Geoscience Policy Monthly Review
june 2015
The Monthly Review is part of a continuing effort to improve communications about the role of geoscience in policy.
Current and archived monthly reviews are available online.Subscribe to receive the Monthly Review directly.
energy
June 9, 2015
On June 9, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee completed its series of four hearings related to a new energy bill spearheaded by Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Legislators on both sides of the aisle have proposed 114 bills spanning energy efficiency, infrastructure, supply, and accountability and reform to be considered as a part of Murkowski’s larger energy legislation package, which she hopes to have completed before the end of the summer.
Since the last energy package passed into law in 2007, advancements in hydraulic fracturing and the Administration’s push towards renewables have created the need for new legislation, said Murkowski. The committee first addressed energy efficiency, working parallel to a similar bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The hearing on efficiency, held in April, examined smart grid technologies for making energy sources more reliable, especially in a time of transition as old power sources are retired in place of advanced technology.
The second hearing dealt with energy infrastructure, focusing on oil and natural gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, and energy storage. The third hearing discussed bills addressing energy supply from offshore drilling of oil and natural gas, hydropower, geothermal, biomass, and coal. The series of hearings concluded on government accountability, addressing concerns over the effectiveness of government regulations and how they affect public rates, grid reliability, and the economy.
Sources: E&E News, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
BLM's new hydraulic fracturing rules postponed pending court decision
June 24, 2015
A federal judge for the U.S. District Court of Wyoming has placed a hold on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) new rules for hydraulic fracturing on federal lands. The BLM originally proposed these rules in 2012 to address underground injection of wastewater, which is currently the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act. The rules would require well operators to case and cement the wellbore in accordance with best practices in order to protect groundwater; store and treat recovered wastewater in above-ground storage tanks; disclose the chemicals used in fracturing fluids, except for those designated as trade secrets; and submit more detailed surveys of subsurface geology before drilling begins.
The rules were set to take effect on June 24, but will be postponed at least until BLM files a record of its rulemaking process in July. North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and two energy industry consortiums filed preliminary injunctions against the regulations to halt them. State governments have argued that the BLM’s rules are redundant and that the agency does not have jurisdiction to enforce them. The judge has not yet granted the injunctions and is not expected to make that decision until August; this ruling is only a temporary stay.
Sources: Department of the Interior, E&E News, Federal Register, Lexology.com
Maryland imposes 2-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing
May 30, 2015
With the passage of a new bill, the state of Maryland will not allow hydraulic fracturing until October 1, 2017. The bill passed the House of Delegates with a veto-proof 76 percent majority and the Senate with a 96 percent majority, bypassing the need for Governor Larry Hogan to sign it into law. Hogan, the first-term Republican Governor of the heavily Democratic state, voiced support for hydraulic fracturing during last year’s campaign.
Martin O’Malley, Hogan’s Democratic predecessor, had also voiced cautious support for hydraulic fracturing as long as the state imposed strict regulations. In January 2015, Maryland’s Department of the Environment released a proposal detailing regulations for any oil and gas extraction that occurs within the state.
The Marcellus shale, which has been tapped extensively for natural gas in neighboring Pennsylvania, extends into Maryland’s two westernmost counties. Proponents of hydraulic fracturing cite its potential for spurring economic growth in these largely rural areas, but opponents argue that it will damage western Maryland’s tourism industry.
Sources: E&E News, Maryland Department of the Environment, The Washington Post
Updated on July 6, 2015
Oklahoma passes law prohibiting outright bans on hydraulic fracturing
June 1, 2015
On May 29, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill into law restricting municipalities from regulating oil and gas activities in their jurisdictions. Under the new regulation, municipalities are able to regulate the byproducts of oil and gas activity, such as noise, air, and water pollution, but are unable to place an outright ban on oil and gas activities.
This bill follows a similar law passed recently in Texas restricting local regulation of oil and gas extraction. Both bills give state level commissions responsibility for regulating oil and gas industries to make a more transparent permitting and extraction process. In Oklahoma, Governor Fallin justified the new law by citing recent earthquake activity and arguing that it is best regulated by state-level commissions.
Source: E&E News
Updated: July 6, 2015
June 24, 2015
On June 24, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittees on Energy and the Environment held a joint hearing on the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP) on the energy sector. The hearing focused on a new Energy Information Administration (EIA) report on the effectiveness of the CPP.
According to the report, the CPP would more than double the rate of coal-fired plant closures compared to a “business as usual” scenario. Most of the resulting energy supply deficit would be initially replaced by natural gas but would eventually be replaced by renewables. The report predicts electricity rate increases of 10 percent in some areas through the end of implementation in 2030, which would factor into a 0.25 percent decline in GDP.
The report received criticism from Dr. Susan Tierny, Senior Advisor of the Analysis Group, and Democrats on the panel because it was not a cost-benefit analysis and did not consider the social cost of coal, a metric based on the health and infrastructure impacts of burning coal. Stephen Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that his analysis of the social cost of coal did not outweigh the CPP’s costs to the economy. The Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Dayaratna analyzed the EIA report and found that 80,000 jobs would be lost by 2030.
Sources: E&E News, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee
House Natural Resources subcommittee holds hearing on proposed Arctic drilling regulations
June 16, 2015
The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held an oversight hearing on “Arctic Resources and American Competitiveness” to discuss exploratory oil and gas drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The hearing covered the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) proposed regulations for drilling on the OCS, which were released on February 20. Testimony and questioning focused on whether drilling is prudent in such an inaccessible location and whether current technology and best practices can prevent an environmental disaster.
Richard Glenn of the Arctic Slope Regional Group noted that oil and gas extraction provides a substantial number of jobs to residents of northern Alaska and receives support from many locals. Critics of the DOI regulations questioned the need to place a second rig on site to drill same-season relief wells in the event of a blowout and challenged the proposal to shorten the Arctic drilling season to allow time to shut down defective wells. Christine Resler of Schlumberger pointed out that once new technologies are tested and used in the Arctic, these technologies will improve.
Brian Salerno of the DOI testified that despite its shallow-water setting, the Arctic OCS is too dangerous and remote to accommodate unproven technologies, or even some technologies that are robust in temperate climates. Michael LeVine of Oceana said that “there is no proven way to respond to spilled oil in Arctic conditions,” and warned that traditional methods of oil spill mitigation would be hampered by sea ice and lack of infrastructure.
Sources: E&E News, House.gov, Oil and Gas Journal