By Andrew Williams

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the same company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, just spilled millions of gallons of drilling sludge into an Ohio wetland – but don’t worry, they say everything is “safe.”

Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency called the company’s response “dismissive,” and “exceptionally disappointing,” and he’s right.

Fortunately, federal and state regulators have stepped up to hold ETP accountable.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered ETP to halt plans to continue with other pipeline drilling projects in the area and to double the number of environmental inspectors on its payroll.  And the Ohio EPA fined ETP $400,000 dollars for the damage caused by this spill, damage that OEPA says could be deadly and last for decades.

Still, ETP claims that they “do not believe that there will be any long-term impact to the environment.”  How do they figure that? It is clear that without regulators stepping in to manage the literal muck, the company would not have done the right thing.

Companies routinely argue that spilling is never their objective and thus regulations to prevent spills from happening are unnecessary. This is flawed logic. The objective of a driver speeding down the highway isn’t to get into an accident, it’s to get where they’re going faster. But accidents happen—on the highway and in the oilfield – and it’s exactly why we have traffic laws and environmental standards.  Because many people, and companies, won’t follow the rules unless someone makes them.

This should be a wakeup call about the real risks associated with oil and gas operations. These risks cannot be reduced to zero, but regulation is the only assurance that the American public has that they are protected when something goes wrong.

Of course, not all drivers run red lights, and not all companies are as reckless and destructive as what we see in this instance. Many are mindful of the environmental risks of constructing and operating well sites and pipelines.  Regulations that require more rigorous oversight and environmental enforcement reward the companies that are already doing the right thing, and they hold the bad actors accountable for their mess.

The way ETP handled the situation in Ohio is regretful and it’s a clear indicator for why we cannot allow oil and gas companies to operate with flagrant disregard for our health and our environment.   Strong state and federal regulations and vigilant enforcement of such regulations are our best assurance that disasters like this don’t happen again.

Image source: Ohio EPA

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the same company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, just spilled millions of gallons of drilling sludge into an Ohio wetland – but don’t worry, they say everything is “safe.” Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency called the company’s response “dismissive,” and “exceptionally disappointing,” and he’s right. Fortunately, […]

The post Ohio pipeline spill underscores the need for strong regulation and oversight appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Andrew Williams

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the same company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, just spilled millions of gallons of drilling sludge into an Ohio wetland – but don’t worry, they say everything is “safe.”

Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency called the company’s response “dismissive,” and “exceptionally disappointing,” and he’s right.

Fortunately, federal and state regulators have stepped up to hold ETP accountable.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered ETP to halt plans to continue with other pipeline drilling projects in the area and to double the number of environmental inspectors on its payroll.  And the Ohio EPA fined ETP $400,000 dollars for the damage caused by this spill, damage that OEPA says could be deadly and last for decades.

Still, ETP claims that they “do not believe that there will be any long-term impact to the environment.”  How do they figure that? It is clear that without regulators stepping in to manage the literal muck, the company would not have done the right thing.

Companies routinely argue that spilling is never their objective and thus regulations to prevent spills from happening are unnecessary. This is flawed logic. The objective of a driver speeding down the highway isn’t to get into an accident, it’s to get where they’re going faster. But accidents happen—on the highway and in the oilfield – and it’s exactly why we have traffic laws and environmental standards.  Because many people, and companies, won’t follow the rules unless someone makes them.

This should be a wakeup call about the real risks associated with oil and gas operations. These risks cannot be reduced to zero, but regulation is the only assurance that the American public has that they are protected when something goes wrong.

Of course, not all drivers run red lights, and not all companies are as reckless and destructive as what we see in this instance. Many are mindful of the environmental risks of constructing and operating well sites and pipelines.  Regulations that require more rigorous oversight and environmental enforcement reward the companies that are already doing the right thing, and they hold the bad actors accountable for their mess.

The way ETP handled the situation in Ohio is regretful and it’s a clear indicator for why we cannot allow oil and gas companies to operate with flagrant disregard for our health and our environment.   Strong state and federal regulations and vigilant enforcement of such regulations are our best assurance that disasters like this don’t happen again.

Image source: Ohio EPA

By Andrew Williams

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the same company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, just spilled millions of gallons of drilling sludge into an Ohio wetland – but don’t worry, they say everything is “safe.”

Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency called the company’s response “dismissive,” and “exceptionally disappointing,” and he’s right.

Fortunately, federal and state regulators have stepped up to hold ETP accountable.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered ETP to halt plans to continue with other pipeline drilling projects in the area and to double the number of environmental inspectors on its payroll.  And the Ohio EPA fined ETP $400,000 dollars for the damage caused by this spill, damage that OEPA says could be deadly and last for decades.

Still, ETP claims that they “do not believe that there will be any long-term impact to the environment.”  How do they figure that? It is clear that without regulators stepping in to manage the literal muck, the company would not have done the right thing.

Companies routinely argue that spilling is never their objective and thus regulations to prevent spills from happening are unnecessary. This is flawed logic. The objective of a driver speeding down the highway isn’t to get into an accident, it’s to get where they’re going faster. But accidents happen—on the highway and in the oilfield – and it’s exactly why we have traffic laws and environmental standards.  Because many people, and companies, won’t follow the rules unless someone makes them.

This should be a wakeup call about the real risks associated with oil and gas operations. These risks cannot be reduced to zero, but regulation is the only assurance that the American public has that they are protected when something goes wrong.

Of course, not all drivers run red lights, and not all companies are as reckless and destructive as what we see in this instance. Many are mindful of the environmental risks of constructing and operating well sites and pipelines.  Regulations that require more rigorous oversight and environmental enforcement reward the companies that are already doing the right thing, and they hold the bad actors accountable for their mess.

The way ETP handled the situation in Ohio is regretful and it’s a clear indicator for why we cannot allow oil and gas companies to operate with flagrant disregard for our health and our environment.   Strong state and federal regulations and vigilant enforcement of such regulations are our best assurance that disasters like this don’t happen again.

Image source: Ohio EPA

Yesterday, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced a massive reorganization of the agency. Among other changes, the Secretary plans to create a new Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation to oversee the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Previously, NRCS reported to the Undersecretary […]

By Callie Eideberg

Yesterday, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced a massive reorganization of the agency. Among other changes, the Secretary plans to create a new Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation to oversee the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Previously, NRCS reported to the Undersecretary of Natural Resources and the Environment, and both RMA and FSA reported to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

On the surface, combining conservation and farm productivity programs makes sense, since sustainability is almost always good for a producer’s bottom line. Reducing duplication and bureaucracy between these agencies could streamline efforts to implement conservation practices while protecting farmers’ incomes. However, a lot remains to be seen and will depend on who fills the Undersecretary position.

No matter who fills that role, Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) funding and outreach should remain a top priority under the new organization. Here’s why.

CTA is the backbone of all voluntary conservation programs at @USDA_NRCS b/c it pays for expertise…
Click To Tweet

CTA is the foundation of NRCS

CTA is the backbone of all voluntary conservation programs at NRCS because it pays for the experts, the tools, and the resources needed to help farmers implement stewardship activities on their fields.

Farmers are smart and resourceful and could probably get a lot done on their own, but technical advice is always beneficial – much like you wouldn’t install new plumbing at your house without some expert help. Resources provided by NRCS include help in designing a nutrient management plan to save money on inputs, or creating a whole-farm conservation plan that addresses geographically specific concerns.

This expert technical assistance also provides the basis for implementation of the programs authorized by the Farm Bill, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which offers reimbursement to farmers for the cost of adopting conservation practices.

CTA makes good financial sense

Combining the financial assistance of these Farm Bill programs with the advice from NRCS technical experts provides a win-win for both farmers and landowners because it ensures that conservation practices are implemented effectively the first time around. Without this technical assistance and on-the-ground help, USDA’s financial assistance programs for private landowners lose value and efficiency. In other words, measure twice and cut once.

Congress has generally been supportive of CTA because they know the value it provides to farmers and the environment, and that it provides the most efficient bang for the taxpayer’s buck. That’s why it included a $7 million increase in CTA in this year’s recently passed Omnibus appropriations bill. However, not everyone understands CTA’s value and some are advocating that this account be eliminated.

Questions also remain given the new proposed reorganization of NRCS, as a lot will depend on the leadership of the new Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation. The best candidate would be someone committed to the long-term success of production agriculture, strong environmental outcomes, and programs that improve farm resiliency – especially CTA.

Ultimately, as long as conservation priorities do not take a back seat to farm production goals, both the environment and farmers can benefit.

Related:

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >>

How my passion for food and history led me to the Farm Bill >>

Why Sonny Perdue should prioritize these 3 farm programs >>

By Callie Eideberg

Yesterday, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced a massive reorganization of the agency. Among other changes, the Secretary plans to create a new Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation to oversee the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Previously, NRCS reported to the Undersecretary of Natural Resources and the Environment, and both RMA and FSA reported to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

On the surface, combining conservation and farm productivity programs makes sense, since sustainability is almost always good for a producer’s bottom line. Reducing duplication and bureaucracy between these agencies could streamline efforts to implement conservation practices while protecting farmers’ incomes. However, a lot remains to be seen and will depend on who fills the Undersecretary position.

No matter who fills that role, Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) funding and outreach should remain a top priority under the new organization. Here’s why.

CTA is the backbone of all voluntary conservation programs at @USDA_NRCS b/c it pays for expertise…
Click To Tweet

CTA is the foundation of NRCS

CTA is the backbone of all voluntary conservation programs at NRCS because it pays for the experts, the tools, and the resources needed to help farmers implement stewardship activities on their fields.

Farmers are smart and resourceful and could probably get a lot done on their own, but technical advice is always beneficial – much like you wouldn’t install new plumbing at your house without some expert help. Resources provided by NRCS include help in designing a nutrient management plan to save money on inputs, or creating a whole-farm conservation plan that addresses geographically specific concerns.

This expert technical assistance also provides the basis for implementation of the programs authorized by the Farm Bill, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which offers reimbursement to farmers for the cost of adopting conservation practices.

CTA makes good financial sense

Combining the financial assistance of these Farm Bill programs with the advice from NRCS technical experts provides a win-win for both farmers and landowners because it ensures that conservation practices are implemented effectively the first time around. Without this technical assistance and on-the-ground help, USDA’s financial assistance programs for private landowners lose value and efficiency. In other words, measure twice and cut once.

Congress has generally been supportive of CTA because they know the value it provides to farmers and the environment, and that it provides the most efficient bang for the taxpayer’s buck. That’s why it included a $7 million increase in CTA in this year’s recently passed Omnibus appropriations bill. However, not everyone understands CTA’s value and some are advocating that this account be eliminated.

Questions also remain given the new proposed reorganization of NRCS, as a lot will depend on the leadership of the new Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation. The best candidate would be someone committed to the long-term success of production agriculture, strong environmental outcomes, and programs that improve farm resiliency – especially CTA.

Ultimately, as long as conservation priorities do not take a back seat to farm production goals, both the environment and farmers can benefit.

Related:

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >>

How my passion for food and history led me to the Farm Bill >>

Why Sonny Perdue should prioritize these 3 farm programs >>

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post was written by Keith Gaby for EDF Voices:

The Trump administration has already cancelled or sought to undermine 23 rules that protect our health and environment – including limits on toxic waste coal companies dump in rivers, and regulations promoting more fuel-efficient cars.

But the administration is hungry for more, so it’s asked companies, trade associations and lobbyists to suggest other rules they’d like the president to roll back.

Part of this wish-list process is being done in public and some, of course, is happening in private meetings. Rules from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has a whole “wish list” docket of its own, seem to be a particular target.

Here are five of the most brazen industry wishes submitted so far:

1. Coal tar: Trade association wants to end health studies

The Pavement Coatings and Technology Council – a trade association for the paving industry – doesn’t want research into the health dangers of the black top on which your children play foursquare.

It also doesn’t want the government to study the impact of coal tar on “freshwater sediment contamination, indoor air quality, ambient air quality, and effects on aquatic species.”

2. Leaky oil and gas drill sites: Trade groups don’t want to fix them

Trade associations representing the oil and gas industry, including The Independent Petroleum Association of America, have filed comments attacking Clean Air Act standards requiring energy producers to take cost-effective steps to reduce methane and other air pollution.

3. Roofing fumes: Companies want no restrictions

The National Roofing Contractors Association, a trade group representing roofing companies, doesn’t want smog-forming chemicals restricted, saying such regulations “have been burdensome to our members.”

4. Cancer-causing lubricants: Manufacturers say they should still be used

No, not that kind of lubricant. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association complained that the newly established chemical safety law may require its members to find replacement products for materials known to cause cancer in humans.

5. Toxic pesticide: Chemical manufacturer wants ban removed

Don’t try to pronounce chlorpyrifos, just know this pesticide hurts kids’ health. That’s what the EPA had concluded last year, and proposed banning it after years of research showing that it causes developmental problems in children and that there are alternatives.

That is, until Pruitt came along, and under pressure from the manufacturer, ignored his own scientists and rejected the proposed ban, saying it needs more study.

Why this wish list should be taken seriously:

The Trump administration seems to view all health and environmental safeguards as potentially suspicious. That’s in spite of strong data showing that environmental rules actually help the economy – by preventing illness, missed school days, worker absence, productivity problems and early death.

President Trump, who encountered these safeguards as impediments to building hotels faster and cheaper, promised to rid the government of 75 percent of rules that get in industry’s way.

With an EPA administrator more eager to please his boss than to protect Americans’ health, it’s now our job to fight back and protect our kids.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

Written by Dominique Browning

We just had proof that what we do works. When we stand up for clean air and for kids’ health, people listen. Politicians, too, will listen. They want your votes.

I cannot express how happy I am to tell you that an attempt to repeal a rule that protects our health from fracking pollution has failed in the Senate. It proves that clean air can still win. Even in this political climate, our right to clean air can be saved. For now.

This is the first vote that the Trump Administration has lost. He has not understood: No one voted to Make America Dirty Again. No one. The Trump agenda, led by EPA’s Scott Pruitt, to dial back protections from air pollution is not a popular agenda with anyone except the billionaire owners of polluting industries. That doesn’t mean they will give up, though.

Thank you for your tremendous support and for your resiliency. I hope this win emboldens you to keep pushing onward, knowing that together we can still achieve a better world for our children and grandchildren.

Though the deck was stacked against us, the final vote tallied 51-49, because three Republican senators went against their party line. Those senators — John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Susan Collins — deserve special praise, along with Democratic senators from: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Today we celebrate a victory for clean air and take a moment to appreciate our hard work. We need these moments to inspire us and rejuvenate us. It is well-deserved.

Talk about a disruptive technology. The “world’s leading software platform for digital assets,” blockchain may be little known, but it could revolutionise electricity markets. What is blockchain? Blockchain, in short, is a secure, decentralised, and highly efficient way to manage and keep track of infinite transactions. Rather than being stored on a central server, peer-to-peer […]

Leah Oberlin

We were deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Leah Oberlin, Director of Environmental Affairs at Port Houston, last week.

Over the past couple of years, Leah’s leadership helped strengthen EDF’s partnership with Port Houston on air quality and sustainability initiatives.

Just last summer, Leah championed the Port’s sponsorship of a successful EDF Climate Corps project that analyzed opportunities for on-site energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.

We will miss Leah’s energy and genuine commitment to environmental stewardship.

From everyone in the EDF Texas office, our thoughts and prayers are with Leah’s family, and with the greater Houston ports and transportation community – where she was considered an important colleague and friend by so many.

A memorial in Leah’s honor will be held this Saturday, May 13, at 1:00 p.m. at the Jasek Chapel of Geo H. Lewis & Sons, 1010 Bering Drive in Houston.

By Rabbi Gabriel Greenberg, Oscar J. Tolmas Rabbinic Chair, Congregation Beth Israel On a recent Monday morning, myself and some fellow New Orleans-area clergy had the privilege to explore some of the bayous, rivers, bays and barrier islands in the gulf coast area near Venice. Riding aboard a sturdy Lafitte skiff, piloted by the inimitable Richie Blink, we learned about local flora and fauna, activities of the very-present oil and gas companies, and what the different fishing vessels going past us ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast: Exploring Bayous, Rivers and Faith appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Rabbi Gabriel Greenberg, Oscar J. Tolmas Rabbinic Chair, Congregation Beth Israel On a recent Monday morning, myself and some fellow New Orleans-area clergy had the privilege to explore some of the bayous, rivers, bays and barrier islands in the gulf coast area near Venice. Riding aboard a sturdy Lafitte skiff, piloted by the inimitable Richie Blink, we learned about local flora and fauna, activities of the very-present oil and gas companies, and what the different fishing vessels going past us ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast: Exploring Bayous, Rivers and Faith appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Rabbi Gabriel Greenberg, Oscar J. Tolmas Rabbinic Chair, Congregation Beth Israel On a recent Monday morning, myself and some fellow New Orleans-area clergy had the privilege to explore some of the bayous, rivers, bays and barrier islands in the gulf coast area near Venice. Riding aboard a sturdy Lafitte skiff, piloted by the inimitable Richie Blink, we learned about local flora and fauna, activities of the very-present oil and gas companies, and what the different fishing vessels going past us ...

Read The Full Story

The post #OurCoast: Exploring Bayous, Rivers and Faith appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Senators stood up to pressure from the oil and gas industry and voted no on a repeal of a rule that limits methane emissions on federal lands. For that they deserve thanks. C3. Regional.

Senators stood up to pressure from the oil and gas industry and voted no on a repeal of a rule that limits methane emissions on federal lands. For that they deserve thanks. C3. Regional.

Senators stood up to pressure from the oil and gas industry and voted no on a repeal of a rule that limits methane emissions on federal lands. For that they deserve thanks. C3. Regional.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I blogged last week about the new-but-not-improved Senate Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), focusing on how it would reinstate some of the worst flaws of the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that were fixed in the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation, the Lautenberg Act, signed into law last June.

Here are a few additional things to note.  This bill is scheduled to be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

I noted in my last post that RAA is sweeping in scope, and would affect dozens of federal laws and protections in one fell swoop.  My colleague Martha Roberts has just put up a blog post that illustrates this incredibly broad reach by providing a few tangible examples of protections that would be at risk if RAA were to be enacted.

And talk about red tape:  I’m including below her updated graphic depicting the vast bureaucracy RAA would create that all federal agencies would be forced to navigate (click on the thumbnail to enlarge it).

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I blogged last week about the new-but-not-improved Senate Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), focusing on how it would reinstate some of the worst flaws of the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that were fixed in the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation, the Lautenberg Act, signed into law last June.

Here are a few additional things to note.  This bill is scheduled to be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

I noted in my last post that RAA is sweeping in scope, and would affect dozens of federal laws and protections in one fell swoop.  My colleague Martha Roberts has just put up a blog post that illustrates this incredibly broad reach by providing a few tangible examples of protections that would be at risk if RAA were to be enacted.

And talk about red tape:  I’m including below her updated graphic depicting the vast bureaucracy RAA would create that all federal agencies would be forced to navigate (click on the thumbnail to enlarge it).

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I blogged last week about the new-but-not-improved Senate Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), focusing on how it would reinstate some of the worst flaws of the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that were fixed in the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation, the Lautenberg Act, signed into law last June.

Here are a few additional things to note.  This bill is scheduled to be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

I noted in my last post that RAA is sweeping in scope, and would affect dozens of federal laws and protections in one fell swoop.  My colleague Martha Roberts has just put up a blog post that illustrates this incredibly broad reach by providing a few tangible examples of protections that would be at risk if RAA were to be enacted.

And talk about red tape:  I’m including below her updated graphic depicting the vast bureaucracy RAA would create that all federal agencies would be forced to navigate (click on the thumbnail to enlarge it).