EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 5/12/23

PIPELINE NEWS

• Iowa Capital Dispatch: Judge says Iowa’s pipeline land survey law is constitutional

• WCBU: Environmental activists, Peoria community leaders backing carbon dioxide pipeline bills

• WisPolitics: Rep. Steffen: Opposes motion to shut down Line 5 pipeline

• Grand Forks Herald: Wadena County prosecutor drops final charge against Winona LaDuke in ‘Shell River Seven’ pipeline case

WASHINGTON UPDATES

• New York Times: In a Climate Trade-Off, Biden Backs Manchin’s Fossil Fuel Plan

• Washington Post: Manchin Eyes Vote On Permitting Bill This Summer

• Fox News: Republican states preparing legal action over Biden’s power plant regulations

• E&E News: Legal war brews over EPA power plant rule

• E&E News: Democrats defend the unknown in EPA power plan

• NPR: An EPA proposal to (almost) eliminate climate pollution from power plants

• Politico: Biden’s power plant rule could help revive an old idea about how to fight climate change

• E&E News: Biden: GOP carrying water for Big Oil

• Food & Water Watch: EPA Rules: Carbon Capture Won’t Work 

• The Hill: Manchin says he will vote against Biden’s EPA nominees

• Reuters: US permit crackdown poses new hurdles for proposed LNG projects -analysts

• E&E News: LNG is surging. Can FERC reviews keep up?

• E&E News: Supreme Court buffers state climate rules from legal assault

• Bloomberg: Fossil Fuel Influence on US Supreme Court Is Pervasive, Whitehouse Says

• HuffPost: Rail Safety Bill, Inspired By Fiery Ohio Derailment, Clears First Major Hurdle

• New York Times: A Swaggering Clean-Energy Pioneer, With $400 Billion to Hand Out

STATE UPDATES

• WGLT: McLean County requires special-use permit for CO2 wells; approves plans for small business grants

• Gillette News Record: Governor touts fossil fuels, carbon capture at chamber luncheon

• Associated Press: New Mexico Constitution Focus Of Legal Fight Over Oil And Gas Drilling 

• Jacobin Magazine: In Texas, Big Oil Is Trying to Buy Its Own Judges

• Associated Press: Environmental group sues over new California oil well permits near residential homes

• KOCO: OKC settles lawsuit against oil and gas company accused of damaging a wildlife refuge

• Revolving Door Project: New Memo Details How ‘American Clean Power’ Is In Close Company with the Fossil Fuel Industry

EXTRACTION

• CNN: What is carbon capture? Some say it will help save the world, for others it’s a dangerous distraction

• Phys.org: Climate maths ‘doesn’t add up’ without carbon capture: COP28 chief

• Register Citizen: What is carbon capture and storage? EPA’s new power plant standards proposal gives CCS a boost, but it’s not a quick solution

• Canray Media: Can we fight climate change by sinking carbon into the sea?

• CBC: Alberta Energy Regulator warns Imperial Oil about more wastewater problems at Kearl oilsands mine

• Financial Times: BP chief: Fossil fuels have done ‘enormous good

• Union of Concerned Scientists: An A to Z of Fossil Fuel Industry Deception

CLIMATE FINANCE

• Reuters: Climate change not ‘serious risk’ to financial stability, Fed’s Waller says

• Reuters: US Republicans seek review of BlackRock utility holdings

• Indiana Environmental Reporter: Indiana, Utah AGs lead multi-state effort to block investment firm reauthorization on voting securities ownership

• Energy and Policy Institute: Florida Legislature hands out millions in tax cuts to fossil fuel companies

• Fortune: Companies in the EU must disclose their ESG performance soon. Are CEOs ready?

TODAY IN GREENWASHING

• Reuters: Canada’s Competition Bureau investigates oil sands group over advertising

OPINION

• Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA): Proposed CCS projects need careful review for cost, technology risks

• Bloomberg: EPA Picks a Smarter Way to Deal With Dirty Power Plants

• Calgary Sun: GREEN: Trudeau government betting billions on uncertain technological breakthroughs

• WorkBoat: Offshore oil and gas leasing: The next carbon bomb?

• Columbia Law School: Rethinking the Willow Project: Did BLM Have Other Options?
  

PIPELINE NEWS

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Judge says Iowa’s pipeline land survey law is constitutional
JARED STRONG, 5/11/23

“An Iowa district court judge decided this week that a state law is constitutional that allows land surveys for carbon dioxide pipelines regardless of landowners’ consent, according to court records,” the Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. “The ruling — in a Hardin County case — is at odds with another judge’s ruling last week in Clay County, which said the law does not provide compensation for intangible damages suffered by landowners when they are forced to allow the surveys and is unconstitutional… “The judge’s decision Wednesday in the Hardin County case was the result of Summit Carbon Solutions seeking an injunction against a landowner in that county. It’s one of more than 10 lawsuits filed by Summit and Navigator CO2 Ventures against unwilling landowners in several Iowa counties for the injunctions, which created the potential for multiple, conflicting rulings. Regardless of how the matter of constitutionality is ultimately settled, it might not prevent state regulators from issuing permits to construct the pipelines… “In this week’s ruling in Hardin County, regarding landowner Kent Kasischke, Judge Amy Moore decided that Summit’s proposed pipeline meets a “public use” requirement for eminent domain to be used to construct it and that the state’s survey law appropriately provides compensation to landowners for any actual damages that might arise from the survey work. “For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Mr. Kasischke has failed to establish that (the survey law) is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt,” Moore wrote… “In Clay County in Iowa, Judge John Sandy said the mere entry onto private land without permission is deserving of compensation for the duress that landowners incur. That sort of compensation is not required by Iowa law… “Another judge is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the law in Woodbury County.”

WCBU: Environmental activists, Peoria community leaders backing carbon dioxide pipeline bills
Collin Schopp, 5/11/23

“Peoria environmental advocates and community leaders are advocating for the passage of legislation expanding regulations on the construction of carbon dioxide transport pipelines,” WCBU reports. “At a press conference Thursday, Central Illinois Healthy Community Alliance member Joyce Harant said House Bill 3119 and Senate Bill 2421 include protections for the communities proposed carbon dioxide pipelines would pass through. “Our legislation would begin establishing these provisions for human health and existing property owners at all key points at the capture,” said Harant. “For the transportation, such as through the pipelines, and for the sequestration.” “…Measures included in the bills would place liability for pipeline accidents on the development companies, establish financial benefits for the communities near pipelines and prohibit the use of forced acquisition or eminent domain in pipeline construction… “Community leaders like Collaborative Peoria’s Sherry Cannon, Peoria Park District President Robert Johnson, and Peoria NAACP President Marvin Hightower spoke in support of the legislation on Thursday… “The House bill has been re-referred to the Rules Committee, and the Senate bill sits in the Assignments Committee. Tracy Fox, a representative of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, told WCBU the governor’s office, the attorney general and other parties are negotiating with supporters of House Bill 2202. That’s an industry-backed bill creating ownership rules for the underground pore space where carbon is sequestered… “It remains to be seen whether these provisions will emerge in a new compromise bill before the end of the current Illinois General Assembly session on Friday, May 19.”

WisPolitics: Rep. Steffen: Opposes motion to shut down Line 5 pipeline
5/11/23

“In response to the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa filing a motion in federal court to immediately shut down the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline, Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities Chairman David Steffen released the following statement: “Line 5 is a critical piece of infrastructure that supplies the energy needed to allow Wisconsinites to heat our homes, run our farms and drive our kids to school. Shutting down the line would be a  bad idea under any circumstance. However, given today’s uncertain economy, crippling inflation  and the war in Ukraine, it would be disastrous to consider taking Line 5 out of operation,” WisPolitics reports. “The filing by the Bad River Band is also difficult to understand considering the Band has for years rebuffed multiple attempts by Enbridge to implement widely used engineering measures to shore up the river bank near the Meander. If the Band is really concerned about the structural soundness of the Meander, they should immediately allow Enbridge to implement the erosion control measures it has been offering to take for years.  “Finally, all concerns about the Meander and the reservation could be alleviated by the DNR issuing the permits that have been pending for three years now to allow Enbridge to move  forward with its plan to relocate Line 5 off the reservation.” 

Grand Forks Herald: Wadena County prosecutor drops final charge against Winona LaDuke in ‘Shell River Seven’ pipeline case
5/11/23

“A Wadena County prosecutor on Thursday, May 11, dismissed the last remaining misdemeanor charge in the criminal case against Winona LaDuke, the co-founder and former executive director of Honor the Earth, for her role in the “Shell River Seven” protest in July 2021,” the Grand Forks Herald reports. “According to a news release from Media Savant Communications Co, a Twin Cities public relations firm, the “Shell River Seven” were prosecuted for peacefully standing up against the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline in July 2021, which crossed the river and many other waterways through 1855 Treaty Territory… “The six women and an independent photojournalist were arrested and identically charged with two counts of gross misdemeanor trespass and one count of misdemeanor obstruction, and pleaded not guilty. LaDuke spent three days behind bars after the arrest (her co-defendants spent two), and wrote a letter from the Wadena County jail… “The charges against LaDuke’s six co-defendants were dismissed in October and November 2022, but the Wadena County attorney continued to pursue charges against LaDuke, prompting criticism that she was being targeted for her high-profile leadership prior to and during Line 3 construction. She was the only Anishinaabe member of the Shell River Seven, as well as the Guardian ad litem of the river, as appointed by the White Earth Nation. As the last remaining Shell River Seven defendant, LaDuke was scheduled to go to trial in June in Wadena. Nearly two years after the incident, the Wadena County prosecutor has finally dismissed the case, which follows a spate of other recent Line 3 Water Protector legal victories in April.”

WASHINGTON UPDATES

New York Times: In a Climate Trade-Off, Biden Backs Manchin’s Fossil Fuel Plan
Lisa Friedman, 5/10/23

“The White House on Wednesday endorsed a plan by Senator Joe Manchin III to speed the approval of some fossil fuel projects in order to also hasten the construction of new transmission lines critical for meeting President Biden’s climate goals,” the New York Times reports. “John Podesta, President Biden’s senior adviser for clean energy innovation, said the holdup in congressional efforts to streamline permitting rules for energy projects, a process that can drag on for years, has hurt efforts to bolster wind, solar and other clean power. “Right now, the permitting process for clean energy infrastructure, including transmission, is plagued by delays and bottlenecks,” Mr. Podesta told an audience at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington. “We’ve got to fix this problem now.” The White House’s announcement drew swift opposition from many environmental groups, which are still seething over the administration’s support of the Willow oil project in Alaska… “Mr. Manchin’s permitting plan would assure the completion of a long-delayed gas pipeline in West Virginia, the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Environmentalists, civil rights activists and many Democratic state lawmakers have opposed the project for years. “The president frankly doesn’t love everything in the bill, but we support it because that’s what compromise means,” Mr. Podesta said. The olive branch came amid tense negotiations between the Mr. Biden and the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, over raising the debt ceiling before a June 1 deadline, after which the U.S. government could default… “In addition to fast-tracking the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would run from West Virginia to Virginia, Mr. Manchin’s bill sets a two-year limit on environmental reviews of major federal energy projects, including those on fossil fuels. It also directs the president to designate at least 25 high-level energy projects and prioritize their permitting… “Some environmental groups assailed the administration’s announcement, saying Mr. Manchin’s bill would lead to more oil and gas development even as scientists say the window to reduce emissions from fossil fuels is rapidly closing… “It’s shameful that John Podesta is mindlessly parroting the fossil fuel playbook and scapegoating frontline communities that are harmed the most by fossil fuels as somehow being the enemy of a renewable energy future,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Times… “Other groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council praised the White House’s priorities but said they remained opposed to Mr. Manchin’s plan.”

Washington Post: Manchin Eyes Vote On Permitting Bill This Summer
Maxine Joselow, 5/12/23

“Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) said yesterday he would aim to bring permitting legislation to the Senate floor before the August recess, offering an ambitious timeline for overhauling the nation’s approval process for energy projects,” the Washington Post reports. “‘We’re intending to get this bill and have a bill on the floor before we have a recess this summer,’ Manchin said during a hearing held by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs. ‘That’s pretty aggressive. We’re going to get it done.’ However, it remains unclear whether lawmakers can overcome significant differences on permitting in the coming months. While the White House has voiced support for Manchin’s permitting bill, which would set two-year time limits on environmental reviews for major projects, Republicans have backed other proposals that would expedite fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Fox News: Republican states preparing legal action over Biden’s power plant regulations
Thomas Catenacci, 5/11/23

“Republican-led states are preparing to challenge the legality of the Biden administration’s latest climate action, aggressive regulations targeting power plant emissions,” Fox News reports. “…While the EPA argued it has the authority to issue such emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, Republican attorneys general said the agency overstepped, following the announcement. “Congress never authorized the president to wage war against the American people with these relentless administrative assaults on consumers and industries that supply reliable and sustainable access to power,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told Fox News Digital. “This is yet another Biden proposal that will drive up inflation, raise food costs, and increase electricity prices, and I will fight it.” “…Not content with just damaging the country during his presidency, President Biden is now seeking to permanently wreck our nation’s ability to produce affordable electricity,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital… “Based upon what we currently know about this proposal, it is not going to be upheld, and it just seems designed to scare more coal-fired power plants into retirement – the goal of the Biden administration,” Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia, a major coal-producing state, said Thursday. “That tactic is unacceptable, and this rule appears to utterly fly in the face of the rule of law.” “…In addition, the Obama administration plan was repealed in 2018 by the Trump administration, which replaced it with substantially looser standards, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. That replacement rule was repealed as part of the EPA’s announcement Thursday.”

E&E News: Legal war brews over EPA power plant rule
Niina H. Farah, Lesley Clark, 5/12/23

“EPA has rolled out its strongest-ever proposal to slash planet-warming emissions from power plants — but before the agency can tackle one of the nation’s leading sources of climate pollution, the strategy must first survive the courts,” E&E News reports. “Legal observers tell E&E that will be no easy feat. EPA’s draft rule released Thursday comes less than a year after the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that scaled back the agency’s regulatory options for controlling carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. Although the Biden administration appears to have crafted its proposal with the conservative-dominated high court in mind, environmental lawyers tell E&E EPA could face legal fire for its reliance on new and unproven technologies to meet emissions goals that could prompt the closure of more coal-fired power plants. “Some of the things they’re proposing are a real stretch, and they could still run into the very same problems again,” Jeff Holmstead, a partner at the firm Bracewell LLP, told E&E… “One of the leading conservative challengers in last year’s Supreme Court climate case, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, has already vowed to bring EPA back to court over the Biden rule’s impact on coal-fired power plants… “Jay Duffy, litigation director at the Clean Air Task Force, however, told E&E EPA’s legal risks are minimized because the agency designed its new proposal with the Supreme Court’s West Virginia ruling in mind… “He told E&E opponents of Biden’s power plant rule are likely to argue that the recommended pollution measures have not been proven or that the cost of compliance is too high… “Court watchers tell E&E the EPA proposal’s reliance on emerging technologies to curb emissions from fossil fuel-burning plants could prove to be its legal Achilles’ heel. That’s because the section of the Clean Air Act the proposal was written under requires EPA to set the “best system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated.” Critics argue that EPA is requiring the use of technologies that have not yet been shown to be feasible at a commercial scale, and they point to the long lead time before the rule goes into effect as another potential legal vulnerability.” “…He critiqued the long window before power plants have to comply with the rule as another potential legal hurdle. “EPA does have to allow for enough lead time,” Holmstead told E&E, ” But when that lead time is needed to show that it’s even technically feasible, that undercuts the argument that it’s been adequately demonstrated.” 

E&E News: Democrats defend the unknown in EPA power plan
Emma Dumain, 5/12/23

“Many congressional Democrats are defending the EPA’s latest move to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions at power plants around the country — despite ferocious pushback from Republicans and skepticism from industry allies,” E&E News reports. “In interviews Thursday, Democrats downplayed the proposed regulation’s political consequences. They also shrugged off concerns that the new policy would lead to job losses. Those reactions sent a clear a signal that climate hawks are ready to trade such unknowns for the certainty of a rapid decarbonization of the atmosphere, a necessity for meaningfully addressing global warming. “The job of the government, and the EPA, is to protect human health and safety,” Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) told E&E. “Coal is in many ways a threat to that. And what we’ve done is provided incentives for the private sector to develop technologies that would address that.” “…Fossil fuel industry representatives and their backers on Capitol Hill said the Biden administration was handing them an unworkable and unfair hand… “The Inflation Reduction Act provided a massive investment to incentivize the use of carbon capture and storage projects, which could help in the movement towards meeting the new EPA mandate in the years ahead. But carbon capture technology is still relatively nascent, and its efficacy remains something of an open question. Technological advances will be needed for large-scale deployment and to guarantee desired results. Capito told E&E that it remains prohibitively expensive and not sufficient at doing its intended job. Peters, a longtime proponent of investments in the technology, countered that EPA was being “acting appropriately” in asking industry to embrace certain innovations if they wanted to remain active. “What can we do to make this feasible? We’ve done a lot already,” he told E&E. “For years, people have been saying, ‘We can do clean coal through carbon capture.’ It’s up to the coal industry to prove that it can do it clean. It may be relatively expensive. But at least they’ll have a shot with advances in the carbon capture technology.”

NPR: An EPA proposal to (almost) eliminate climate pollution from power plants
Jeff Brady, 5/11/23

“Coal and gas-fired power plants would have to eliminate nearly all their climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions in just a little over a decade, under proposed regulations issued today by the Environmental Protection Agency,” NPR reports. “…The regulations are based on technologies that capture and then store deep underground 90% of carbon dioxide from coal and gas-fired plants. But some facilities that plan to shut down in coming years or that operate at less than 20% of their capacity would be subject to less stringent requirements… “The proposed rules set emission limits for power plants and then let power plant owners decide how they’ll meet the requirements, which could include shutting down their facility. The EPA concludes technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, that have been too expensive in the past are now more affordable, especially with tax credits available under the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year. Still, the coal industry may have the most to lose under this proposal. There are currently 158 active coal power plants, according to the Sierra Club. Despite the EPA’s analysis, the National Mining Association says carbon capture technology is not yet “technically and fully economically demonstrated.” The organization called for a “carbon capture moonshot.” “…The American Petroleum Institute, in comments submitted before the rule was released, urged “EPA to consider the essential role gas-fired generators will continue to play in complementing renewables,” and asked for “significant compliance flexibility.” Critics also argue the regulations will force coal and gas-fired power plants to shut down and leave the grid vulnerable to blackouts… “Even if the regulation survives an expected court challenge and takes effect, a future administration could change it. In 2019 former President Trump replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with his much weaker Affordable Clean Energy rule. That means these rules likely will become an issue in the upcoming 2024 presidential election campaign.”

Politico: Biden’s power plant rule could help revive an old idea about how to fight climate change
BRIAN DABBS, CARLOS ANCHONDO and CHRISTA MARSHALL, 5/11/23

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule on power plants relies heavily on an old idea that’s getting a new push — capturing planet-warming carbon pollution before it enters the atmosphere,” Politico reports. “But questions remain about whether the technology can be deployed quickly and affordably enough at the nation’s thousands of coal- and gas-burning plants. Carbon capture ran into hurdles and huge cost overruns when power plants tried to use it during the past two decades. And capturing CO2 from plants burning natural gas — a growing part of the electricity mix — poses higher cost challenges than many other pollution sources… “Unless the technology is deployed during the next 30 to 50 years, “we don’t have a shot at meeting climate targets because we’re not going to stop using fossil fuels globally,” Charles McConnell, who used to run the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy in the Obama administration, told Politico… “But many environmentalists are skeptical about the technology, saying federal incentives for carbon capture are simply handouts to the same fossil fuel industry that deceived the public on climate change. They want the Biden administration to phase out fossil fuels instead… “Many other attempts in the U.S. to install carbon capture in the power sector failed in the past 15 years, dating back to a 2011 project by American Electric Power Co. in West Virginia called Mountaineer that sought to capture CO2 from a large coal plant… “Still, some experts say the Biden administration hasn’t delivered the proper assurances to the fossil fuel sector that it will be able to sell enough electricity produced from natural gas and coal equipped with capture technology. Some fossil fuel supporters fear that the Biden administration — or a future administration — will impose policies to phase out fossil fuels completely, leaving companies with stranded CCS infrastructure. Meanwhile, an academic paper authored by a political staffer at the Department of Energy earlier this year has caused a stir by calling for an “extremely cautious” regulatory approach to CCS projects. “Particularly given long lead times, limited experience, and the potential for CCS projects to crowd or defer more effective alternatives, regulators should be extremely cautious about power sector CCS proposals,” wrote Emily Grubert, who was deputy assistant secretary at DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management before taking on a faculty position at the University of Notre Dame last year.

E&E News: Biden: GOP carrying water for Big Oil
Robin Bravender, 5/10/23

“President Joe Biden accused congressional Republicans of attempting to repeal a sweeping climate change law because the fossil fuel industry opposes the law’s incentives for clean energy,” E&E News reports. “Biden spoke Wednesday at an event in New York, where he excoriated the GOP for its stance in the stalled negotiations over raising the debt limit. Biden and other Democrats have called the Republican debt limit proposal a nonstarter, and Biden said Wednesday that the GOP is “holding the economy hostage by threatening to default on our nation’s debt.” Democrats say they’re adamantly opposed to GOP efforts to cut clean energy tax credits that were included in the Inflation Reduction Act enacted last year. The act “makes the biggest investment in fighting climate change anywhere in the history of the world,” Biden said Wednesday. “And it’s creating tens of thousands of jobs.” The law didn’t get a single Republican vote, Biden said. “And now they want to … get rid of it all,” he added.

Food & Water Watch: EPA Rules: Carbon Capture Won’t Work 
5/11/23

“Today, the EPA unveiled its long-awaited power plant emissions rules, which are likely to rely on failed carbon capture technologies at fossil fuel power plants,” Food & Water Watch reports. “Proponents believe that new incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act will render this technology more economically viable. But years of experience and billions of dollars have been squandered trying to make carbon capture work. Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter issued the following statement in response: “Carbon capture is nothing more than a fossil fuel industry propaganda scheme. Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real – and all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures. Throwing good money after bad is not a climate solution – it’s an industry bailout. “Even if the technology managed to meet even the lowest thresholds for emissions capture, the energy required to power the facilities would negate much of the supposed benefit. “The carbon capture and storage industry is based on dubious accounting and corporate secrecy. At present, there is no system for tracking emissions that are supposedly captured, nor even any public disclosure of which companies are acquiring the generous tax credits being offered for such capture. The federal CCS program is nothing more than a subsidy for polluters.”

The Hill: Manchin says he will vote against Biden’s EPA nominees
RACHEL FRAZIN, 5/10/23

“Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Wednesday he will oppose all of President Biden’s nominees for positions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over energy policy disagreements,” The Hill reports. “I fear that this Administration’s commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security and I will oppose all EPA nominees until they halt their government overreach,” Manchin said in a written statement. He specifically cited proposed regulations for power plants that are expected soon from the EPA.  “This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability,” he said.  “If the reports are true, the pending EPA proposal would impact nearly all fossil-fueled power plants in the United States, which generate about 60 percent of our electricity, without an adequate plan to replace the lost baseload generation. This piles on top of a broader regulatory agenda being rolled out designed to kill the fossil industry by a thousand cuts,” he added. Manchin’s dissension creates a difficult pathway for Biden’s EPA nominees. If no Republicans cross the aisle, they will need the support of every Democrat, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who has been absent but returned to the Capitol this week.” 

Reuters: US permit crackdown poses new hurdles for proposed LNG projects -analysts
Curtis Williams, 5/11/23

“The U.S. Department of Energy’s refusal to grant export permit extensions to liquefied natural gas (LNG) developers that fail to meet a construction deadline poses a new hurdle for greenfield plants, analysts said on Thursday,” Reuters reports. “The DOE last month said it would grant future extensions solely on extenuating circumstances and rejected an extension for Energy Transfer’s (ET.N) proposed Lake Charles LNG project. The change will fall heavily on firms without a track record and available financing, analysts told Reuters. Around a dozen LNG projects in the U.S. and Mexico that would process more than 20 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) of exports now face difficulties moving forward because of the change, according to an analysis from consultants Rapidan Energy Group. Without extensions to obtain non-Free Trade Agreement permits, financing for new entrants could dry up, and “for many of these projects, it looks like ‘game over,'” Alex Munton, Rapidan’s Global Gas Service director, told Reuters.”

E&E News: LNG is surging. Can FERC reviews keep up?
Miranda Willson, 5/11/23

“The United States sent more liquefied natural gas overseas last year than ever before — and energy companies want the total to keep climbing,” E&E News reports. “But some legal observers see an unanswered question: How should the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission review proposed LNG projects? Controversy over how new projects should be reviewed has reached new heights, with some lawmakers advocating for quicker approvals of terminals and climate hawks calling FERC’s assessments of greenhouse gas emissions inadequate. The debate is crucial in part because more than half of U.S. LNG exports in 2022 went to European countries seeking alternatives to Russian fuels following the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine. Several attorneys and FERC watchers see an ambiguous directive in the law governing FERC’s oversight of LNG… “While the law — the Natural Gas Act — directs FERC to “issue or deny” applications to site LNG import and export terminals, it gives the commission “absolutely zero guidance” for how to make that decision, Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, told E&E… “At the same time, the location of numerous LNG export terminals near predominantly low-income communities along the Gulf Coast has spurred concerns about environmental pollution and calls from environmental advocates for a more thorough review process. Forty-four Democratic members of Congress this week called for a review of how the Biden administration handles LNG export infrastructure and more guidance from the White House to beef up FERC’s reviews. Environmental groups tell E&E that the build-out of LNG terminals is bad for the climate as well… “We see the export infrastructure and the exports themselves as both imposing harms that aren’t getting acknowledged” by federal regulators, Nathan Matthews, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club, told E&E.”

E&E News: Supreme Court buffers state climate rules from legal assault
PAMELA KING, MARC HELLER, 5/11/23

“The Supreme Court on Thursday removed a legal tool that is often wielded by opponents of robust state climate and energy laws,” E&E News reports. “In a fractured opinion that boiled down to a 5-4 decision spearheaded by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court rejected a constitutional challenge by pork producers against a California animal welfare law. “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues,” Gorsuch wrote, “the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.” All nine of the justices appeared to be on board with scrapping an argument that has been used against state environmental rules that have the practical effect of controlling out-of-state trade, Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, told E&E. “Those sorts of arguments just aren’t going to be recognized, whether they’re targeting a renewable energy law or a pork production law,” he told E&E. The case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, was closely watched by environmental lawyers for its potential reach into the energy and climate space. Dormant commerce clause claims of the sort that pork producers raised in the case have in the past been weighed against a coal export ban in Washington and fuel economy standards in California and Oregon.”

Bloomberg: Fossil Fuel Influence on US Supreme Court Is Pervasive, Whitehouse Says
Leslie Kaufman, 5/10/23

“A series of revelations in recent weeks about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepting lavish vacations and private-school tuition for a relative from a real estate magnate — who also purchased the house where Thomas’s mother lives — has brought concerns about the corruptibility of the court front and center. But doubts about its impartiality aren’t new,” Bloomberg reports. “During the confirmation hearing of now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that corporate money — particularly oil money — had reshaped the high court. He went on to write a book on the subject, released late last year, called The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court… “The motives of Harlan Crow, Thomas’s benefactor, may be hard to ascertain, but the anti-regulatory agenda of the oil and gas industry is clear. It got a win last year with the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which cemented a new standard — the major questions doctrine — that restricts the rulemaking abilities of government agencies without Congress stepping in. Environmentalists are now bracing for a ruling in Sackett v. EPA, which could curtail the EPA’s authority over wetlands, limiting the reach of the Clean Water Act. And it could get worse for regulators. On May 1, the court agreed to hear a case that challenges what’s known as Chevron deference, a legal principle (named for a 1984 case involving the company) holding that courts should defer to agencies’ technical expertise to interpret statues that are ambiguous. West Virginia v. EPA was widely seen as an indication that the current court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, is hostile to the principle. Whitehouse writes in the book that businesses spending money to try to influence the Supreme Court can be traced back to 1971, when Lewis Powell, not yet on the court, wrote a secret strategic memo for the US Chamber of Commerce on how big companies could reassert power over society. Quietly, money went to fund so-called independent grassroots organizations with often misleading names, like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalitions (TASSC). Funded by Philip Morris, TASSC called EPA’s decision to classify secondhand cigarette smoke as harmful “junk science.” As well as lobbying Congress, the groups file a sea of amicus briefs on cases in front of the court. These astroturf groups were super-juiced by Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited money in elections.” 

HuffPost: Rail Safety Bill, Inspired By Fiery Ohio Derailment, Clears First Major Hurdle
Chris D’Angelo, 5/10/23

“A Senate committee on Wednesday advanced legislation aimed at preventing disasters like February’s fiery train derailment and chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio,” HuffPost reports. “The Railway Safety Act of 2023, championed by Ohio Sens. J.D. Vance (R) and Sherrod Brown (D), has attracted rare bipartisan support in a fiercely divided Congress. Both President Joe Biden (D) and former President Donald Trump (R) have endorsed the measure… “In its current form, the bill would establish new safety requirements for freight trains hauling hazardous materials, limit the overall size of trains, require at least two-person crews, and drastically increase penalties for rail safety violations. It would also funnel additional funds to law enforcement and first responders for hazardous material training… “Several Republicans on the committee voiced concern that the bill will increase costs for both industry and American consumers. Announcing his opposition to the bill, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking Republican, argued it would give the Biden administration a “free hand to aggressively restrict the movement of coal, oil, natural gas, ethanol and other essential commodities that the radical green movement hates.” Vance swung back at Cruz’s comments, noting that a number of industry groups have come out in support of the bill. “They would not be supporting it if they thought it would make it impossible to transport their product by rail,” Vance said. “Yes, it may make rail transportation a little bit more expensive. But it’s going to make rail transportation a little bit more expensive in the service of safety.”

New York Times: A Swaggering Clean-Energy Pioneer, With $400 Billion to Hand Out
Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman, 5/11/23

“The hotel ballroom was packed before breakfast as Jigar Shah took the stage at the oil and gas industry’s annual conference in Houston this spring,” the New York Times reports. “…It’s rare for a midlevel federal official to attract so much attention. But the small, obscure office that Mr. Shah oversees, the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, has become an engine of the Biden administration’s efforts to aggressively advance clean energy. And Mr. Shah is no ordinary bureaucrat. As part of last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Congress supersized the office’s authority to arrange loans to companies trying to bring emerging energy technologies to market, increasing it tenfold from $40 billion to more than $400 billion. That makes it potentially one of the biggest economic development loan programs in United States history. Mr. Shah, 48, is the gatekeeper for that gusher of tax dollars. And the clock is ticking; he has roughly a year and a half to get the money out the door before the 2024 elections could mean changes in the White House that would curtail the program… “He is ever mindful that Republicans are poised to seize on any taxpayer-backed loans that go bad. The Energy Department’s inspector general has warned her office does not have enough resources to properly monitor the newly-flush agency, raising concerns among some in Congress… “One of the biggest barriers that clean energy companies face is crossing what is known as the “valley of death.” Investors might fund small demonstrations of new battery chemistries or geothermal drilling techniques. But financing a commercial-scale version is challenging. Consider Monolith, a Nebraska-based chemicals company. For years, Monolith has been refining “methane pyrolysis,” which involves taking natural gas, heating it to high temperatures, and producing two valuable products — hydrogen, used to make fertilizer, and carbon black, used in tires. Both products are usually made through highly polluting methods, but Monolith thinks it can do so without heating the planet. Monolith had already built a small production facility, and was ready to significantly expand. That’s where the loan office came in. By tapping the network of scientists and experts within the Energy Department, the office evaluated Monolith’s proposal and has since conditionally approved a $1.04 billion loan… “As part of its new windfall, Mr. Shah’s office has $250 billion to retool old fossil-fuel infrastructure — by far its biggest pot of money. While the office still needs to clarify how it intends to use this money, experts say it could, for instance, help fend off economic devastation in communities facing coal plant closures.”

STATE UPDATES

WGLT: McLean County requires special-use permit for CO2 wells; approves plans for small business grants
Eric Stock, 5/11/23

“Energy companies that want to bring carbon capture technology to McLean County will need to get a special-use permit to set up sequestration wells, following a vote of the County Board on Thursday,” WGLT reports. “…Supporters say carbon capture is a climate change solution. Critics are skeptical of those claims and raise safety concerns. The special-use permit the County Board approved sets boundaries the same as the county’s guidelines for oil and gas drilling and refining. Carbon sequestration cannot be done within 1,000 feet of a residential boundary or within 330 feet of any lot containing a dwelling, or 50 feet from any other lot line. County officials anticipate several CO2s pipeline projects may seek to establish wells in the county, though County Board Chair John McIntyre said no company has submitted plans yet… “County administrator Cassy Taylor told WGLT the special-use permit gives the county some leeway in regulating the wells because the Zoning Board of Appels would have to hold a public hearing before any permit could be approved. Several residents have raised concerns during recent Zoning Board of Appeals and Land Use and Development Committee meetings about drilling wells through the Mahomet Aquifer, a major water source for much of central Illinois.”

Gillette News Record: Governor touts fossil fuels, carbon capture at chamber luncheon
JONATHAN GALLARDO, 5/11/23

“Fossil fuels have a future, despite the federal government’s attempts to hobble the industry. That was the message that Gov. Mark Gordon had Wednesday afternoon for those who attended the annual governor’s luncheon, hosted by the Campbell County Chamber of Commerce,” the Gillette News Record reports. “…He reiterated, as he has over the past few years, that coal, oil and gas have a role to play, and that “Campbell County and Wyoming can solve the problems that the country is wanting to face.” Carbon capture and sequestration look to be part of the plan moving forward, he added. “It is kind of interesting that new EPA rules will recognize that if we want to meet our climate goals, we are going to have to have carbon capture on our existing power plants,” he said… “So we’re finally hopefully going to see some light at the end of the tunnel that says, ‘coal has a future, oil and gas have a future,’ and a realization that the fantasy land that we’ve been dealing with, the anticipation we’re going to go off fossil fuels, isn’t going to happen right away and may not happen at all because our technologies can get that much better,” Gordon said. One problem that still needs to be addressed is the red tape. Gordon said he’s working with the governors of other western states to make it where the states, not the federal government, take the lead on regulatory structure.”

Associated Press: New Mexico Constitution Focus Of Legal Fight Over Oil And Gas Drilling 
5/11/23

“New Mexico and its Democratic governor are being sued over alleged failures to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas pollution, a challenge that comes as the nation’s No. 2 oil-producing state rides a wave of record revenue from drilling in one of the most prolific collection of oil fields in the world,” the Associated Press reports. “A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday in state district court, marking the first time the state constitution’s pollution-control clause has been the basis of such a legal claim. The 1971 amendment mandates that New Mexico prevent the despoilment of air, water and other natural resources. The challenge comes as New Mexico rides a wave of record revenue from development in the Permian Basin, currently one of the world’s most productive oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections have surged passed five-year averages to fund a considerable amount of the state’s budget, including education and social programs. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups told AP these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. They want oil and gas permitting to be suspended until the state implements “a statutory, regulatory and enforcement scheme that ensures the protection of New Mexico’s beautiful and healthful environment,” the lawsuit reads… “The plaintiffs include the groups Indigenous Lifeways, Pueblo Action Alliance, Youth United for Climate Crisis Action and WildEarth Guardians.

Jacobin Magazine: In Texas, Big Oil Is Trying to Buy Its Own Judges
REBECCA BURNS, 5/12/23

“When Texas oil and gas companies need to remove a legal roadblock to drilling, or answer for alleged wrongdoing, they head to court — and a bill that could be considered by the state legislature as early as Thursday would hand them considerable sway in picking the judges that hear some of their cases,” Jacobin Magazine reports. “The state’s $200 billion fossil fuel industry has thrown its weight behind legislation that would create a new system of district courts to hear certain disputes involving corporations. While twenty-six states already have so-called business courts, the Texas proposal has a unique feature: Republican governor Greg Abbott, who has been bankrolled by fossil fuel donors, would have the power to personally appoint judges, who would then serve two-year terms — a tenure that would let Abbott quickly remove judges if they deny favorable rulings to his supporters. The legislation backed by the oil industry comes just after the US Supreme Court allowed climate cases against fossil fuel companies to proceed in state courts. Opponents of the business-court plan say that not only would it run afoul of the state constitution, which mandates the popular election of district and appellate judges, but it could also set a dangerous national precedent by undermining the independence of the judiciary. As a result, cases that would otherwise be heard by judges elected by communities in their districts could instead be forced into courts controlled by the governor — and by extension, his donors. Abbott, who has raked in more than $42 million of campaign cash from the oil and gas industry during his career, has already raised eyebrows by appointing some of those donors to political positions — including an oil tycoon whom he tapped to head the agency overseeing the state’s energy grid… “Since the 1990s, a growing number of states have established specialized business courts, modeled in part on Delaware’s two-hundred-year-old Chancery Court, which presides over corporate disputes and helps give the state its pro-business reputation. The exact jurisdiction of business courts varies by state, but they typically hear high-dollar, complex cases. The US Chamber of Commerce, a business lobbying group, publishes annual rankings of industry-friendly courts — and firms that have access to those courts enjoy higher returns, according to a recent study. Critics of business courts say they effectively create a two-tiered system of justice: one for corporate litigants and another for everyday citizens.”

Associated Press: Environmental group sues over new California oil well permits near residential homes
5/11/23

“An environmental group sued Thursday to block nearly two dozen new permits for oil and gas wells in California, arguing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration did not properly consider how the drilling would affect the environment,” the Associated Press reports. “A lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity says the California Geologic Energy Management Division in December approved 15 new oil and gas wells in Long Beach. The lawsuit says state officials relied on a 50-year-old environmental impact report that did not consider climate change or health effects. The lawsuit says another six permits approved in San Luis Obispo County also relied on an outdated analysis prepared in 2004. Most of the wells were within 3,200 feet of homes and community-gathering sites despite Newsom signing a law in September that would have banned such permits. That law was put on hold in February because the oil industry qualified a referendum for the 2024 election asking voters to overturn it… “The Center for Biological Diversity said the wells approved in Long Beach are on an artificial island within 1,000 feet (304.80 meters) of a public beach. They said the wells approved in San Luis Obispo County also threaten the habitat of vulnerable species, including the California coast horned lizard and the wildflower pismo clarkia.”

KOCO: OKC settles lawsuit against oil and gas company accused of damaging a wildlife refuge
Zach Rael, 5/11/23

“The city of Oklahoma City settled a lawsuit against an oil and gas company accused of damaging a wildlife refuge, illegally entering city property and stealing water,” KOCO reports. “The company submitted a permit application to the city to run a waterline across the Hefner Canal to provide water from the North Canadian River to the drilling sight, according to court documents. That permit, as well as a permit from the city’s water resource board, was denied. The company allegedly used bolt cutters to cut a padlock and chain to enter land owned by the city, according to the lawsuit. The company denied these claims.”

Revolving Door Project: New Memo Details How ‘American Clean Power’ Is In Close Company with the Fossil Fuel Industry
5/10/23

“Today, Revolving Door Project, a project which scrutinizes executive branch appointees to ensure they use their office to serve the broad public interest, released a memo examining the close ties between the trade association purporting to back renewable energy, American Clean Power (ACP), and the fossil fuel industry.  The report comes as ACP holds a lobby week in D.C. to push for a set of permitting reforms that have been criticized as being too friendly to the fossil fuel industry at the expense of environmental justice communities and climate action across the country. The 19-page memo shows how: The American Clean Power Association lobbied for and vocally supported HR1, the Republican-led permitting bill that Biden called a “license to pollute,” as well as Senator Joe Manchin’s proposed “Dirty Deal” permitting reform bill the previous year. ACP’s board has over a dozen members with fossil fuel ties. ACP’s annual conferences were sponsored by a number of fossil fuel entities. Apparent member groups of ACP include Shell, Ameresco, Duke Energy, Exelon, Lockheed Martin, BlackRock, and Amazon. ACP operates a “Clean Power PAC” that has received and contributed to many fossil fuel-tied entities… “According to the Revolving Door Project memo, ACP’s public image as “the nation’s top renewable energy trade group,” obscures the group’s close ties to the fossil fuel industry and an “all of the above” energy agenda that allows for massive new fossil fuel development and environmental damage, as long as clean energy also benefits… “As Republicans continue to push forward plans that will loosen federal permitting rules for fossil fuel projects and allow industry to cut through communities without proper public input, ACP has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for their efforts. “It’s easy to take American Clean Power at face value — it would be nice if it was actually the strong industry voice for clean and renewable energy it claims to be. But ACP is not that, and the media has a responsibility to be skeptical about the truthfulness of ACP’s intentions considering the economic well-being of its members and leadership is so closely tied to the continuance of the fossil fuel era,” said Dorothy Slater, Climate Research Director, Revolving Door Project.

EXTRACTION

CNN: What is carbon capture? Some say it will help save the world, for others it’s a dangerous distraction
Laura Paddison, 5/11/23 

“The window to prevent catastrophic climate change is closing. Concentrations of planet-warming carbon pollution in the air are at their highest level in more than 2 million years – and the world has yet to even hit peak fossil fuel emissions,” CNN reports. “…Even if emissions fall significantly, the world would still need to remove between around 10 to 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, according to the IPCC… “Others, however, fear that this is a reckless bet on technology that is expensive, unproven at scale and too far away from full development to provide a meaningful answer to the climate crisis. And they criticize these technologies as a dangerous distraction from policies to cut down fossil fuel use… “Many of these technologies are at an early stage, remain prohibitively expensive and are a long way from being big enough to have a significant impact… “While there are hundreds of these facilities in development, even if all they all start operating, “deployment would remain substantially below what is required in the Net Zero Scenario,” said the IEA on its website… “There are also concerns about the impacts of transporting and storing carbon, a key feature of carbon capture and several carbon removal techniques. Pipelines can leak, potentially contaminating drinking water and causing health problems. More than 40 people needed hospital treatment after a carbon pipeline leaked in Mississippi in 2020… “Perhaps one of the most persistent criticisms of these technologies is their potential to distract from policies to phase out fossil fuels and instead give polluters a license to keep polluting. In 2021, hundreds of organizations signed an open letter to President Joe Biden and top lawmakers in Congress, arguing that “technological carbon capture is a dangerous distraction.” “It is the fossil fuel industry’s excuse for inaction and delay,” Lili Fuhr, Director of the fossil economy program at the Center for International Environmental Law, told CNN.

Phys.org: Climate maths ‘doesn’t add up’ without carbon capture: COP28 chief
Hashem Osseiran, 5/10/23

“The Emirati oil chief leading this year’s UN climate talks said Wednesday the world must get “serious” about new emission-capturing technology, rather than focussing only on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy,” Phys.org reports. “Sultan Al Jaber said renewables such as solar and wind “cannot be the only answer”, especially in the steel, cement and aluminium industries, where emissions are particularly hard to reduce. While major oil producers Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are touting carbon capture and storage as a remedy for global warming, some experts caution that the nascent technology is unproven and expensive, and should not replace efforts to phase out hydrocarbons… “If we are serious about curbing industrial emissions, we need to get serious about carbon capture technologies,” he told the United Arab Emirates’ Climate Tech event in Abu Dhabi. “In any realistic scenario that gets us to net zero… carbon capture technology will have a role to play. Without it, the math just doesn’t add up… “The debate between carbon capture and reduced fossil fuel use is shaping as a key battleground at COP28, beginning in November in Dubai, the UAE’s commercial hub… “He said policymakers must provide incentives to companies to commercialise technological solutions, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and direct air capture (DAC)… “Some environmentalists are sceptical about the focus on carbon capture, with Rex Weyler from Greenpeace last year labelling it a “scam”. “Carbon offset technologies are a distraction that we cannot afford,” Julien Jreissati, programme director at Greenpeace MENA, told AFP on Wednesday. “They have yet to be commercially viable and are not proven at scale despite years of development and billions of dollars of investment.”

Register Citizen: What is carbon capture and storage? EPA’s new power plant standards proposal gives CCS a boost, but it’s not a quick solution
Soyoung Oh, 5/1/23

“The Biden administration proposed new power plant rules on May 11, 2023, that have the potential to be among the most stringent federal policy measures on coal, oil and gas power plants the United States has ever introduced,” the Register Citizen reports. “…While CCS can be effective, it has some high hurdles on its path to widespread use… “In the past decade, power plant operators have had a rough time bringing CCS projects online in many parts of the world. Currently, there are only a handful of power plants in the United States with the capacity to capture and transport their carbon emissions, and most of their captured carbon is sent to oil fields for use in enhanced oil recovery… “Compared to capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial processes, such as ethanol and ammonia production, where the concentration of CO₂ is high, power generation emissions have relatively lower CO₂ concentrations. This makes CCS deployment at power plants more expensive… “However, questions remain related to CCS infrastructure. First, the pipelines to transport captured carbon aren’t yet in place. The Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office is supporting projects to construct CO₂ pipelines or other means of CO₂ transport, but they could take years to come online. Second, CO₂ storage options are not evenly spread out across the country. Power plants in the Northeast,.. “Finally, the permit process has been a big limiting factor in expediting CCS deployment.” 

Canray Media: Can we fight climate change by sinking carbon into the sea?
Alison F. Takemura, 5/11/23

“Here’s an inconvenient truth: We’ve polluted the atmosphere with so many gigatons of greenhouse gases that just slashing emissions — which we still absolutely have to do — will no longer be enough to avert the worst impacts of climate change,” Canray Media reports. “We’ll need to also actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere… “The problem is, no one knows yet how to remove carbon from the atmosphere anywhere close to that scale. But the race is on to figure it out: Hundreds of companies are pursuing a broad range of approaches, from direct air capture (deploying large machines to pull CO2 out of the air) to carbon capture and storage (capturing concentrated CO2 at point-sources of emissions, like smokestacks) to carbon-removal strategies that purport to harness natural systems to sequester carbon. In this last category, two Israeli companies, Rewind and BlueGreen Water Technologies, have carved out a niche for themselves in the nascent field of aquatic carbon removal. Both companies are betting they can lock away more CO2 per year more quickly and with less capital investment by taking readily available biomass and sinking it to the bottom of large bodies of water. They aim to be removing carbon by the gigaton annually by 2030. But outside experts say the companies have more work to do to prove they can effectively sequester carbon without doing more harm than good. For one, organic carbon sequestration is notoriously difficult to measure, so it will be hard to independently verify the claims Rewind and BlueGreen make. And both startups employ methods that could be stymied by hard-to-predict interactions with microbes… “People are still trying to learn about and understand…the efficacy of these [approaches] and their impacts on ecosystems,” Sifang Chen, an expert in ocean-based carbon removal at nonprofit Carbon180, told Canary. ​“This is a very new field.” “…Rewind plans to collect huge quantities of plant material and sink it to the bottom of the Black Sea, where, like the ancient ships, it could remain intact for centuries or even millennia, locking away all the carbon that would be released into the atmosphere if that biomass decomposed on land.”

CBC: Alberta Energy Regulator warns Imperial Oil about more wastewater problems at Kearl oilsands mine
Bob Weber, 5/11/23

“The Alberta Energy Regulator has warned Imperial Oil about more wastewater problems at its Kearl oilsands mine in northern Alberta,” CBC reports. “The regulator has issued a notice of non-compliance to the company after chemicals associated with oilsands tailings were found at an off-site well at levels that exceed provincial guidelines. “In light of the exceedance of sulphate levels in the off-site well, we have issued a notice of non-compliance to Imperial for failing to control industrial runoff,” says a notice from the regulator obtained by The Canadian Press. “This is not related to a tailings pond or the [environmental protection order] issued against Imperial in February.” The document says sulphates have been detected in a well near a mine overburden disposal area that is 100 metres from the Muskeg River, a tributary of the Athabasca River. Data from the provincial oilsands monitoring program shows sulphates measured in the well suddenly spiked by a factor of roughly 10 in the first three months of 2023… “Imperial is using sulphate measurements to outline how far seepage from one of its tailings ponds at Kearl has spread. The company is still dealing with issues created by those releases… “The regulator has told Imperial it must now provide an plan to delineate the new problem and bring its operations back into compliance.”

Financial Times: BP chief: Fossil fuels have done ‘enormous good’
Justin Jacobs, Derek Brower, Amanda Chu, Myles McCormick, 5/11/23

“BP’s chief executive Bernard Looney yesterday mounted a defence of oil and gas and the “enormous good” they have done for the world, weeks after the UK supermajor announced a plan to slow its transition away from fossil fuels,” the Financial Times reports. “BP tried to put itself in the vanguard of the energy transition in 2020, when it shocked the oil world with a plan — outlined during the depths of a historic crude price crash — to wind down its fossil fuel operations and pivot to green energy. It scaled back those climate ambitions this past February — just as it reported record profits on the back of surging oil prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On Wednesday, the BP chief had a message that seemed catered to an audience in a country that values pragmatism — and oil. Halting oil production now would be “simply impractical”, Looney told the Economic Club of Washington, DC, suggesting such a move would risk a renewed economic crisis. “There are people in society who certainly want to see the end of fossil fuels overnight,” he said, in a conversation with billionaire businessman David Rubenstein. “When production falls and demand doesn’t change, there’s only one thing that’s going to happen: prices are going to go up.” “…But Looney was full of praise for the petroleum that his company eventually intends to move beyond. “Imagine our global trade, aviation, road transport, shipping — all made possible through energy . . . Imagine in hospitals today, medication that is derived from petrochemicals. Devices that are made using petrochemicals. Imagine feeding 9bn people without ammonia fertiliser, which represents 70 per cent of the fertiliser in the world.” He added: “With that said, there is an issue called carbon . . . It’s a real issue. It needs to be tackled, and that’s why we want to transition.” “…And while BP’s transition plans remain the most aggressive among its supermajor peers, Looney’s comments on Wednesday echo those from other oil leaders in the US. They will raise eyebrows in Europe, where some environmentalists have cautiously welcomed BP’s attempt to take a leadership role in the energy transition. His remarks also point to the complexities fossil fuel bosses face as they look to take advantage of a phase of elevated prices, while also continuing to navigate a transition to a lower-carbon world.”

Union of Concerned Scientists: An A to Z of Fossil Fuel Industry Deception
5/10/23

“This year has brought new evidence of what major fossil fuel companies knew and when about the role their products play in climate change, as well as what they did in spite of what they knew,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The evidence builds on revelations from the US House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s investigation during the last Congress into Big Oil’s climate disinformation. And this growing body of evidence is highly relevant to climate accountability lawsuits against fossil fuel polluters, proposals to mandate and standardize corporate climate disclosure, and shareholder resolutions up for votes at major oil and gas companies’ annual meetings this spring. As a handy reference for litigators, regulators, investors, and all who are affected by climate change, below is an A to Z of fossil fuel industry denial, deception and delay tactics. A is for American Petroleum Institute… “B is for Beyond Petroleum. In the 1990s, BP famously rebranded itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” then backpedaled from its plans to invest in renewable energy. It’s déjà vu all over again in 2023, with BP rolling back its climate pledges after record-breaking 2022 profits since Russia’s unjust war on Ukraine… “F is for Front Groups. Creating front groups is a tried-and-true tactic, especially useful now that fossil fuel corporations themselves profess to support climate action… “G is for Greenwashing. “Major oil and gas corporations practice greenwashing by making misleading or outright false claims about their environmental performance. A 2022 peer-reviewed study that built on UCS’s Climate Accountability Scorecard found that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell continue to depend almost entirely on fossil fuels, with insignificant and opaque spending on clean energy. The House Oversight Committee investigation came to the same conclusion as the 2022 study: Accusations of greenwashing appear well-founded.”

CLIMATE FINANCE

Reuters: Climate change not ‘serious risk’ to financial stability, Fed’s Waller says
Howard Schneider, 5/11/23

“Climate change does not pose such “significantly unique or material” financial stability risks that the Federal Reserve should treat it separately in its supervision of the financial system, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said on Thursday in a detailed rebuttal of demands for climate initiatives by the U.S. central bank,” Reuters reports. “Climate change is real, but I do not believe it poses a serious risk to the safety and soundness of large banks or the financial stability of the United States,” Waller told an economic conference in Spain. “Risks are risks … My job is to make sure that the financial system is resilient to a range of risks. And I believe risks posed by climate change are not sufficiently unique or material to merit special treatment.” “…In March we watched a bank run on Silicon Valley Bank” that heightened attention to the levels of uninsured deposits at some institutions, Waller said. “Those are the kinds of things I am staring at right now. I am not as worried about climate as I am about things like banks failing because of bank runs.” The Fed has in general taken a more conservative attitude towards its responsibility for climate issues than its counterparts in Europe, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell saying the U.S. central bank was not a climate policymaker and would not steer capital or investment away from the fossil fuel industry, for example. The Fed is considering development of a set of “proposed principles” for large banking organizations to manage climate-related financial risks, an idea Waller opposed late last year… “So-called “transition risks” to a lower-carbon economy, meanwhile, “are generally neither near-term nor likely to be material given their slow-moving nature and the ability of economic agents to price transition costs … There seems to be a consensus that orderly transitions will not pose a risk to financial stability,” Waller told Reuters.

Reuters: US Republicans seek review of BlackRock utility holdings
Ross Kerber, 5/10/23

“A group of 17 Republican U.S. state attorneys general asked federal energy regulators to review BlackRock Inc’s ownership of utilities on Wednesday, citing the top fund manager’s involvement in industry efforts to limit climate change,” Reuters reports. “The motion before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was filed just days after rival Vanguard Group overcame a related challenge from some of the same politicians. The efforts are part of a Republican campaign against the growing use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations by investors and company executives. In their motion the attorneys general asked the four-member body known as FERC to audit whether BlackRock (BLK.N) has complied with a 2022 order that gave it permission to own more than 10% of U.S. utility company shares. That waiver from antitrust limits was given because BlackRock functioned as a passive investor. But BlackRock has undercut that by joining groups like the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative seeking to influence utility company operations, the group said… “Tyson Slocum, a director for the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen who like the Republicans has questioned the growing clout of top fund managers, told Reuters the Republicans’ complaints were off-base, noting BlackRock’s continued holdings of big stakes of fossil-fuel companies despite calls to divest them. The Republicans, Slocum said, were “hijacking a legitimate discussion about the outsized roles of managed funds with this anti-ESG nonsense.”

Indiana Environmental Reporter: Indiana, Utah AGs lead multi-state effort to block investment firm reauthorization on voting securities ownership
Enrique Saenz, 5/11/23

“Indiana Attorney General and free enterprise advocate Todd Rokita is continuing a push to prevent financial institutions from making investment decisions that affect the fossil fuel industry,” according to the Indiana Environmental Reporter. “Rokita is co-leading a 17-state effort to prevent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from reauthorizing BlackRock Inc., one of the world’s largest investment firms, to own more than $10 million in utility company voting securities because the company has pledged to reduce its carbon impact. This is Rokita’s second such attempt, as the attorney general also joined a similar Republican effort against Vanguard Group, Inc. in 2022. Rokita said BlackRock’s participation in Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, voluntary and unenforceable initiatives to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, signal that the company would use the voting power acquired through the purchase of voting securities to steer companies away from fossil fuels… “Rokita told IER BlackRock has claimed to be a “passive” and “non-controlling investor” in FERC filings, but the attorney general disagrees. “Maybe BlackRock was a passive investor 10 years ago,” the attorneys general state in their motion to intervene, “but today it’s an environmental activist.”

Energy and Policy Institute: Florida Legislature hands out millions in tax cuts to fossil fuel companies
Alissa Jean Schafer, 5/11/23

“Introducing bills written by gas companies, Florida Legislators passed new subsidies for methane gas in 2023 that will cost Florida taxpayers millions of dollars,” according to the Energy and Policy Institute. “Under the banners of “renewable natural gas” (RNG) and “green hydrogen,” the bills outlined utility cost recovery and tax breaks on gas equipment, fuel, and infrastructure. Records obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute show that at least two of the bills were written by Chesapeake, a gas company based in Maryland that currently serves about 87,000 gas customers in Florida through its subsidiary Florida Public Utilities… “Records obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute show RNG & hydrogen cost recovery bill language provided to lawmakers by a Chesapeake lobbyist. Other Florida investor-owned utilities also stood to benefit financially from the legislation. People’s Gas, a sister company of TECO which serves over 425,000 gas customers throughout the state, opened a landfill RNG facility in Florida earlier this year. Florida City Gas (FCG,), a sister company of Florida Power & Light (FPL) owned by NextEra Energy, serves approximately 110,000 gas customers throughout the state, and is actively growing its gas footprint. FCG is installing new gas pipelines around the state, including on a high hurricane risk barrier island, despite NextEra’s “RealZero” pledge to eliminate its carbon emissions… “The Florida Legislature also supported methane gas stoves in two separate ways. First, the legislature approved a gas stove tax break, including a sales tax exemption for gas stoves and ranges in the 2023 tax package. Second, Florida Legislators passed a law prohibiting any local government body throughout the state from phasing out gas appliances… “2023’s bills to protect gas were pushed by the Florida Natural Gas Association (FNGA) and its new front group, “Save Our Stoves,” which pushed the gas stove preemption bill on its website and in social media advertisements. Code for the Save Our Stoves website revealed FNGA involvement in building the site, and the Facebook ad library documented that FNGA spent thousands of dollars on political ads pushing “save our stoves” messaging.” 

Fortune: Companies in the EU must disclose their ESG performance soon. Are CEOs ready?
PETER VANHAM AND NICHOLAS GORDON, 5/11/23

“…The binding, EU-wide directive came into effect on Jan. 5 of this year. As of 2025 (financial year 2024), it will force large, listed companies with headquarters or subsidiaries in the EU to disclose a broad set of ESG metrics and have those disclosures assured by a third party,” Fortune reports. “What will its impact be? First, the CSRD could be a “game changer” that ends investors’ skepticism of corporate greenwashing, Nadja Picard, global reporting leader at PwC, and lead author of the Global Investor Survey, told Fortune… “Second, the CSRD will require international companies to release “social” metrics as well as “environmental” ones… “And third, like with EVs or A.I., the EU CSRD may become a de facto global trendsetter, coming before similar rules elsewhere. In the U.S., the SEC is expected to reveal its climate disclosures this spring, with implementation a few years down the road. Internationally, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is similarly planning to reveal its disclosure standards by end of June.”

TODAY IN GREENWASHING

Reuters: Canada’s Competition Bureau investigates oil sands group over advertising
Rod Nickel, 5/11/23

“Canada’s Competition Bureau said on Thursday it was investigating whether Pathways Alliance, a group of oil sands producers collaborating on ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions, misled the public in its advertising campaign,” Reuters reports. “Three environmental groups complained to the bureau in March about Pathways’ “Let’s clear the air” campaign that promoted the producers’ plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The bureau reviewed the complaint to determine if it meets technical requirements of Canada’s Competition Act prior to launching a formal investigation that is then required by law to determine the facts, a Competition Bureau spokesperson told Reuters… “The environmentalists said Pathways’ net-zero claim was misleading because 80% of the emissions associated with oil and gas are related to combustion, not the initial extraction on which Pathways is focused. “We think the public deserves to be told the truth about the environmental harm caused by fossil-fuel production,” Nola Poirier, senior researcher at Greenpeace Canada, one of the environmental groups, told Reuters… “Pathways told Reuters it strongly disagrees with the environmental groups’ complaint… “Its biggest project is a plan to build an underground hub to sequester carbon.”

OPINION

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA): Proposed CCS projects need careful review for cost, technology risks
Dennis Wamsted and David Schlissel, 5/10/23

“The U.S. Department of Energy last week selected five power projects for potential funding in its carbon capture and storage program; IEEFA continues to oppose the retrofit of coal-fired power plants with CCS,” the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reports. “CCS technology does not work as promised, and the length of time required to design, permit and build the projects will hinder efforts to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. DOE should stop spending more taxpayer dollars chasing the myth of CCS: We don’t know how these projects will perform because large-scale CCS capture on gas-fired power plants has never been commercially demonstrated… “Leaving aside the significant liability and operational issues that would need to be resolved before NTEC and its partners could pursue their retrofit plans, DOE needs to focus on the technology risks associated with the proposal. The Four Corners plan would be more than six times bigger than the largest previously installed coal-fired CCS facility, the 240MW Petra Nova capture unit at the W.A. Parish plant in Texas. IEEFA has chronicled the problems there and sees no reason to believe that those performance issues have been resolved, or that new problems wouldn’t surface due to the project’s much larger size… “Another project DOE needs to closely examine before signing off on any federal funding is a proposal by Duke Indiana to add CCS equipment to its Edwardsport integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility in Indiana… “A better option than adding expensive CCS equipment to an already-expensive power plant would be to end both the use of coal gasification at Edwardsport and any effort to add CCS. Retiring Edwardsport, rather than spending more taxpayer (and ultimately, ratepayer) dollars chasing the myth of CCS, is the best option.”

Bloomberg: EPA Picks a Smarter Way to Deal With Dirty Power Plants
Liam Denning, 5/11/23

The Clean Power Plan, never very much alive, died at the hands of the Supreme Court last June. Now the Environmental Protection Agency has released its replacement; call it the Un-Clean Power Plan,” Liam Denning writes for Bloomberg. “Not that the EPA’s new greenhouse gas standards and guidelines are exactly friendly to emissions from power plants. Far from it. Rather, the agency aims to broadly achieve the original CPP’s objective of squeezing carbon out of the power sector while ixnaying its particular approach in hopes of skating past Chief Justice John Roberts’s “major questions” doctrine. That is the novel legal threshold coined last summer, the boundaries of which could generously be described as generous, to bury the CPP. Unlike the CPP’s systemwide approach to emissions reduction, favoring massive deployment of renewables, the new EPA rules hew to the traditional means of regulating plant-level emissions via the Clean Air Act. Its innovation lies in something that will anger some environmentalists but provides a more viable political and economic path toward decarbonization: Giving generators some breathing room to potentially refit themselves for a net-zero world. The emphasis lies on making fossil fuel generation work in a decarbonizing world, mainly through the deployment of carbon capture, use and sequestration (CCUS) or co-firing coal and natural gas with gas or hydrogen, respectively. In effect, the proposed new rules take the mining, natural gas and utility industries at their word on the feasibility of such methods. If useful and affordable, they could of course provide a long-term role for fossil-fuel fired power plants that might otherwise shut down as emissions requirements tighten. As such, they have been touted by lobbyists for those industries as a vital part of any net-zero effort. The challenge lies in that “useful and affordable” caveat. For example, thus far, CCUS for power plants has tended to capture more headlines than actual carbon dioxide. The National Mining Association, understandably a big fan of carbon capture, nonetheless immediately dismissed the proposed new rule as “unlawful showmanship reinforcing a destructive agenda.” “…As with all of the administration’s efforts on climate change to date, they must be set in the context of what is politically achievable and economically viable — we’re talking about remaking a century’s worth of infrastructure, investment and habits here.”

Calgary Sun: GREEN: Trudeau government betting billions on uncertain technological breakthroughs
Kenneth Green is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, 5/10/23

“According to a recent RBC explainer, over the next 10 years Canada will spend about $26 billion on “clean electricity,” $11 billion on “clean-technology manufacturing,” $18 billion on “clean hydrogen,” $16 billion on “clean technology adoption” and $15 billion on “carbon capture,” all in the form of refundable tax credits. That’s about $86 billion on GHG-emission reduction,” Kenneth Green writes for the Calgary Sun. “I listed these initiatives in “scare quotes” because they are scary large numbers. And this is not just government picking and choosing particular technologies and energy sources; it’s government betting on breakthroughs in technology with highly uncertain economic and engineering feasibility… “As for banking on “carbon capture” (where emissions are essentially captured and stored) or “clean hydrogen,” these technologies remain in their infancy… “But experience at three large carbon-capture pilot programs in the U.S. showed the technology has a long way to go, with demonstrated efficiencies of capture way below expectations. One of the pilot projects had a carbon-capture rate of only two-thirds its projected capacity. Two other pilot projects showed similar underperformance, suggesting that, as with wind and solar power, carbon capture remains an unreliable technology. Policy-makers in Ottawa should take heed — governments should not try to pick winners and losers in the economy, nor in science and technology development and deployment. And yet, the Trudeau government is gambling with $86 billion at a time when Canada’s economic growth prospects are the worst of any major industrialized country. This is no time for gambling.”

WorkBoat: Offshore oil and gas leasing: The next carbon bomb?
Valerie Cleland is the advocate, oceans, nature program for the NRDC, 5/11/23

“Four months from now, the Biden administration will put out its plan for the next five years of offshore oil and gas leasing,” Valerie Cleland writes for WorkBoat. “President Biden’s proposed offshore leasing plan could release anywhere from the same amount of carbon emissions as the Willow project to 10 times more, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s own projections. This is hugely significant. The decision about the future of offshore leasing has major climate implications. More leasing means more pollution in our air and waters and puts our coasts, communities, and marine life at risk of another major oil spill.  President Biden’s decision on the next five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program is coming down the pike just as new polling shows that a majority of voters do not want to expand offshore drilling. Across the political spectrum, voters understand that the risks outweigh any perceived benefits, and a proposal to prevent new offshore drilling is more popular than increasing drilling. Moreover, voters overwhelmingly prefer expanding clean energy over expanding offshore oil and gas drilling. Strong majorities of coastal voters, from the Gulf to the eastern seaboard, do not want to increase offshore drilling… “It is abundantly clear that offshore drilling is simply impossible if we intend to maintain a livable planet… “As we’ve written before, oil and gas companies don’t need more of our oceans. Big Oil already holds thousands of unused leases to drill on public lands and waters. Right now, the industry holds leases to drill in roughly 11.3 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico, an area that would cover more than half the state of South Carolina… “President Biden and his agencies are the stewards of our public lands and waters. They hold these resources in trust for all of us. They have a responsibility to use them in a way that benefits our communities and future generations, which includes tackling the climate crisis. The next five-year offshore oil and gas program could hardly be more critical for the future of our planet, and it is clear that we can’t afford a carbon bomb larger than the Willow project.”

Columbia Law School: Rethinking the Willow Project: Did BLM Have Other Options?
Romany Webb is an Associate Research Scholar at Columbia Law School and Deputy Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, 5/10/23

“On March 13, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) approved a major oil drilling operation on the North Slope of Alaska. The so-called “Willow Project” will be developed by ConocoPhillips and involve the drilling of up to 199 new oil wells, spread across three well pads, along with the construction of various related infrastructure, including pipelines, processing facilities, roads, and boat ramps. All of this activity is expected to have serious adverse impacts on the local environment and nearby communities. It will also worsen global climate change,” Romany Webb writes for Columbia Law School. “…Approval of the Willow Project runs directly counter to President Biden’s campaign promise to stop oil and gas drilling on federal lands. It is also counter to his administration’s goal of halving economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The approval has angered many climate activists and others who see it as a “stain” on President Biden’s climate legacy. In the weeks since the approval was announced, the Biden administration has tried to paint a different picture, suggesting that it had no choice but to approve the Willow Project. But is that really the case? This post explores the scope of BLM’s authority to block oil and gas drilling on federally-owned land in situations where the land has already been leased to a private party for the specific purpose of developing oil and gas resources… “No court has, so far, ruled on the scope of BLM’s authority to restrict or prevent oil and gas development on climate grounds. Notably, however, multiple federal courts have held that BLM is required to consider greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate impacts when conducting environmental reviews of oil and gas projects pursuant to NEPA (see here for an example). This is significant because the courts have also held that an agency, like BLM, is only required to “gather or consider environmental information” in its NEPA review if the agency has “statutory authority to act on that information.” Thus, by holding that BLM is required to consider climate impacts in its NEPA reviews, the courts have suggested—at least implicitly–that BLM could act on that information. These and other issues are sure to be hotly debated in the litigation over the Willow Project. The outcome of the litigation remains uncertain.”