EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 7/31/23
PIPELINE NEWS
New York Times: A Left-Right Alliance Puts Iowa’s CO2 Pipelines on the Presidential Agenda
Des Moines Register: Presidential candidate Doug Burgum defends eminent domain to build carbon capture pipelines
Des Moines Register: What to know about a battle for Summit to release more information on its carbon pipeline
Red River Farm Network: Carbon Pipeline Turmoil
E&E News: Supreme Court pipeline order leaves legal questions unanswered
E&E News: Federal appeals court questions Manchin’s Mountain Valley Pipeline approval
Mountain State Spotlight: What Thursday’s Supreme Court order means for the future of the Mountain Valley Pipeline — and for West Virginia
Canadian Press: Enbridge, Bad River Indigenous band both appealing Line 5 court ruling in Wisconsin
WBUR: Mass. rejects Eversource's environmental review of new gas pipeline project in Springfield
Reuters: TC Energy shares sink on plans to spin off oil pipeline business
Reuters: TC Energy begins re-pressurizing unaffected pipeline section in Virginia
Carbon Herald: Republicans Release Draft Pipeline Expansion Policy With Carbon Capture Included
Western Standard: Feds need to 'subsidize' its Trans Mountain pipeline to make it profitable
CBC: B.C. communities seek compensation for road wear caused by Trans Mountain pipeline expansion
KRWG: Meetings on proposed hydrogen pipeline taking place on Navajo Nation
WASHINGTON UPDATES
Reuters: Lawmakers seek to limit corporate and foreign ownership of US farmland
E&E News: NEPA ‘Phase 2’ revamp aims to reverse Trump, boost renewables
Press release: White House NEPA Rule is an Encouraging Step Toward a Just Clean Energy Future
STATE UPDATES
Colorado Newsline: Oil-train opponents look to railroad’s expiring Moffat Tunnel lease for bargaining power
EXTRACTION
Sky News: Is carbon capture and storage a fossil fuel industry fig leaf or vital for net zero plans?
BBC: Rishi Sunak confirms carbon capture plans in Scotland
Guardian: Rishi Sunak says approving new licences for oil and gas drilling ‘entirely consistent’ with net zero plan
DeSmog: Expert Panel Warns Journalists of Coordinated Climate Disinformation Campaigns
CLIMATE FINANCE
E&E News: Anti-ESG bills clear House Financial Services Committee
The Economist: The demonisation of BlackRock’s Larry Fink
OPINION
Cedar Rapids Gazette: Neighbors will continue to oppose carbon pipeline project
Salt Lake Tribune: Editorial: Carbon capture is worth a look, but let’s get those free buses rolling
MassLive.com: Eversource’s gas pipeline faces steep list of new questions (Editorial)
WV Gazette Mail: Hoppy Kercheval: Pipeline moves ahead again, as it should (Opinion)
Carolina Journal: Gas pipeline will help North Carolinians
The Hill Times: World needs Canadian LNG to reduce global emissions and for long-term energy security: Enbridge
Jacobin Magazine: Don’t Blow Up a Pipeline
PIPELINE NEWS
New York Times: A Left-Right Alliance Puts Iowa’s CO2 Pipelines on the Presidential Agenda
Jonathan Weisman, 7/30/23
“Emma Schmidt, a lifelong environmental activist in Rockwell City, Iowa, had long searched for potent allies in her fight against a massive carbon dioxide pipeline planned for her state,” the New York Times reports. “But she never expected to find herself at former Representative Steve King’s house, making her case as she stared up at a pistol in the paw of a taxidermied raccoon in his home office. That meeting in June between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican who lost his seat in Congress in 2020 after incendiary racist comments was the beginning of a left-right alliance that is trying to push the debate of the pipeline to the forefront of the heated G.O.P. presidential caucuses. “We’re putting in a whole lot of money into pipelines that are not necessary, that bulldoze their way through some of the richest farmlands in the world, to sequester CO2,” said an incredulous Mr. King on Tuesday… “But the pipelines capture a national debate with local consequences, and they will give candidates a chance to showcase their understanding of Iowa, the first state to weigh in on the Republican nominating fight — if they can navigate the issue… “Earlier this month, an Iowa woman seemed to stump the front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, when she asked how he would “help us in Iowa save our farmland from the CO2 pipelines.” Mr. Trump stammered that he was “working on that” and that he “had a plan to totally, uh, it’s such a ridiculous situation,” before reassuring the crowd, “if we win, that’s going to be taken care of.” “...But opposing the pipeline also means opposing Iowa’s all-important ethanol industry… “Presidential candidates have tried to skirt the issue; most campaigns declined to comment, including Mr. Trump’s. But campaign aides said this week that they knew a time for choosing was coming… “Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is expecting questions later this week in a swing through the state, according to people familiar with the campaign. The left-right alliance is giving voice to Iowa landowners infuriated by the prospect that their land could be seized by eminent domain for the pipelines. Tim Baughman, who farms 330 acres with his sister in Crawford County, Iowa, brought his anti-pipeline sign to a Vivek Ramaswamy event in Dennison, eliciting a promise from the Republican entrepreneur to oppose the projects. “I’m fighting this to the end,” vowed Dan Wahl, who grows corn, soybeans and alfalfa on 160 acres near Spirit Lake, Iowa, and recently chased Summit surveyors off his land… “Critics say Mr. Trump has every reason to oppose the pipeline now. He has called climate change a “hoax” devised by China, so the pipelines are billed as a solution to a problem he does not recognize. Even better, he could use his stated opposition to continue a feud with Ms. Reynolds, whom he has blasted for refusing to endorse him, Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska Democrat and anti-pipeline activist who has been pressing Mr. Trump to get involved, told the Times. “There’s no downside for him,” she told the Times.
Des Moines Register: Presidential candidate Doug Burgum defends eminent domain to build carbon capture pipelines
Donnelle Eller, 7/30/23
“North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum said Sunday he wants to see carbon capture pipeline projects succeed to boost the value of Midwest corn and soybeans — and help revitalize struggling rural towns,” the Des Moines Register reports. “The whole point of CO2” capture pipelines “is that it's going to raise the value of corn for every farmer in America,” the Republican presidential candidate said in Newton. It’s a hot-button issue in Iowa, where three companies have proposed building pipelines that will be used to capture carbon dioxide at ethanol and other industrial ag plants, liquefy it under pressure, and transport it to other states, where it will be sequestered deep underground… “Critics say the companies are trying to cash in on lucrative federal tax credits for sequestration and low-carbon fuel. “People ask 'what's the beneficial good?' The beneficial bit is that there are customers willing to pay for things like sustainable aviation fuel, and this is going to raise the income for every farmer in the Midwest,” said Burgum, who along with his wife, Kathryn, had lunch with about a dozen Jasper County Republicans… “Burgum said eminent domain is necessary to get big projects built. “We wouldn't have an interstate highway system. We wouldn't have the transcontinental railroads. We wouldn't have just about anything in this country. “It’s very difficult to get 100% of people to agree,” he said. “The important thing is that they have an opportunity in that process to be heard and be fairly compensated.” Burgum added that Summit has made hundreds of changes to its route in North Dakota. “If people don't want to get a big check from a pipeline company, they have an opportunity to let their neighbor get the big check,” he said.
Des Moines Register: What to know about a battle for Summit to release more information on its carbon pipeline
Donnelle Eller, 7/31/23
“Usually at loggerheads, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Sierra Club's Iowa Chapter find themselves on the same side of an issue,” the Des Moines Register reports. “The groups are pushing Summit Carbon Solutions to release financial agreements with ethanol companies that are part of the Ames company’s $5.5 billion carbon capture pipeline. They say the financial information is key to determining whether Summit should build a pipeline — and possibly win eminent domain powers that would enable the company to force unwilling landowners to sell it access… “In separate filings, Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club say Summit provided them with about a dozen ethanol agreements, but most of the information was redacted, even though the groups' attorneys have agreed to keep it confidential. Summit said in response Thursday that the agreements “contain proprietary, trade-secret information” that’s irrelevant to its request with the Iowa Utilities Board to build the pipeline… “Summit claims its project benefits Iowa’s ethanol industry, allegedly enhancing the ethanol industry’s long-term environmental and economic sustainability,” the Sierra Club wrote. “It is clear, therefore, that the economic and financial aspects of Summit’s relationship with the ethanol plants is highly relevant to the Summit project.” Iowa Farm Bureau said the information is needed “to determine the economic benefit of the project and to determine Summit’s ability to pay damages … resulting from the construction and operation of a hazardous liquid pipeline.” “...And Summit said the Sierra Club is collaborating with Omaha attorney Brian Jorde, who represents about 140 landowners in Iowa who oppose the project. “Mr. Jorde has taken on the role of anti-pipeline warrior, creating entities that share information and fight the proposed pipeline on multiple fronts throughout the footprint,” Summit wrote… “On Friday, Jorde called Summit's criticism a diversion. "They don't want these contracts released because they know ... their entire project would suffer a significant blow" if the public had a greater understanding of the project's economics, he told the Register. "They want to take everyone's eyes off the real problem," Jorde told the Register, that "they are asking for incredibly significant property rights over all of my clients'" and hundreds of other landowners' land… “The Sierra Club wants Summit to provide plume dispersion modeling to show how far away the pipeline should be routed to protect people and animals from “adverse impacts, in the event of a leak or rupture in the pipe.” “Summit has boasted throughout its filings in the IUB that its pipeline will be safe,” wrote Wally Taylor, the Sierra Club’s Iowa attorney. Yet it has refused to “divulge any evidence supporting those claims.” “Summit can’t have it both ways,” the group said, adding that the information is critical to Iowans who could be impacted from a leak as well as the counties that must prepare for an emergency response.”
Red River Farm Network: Carbon Pipeline Turmoil
7/28/23
“Hearings on the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline took place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota,” Red River Farm Network reports. “South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke said the pipeline infringes on landowner’s rights. “We’re working with the landowner groups that have their own attorney to educate the public. We’ve also hired a campaign group to work with us and educate the public.”
E&E News: Supreme Court pipeline order leaves legal questions unanswered
Niina H. Farah, 7/28/23
“The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for construction to resume on the controversial Mountain Valley pipeline — the same day a lower bench weighed thornier legal questions about Congress' power to authorize the project's completion,” E&E News reports. “Chief Justice John Roberts' short order granting an emergency application from the natural gas pipeline developer undid construction freezes put in place by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the high court opted not to weigh in — at least not yet — on a broader dispute over whether a political compromise in the debt ceiling deal greenlighting the pipeline was constitutional. Those questions are still pending before the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments Thursday on the matter. The Supreme Court's decision allows developers to resume work across a 3.5-mile section of the Jefferson National Forest, as well as other incomplete portions of the project. Developers are aiming to finish Mountain Valley by the end of 2023, after years of delays from litigation that pushed project costs up to about $6.6 billion.”
E&E News: Federal appeals court questions Manchin’s Mountain Valley Pipeline approval
Ben Lefebvre, 7/27/23
“A federal appeals court appeared to cast doubt on Congress' power to approve the contentious Mountain Valley Pipeline in the debt ceiling legislation on Thursday, potentially imperiling Sen. Joe Manchin's effort to green light the natural gas project that has emerged as an environmental controversy for the Biden administration,” E&E News reports. “The questioning at the hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit showed the three-judge panel's discomfort with Manchin’s use of the June debt ceiling law to bypass executive branch review for the infrastructure project in his home state of West Virginia, as well as the court’s own power to hear challenges. Manchin’s determination to push the construction of the relatively small pipeline — which would would run just over 300 miles in total — has created what critics have called a question of constitutional law, a new twist for the fossil fuel project that has become a symbol for environmentalists that were angered by President Joe Biden's endorsement of the legislation as a betrayal of his climate change policies. The pipeline also briefly became an issue for the Supreme Court, which also on Thursday blocked the 4th Circuit's earlier order to halt construction.”
Mountain State Spotlight: What Thursday’s Supreme Court order means for the future of the Mountain Valley Pipeline — and for West Virginia
Sarah Elbeshbishi, 7/30/23
“Lawyers were nearly half-way through their arguments in a federal courthouse Thursday in Richmond, Va. when one of the presiding judges informed the court that the Supreme Court had issued an order allowing construction to resume on the Mountain Valley Pipeline,” Mountain State Spotlight reports. “...But the Supreme Court didn’t weigh in on the pending cases, leaving the 4th Circuit to decide whether to move forward with the lawsuits… “Those lawsuits, all filed by environmental groups, argue the pipeline’s plan doesn’t follow federal environmental law. One challenge stems from the U.S. Forest Service’s move in May to amend its land management plan: as proposed, the project violated several standards of the national forest’s original plan. Attorneys for the Wilderness Society petitioned the 4th Circuit Court to review the amended Land and Resource Management Plan, arguing that it violates several environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. The lawsuit also argued that the permit granted to the pipeline by the Bureau of Land Management violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The other pending lawsuit, filed by a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Appalachian Voices, challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2023 report that concluded endangered species wouldn’t be jeopardized by the pipeline… “While the pipeline says the 4th Circuit Court no longer has authority, the environmental groups disagree. As the news of the Supreme Court decision allowing pipeline construction to resume came down on Thursday, it was right as Kym Meyer of the Southern Environmental Law Center was arguing that Congress didn’t have the constitutional authority to reassign authority over the pipeline. “You can’t use jurisdiction stripping, as Congress has intended to here, as a means to an end,” she said. Instead, the groups are arguing that Congress overstepped and violated the separation of powers doctrine, which is meant to prevent a governmental branch from having too much authority. Now, the court has to determine whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority and if it even has jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the pipeline provision enacted by Congress.”
Canadian Press: Enbridge, Bad River Indigenous band both appealing Line 5 court ruling in Wisconsin
James McCarten, 7/28/23
“The two sides in an enduring dispute over the cross-border Line 5 pipeline in Wisconsin are girding for battle again, this time in the U.S. Court of Appeals,” the Canadian Press reports. “The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa filed a notice of appeal Friday indicating they are unsatisfied with last month's lower court decision that put a three-year deadline on relocating the line. Calgary-based owner and operator Enbridge Inc. has already filed its notice with the court, unhappy with district court Judge William Conley's conclusion that they've been trespassing on band territory since 2013. The latest filing offers little insight into Bad River's case. Earlier court documents indicated the band was in the process of deciding whether to challenge "various aspects of the district court's decision." But lawyers for the band made no secret last month of their disappointment with both the three-year timeline and the financial penalties imposed on Enbridge. Conley allowed the pipeline to keep running for now, but ordered the company to cease operations on Bad River territory by June 16, 2026, and to share its profits with the band, starting with a US$5.1-million back payment… “The band's lawyers have said three years is too long to wait, given the risk of a spill in a key Lake Superior watershed, and the financial award too small to prevent companies from exploiting Indigenous bands in the future. Enbridge, meanwhile, plans to argue at appeal that its 1992 contract with the band constituted consent for Line 5 to operate on the reserve through 2043. Environmental groups call the 70-year-old pipeline a "ticking time bomb" with a dubious safety record, despite Enbridge's claims to the contrary.”
WBUR: Mass. rejects Eversource's environmental review of new gas pipeline project in Springfield
Miriam Wasser, 7/28/23
“It’s back to the drawing board for the utility Eversource, as Massachusetts’ top environmental official this week rejected the company’s rationale for building a new gas pipeline in Springfield,” WBUR reports. “In her decision, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper said that the company's environmental impact report must include a deeper analysis about how the project would affect the state’s climate goals and impact local communities. Specifically, she said, the company must study the viability of non-fossil fuel alternatives and host at least one public meeting in Springfield to "meaningfully" engage with local residents, many of whom live in state-designated “environmental justice communities” and are concerned about the health and safety risks they say the project poses. “This decision means that Eversource has to take more time to actually engage with the community, and really consider all of the impacts and the alternatives to this project,” Naia Tenerowicz, a Springfield resident and member of the Springfield Climate Justice Coalition, told WBUR. “This is not an end to our fight, but it is a very good sign that the administration is actually taking our environmental justice regulations and laws seriously, that they are listening to the community.” In a statement, Eversource spokeswoman Pricilla Ress said that the company is reviewing Sec. Tepper’s decision and “will respond accordingly.” Ress declined to say whether this represents a significant setback for the project, saying only that it will delay the approval process “by a few months.”
Reuters: TC Energy shares sink on plans to spin off oil pipeline business
Rod Nickel and Arshreet Singh, 7/28/23
“Shares of TC Energy fell nearly 5% on Friday after the Keystone pipeline operator said it would spin off its liquids business to focus on transporting natural gas,” Reuters reports. “The spinoff, combined with TC's announcement on Monday that it will sell a 40% stake in its Columbia Gas Transmission and Columbia Gulf Transmission pipelines, will help TC reduce its high debt levels. But TD Securities downgraded TC to "hold" from "buy", saying it was skeptical the spinoff would create value. "We see execution risk introducing uncertainty and potentially distracting (TC) from its existing strategic priorities," TD analyst Linda Ezergailis said in a note. Shares in Toronto plunged 4.4% to C$45.21, touching a seven-year low. "There's blood in the water, the stock has already been going down on the back of the Columbia transaction, so I think there's some (selling) piling on," Ryan Bushell, president of Newhaven Asset Management, a TC shareholder, told Reuters… “TC's Keystone pipeline in December spilled more than 14,000 barrels of oil in Kansas. The liquids business spans over 3,000 miles of infrastructure, which transports Canadian crude to U.S. refineries. Morningstar analyst Stephen Ellis told Reuters that the 2021 cancellation of TC's proposed Keystone expansion, following U.S. President Joe Biden revoking a key permit, may have played a role in the company deciding to spin off its oil business.”
Reuters: TC Energy begins re-pressurizing unaffected pipeline section in Virginia
7/30/23
“Canada's TC Energy began re-pressurizing part of its Columbia Gas Transmission Pipeline in Strasburg, Virginia that was not directly impacted by an unplanned incident last week, the company said late on Friday,” Reuters reports. “On July 25, TC Energy declared a force majeure and isolated a section of its 'Line VB' pipeline in Virginia after detecting a pressure drop caused by an unforeseen incident. The pipeline system will now operate with added risk mitigation measures, including reduced operating pressures, the company said adding that the impacted pipeline segment will remain shut until it is safe to restart it. TC Energy does not have a timeline for the repair and return of the impacted section of the pipe, which has been removed and will be transported for analysis at a third-party lab, the company posted on its website.”
Carbon Herald: Republicans Release Draft Pipeline Expansion Policy With Carbon Capture Included
Vasil Velev, 7/29/23
“Earlier this week, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled a draft legislation that aims to enable the streamlining of permits for natural gas, oil and carbon capture pipeline networks and the energy projects and infrastructure they are connected to,” the Carbon Herald reports. “The Pipeline Safety, Modernization, and Expansion Act of 2023 — authored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. — has four priorities: expanding pipeline infrastructure, lowering prices, reducing emissions and strengthening pipeline safety… “The bill will require the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to finalize safety standards for carbon dioxide transportation pipeline facilities no later than one year from the date of enactment. It also clarifies the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to identify areas suitable for underground sequestration of carbon dioxide. Underground CO2 sequestration is subject to Class VI well permits which are predominantly reviewed by the EPA. This has been described as a bottleneck for the deployment of carbon capture, as a low number of permits have been granted outside of states like Wyoming and North Dakota, which have primacy over them.”
Western Standard: Feds need to 'subsidize' its Trans Mountain pipeline to make it profitable
Shaun Polczer, 7/28/23
“Trans Mountain used to have environmentalists protesting its construction. Now oil companies are protesting too, this time over the high tolls it needs to charge to recover spiralling construction costs,” the Western Standard reports. “Despite vowing to eliminate oil and gas 'subsidies' the federal government might be forced to write off more than $17 billion of the Trans Mountain pipeline’s debt or risk turning it into a stranded asset even before it comes into service next year. That’s because Trans Mountain’s proposed tolls barely cover half of its $31 billion price tag, four times the $7.4 billion it was expected to cost before the federal government took it over in 2018… “On June 1, the government-owned company applied to the Canadian Energy Regulator to set tolls of about $11 to ship a barrel of crude from Hardisty, near Edmonton to the marine terminal at Burnaby. It was immediately opposed by shippers with LNG-term contracts — Imperial, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, ConocoPhillips and Cenovus have all applied as intervenors — that backstopped the project to begin with. By contrast, shippers on Enbridge’s mainline from Hardisty to Chicago pay a combined international toll that amounts to about $5. The higher toll structure means it could be cheaper to ship oil to China through the Gulf Coast through the Panama Canal. Among the original Trans Mountain contractors, producers are on the hook for 20% to 30% of the cost overrun, or nearly $9.1 billion from $1.8 billion in 2017. That still leaves about $17 billion the federal government is going to have to eat or pass onto taxpayers. If they were to pass on the full amount, Trans Mountain would have to charge a minimum of $22 to recover its unfounded liability. At that rate, it would be cheaper for producers to break their contracts and keep the oil in the ground... “With only 85% of the line actually in the ground, there’s still plenty of time for more to go wrong.”
CBC: B.C. communities seek compensation for road wear caused by Trans Mountain pipeline expansion
Winston Szeto, 7/30/23
“Leaders from three B.C. communities situated along the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX) are preparing to seek compensation from the federal government for wear and tear on their roads caused by the project, expected to be completed this year,” CBC reports. “Valemount Mayor Owen Torgerson, along with Clearwater Mayor Merlin Blackwell and Simpcw First Nation Chief George Lampreau, told CBC News that they are in the early stages of determining how much money they will request from Trans Mountain, a federal Crown corporation, to address the wear and tear on roads in their communities resulting from the passage of construction trucks. "We're currently compiling what those numbers might look like," Torgerson told guest host Doug Herbert on CBC's Daybreak Kamloops. "We will be submitting them an invoice, and if it is not paid, we'll be forwarding that to our member of Parliament, who can forward it right to the prime minister." “...The corporation says on its website that it has been working with First Nations and communities along the construction route to minimize disruptions caused by the project, such as noise, light pollution, dust and truck traffic. However, it doesn't reference damage to the roads from commercial vehicles using the project.”
KRWG: Meetings on proposed hydrogen pipeline taking place on Navajo Nation
Anthony Moreno, 7/28/23
“In recent months, conversations have happened on the Navajo Nation regarding plans for developing a hydrogen pipeline that could be one of the largest in the country,” KRWG reports. “Jerry Redfern, a New Mexico oil and gas reporter has been covering the issue for Capital and Main. He recently talked Anthony Moreno to share more. Anthony Moreno: Jerry, thanks for joining us. Your reporting says that one of the largest pipeline operators has traveled throughout the Navajo Nation detailing plans for what could be one of the country’s largest hydrogen pipelines. Can you tell us more about what's happening here? Jerry Redfern: Yeah, actually, you know, the funny thing is, it's not overly detailed. It's not entirely clear what the whole proposal is yet. They've been going from Chapter house to chapter house across the Navajo Nation. And chapter houses are like a form of village government, like a village council. They've been going from Chapter house to chapter house across the Navajo Nation, where this pipeline would run, telling people that they're planning on doing this. But they haven't been overly clear on the endpoints, or you know how this is going to affect people in place, this is apparently to this point mostly been, as they say, informational work to tell people that this is coming. An interesting thing to note is that the route that they're showing and the route that the company itself Tallgrass has talked about follows along a pipeline already owned by the Navajo Nation, and that's a natural gas pipeline. Anthony Moreno: Your reporting also says that Tallgrass Energy has plans to reopen the Escalante coal-fired power plant in New Mexico to convert it to run on hydrogen. What do we know about this? Jerry Redfern: That the general idea is to take this shuttered power plant that shut down a few years ago and re-jet it, so that it's burning hydrogen and that's about the sum of it. The main goal I think, or one of the main goals I think, is that they're going to make hydrogen from natural gas… “Jerry Redfern: Yeah. So, Jessica Keetso works with a group called Sacred Water Speaks… “The problem with hydrogen production comes on the production side of it, and that's what she's been going across the Navajo Nation and talking to people about saying, essentially, yeah, you can like hydrogen if you want, but you have to ask where it's coming from and if it's coming from natural gas, we have all of the traditional problems that we've had with natural gas production in this area, that's still going to happen, and if it's coming from water well, remember this whole region of the country is a desert and we don't have enough water as it is.”
WASHINGTON UPDATES
Reuters: Lawmakers seek to limit corporate and foreign ownership of US farmland
Leah Douglas, 7/27/23
“U.S. lawmakers from both parties are pushing legislation that would limit who can own American farmland, with a latest effort from Democratic Senator Cory Booker aimed at curbing corporate ownership,” Reuters reports. “Farm groups and lawmakers are concerned that land buys by investors and foreign countries are driving up farmland prices and threatening national security. Booker's Farmland for Farmers Act, introduced on Thursday, would ban most corporations, pension funds and investment funds from buying or leasing farmland. "We must protect farmland from becoming an investment strategy for huge corporations," Booker said in a statement… “Several U.S. senators, including Iowa Republican Joni Ernst and Montana Democrat Jon Tester, have introduced bills in recent months to limit foreign ownership of farmland, citing concerns that adversaries might buy U.S. land to gain influence. The Senate on Tuesday passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would boost federal review of foreign farmland purchases and limit some by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea… “Jordan Treakle, national program coordinator for the National Family Farm Coalition, told Reuters corporate ownership is the more pressing concern for rural communities because of its impact on land prices. "Most farmers cannot outbid a multinational corporation," he told Reuters.
E&E News: NEPA ‘Phase 2’ revamp aims to reverse Trump, boost renewables
Robin Bravender, 7/28/23
“The Biden administration unveiled a highly anticipated proposal Friday aimed at speeding up federal reviews of renewable energy projects and unraveling Trump-era changes to the nation’s bedrock environmental law,” E&E News reports. “The draft rule released by the White House Council on Environmental Quality would hasten the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, for efforts such as wildfire management, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and offshore wind, the administration announced. It would also encourage agencies to limit projects’ impacts on climate change and on communities already burdened by pollution. And the draft rule would remove Trump-era requirements about how the public can comment on projects. The suite of changes in Friday’s proposal marks the Biden administration’s latest effort to ease the permitting process for major renewable energy projects that are central to the administration’s climate agenda. “This rule is a key element of President Biden’s permitting reform agenda that will help us speed the build-out of our clean energy future while reducing pollution and harms in communities that have been left out and left behind for far too long,” Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told E&E. The draft rule also includes changes required by a bipartisan deal to raise the federal debt limit this spring, such as page limits and deadlines for environmental reviews… “Senate Republicans were quick to denounce the proposal. “Once again, the Biden admin is attempting to layer on more requirements to achieve their own misguided policy priorities that create confusion in an already complicated regulatory process,” the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter… “Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, welcomed the mandatory considerations of climate and impacts on communities burdened by pollution, although he criticized the changes required by the debt deal, which he told E&E “weakened” the NEPA process.
Press release: White House NEPA Rule is an Encouraging Step Toward a Just Clean Energy Future
7/28/23
“Today, the Biden administration’s White House Council on Environmental Quality released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Bipartisan Permitting Reform Implementation Rule, to update rules that guide federal decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This rulemaking is part of a longer process, which was initiated with Phase 1 last spring. It aims to undo Trump-era attacks on the bedrock environmental protection and restore certainty, efficiency, and transparency to the environmental review process by ensuring reviews fully and accurately consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed projects and that affected communities are consulted as early as possible. In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous released the following statement: “As we approach the one year anniversary of passage of the biggest investment in climate action in history amid a deadly global heat wave, the task before us is to rapidly accelerate the buildout of clean energy without doing further harm to communities that have disproportionately borne the brunt of fossil fuel pollution and climate chaos. Those who wish to weaken our environmental protections on behalf of corporate polluters present a false choice between environmental justice and meeting our energy needs. The truth is through this commonsense reform, we can bring abundant clean energy resources online without sacrificing communities or rubber stamping more fossil fuels. We are encouraged that the Biden administration has taken this step toward ensuring certainty and transparency in the NEPA process and we urge them to act quickly to finalize the strongest rule possible to build a just clean energy future.”
STATE UPDATES
Colorado Newsline: Oil-train opponents look to railroad’s expiring Moffat Tunnel lease for bargaining power
DAVID O. WILLIAMS, 7/28/23
“State officials since last spring have quietly been reaching out to communities along Colorado’s main east-west rail line to gauge local sentiment as the state negotiates a new lease with rail giant Union Pacific, which pays $12,000 a year to send trains through the state-owned Moffat Tunnel,” Colorado Newsline reports. “Union Pacific’s 99-year lease to use the 6.2-mile Moffat Tunnel expires Jan. 6, 2025, and Kate McIntire, a regional manager for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, has been tasked with “developing our list of concerns, potential opportunities, roles, responsibilities, and ways stakeholders would like to ensure they’re involved in the negotiation.” “...Asked to characterize some of the comments she’s hearing on an oil train project that’s already been approved by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board and on the high end would more than quintuple the amount of freight rail traffic on Colorado’s Western Slope, McIntire offered this: “I’ll just kind of draw back on the fact that we’re really early in a complex process with legal considerations, roles, responsibilities, and potential opportunities that may or may not be tied to the lease,” McIntire told Newsline. “But we’re definitely aware of those concerns, and we’ll continue to do everything we can to ensure stakeholders are engaged.” The city of Denver estimates the Uinta Basin project will quadruple the amount of hazardous materials transported by rail through the metro area as up to five two-mile-long oil trains a day chug east through the Moffat Tunnel at the base of the city-owned Winter Park Resort ski area and then make their way down through Denver and toward Gulf Coast refineries. Eagle County, where the Central Corridor rail line separates from Interstate 70 at Dotsero and follows the Colorado River through remote canyons northeast into Grand County, is suing the Surface Transportation Board to overturn or at least more comprehensively consider the down-the-line impacts of Uinta Basin trains from inevitable derailments, spills, wildfires and climate change. Environmental groups have also filed suit, and Eagle County has the support of Glenwood Springs, Minturn, Avon, Red Cliff, Vail, Routt, Boulder, Chaffee, Lake and Pitkin counties.” “Still conspicuously absent in these efforts is the state of Colorado,” Eagle County Attorney Bryan Treu wrote in an email. “Anything the state can do to get off the sidelines and participate would be appreciated. We would encourage the state to use all tools at its disposal, including any Moffat Tunnel lease negotiations, to protect every Colorado community along the rail corridor that will be forced to face very real risks of derailment, spills, water contamination and fires.”
EXTRACTION
Sky News: Is carbon capture and storage a fossil fuel industry fig leaf or vital for net zero plans?
Thomas Moore, 7/31/23
“Depending on who you talk to, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is either a fig leaf for the oil and gas industry or a vital part of the shift to net zero,” Sky News reports. “The PM has announced millions of pounds for the Acorn carbon capture project today - a joint venture between Shell and other firms… “In essence, carbon capture technology is about removing carbon dioxide from industrial processes and smoke stacks, and pumping it into depleted oil and gas fields a mile or so below the seabed… “CCS hasn't been done at scale before and it will be expensive at first. But Norway and some other countries are also racing to start up schemes to meet their climate obligations… “But green groups warn that could sustain the production of fossil fuels into the long term. They want oil and gas left in the ground as soon as possible - and say CCS is a distraction from reducing carbon across the economy.”
BBC: Rishi Sunak confirms carbon capture plans in Scotland
7/31/23
“The prime minister has announced millions of pounds of funding for a carbon capture project ahead of a visit to the north east of Scotland,” the BBC reports. “Rishi Sunak emphasised the role the region will play in the UK's wider energy security plans as he confirmed 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences… “But opponents say the Conservatives are "doubling down" on fossil fuels. Mr Sunak confirmed funding for the Acorn Project in St Fergus, Aberdeenshire, on the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme. And he said the announcement meant the UK now had four clusters across that would help it transition to net zero in a new industry and strengthen energy security.”
Guardian: Rishi Sunak says approving new licences for oil and gas drilling ‘entirely consistent’ with net zero plan
Nicola Slawson, 7/31/23
“Speaking to broadcasters on a visit to Aberdeenshire, the prime minister said approving new licences for drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea is “entirely consistent with our plan to get to net zero,” the Guardian reports. “Rishi Sunak said domestic oil and gas saves “two, three, four times the amount of carbon emissions” than “shipping it from halfway around the world”. Questioned on whether the Rosebank oil and gas field in the North Sea would be approved, he said: “Licensing decisions are obviously made the normal way but what I’d say is that – entirely consistent with transitioning to net zero – that we use the energy that we’ve got here at home because we’re going to need it for decades.”
DeSmog: Expert Panel Warns Journalists of Coordinated Climate Disinformation Campaigns
Gaye Taylor, 7/26/23
“As reporters confront sophisticated tactics aimed at obscuring the reality of climate change, knowledge is their ultimate weapon against deception, say media experts, who exposed the greenwashing influence of PR teams and emphasized the benefits of local reporting at a recent online briefing about fighting disinformation,” DeSmog reports. “There is an “absolutely critical difference” between climate misinformation and climate disinformation, said panelist Jennie King, head of climate research and policy at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and co-founder of Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD), the organization co-hosting the event with the Covering Climate Now (CCNow) news collaborative. “When we talk about misinformation, that is generally the accidental sharing of false information, probably something that we’ve all done at one point in time,” King explained. “What that means is that there’s no intention to harm but the negative consequences can be just as powerful.” Public inputs during the COVID-19 pandemic are an example, she said. But climate disinformation “refers to content that has been deliberately created to deceive people or give them an inaccurate understanding of an issue.” “...Complicating the commonly-held assumption that climate disinformation is “always ideological, that people are spreading falsehoods in order to push a political agenda or enact a worldview,” King said a great deal of climate disinformation is beholden to only one principle: the maintenance of a profitable status quo. Reporters must recognize that “the time horizon of PR strategists is much longer than that of journalists,” Aronczyk added. “They’re thinking about a problem long before journalists are and normally long after, and from a lot of different angles.” Comprehending the “structure of disinformation” that PR engines will have built, journalists should be wary of the moments when the spiel seems attuned to the climate zeitgeist. One of the most effective maneuvers that public relations professionals use to promote clients who are anti-climate is to connect what they’re doing to climate initiatives, Aroncyzk said. The approach may be prominent in stories involving corporate efforts to promote climate solutions. “Climate solutions by corporations are usually solutions to problems that those corporations themselves can solve, which may not be the solutions that we need or want,” ,” Aroncyzk said. “And yet I see them getting a lot of media coverage because those companies’ PR firms are so good at connecting to journalists, with press releases, with sources, with exciting innovations, with very ‘built-for-stories’ kind of kind of information.” It was the existence of such “discrepancies” that recently lead the United Kingdom’s advertising standards regulator, the ASA, to force a number of companies, including HSBC Bank and Shell, to remove advertising campaigns “not because the substance of the adverts themselves was actively false, but because they lied by omission.”
CLIMATE FINANCE
E&E News: Anti-ESG bills clear House Financial Services Committee
Avery Ellfeldt, 7/28/23
“House Republicans advanced a slate of bills Thursday that target efforts by banks and financial firms to consider factors such as climate change when making investment decisions,” E&E News reports. “The House Financial Services Committee approved four packages along party lines during a marathon markup that wrapped up the GOP’s weekslong offensive against environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. The four packages, which comprise 20 total bills, yielded more than five hours of heated debate among lawmakers. But they have little chance of becoming law with Democrats in control of the Senate and White House. The legislation focuses on a variety of issues. Among them: the extent to which financial regulators including the Securities and Exchange Commission should address climate-related financial risk, a topic tackled by H.R. 4790 and H.R. 4823. Other pieces of legislation target the proxy advisory industry and proxy process, which allows activist investors to pressure companies to shift their behavior, including on climate change. That issue is considered by both H.R. 4767 and H.R. 4655.”
The Economist: The demonisation of BlackRock’s Larry Fink
7/29/23
“In early 2022 New Yorkers encountered the sight of black trucks driving around Times Square displaying a peculiar billboard,” The Economist reports. “It showed a balding man dressed in a dark business suit, bearing a Dr Evil stare. A columnist for the New York Post wrote, tongue-in-cheek, that “it made me wonder whether this dude was about to assign a hit squad to come to my house.” Beneath the advertisement was a question and a website url. Both asked “Who is Larry Fink?” Whoislarryfink.com accuses Fink of being enamoured of China and exploiting those in financial misfortune, but it doesn’t mention the most salient facts. He is the 70-year-old chairman and chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager. It invests trillions of dollars on behalf of its clients, which include pension funds, mutual funds and insurance companies. The firm, with a market value of about $100bn, is the world leader in innovative low-cost investment funds. Its assets under management, valued at $9.4trn, include stakes in about 18,000 listed companies across the Western world. When Fink talks, people listen – and Fink certainly likes to talk.”
OPINION
Cedar Rapids Gazette: Neighbors will continue to oppose carbon pipeline project
Jessica Wiskus, 7/30/23
“Members of the Linn County Board of Supervisors are charged with overseeing “matters related to the health and welfare of Linn County and its residents.” That does not include issuing ordinances that give permission for residents to be asphyxiated,” Jessica Wiskus writes for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. “But in reading Planning and Zoning’s new ordinance for the board on the regulation of CO2 pipelines, who could tell? So yet again, dozens of neighbors filed into Linn County’s Jean Oxley Building to speak out — this time, protesting an ordinance that, through its technical distinction between supercritical CO2 and liquid CO2, would have carbon pipelines built within 50 feet of local schools, businesses, churches, farms, and homes. Peer-reviewed, scientific research has demonstrated that an eight-and-a-half-inch CO2 pipeline rupture resulted in a deadly plume of CO2 that traveled over 1,312 feet. And Wolf has proposed a pipeline over twice that diameter. Scott County, for example, has affirmed a setback of 1,600 feet. But Linn County’s 50-foot setback would be within the “danger zone” for anyone who lived, worked, or went to school there… “Yet, this is not just a story about the Board of Supervisors’ lack of moral fiber. It is about something that runs more deeply than the politics of the moment. For our part, landowners opposed to these projects have been, up until now, quintessentially “Iowa Nice.” We’ve told Wolf, politely and respectfully, that we did not want their hazardous CO2 pipeline in our communities. We’ve written letters, printed T-shirts and signs, held local meetings and entered humorous floats in local parades. And, together, over 250 families in the corridor posted on the Iowa Utilities Board docket to let it be known, simply but firmly, that we will not sign easements with Wolf… “But now it is clear that, in Wolf’s moral universe, there is no room for the Golden Rule. While they publicly swore not to use the threat of eminent domain to take away private property (a vow that they broke when they recently filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission), they were quietly working behind the scenes to ensure that they could wield a greater threat — a threat to our very lives… “The next time Wolf’s land agents come up to our homes and start banging on the windows — the next time they harass us with four or five phone calls in a row — or the next time a land agent parks at the bottom of our driveway, making us prisoners of our own homes (examples of which have happened to my neighbors) — you will not find us concerned about the land agent’s ability to earn a salary. You will find all of us — all of us — showing up to support our neighbor, as we showed up together at the Jean Oxley Building on July 17. We know what is at stake. Because underneath “Iowa Nice” is a strength — a moral rule — so profound that it cannot be shaken, and the issue of the CO2 pipelines has touched us all the way down to the source of that strength.”
Salt Lake Tribune: Editorial: Carbon capture is worth a look, but let’s get those free buses rolling
Editorial Board, 7/30/23
“...Utah’s political class has long ignored, or actively denied, the threat of climate change. But there are signs that a realization may be dawning and some things are happening,” the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board writes. “Some of them are designed to clean up our carbon mess, a tall order that may be workable or may be an excuse to keep polluting based on a vaporware promise of remediation… “Federal grants are being handed out to operations looking at ways to take large chunks of that excess planet-heating carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it, perhaps in the kind of rock formations that Utah apparently has in abundance. Never averse to gobbling up federal boodle, even as we rhetorically bite the hand that feeds us, Utah government and private operations are looking into the feasibility of the idea. So far, it may look a little bit iffy, with some potential for a lot of collateral damage even it could work. And the idea only seems applicable to larger point sources of CO2, such as the kind of coal-fired power plants that are already on their way out, while useless when it comes to absorbing the majority of such pollution that comes out of auto tailpipes. But the situation is desperate enough that it is well worth spending the money to explore the possibility that we can remove significant amounts carbon from our atmosphere. Even if it smells a bit like an excuse for burning more coal, and could be another threat to sensitive public lands including the Bears Ears National Monument.”
MassLive.com: Eversource’s gas pipeline faces steep list of new questions (Editorial)
Republican Editorials, 7/31/23
“Though the language is technical, a tone of disappointment is unmistakable in the state’s response to a proposed natural gas pipeline,” MassLive.com Republican Editorials writes. “For Eversource, getting this project built in Longmeadow and Springfield will have to overcome not only entrenched local opposition, but what appear to be real doubts within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs about the need for the $65 million pipeline, as well as concerns about its effect on the climate. In a 28-page letter this month, Rebecca L. Tepper, the state’s energy and environment secretary, instructed Eversource to provide a supplement to its draft environmental impact report on the 5.3-mile pipeline. That may not sound like much of a lift to a big company, and a spokeswoman for Eversource said it is already at work on the additional filing…”
WV Gazette Mail: Hoppy Kercheval: Pipeline moves ahead again, as it should (Opinion)
Hoppy Kercheval, 7/29/23
“Question: What does it take to build a natural gas pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia? Answer: An act of Congress, a signature from the president of the United States and a decision by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sadly, that is not an exaggeration,” Hoppy Kercheval writes for the WV Gazette Mail. “...Every time Equitrans Midstream Corp., the pipeline developer, met the state or federal regulatory requirements, the opponents moved the goal posts and got a favorable ruling from the court, delaying the project yet again… “Any act of Congress or presidential action can be challenged in court, but those same courts do not have superpowers. The Constitution and Congress have placed limits on the jurisdiction of the lower federal court… “It is tempting to conclude that, after congressional action and a decision by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, that maybe, just maybe, the Mountain Valley Pipeline can be completed. That is, unless the 4th Circuit finds a way to lie down in front of construction equipment again.”
Carolina Journal: Gas pipeline will help North Carolinians
John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member, 7/31/23
“Over the next 25 years, the market for electrical power in North Carolina will undergo dramatic change. If progressives get their way, government will use a combination of subsidies and mandates to vastly expand our dependence on solar and wind. If cooler heads prevail, we will vastly expand our use of nuclear energy — which produces zero emissions of greenhouse gases and, unlike solar and wind, can effectively replace coal as a steady and dispatchable form of baseload generation to power our homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure,” John Hood writes for the Carolina Journal. “In either scenario, however, there is an inescapable constant: during the transition, North Carolinians will need a reliable source of natural gas. That’s why attempts by activist groups and the Cooper administration to block new gas pipelines into the state have been so irresponsible. And it’s why recent actions by Congress, the Biden administration, and the U.S. Supreme Court to remove these obstructions have been so welcome… “Why should North Carolinians care about this dispute? Because a related 75-mile pipeline, the Southgate Extension, would carry the MVP natural gas into our state, passing through Rockingham and Alamance counties. “North Carolina has a deficit of pipeline capacity,” says my John Locke Foundation colleague Jon Sanders, “and its current — and only — interstate pipeline, Transco, is fully subscribed.” Citing the delays in MVP construction caused by litigation, regulators haven’t fully authorized the Southgate Extension. Clearing this logjam promises to give North Carolinians access to the natural gas we need to keep our lights on and our economy humming… “In the meantime, then, we need more access to natural gas, which also has valuable industrial and agricultural applications. The Supreme Court’s action was great news for North Carolina.”
The Hill Times: World needs Canadian LNG to reduce global emissions and for long-term energy security: Enbridge
Mike Fernandez, Enbridge SVP & chief communications officer, 7/31/23
“David Crane’s opinion column in the July 24 issue of The Hill Times, “Dear government: don’t be pressured by the hype from natural gas producers and pipeline owners,” tries to make the case that exporting Canadian natural gas as liquified natural gas (LNG) is not in the best interest of Canada nor the energy security of our global allies. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Mike Fernandez writes for The Hill Times. “...Yet in recent years we have done little to develop or spur Canadian LNG exports that, in displacing coal power generation, would deliver a greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the planet than the act of Canada meeting its own net zero commitment (Canada accounts for just 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions). Second, Crane tries to make the case that building the necessary infrastructure will take too much time and too much money. He overlooks the point that a big part of the time and money constraint is a less than friendly regulatory regime… “Third, while acknowledging that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and other allies have asked for Canada’s support in supplying LNG, he fails to acknowledge the potential energy security aspects of Canadian LNG supply… “The world needs Canadian LNG—to reduce global emissions and for long-term energy security. As Enbridge’s CEO Greg Ebel has said, rather than saying sorry to our allies, industry, and government should accelerate plans for LNG exports—and turn that “sorry” into a “you're welcome.”
Jacobin Magazine: Don’t Blow Up a Pipeline
CHRIS MAISANO, 7/29/23
“The clock is ticking on averting the worst of climate disaster, raising the question for many if activists should turn to militant actions like industrial sabotage. But it’s not time to give up on democratic politics to save the planet,” Chris Maisano writes for Jacobin Magazine. “...We may be many, and they may be few, but the few are succeeding all too well at turning the planet into a colossal wreck. Faced with the need for immediate, globally coordinated action, and the reality of institutions compromised by the very interests that need to be defeated, it’s understandable that some would seek the consolations of fatalism — or feel called to start taking more militant direct action… “I am very skeptical that political violence, once unleashed, can be effectively corralled within very specific limits. After all, if we are fighting to prevent a global climate catastrophe, then the use of any means necessary can be justified — and we can be sure that agents provocateurs would be all too happy to encourage activists to come to such conclusions. I fear that this would create a political environment conducive not to the further growth of climate protest and official responsiveness to its demands, but vigilante counter-mobilization and an official crackdown on popular movements and the Left… “Malm effectively calls on us to protest harder, to shift from a strict commitment to nonviolent protest tactics to the use of physical force in defense of the planet… “Is it possible to reconcile the seemingly discontinuous temporalities of the climate crisis and democratic politics? I think we have to take the wager that it is, because there is little hope for freedom, solidarity, and justice in the twenty-first century otherwise… “Bernie is right: other people and other movements have faced enormous opposition and long odds, and things still changed. We have no choice but to keep fighting, and to stay on the path that has produced meaningful results in less time than many of us expected.”