General
News
Op-Ed: State Should End Toxic Relationship With Oil And Gas Industry.
According to an op-ed by Josue De Luna Navarro in the Albuquerque Journal, “If you Google ‘What are signs you are in a toxic relationship?’, you will run into brief descriptions of
the following points: You are not yourself anymore, you feel trapped, and you lose your understanding of what the truth is. And from the sound of it, New Mexico is in a toxic relationship with the oil and gas industry. New Mexico is not itself anymore. New
Mexicans understand we can build a prosperous state that prioritizes the well-being of families and reflects the shared values of protecting our air, land and water for present and future generations. But the oil and gas industry has changed those values.
Nowadays, policymakers seem to care more about the well-being of corporations than New Mexicans across the state – who are the true backbone of our economy. It was recently reported that ‘unhealthy levels of formaldehyde’ were recorded around high-fracking
areas and oil counties around the state. Formaldehyde is one of the many carcinogenic chemicals emitted by fracking operations. At the same time, the oil and gas industry is abusing our precious water resources and poisoning us in the process by convincing
us to use their produced water for irrigation. Produced water is a by-product of fracking known to contain hazardous chemicals. The scientific consensus tells us we have 10 years to transform our fossil fuel extractive economy into a regenerative one. Unfortunately,
our toxic partner won’t let us do that. The oil and gas industry has used its economic ‘contributions’ to education and the state budget to create a ‘good’ public image to justify greed for profit at the expense of our communities’ health.” [Albuquerque Journal,
9/2/20 (+)]
California To Let Gas Plants Stay Open As Time Runs Low For Climate Action.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “State officials threw a lifeline to four fossil fueled power plants along the Southern California coast, deciding the facilities are still needed
to provide reliable electricity even as they contribute to the climate crisis. Tuesday’s vote by the State Water Resources Control Board to let the gas plants keep operating past the end of this year followed brief rolling blackouts over two evenings last
month, as a heat wave caused air conditioning demand to soar, and California found itself short on electricity supplies. Energy regulators are still investigating the causes of the power shortage. But they said allowing the coastal gas plants to stay open
a few more years would help prevent more outages as California continues its transition to cleaner energy sources — an ironic solution given that climate change almost certainly exacerbated the recent heat wave. The four facilities were supposed to shut down
by Dec. 31, 2020 under a regulation requiring coastal power plants to stop using ocean water for cooling, a process that kills fish and other marine life. But Tuesday’s decision granted a three-year extension to natural gas plants in Huntington Beach, Long
Beach and Oxnard, and a one-year extension to a Redondo Beach plant. The vote was unanimous, even as one water board member expressed frustration that energy regulators didn’t do a better job planning for gas-plant closures that have been scheduled since 2010.
‘It’s important for us to have our deadlines mean something, and that’s especially true when there’s a decade of runway time to achieve them,’ said board member Laurel Firestone, who was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year.” [Los Angeles Times,
9/1/20 (=)]
Critics Flag Net Costs As Potential Risk To EPA Oil & Gas Methane Rule.
According to Inside EPA, “Foes of the Trump EPA’s decision to drop oil and gas sector methane rules are citing the agency’s own cost-benefit analysis of the regulation as another
possible legal vulnerability for the policy, given that officials estimate the move could result in overall net costs to the public. The ‘asserted need for this action is totally unmoored from the facts at hand here,’ Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) attorney
Rosalie Winn tells Inside EPA, citing the agency’s regulatory impact analysis (RIA) estimating its so-called ‘policy’ rule would impose net costs on the public under a 3 percent discount rate. Another critic of the methane rollbacks says that opponents of
the rules are still determining what arguments they will use in litigation. But the source adds that the cost-benefit estimate ‘contributes to the narrative of how they are trying to basically push through their deregulation,’ whether or not such efforts are
factually supported. The new attacks on the agency’s methane rollback come as opponents of the policy, unveiled last month alongside a separate measure easing leak detection standards for new oil and gas equipment, prepare to file litigation over the rules
once they are formally published in the Federal Register. That forthcoming legal battle comes as Democratic states and environmentalists are sparring with the government over the effect of the just-completed rollback on their pending litigation seeking to
force the agency to issue methane standards for existing oil and gas sources under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.” [Inside EPA,
9/1/20 (=)]
New Oil And Gas Proposal Cuts Down On Duplication — Agency.
According to E&E News, “A proposal to ease regulations on oil and gas development on national forests could help nearby property owners who participate without ever digging on federal
soil. Adjacent landowners who extract oil and natural gas from the ground under national forests through horizontal drilling could be among the big winners from the Forest Service’s moves to streamline its program for such development. That’s the scenario
in places like Ohio, where much of the oil and natural gas taken from the Wayne National Forest comes from drilling pads located on private property next door. While not the typical situation across federal lands, it’s not unusual in the East, where the surface
on national forests is federally owned but rights to the minerals underneath belong to private owners. ‘For several years, the landowners in areas adjacent to the Wayne National Forest have been prevented from making their own choices in whether to utilize
their mineral rights for development, even though 90 percent of the mineral rights in the region are owned by private landowners,’ the Appalachia-Ohio chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners wrote to the Forest Service in 2018, when proposed
changes were first raised in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The Forest Service’s latest proposal pits oil and gas interests that say the regulations are too burdensome against conservation groups that say the agency is overlooking wildlife and other
environmental priorities.” [E&E News,
9/1/20 (=)]
Regulation: Forest Service Floats Scrapping Oil & Gas NEPA Reviews.
According to Inside EPA, “The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is proposing to scrap a requirement that it analyze oil and gas leasing plans in national forests that were previously approved
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), arguing the move would eliminate ‘duplicative’ environmental reviews. But the agency’s plan is already drawing harsh criticism from environmentalists, who argue it is yet another action by the Trump administration intended
to weaken National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules for energy projects. The Sept. 1 proposal says it is aimed at ‘increasing efficiencies in managing Federal oil and gas activities and would help the Agency achieve its strategic goal to deliver benefits
to the public.’ The ‘intent’ of the proposal ‘is to streamline and reduce redundancies . . . and better align Forest Service regulations with those used by’ BLM, which is the agency ‘primarily responsible for managing federally owned minerals, including those
underlying National Forest System lands.’ The agencies jointly manage leasing and operations for drilling in national forests, though the Secretary of the Interior has the final say as to whether to allow leasing, the notice says. BLM is part of Interior while
USFS is part of the Agriculture Department ‘Better alignment is most practically achieved by the Forest Service aligning its single subpart regulation with the multiple components of the [BLM’s] more extensive oil and gas regulations.’ The proposal was informed
by a prior advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and USFS will accept comments through Nov. 2.” [Inside EPA,
9/1/20 (=)]
Biden Tells Pa. Voters He's 'Not Banning Fracking'.
According to E&E News, “Joe Biden sought to clarify yesterday that he would not ban fracking, despite what his opponents — namely President Trump and his allies — are saying. ‘I am
not banning fracking,’ Biden said during a speech in Pittsburgh that was mostly focused on recent protests and violence in some cities. ‘Let me say that again: I am not banning fracking, no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me,’ Biden said. The
remarks, given near one of the most active natural gas fracking areas in the country, are the latest in a series of steps Biden has taken to reassure moderates and others concerned about the potential economic and employment impacts of a fracking prohibition.
While he has mostly opposed the idea favored by progressives and environmental activists, Biden has at times said he would seek to ban fracking altogether. In one case, Biden said ‘no new fracking’ in a debate — a statement his campaign almost immediately
walked back. The former vice president has also stated he would ‘get rid of fossil fuels,’ and his platform envisions net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economywide by 2050. Other candidates in the Democratic primary wanted to stop the controversial oil and
natural gas production technique, including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who is now Biden’s running mate. Biden, however, has only promised to ban new permits for fossil fuel extraction — including fracking — on federal land and offshore; his campaign has
said he’s referring to that plan when he appears to endorse a fracking ban.” [E&E News,
9/1/20 (=)]
Trump Plans Would Ease Oil And Gas Drilling In National Forests. According to the Washington
Examiner, “The Forest Service proposed Tuesday changes to how it reviews and gives consent for federal oil and gas leasing in national forests that it says would eliminate ‘duplicative’ aspects that have previously caused confusion. Environmentalists, however,
say the changes would restrict the agency’s oversight, short-circuit environmental reviews, and undermine public input on new drilling operations. The result, environmentalists say, could expand oil and gas leasing in national forests, where currently only
2.7% has been leased for oil, gas, coal, and geothermal production. ‘Trump and his allies have spent three and a half years giving Big Oil whatever it wants and calling it an energy strategy, and this proposal is part of that larger failed agenda,’ Rep. Raul
Grijalva, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. He added the proposal would ‘lead to more pollution and violate Forest Service mandates that date back to its founding.’” [Washington Examiner,
9/1/20 (=)]
Why Fracking Is A Top Issue. According to the Washington Examiner, “Joe Biden choosing to
dedicate a portion of a major post-convention address in Western Pennsylvania to clarify his position on fracking shows the issue still has currency among important constituencies in a race being defined by the pandemic and social unrest. ‘I’m not for banning
fracking. Let’s say that again. I’m not for banning fracking — no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me,’ Biden said. Soon after, the Trump campaign sent out blasts reminding the media and its supporters that Biden had previously spoken differently
about fracking during the primary. Most memorably, Biden stumbled during a gaffe in an exchange with Bernie Sanders in a March debate, in which Biden declared, ‘no new fracking.’ Biden has since taken pains to remind voters of the actual text of his climate
plan, which even in its revamped, more liberal form only seeks to end new oil and gas leases on federal lands, where minimal fracking occurs. Polls are muddled: Polls have generally shown that fracking, like most issues, falls along party lines, including
a recent survey from CBS News finding Pennsylvania voters almost evenly split. Other polls look differently depending on how they are structured. The Global Strategy Group released a poll Monday on behalf of Climate Power 2020, the League of Conservation Voters,
and the Sierra Club finding that 62% of registered Pennsylvania voters support ‘phasing out’ fracking by 2050 (importantly, not immediately), with 66% also favoring ‘stronger regulations’ on fracking.” [Washington Examiner,
9/1/20 (=)]
Biden Declares He's "Not Banning Fracking".
According to Axios, “There are political and substantive limits to how much Biden will move his energy plans in the direction that some climate activists want, and yesterday underscored
a big one. Driving the news: Biden yesterday rebutted President Trump’s claim that the Democratic nominee would seek to ban fracking, the oil-and-gas extraction method that has enabled a surge in U.S. production over the last decade. ‘I am not banning fracking.
Let me say that again. I am not banning fracking. No matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me,’ Biden said. Why it matters: The remarks came during a closely watched speech in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state Trump carried in 2016 where fracking-enabled
natural gas development is a major industry. While Biden has made his plans more aggressive in recent months, he has rejected calls for an outright ban on fracking — which would require extraordinarily unlikely congressional action. Biden’s long-standing platform
aims to thwart oil-and-gas development on federal lands and waters, but it does not call for a national ban on fracking that would affect private lands, where the nation’s oil-and-gas boom has been centered. The intrigue: Biden has given Republicans an opening
because his position on a fracking has been confusing at times, most notably at a March debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders when Biden said, ‘No new fracking.’ His campaign later claimed that Biden was restating his existing platform — not endorsing Sanders’ call
for a nationwide ban. Sen. Kamala Harris, the VP on the Democratic ticket with Biden, had previously endorsed a national fracking ban.” [Axios,
9/1/20
(=)]
But Pennsylvania Polls Show Mixed Opinions.
According to Axios, “Biden’s team has clearly decided that loudly opposing a fracking ban in a high-profile speech is the right political move. But polling in Pennsylvania shows shades
of gray. By the numbers: Multiple polls give a peek at the controversial topic in the state. 52% opposed fracking in a CBS News poll of registered voters last month, while 48% favored it, a finding within the poll’s margin of error. Yesterday the Global Strategy
Group released a poll of registered voters funded by Climate Power 2020, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. It showed strong support for tougher regulations, and also 62% support for phasing out fracking by 2050 (emphasis added because
that’s not a ‘ban’). A Franklin & Marshall College poll of registered voters in January found that ‘more voters support (48%) than oppose (44%) shale drilling in the state.’ Paradoxically, it also showed that 48% support a fracking ban while 39% oppose the
idea, but the error margin is ±6.2%. A 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation and Cook Political Report poll released last November showed that 57% of swing voters in Pennsylvania oppose a fracking ban. Of note: I doubt I’ve seen every poll on Pennsylvania and fracking,
so Generate readers: Please send along other surveys that may be out there, thank you!” [Axios,
9/1/20 (=)]
Chad Ellwood
Senior Research Associate
Climate Action Campaign
202.448.2877 ext. 119