan Public: Critics say DTE Energy’s “Natural Gas Balance” program is more marketing than emissions reducing
Tracy Samilton, 2/18/24

“Critics say DTE Energy’s “Natural Gas Balance” carbon offset program is a marketing ploy rather than a genuine way to reduce carbon emissions,” Michigan Public reports. “But the utility defends the pilot project as one of many ways it’s reducing carbon emissions. Enrolled DTE customers can pay an extra $4 to $16 a month to offset part or all of the carbon they emit by burning natural gas in their homes. The utility program says it uses the fees to “protect forests across the Upper Peninsula,” by purchasing carbon offset credits in state-run forests, and also investing in renewable natural gas, which means harvesting methane from landfills. DTE says the program limits aggressive tree harvesting throughout Michigan, including 100,000 acres of the Pigeon River Country State Forest… “Tim Minotas is with the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club. He told Michigan Public the program appears to be primarily a marketing ploy that helps the utility’s image, and customers are paying for it. “They’re taking advantage of customers that actually care about the environment and creating this illusion that they’re doing something really good, when in fact it’s just DTE raking in a profit for business as usual,” he told Michigan Public.

KCAU: Lawsuit settled over 2018 train derailment, oil spill in northwest Iowa
Wesley Thoene, 2/15/24

“A lawsuit has been settled between northwest Iowa landowners and BNSF Railway over a 2018 train derailment and oil spill,” KCAU reports. “…On the morning of June 22, 2018, a train owned by BNSF carrying more than 30 cars of crude oil derailed just south of the community of Doon, Iowa. Some of the cars were compromised and leaked oil into floodwaters in Lyon County. The derailment and oil spill also forced the evacuations of several farms in the area… “The plaintiffs own approximately 464 acres of farmland in Lyon County that was damaged by the oil spill. In December 2021, BNSF Railway agreed to pay a $1.5 million settlement to the Environmental Protection Agency.”

EXTRACTION

Guardian: ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters
Sandra Laville, 2/19/24

“The woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants,” the Guardian reports. “The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC… “Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” “…Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases.”

Business Insider: The death of oil demand has been exaggerated and supply won’t be able to keep up without more investment, Morningstar says
Phil Rosen, 2/16/24

“Will we see peak oil demand soon? Not exactly, according to Morningstar. Without adequate investment in the sector, supply and dynamics could turn severely lopsided,” Business Insider reports. “In a February report, researchers said recent predictions of “oil demand’s death” have been greatly exaggerated. They forecast oil demand to decrease to 88 million barrels a day by 2050, down from the 99 million barrels a day seen in 2019 — about an 11% decline. “That’s less of a decline than some may expect,” the Morningstar team wrote. “We’re optimistic on EV adoption, which will slash road fuel demand, but not every component of oil demand can be electrified.” The figures are based on Morningstar’s forecast for electric vehicles to account for 57% of all vehicles by 2050, and the adoption of EVs for freight trucking. Notably, however, the firm doesn’t forecast widespread adoption of substitute fuels for ships and planes, given their high prices. In Morningstar’s view, crude supply will suffer and demand will outpace existing capacity without sufficient investment in the space… “Looking past 2030, Morningstar’s forecast suggests the world will start to run out of low-cost energy, and higher crude prices will come into play… “Meanwhile, the International Energy Administration’s executive director Fatih Birol has said fossil fuel demand is set to hit its peak this decade.” 

Canadian Press: 7 First Nations in Alta. want answers on carbon capture and storage plans
Bob Weber, 2/18/24

“Seven Alberta First Nations have banded together to seek answers as industry and government move on billion-dollar plans to inject and store millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases underneath or adjacent to their traditional lands,” the Canadian Press reports. “We don’t know how pumping carbon underground will affect our lakes, our rivers — even our underground reservoirs,” Coun. Michael Lameman of Beaver Lake Cree Nation, one of the members of the Treaty 6 working group, told CP. “[Industry’s] been vague, not very forthcoming.” The working group includes Heart Lake First Nation, Beaver Lake Cree Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation, Kehewin Cree Nation, Frog Lake First Nation, Cold Lake First Nations and Onion Lake Cree Nation. Saddle Lake Cree Nation is observing the group. “There’s lots to be checked as far as the project relates to both the safety of the environment and the communities,” Darryl Steinhauer, consultation co-ordinator for Whitefish Lake, told CP. “The [carbon capture] project is inclusive of eight Nations where people are not only practising their treaty rights but living there day to day. Safety is a big concern.” “…The Pathways Alliance has not provided our First Nations with any reports or data assessing the potential risks associated with the storage of carbon adjacent to and beneath our reserve lands,” says an Oct. 13 letter from the First Nations to Pathways.

BBC: Climate change: Plan to capture, ship and bury power station’s CO2
Steffan Messenger, 2/19/24

“Plans to lay new undersea pipes to carry carbon emissions from one of Europe’s largest gas power stations have been unveiled,” the BBC reports. “The scheme would link Pembroke power station with a liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal across the Milford Haven estuary in Pembrokeshire. Supporters said it would secure jobs and launch a new industry shipping CO2 from Wales to be buried at sea. But it involves major building work across a protected marine habitat. Environmental group Friends of the Earth called for the money to be spent on renewable energy rather than keeping a gas plant going.”

Business Insider: A Methane Well That Leaked For 6 Months Has Released A Year’s Worth Of Emissions For 791,000 Cars: Report. 
Matthew Loh, 2/15/24

“A methane well in Kazakhstan is estimated to have released 140,000 tons of gas into Earth’s atmosphere, as it leaked for 205 days in one of the world’s worst-ever blowouts, environmental scientists said,” Business Insider reports. “The new figures were reported in a pre-print analysis by research teams from France, Spain, and the Netherlands. It was released on Tuesday but has not been peer-reviewed. The BBC also published an analysis on Thursday about the scientists’ findings. Using satellite data, the scientists said they documented some 127,000 metric tons of methane ejected in the Karaturun East oil field in 2023, when a fire there lasted from June to December. That amount of methane is equal to emissions from 791,318 gas-powered cars being driven over a year, per the Environment Protection Agency website’s calculators.” 

Wall Street Journal: The War Over Burying Nuclear Waste in America’s Busiest Oil Field
Benoît Morenne, 2/18/24

“From behind the wheel of his Jeep, Tommy Taylor surveyed the windswept patch of land he is intent on keeping oil country,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “Taylor, the assistant general manager at closely held oil producer Fasken Oil and Ranch, has been fighting plans to shuttle radioactive refuse from nuclear power plants around the U.S. and temporarily park it here in the Permian Basin, the nation’s busiest oil field. Holtec International, a Florida-based energy technology company, aims to rail thousands of canisters of spent nuclear fuel to Lea County and store the containers below ground. The site has a 40-year license and could ultimately hold around 170,000 metric tons of used fuel—about twice as much as the U.S. currently holds. It would be the largest such facility in the world, and Holtec says it would further the development of U.S. nuclear energy. Taylor told the Journal a nuclear incident in the Permian, which cranks out more oil than Iraq and Libya combined, would have devastating consequences for U.S. energy and the local economy. “I’m not antinuclear,” Taylor told the Journal. “We just don’t feel like siting all the nuclear waste in the middle of our biggest oil and gas resource is a good idea.” 

CLIMATE FINANCE

Energy Monitor: US state pensions risk “hard earned savings” by ignoring climate risks
Polly Bindman, 2/16/24

“The global cost of extreme weather attributable to climate change is estimated at $143bn per year over the past 20 years, according to a 2023 study in scientific journal Nature. Despite this, US state pension funds are “not taking adequate steps to reduce climate-related financial risks”, finds a new report from three environmental organisations,” Energy Monitor reports. “Far too few state pensions are taking adequate steps to address climate-related financial risks and protect their members’ hard-earned savings, raising serious concerns about their execution of fiduciary duty – the obligation that financial institutions have to act in their clients’ best interest,” finds the report by Sierra Club, Stand. earth and Stop the Money Pipeline. State pension funds have a responsibility to account for these risks, not only because they oversee huge sums of public money but also because they are particularly exposed to “climate-related and other systemic risks” as “diversified and long-term shareholders”, the non-profits argue. State pension funds ought to be “the first [institutional investors] to incorporate such considerations into their stewardship practices”, they say. The report assesses 19 pension funds representing more than $2trn in collective assets across three metrics: their climate-related proxy voting guidelines (which outline criteria pension staff use to address shareholder resolutions); climate-related proxy voting records; and finally, their transparency on the above.”

New York Times: More Wall Street Firms Are Flip-Flopping on Climate. Here’s Why.
David Gelles, 2/19/24

“Many of the world’s biggest financial firms spent the past several years burnishing their environmental images by pledging to use their financial muscle to fight climate change. Now, Wall Street has flip-flopped,” the New York Times reports. “In recent days, giants of the financial world including JPMorgan, State Street and Pimco all pulled out of a group called Climate Action 100+, an international coalition of money managers that was pushing big companies to address climate issues. Wall Street’s retreat from earlier environmental pledges has been on a slow, steady glide path for months, particularly as Republicans began withering political attacks, saying the investment firms were engaging in “woke capitalism.” But in the past few weeks, things accelerated significantly. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, scaled back its involvement in the group. Bank of America reneged on a commitment to stop financing new coal mines, coal-burning power plants and Arctic drilling projects. And Republican politicians, sensing momentum, called on other firms to follow suit. The reasons behind the burst of activity reveal how difficult it is proving to be for the business world to make good on its promises to become more environmentally responsible. While many companies say they are committed to combating climate change, the devil is in the details. “This was always cosmetic,” Shivaram Rajgopal, a professor at Columbia Business School, told the Times. “If signing a piece of paper was getting these companies into trouble, it’s no surprise they’re getting the hell out.” “…Mindy Lubber, the chief executive of Ceres and a member of the steering committee of Climate Action 100+, disputed the notion that the new strategy represented a change from the focus on enhanced disclosure… “Ms. Lubber told the Times she was disappointed that the big asset managers had pulled out of Climate Action 100+, but hoped that they would continue to pursue efforts to reduce the risks posed by the heat waves, floods, fires and storms being made worse by man-made global warming. “You cannot make a new theory that climate risk is no longer a material financial risk,” she told the Times.

New York Times: Nature Has Value. Could We Literally Invest in It?
Lydia DePillis, 2/18/24

“Picture this: You own a few hundred acres near a growing town that your family has been farming for generations,” the New York Times reports. “…One day, a land broker mentions an idea. How about granting a long-term lease to a company that values your property for the same reasons you do: long walks through tall grass, the calls of migrating birds, the way it keeps the air and water clean. It sounds like a scam. Or charity. In fact, it’s an approach backed by hardheaded investors who think nature has an intrinsic value that can provide them with a return down the road — and in the meantime, they would be happy to hold shares of the new company on their balance sheets. Such a company doesn’t yet exist. But the idea has gained traction among environmentalists, money managers and philanthropists who believe that nature won’t be adequately protected unless it is assigned a value in the market — whether or not that asset generates dividends through a monetizable use. The concept almost hit the big time when the Securities and Exchange Commission was considering a proposal from the New York Stock Exchange to list these “natural asset companies” for public trading. But after a wave of fierce opposition from right-wing groups and Republican politicians, and even conservationists wary of Wall Street, in mid-January the exchange pulled the plug. That doesn’t mean natural asset companies are going away; their proponents are working on prototypes in the private markets to build out the model… “Beyond sucking carbon out of the air, they hold the soil in place during heavy rains, and in dry times help it retain moisture by shading the ground and protecting winter snowpack, which helps keep reservoirs full for humans. Without the tree-covered Catskills, for example, New York City would have to invest much more in infrastructure to filter its water. Natural capital accounting, which U.S. statistical agencies are developing as a sidebar to their measurements of gross domestic product, puts numbers on those services. To move those calculations beyond an academic exercise, they need to be factored into incentives.”

TODAY IN GREENWASHING

Cycling Magazine: An Olympic speed skater on why the Enbridge Tour Alberta for Cancer is so important to him
2/19/24

“Tyson Langelaar is an Olympic speed skater, but he loves to ride. In fact, he uses cycling quite a bit for his cardio training. But his time on the bike isn’t just limited to training camps in Europe or the USA, or putting in the miles indoors. There’s one event that’s very special to him: The Enbridge Tour Alberta for Cancer,” according to Cycling Magazine. 

OPINION

Dakota Scout: Too much at stake to allow carbon pipeline in South Dakota
Rep. John Mills, 2/19/24

“As predicted, CO2 pipelines have been one of the biggest topics this legislative session. I have studied CO2 pipelines for two years and firmly believe we don’t want this. Here is why,” Rep. John Mills writes for the Dakota Scout. “…The lucrative federal tax credits Congress included as part of the 2022 “Inflation Reduction Act,” benefits only the wealthiest corporations and ratchets up inflation. We have felt the inflation effect already. Building dangerous CO2 pipelines that no one needs, will only make it worse. In South Dakota, Summit Carbon Solutions (SCS), whose investors include multi-billion-dollar foreign corporations, is spending millions. They have flooded the media, saying CO2 pipelines are necessary for the success of agriculture and our economy. That is a lie. In addition to spending millions on misleading advertising, SCS has hired 13 lawyers and lobbyists who roam the halls in Pierre, bending ears, twisting arms and wining and dining many. They make our Capitol feel more like D.C. than South Dakota.    Second, CO2 in a concentrated form is dangerous. It is an asphyxiant currently used to kill pigs in Sioux Falls and turkeys in Huron. Because it is heavier than air and displaces oxygen, it will kill people, too. A rupture of a 24-inch CO2 pipeline in February 2020 sent dozens of people to the emergency room and hobbled emergency response.”

Bismarck Tribune: PSC should reject Summit CO2 pipeline
Jim Peluso, Bismarck, 2/20/24

“PSC is apparently wiser than the local boards to make the decision on the Summit Carbon Pipeline then I will address these questions to them,” Jim Peluso writes for the Bismarck Tribune. “How many billions will this cost the taxpayer? Second, how many degrees will this lower the temperatures in the United States? I would assume if this kind of money will be spent that somebody would have the data on this! I would suggest that if we planted millions of trees between here and there we would absorb quite a bit of carbon and at least get oxygen back out of the deal instead of a few people getting richer! Before you think my solution is stupid, answer my first question, how much will our investment lower the temperature? The answer is 0. It’s so absurd to believe this little pipeline will make a difference it’s laughable!” “…Were the suckers in this deal, the rich get richer and we just cry about it! Time for the PSC to take care of us instead of the man behind the curtain!”

New York Times: We Can Still Resist a Pipeline to Hell
Margaret Renkl is a contributing Opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South, 2/19/24

“Earlier this month, the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company announced its intention to build the South’s largest gas pipeline in more than a decade,” Margaret Renkl writes for theNew York Times. “The Southeast Supply Enhancement project, as the company calls it, would run from Virginia down through the Carolinas and Georgia before swinging west to Alabama, right through the heart of the American South. This was not astonishing news to anyone whose light bill comes from a Southern utility… “Nobody loves a fossil-fuel expansion project more than a red-state politician loves a fossil-fuel expansion project. In the same way that “clean coal” is a ridiculous rebranding of the dirtiest energy source we have, “natural” gas is a misnomer used by politicians and industry officials eager to obscure its true identity… “The problem with gas is not simply that it’s a fossil fuel or that gas pipelines routinely leak and can explode. And it’s not simply that gas is a human health and environmental nightmare. Perhaps the most damaging problem with gas pipelines is that they permit the construction of new gas-fired power plants that will be in service for decades. Just as the planet hurtles toward an irreversible climate tipping point, these plants will lock the South into reliance on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future… “Given the extraordinary indifference with which Republicans in the Tennessee General Assembly routinely regard their own voters and the way the T.V.A. has doubled down on fossil fuels, the residents of Cheatham County — like so many other communities fighting methane expansion in our region — are engaged in nothing less than a David-and-Goliath battle. As always in such battles, the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the giant. But it’s worth remembering how that ancient story actually ends.”

Clean Technica: CCS Redux: “Best” Carbon Capture Facility In World Creates 25x More CO2 From Use Of Product
Michael Barnard is a climate futurist, strategist and author, 2/15/24

“Carbon capture and sequestration in all of its various ineffective, inefficient and expensive forms is having another run up the hype cycle. Nothing has really changed. The problems still exist. The alternatives are still better. The potential for use is still minuscule. And so, the CCS Redux series, republishing old CCS articles with minor edits,” Michael Barnard writes for Clean Technica. “…Then there are the nine articles (so far) on the current darling of the air carbon capture or direct air capture crowd, Carbon Engineering… “That series showed in gory detail that mechanical air carbon capture is going to be a tiny wedge in the fight against global warming, so small as to be worth ignoring, regardless of the headlines that the fossil fuel industry’s PR flaks and the Global CCS institute (a subset of the PR flaks) are pumping into media sites… “One of the articles looked at the 50-year history of mechanical carbon capture efforts, all entirely tied to the fossil fuel industry, most just used to pump more oil out of played out oil wells as enhanced oil recovery approaches. The assessment showed that virtually no CO2 by global standards has been captured by CCS and that a single year’s output of current wind and solar farms are avoiding 35 times the CO2 that has been ‘captured’ over 50 years of CCS history. Basically, all CCS is a rounding error on the actual solution, just stop emitting CO2… “Every other carbon capture facility in the world is more expensive, sequesters less CO2, and has a much worse ratio than 25:1 for emitted vs captured. The fossil fuel industry and consumers of fossil fuels are producing vastly more CO2 emissions than the very best sequestration case study can manage.”

Center on Global Energy Policy: How Carbon Capture Technology Could Maintain Gulf States’ Oil Legacy
Megren Almutairi & Karen E. Young, 2/19/24

“National oil and gas companies in the Gulf Arab States, aspiring to establish themselves as pioneers in low-carbon energy production, are strategically investing in technologies that can mitigate emissions from oil production, specifically carbon capture technology,” Megren Almutairi and Karen E. Youngwrite for the Center on Global Energy Policy. “…The adoption of carbon capture may underscore their commitment to environmental sustainability, but also, perhaps more importantly, represents a proactive measure to mitigate risks associated with future carbon pricing mechanisms and regulatory frameworks. In a carbon taxed world—likely to increase use of tools like the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and direct carbon taxes on imported products—carbon capture is a means to extend the business cycle of hydrocarbon production by making cleaner and more marketable fossil fuel product… “The Gulf States are adapting to the realities of the energy transition, and the region is already a leader in carbon capture. According to the Global CCS Institute, about 10% of CO2 captured globally is in the industrial facilities of the Gulf States… “The Gulf region’s unique strengths in cost efficiency, scale, and geological storage make it a pivotal player in advancing carbon capture technology on a global scale… ‘’The Gulf States are testing the theory that their favorable geology for underground storage and proximity to gases from industrial production make them good candidates for large-scale adoption of carbon capture technology. But they face the challenge of scaling. The projects already up and running are much smaller than the projects in the pipeline… “For many, the sustainability of the oil and gas industry is incompatible with achieving larger climate goals. However, the Gulf region sees a role for cleaner fossil fuel and associated products, based on continued growth in demand for hydrocarbons alongside a shifting regulatory environment within those consumer markets. A strategy to change the emissions profile of products while earning revenues from them, along with the development of cleaner and lower-carbon energy options—such as blue hydrogen—is an attractive business model for national oil companies and governments.”

The Nation: I Saw the Future of Climate Technology—and Its Big-Oil Investors
Molly Taft is a Brooklyn-based climate journalist, 2/19/24

“The world does not end at 2 degrees C,” Bill Gates told the British podcast The Rest Is Politics in an episode that aired in January. Gates, one of the strongest and earliest supporters of tech as a tool to address the climate crisis, has spoken before about his belief that we’ll blow past 1.5 degrees—but his more recent assertions that 2 degrees C is unavoidable took many by surprise,” Molly Taft writes for The Nation. “…I felt the familiar pit of despair in my gut that I get when I think about just how little time we have left to act on the climate: of how quickly our world seems to already be spinning out of control, even at less than 1.5 degrees of warming, let alone the 2 degrees Gates seems to be hand-waving away… “The ballroom—filled with people outfitted in tech-wear vests, slacks, and neat blazers—didn’t reflect my grim vibe… “This is the landscape of the Cleantech North America conference, an annual event bringing together investors, entrepreneurs, tech gurus, and talking heads—and, of course, representatives from major oil and gas companies, mining giants, petro-states, and other polluters… “Critics of techno-optimism, meanwhile, say that focusing on technological feats at the expense of government action can delude us into thinking that we’re making more progress on climate than we are… “But depending on these innovations to make profits while helping to solve the climate crisis—to bind the development of promising future technologies to the whims and timelines of Big Oil investors, tangling the fate of the climate in the balance sheets of companies who caused the very crisis they’re purporting to solve—is not only a losing game but a waste of time that we simply do not have.”

Yale Climate Connections: How oil sands undermine Canada’s climate goals
Dana Nuccitelli, 2/10/24

“Now in his ninth year as prime minister, Justin Trudeau has sought to position Canada as a global climate leader, touting one of the world’s highest taxes on carbon pollution, clean fuel regulations, and clean technology tax credits. Yet Canada’s per-person climate pollution remains stubbornly near the top of the list of developed countries — alongside the United States and Australia, whose governments have been less consistently supportive of climate solutions over the past decade,” Dana Nuccitelli writes for Yale Climate Connections. “Climate Action Tracker, an independent project that monitors whether governments’ actions measure up to the goals outlined in the Paris climate agreement, rates Canada’s climate policies as “highly insufficient.” The project noted, “If all countries were to follow Canada’s approach, warming could reach over 3°C and up to 4°C” — a potentially catastrophic level of global warming. The Trudeau government has pledged to cut emissions by at least 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030 but is not on track to meet that goal… “According to an analysis by the Pembina Institute energy think tank, the oil sands accounted for about one-quarter of all Canadian oil production in 2000, but their share has spiked to almost two-thirds today. Total oil sands production has quintupled over that time frame, adding nearly $55 billion more to Canada’s economy today than in 2000. As a result, Canada extracts about three times more oil per person than the United States, generating about five times more oil-industry-related climate pollution per Canadian than the average American — despite the fact that the U.S. has recently been setting numerous oil production records. To address this source of emissions, the Canadian government plans to cap and reduce the amount of climate pollution that its oil and gas industry is allowed to generate. The Pembina Institute said in a report that oil sands extractors plan to achieve these emissions reductions by deploying technologies like small nuclear reactors and carbon capture and storage, but “many of these emerging technologies are yet to be commercialized.”

Calgary Herald: Emissions cap needed to spur reductions from highly profitable energy industry
Janetta McKenzie is the manager of oil and gas for Pembina Institute, 2/17/24

“Canada’s energy companies are “awash in cash and hungry,” according to the Globe and Mail. That appetite is far from fully satiated, leading to numerous mergers in the energy sector both in this country and south of the border,” Janette McKenzie writes for the Calgary Herald. “…What the industry isn’t doing is spending a significant amount on decarbonizing its operations. Only an emissions cap will obligate companies to do so. The federal government’s proposed cap represents a realistic and reasonable pathway to meaningful emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector this decade. It’s a vital part of Canada’s and Alberta’s journey to net zero by 2050. Despite unanimous protest from the provincial government and various energy industry associations, the federal cap is realistic and reasonable. Here’s how it can be achieved. Reducing methane emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 through the implementation of federal draft regulations could deliver more than half of the cap’s required reductions. Implementing carbon capture and storage would contribute another 12 metric tonnes (Mt) of reductions, and up to another 12 Mt could be achieved through process improvements, fuel substitution and energy efficiency. Alberta’s own Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan committed to a 75 per cent reduction in methane by 2030, and to enhance funding for carbon capture and storage. But neither industry nor the Alberta government has committed to any clear timelines for action. That’s why we need this cap. Existing policy hasn’t spurred the level of investment in decarbonization that we need to see from the oil and gas sector… “Alberta and oil and gas companies can either respond proactively to these trends by welcoming the emissions cap as an incentive to invest in decarbonization and electrification of the energy sector, or the province can continue to act as a brake on progress, running the risk of hosting potentially billions of dollars worth of stranded assets in the next decades. The best strategy is taking climate action and implementing the emissions cap as soon as possible.”

Pipeline Fighters Hub