EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 9/1/22
PIPELINE NEWS
The Gazette: Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance supports CO2 pipeline from ADM plants
Dakota News Now: Glacial Lakes Energy voices support for carbon pipeline
Iowa City Press-Citizen: Wolf-ADM carbon capture pipeline hears opposition at first public meeting in Johnson County
KWQC: Wolf Carbon Solutions presents Carbon Capture Pipeline to Scott County
Dickinson Bulletin Review: Summit Carbon Solutions reps answer questions
Pipeline Fighters Hub: Landowners Meeting Re: Carbon Pipelines (VIDEO)
Food & Water Watch: IA: Carbon Pipelines: How Corporations are Cashing In
KFYR: ND extends $150 million pipeline offer
WASHINGTON UPDATES
E&E News: The Methane Rule Is Under Review. Here's What It Would Do.
STATE UPDATES
LAist: Activists Call For Rejection Of Controversial Climate Tech In California
Los Angeles Times: California lawmakers OK buffer zones between new oil wells and homes, schools
Consumer Watchdog: Governor To Decide Whether To Require Oil Refiners To Disclose Profits Per Gallon Monthly
Casper Star-Tribune: Wyoming will help BLM fight lease sale lawsuit
EXTRACTION
The Energy Mix: 10 of 13 ‘Flagship’ CCS Projects Failed to Deliver, IEEFA Analysis Concludes
Financial Times: US climate law institutes first greenhouse gas fee on oil industry
New York Times: After Deadly Fires and Disastrous Floods, a Canadian City Moves to Sue Big Oil
Bloomberg: Canadian Oil Sands Royalties Surge as Project Costs Are Paid Off
OPINION
The Hill: Who will protect communities of color from climate disaster?
Edmonton Journal: Opinion: Why the federal oil and gas emissions cap is a win for Albertans
PIPELINE NEWS
The Gazette: Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance supports CO2 pipeline from ADM plants
Erin Jordan, 8/30/22
“The Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance supports a carbon dioxide pipeline that would benefit ADM, one of its members, despite opposition from many landowners on the proposed route,” The Gazette reports. “We have looked at this project and our organization supports this project and only this CO2 pipeline project in Iowa at this time,” Doug Neumann, Economic Alliance executive director, said at an informational meeting Tuesday for Wolf Carbon Solutions, which has proposed a 280-mile CO2 pipeline from ADM’s plants in Cedar Rapids and Clinton to an underground sequestration site in Illinois. “To support the agribusiness economy of Iowa we need companies like ADM to be successful,” Neumann said. Chris Riley, state government relations director for ADM, said the pipeline will help the ethanol and food production plant reduce greenhouse gas emissions… “When something doesn’t seem right and you have whole communities opposed to it, you’ve got to follow the money,” Cindy Golding, a Linn County small business owner running for Iowa House District 83 as a Republican, told the Gazette. “Would projects such as this exist if it wasn’t to use our tax dollars to enrich an international company such as ADM?” Jessica Wiskus, a Democrat from Lisbon running for Iowa Senate District 42, also spoke out against the pipeline Tuesday. She doesn’t think the pipelines are safe and questions the environmental benefits compared to the toll on landowners. “In Iowa, you will ask us to live within 10’s of feet of these carbon pipelines,” she said. “And we’ll be forced to do it within the condemnation of our lands.” “...Several people spoke at the meeting about concerns that not everyone on the pipeline route had received official notification of the meeting… “Jeff Cook, an attorney with the Office of Consumer Advocate, said at the meeting he did not think Wolf violated Iowa law by sending certified letters to a smaller pool of landowners. Wolf can’t negotiate with landowners — or pursue eminent domain — without having first provided certified notice.”
Dakota News Now: Glacial Lakes Energy voices support for carbon pipeline
Sarah Parkin, 8/31/22
“The Glacial Lakes Energy Plant in Mina held a media day Wednesday to provide information as to why they’re joining Summit Carbon Solutions’ carbon dioxide pipeline project,” Dakota News Now reports. “State representatives, emergency managers and press gathered at the Mina ethanol plant Wednesday to hear answers to the many questions surrounding the carbon pipeline… ”Glacial Lakes Energy supports the project. We’ve partnered with Summit now early on and the project is important to us because it presents an opportunity to lower our carbon intensity score to the effect of up to 50%,” Glacial Lakes Energy Plant CEO Jim Seuer told DNN. That doesn’t mean Glacial Lakes Energy staff haven’t heard concerns from landowners along the pipeline’s route who fear that eminent domain will be utilized. ”I’ve taken dozen and dozen of calls and forwarded on those questions and those concerns to the folks at Summit. We’re very engaged with the landowners at this point,” Seuer told DNN. The tight carbon fuel standards in Glacial Lakes Energy’s markets, like the Pacific Northwest and Canada, make it hard to pass up the opportunity to stay competitive. ”This isn’t going to go away. It may slow down, depending on the politics in Washington, but it’s not going to go away. The country is moving more and more toward a lower carbon intensity environment,” Seuer told DNN… “Summit Carbon Solutions staff say that 33% of landowners along the pipeline’s route have signed voluntary easements.”
Iowa City Press-Citizen: Wolf-ADM carbon capture pipeline hears opposition at first public meeting in Johnson County
George Shillcock, 8/31/22
“David Wiskus lives in Cedar County and owns farmland in Johnson and Cedar counties. His property could soon have a carbon capture pipeline running through it,” the Iowa City Press-Citizen reports. “Wiskus was one of about 100 people who showed up at the first informational meeting with Wolf Carbon Solutions and the Iowa Utilities Board in the North Liberty Community Center. The crowd mostly criticized and questioned the proposed pipeline and made scathing remarks about the technology, the government process needed to seek approval and the larger effort to build these pipelines in Iowa… “Wolf Carbon Solutions Senior Vice President of Corporate Development Nick Noppinger said the company has never used eminent domain in any of its projects to acquire land and would seek voluntary easements with the landowners and put a two-mile buffer zone around its preferred route in case it needs to modify the route if certain landowners refuse… “Throughout the meeting, residents rattled off many questions and the company and the IUB were left to try to answer all of them after the residents had spoken, rather than responding one at a time. Many speakers didn't ask questions, but used their speaking time to make comments on the proposal or ask for commitments from the company. The crowd also included landowners from Johnson, Cedar and Linn counties, three Johnson County elected officials, other concerned and curious residents like the 100 Grannies for a Livable Future of Iowa City, and at least two state legislative candidates whose districts lie in the pipeline's proposed path… “IUB board member Richard Lozier said he believes the state government quasi-judicial body is tasked with representing the public interest and that both Wiskus and Wolf are considered the public. This answer elicited loud groans from the audience… “Johnson County Supervisors Lisa Green-Douglass and Jon Green both appeared at the meeting and voiced their displeasure and opposition to the pipeline and joined in the chorus of questions from the audience. The board is one of almost 100 groups or individuals who have filed formal letters of opposition against the project, according to the Iowa Utilities Board online docket.”
KWQC: Wolf Carbon Solutions presents Carbon Capture Pipeline to Scott County
Danny Whiskeyman, 8/31/22
“Wolf Carbon Solutions is proposing a plan which would take carbon dioxide from ethanol plants like the ones in Cedar Rapids and Clinton and remove it before it can damage the environment,” KWQC reports. “Carbon pipelines have caused controversy among developers and land owners. After this afternoon’s informational meeting at the Adler Theatre, many questions still surrounded the proposal even after a question and answer session with developers… “Several audience members at the informational meeting had several questions ranging from eminent domain to contingencies if the pipes fail… “But is Wolf carbon solutions prepared to commit to taking eminent domain off the table?” Ken Croken asked during the meeting… “The reason we’re hesitant to make that commitment is that there’s certain areas like for instance, crossing the rivers, where we have to go to a specific point to cross the river,” David Schmunk, the President of Wolf Solutions said. “And if those landowners on either side of that river, say, No, we’re not coming across, pretty much. That’s our whole project in jeopardy.”
Dickinson Bulletin Review: Summit Carbon Solutions reps answer questions
Dan Mundt, 8/30/22
“Kaylee Langrell and Riley Gibson, of TurnKey Logistics, a Houston, Texas, company, visited the Crawford County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 23 to provide information about the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions (SCS) carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline that will pass through Crawford County if construction goes forward,” the Dickinson Bulletin Review reports. “...Supervisor Jean Heiden asked what the county has to do to prepare for a hazardous event related to the pipeline. Langrell said the company is going above and beyond what is required in many areas. Multiple training events are being set up with county emergency managers; training events and exercises with emergency responders will take place before and after full-time staff is hired… “Crawford County Emergency Management Coordinator Greg Miller said an evacuation for a spill would be at least 100 meters downwind and approximately a half-mile if the incident involved a fire; he noted that CO2 is what people breathe out and is not like propane or natural gas. County resident Karen Ahrenholtz brought up a CO2 leak in Satartia, Missisippi, in which dozens of individuals were sickened. Langrell said the pipeline in Satartia did not carry pure CO2, and the other agent (hydrogen sulfide) was what had caused the problems… “Heiden said she had heard the company is using scare tactics to get people to sign up; she also said she questioned the numbers the company reported about people who have signed up… “Lance Kleckner, who owns property along the pipeline path and has refused to sign on, asked what the company’s plan B is if only 50-60% of landowners sign on and IUB doesn’t grant eminent domain use. “If we don’t get that state permit, I don’t think we can do much at all,” Langrell said.
Pipeline Fighters Hub: Landowners Meeting Re: Carbon Pipelines (VIDEO)
8/31/22
“During a landowners meeting in Norfolk, NE organized by the Nebraska Easement Action Team (NEAT), landowners ask questions about eminent domain and proposed carbon pipelines, and hear from attorney Brian Jorde with Domina Law Group and Nebraska Easement Action Team about joining the landowner legal co-op, and attorney Paul Blackburn with Bold Alliance with present an overview on CO2 pipelines, safety, and regulations.”
Food & Water Watch: IA: Carbon Pipelines: How Corporations are Cashing In
9/1/22
“Three carbon pipelines proposed for Iowa are set to make up to $40 billion from our federal tax dollars. Join Food & Water Watch on Wednesday, September 7th to hear issue experts break down the costs of carbon capture and storage. We'll discuss the policies that made carbon capture a cash cow for Big Oil, including the Inflation Reduction Act and the upcoming side deal that would fast track hazardous carbon pipelines, along with the campaign contributions and lobbying efforts that influenced this greenwashing grift.”
KFYR: ND extends $150 million pipeline offer
Joel Crane, 8/31/22
“Energy companies have been given another opportunity to apply for a grant to build a gas pipeline from North Dakota’s oil fields to the eastern part of the state,” KFYR reports. “The state’s Industrial Commission has extended a $150 million grant offer until December 15. The original deadline, on August 15, passed without any takers… “The August 15 deadline was the second that came and went. Kringstad told KFYR there’s interest from several parties, but there are a lot of moving parts and so the process is moving slowly.”
WASHINGTON UPDATES
E&E News: The Methane Rule Is Under Review. Here's What It Would Do.
Jean Chemnick, 8/30/22
“The White House is reviewing draft regulations for oil and natural gas methane as the Biden administration prepares to mandate reductions of the potent greenhouse gas at new and existing sources,” E&E News reports. “The review by the Office of Management and Budget comes nine months after EPA released its initial outline during a high-stakes round of global climate talks in November. That draft did not include regulatory language, but it answered some key questions about how EPA planned to curb methane from petroleum production (Greenwire, Nov. 11, 2021). The proposal targets the gas directly rather than as a co-benefit of controlling ozone. And the rules would apply to a broader swath of onshore petroleum development than a standard proposed by the Trump administration for volatile organic compounds that covered new wellheads only. The rule under President Joe Biden would include a requirement for pneumatic controllers at wellheads that don’t allow any pollution to escape. But there are still important blanks to be filled in by the supplemental proposals now under review at OMB. Those include whether producers may continue to flare gas, how EPA might incorporate community monitoring of oil and gas emissions and whether small producers must conduct regular inspections. Last year’s proposal would let producers that calculated only three tons of methane per year satisfy monitoring requirements with a one-time inspection. But environmentalists have strongly urged EPA to mandate regular inspections even for small wellheads, pointing to research showing that old, low-producing wells are prone to major emissions events that contribute greatly to climate change and undermine the health of nearby communities. The industry argues that mandating more inspections would drive small producers out of business.”
STATE UPDATES
LAist: Activists Call For Rejection Of Controversial Climate Tech In California
Erin Stone, 8/30/22
“Environmental advocates want California lawmakers to reject a bill being considered on the last day of the current legislative session that would expand the use of a controversial technology known as carbon capture,” LAist reports. “Senate Bill 905 would establish regulations for carbon capture and storage projects across the state and expedite permitting processes to get those projects going… “But opponents say it's just another lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, and could add yet another hazard to Central Valley communities already overburdened by pollution. “It's unfortunate that here we are once again, communities who are bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry are asked to bear the brunt of climate policy,” said Martha Dina Argüello at a press conference hosted by opponents on Tuesday. Argüello is the executive director for the L.A. chapter of non-profit Physicians for Social Responsibility and co-chair of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, appointed by the California Air Resources Board. Carbon capture is already happening in the U.S. The oil industry primarily captures carbon dioxide to inject into drilling wells to help extract more oil. This is why Argüello and other environmental justice advocates worry it could lock in decades more of fossil fuel extraction… “In the moment that our climate policy should be based on preventing further exposure and further releases, we have come up with a technology that allows you to monetize it,” Argüello said. “And that's why we're here, because someone is going to make money off of this.” Argüello said she also worries leaky pipelines could still release carbon into the atmosphere, and questioned how well carbon storage works given it's such a new technology. She said such unknowns could result in consequences for both public health and the planet for generations to come.”
Los Angeles Times: California lawmakers OK buffer zones between new oil wells and homes, schools
TARYN LUNA, 8/31/22
“After years of failed attempts to impose health and safety buffer zones around new oil and gas wells in California, state lawmakers on Wednesday sent a bill to the governor that would require setbacks between those production sites and residential neighborhoods and other sensitive areas,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “...It’s a long-standing and glaring example of environmental racism,” state Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), who introduced the bill, told the Times. “Research shows, of course, that people of color, Black, brown and Indigenous people suffer the greatest consequences of this toxic proximity and these are the same communities that have oil production in their backyards.” The legislation prohibits the California Geologic Energy Management Division from approving a new oil well within 3,200 feet of a “sensitive receptor,” defined as a residence, education resource, community resource, healthcare facility, dormitory or any building open to the public. Similar efforts have failed to gain traction in the state Legislature in the past, succumbing to tough lobbying opposition from the petroleum industry and trade unions… “Environmental justice groups lauded the outcome. “This is a victory for every single family and every single frontline community in California that has been fighting Big Oil’s drilling in our backyards for decades and pushing for setbacks for years,” Kobi Naseck of Voices in Solidarity Against Oil in Neighborhoods said in a statement.
Consumer Watchdog: Governor To Decide Whether To Require Oil Refiners To Disclose Profits Per Gallon Monthly
8/30/22
“A bill requiring oil refiners to disclose their per gallon profits monthly is now on Governor Newsom's desk, having passed out of the California Senate with a concurrence vote of 29 to 8,” according to Consumer Watchdog. “SB 1322 (Allen) requires the oil refiners to disclose monthly their refining profits -- the difference between average cost they pay for a barrel crude oil and the average price they charge for the finished barrel of gasoline. With 42 gallons in a barrel, the public will know exactly how much oil refiners make per gallon of gas in California. Californians are paying $1.25 more per gallon for their gasoline than the average US driver. Environmental costs add about 60 cents per gallon."California drivers have had enough. SB 1322 will bring much-needed transparency to oil companies' true costs of doing business," said the bill's author Senator Ben Allen. "Consumers deserve to know how much oil refiners are making off their pain at the pump," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog. "Recent quarterly profit reports suggest California oil refiners are pocketing more than $1 per gallon off the recent price spikes at the pump. That's unconscionable." Refining margins are typical industry measures. Investor reports show California's refiners' Western region profit margins are through the roof. West Coast profits per gallon for Marathon topped an unprecedented $1 per gallon, as opposed to 34 cents in the second quarter of 2021.”
Casper Star-Tribune: Wyoming will help BLM fight lease sale lawsuit
Nicole Pollack, 8/30/22
“Wyoming intends to join the Bureau of Land Management to defend the federal oil and gas lease sale held in the state in June, Gov. Mark Gordon’s office announced Tuesday,” the Casper Star-Tribune reports. “Environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits challenging the lease sales — one specific to Wyoming and the other nationwide — on June 29, arguing that the BLM failed to adequately consider how the sales would contribute to climate change. “Wyoming is committed to defending her interests and her industries in the courts when they are threatened,” Gordon said in a written statement. “It is sad that every lease sale now leads to a challenge.” “...The state asked to intervene in the cases because its “sovereign and economic interests will be adversely affected were the lawsuit to succeed,” according to the governor’s office. The state will not receive rental payments or mineral royalties from the contested leases if they’re ultimately canceled… “Many of the environmental groups have successfully argued against the BLM’s climate analyses in the past, prompting federal judges to throw out previous lease sales or order the agency to redo its assessments. “Even if they just offered one lease, we would be very disappointed, and in no way would we say that that’s acceptable,” Jeremy Nichols, director of the climate and energy program for plaintiff WildEarth Guardians, told the Star-Tribune.”
EXTRACTION
The Energy Mix: 10 of 13 ‘Flagship’ CCS Projects Failed to Deliver, IEEFA Analysis Concludes
Mitchell Beer, 9/1/22
“After a half-century of research and development, carbon capture and storage projects are far more likely to fail than to succeed, and nearly three-quarters of the carbon dioxide they manage to capture each year is sold off to fossil companies and used to extract more oil, according to a sweeping industry assessment released today by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA),” The Energy Mix reports. “The report lands just as analysts in the United States warn of major verification problems with a CCS tax credit that received a major boost in the Biden administration’s new climate action plan, and as Canadian fossils lobby for more tax relief to match what’s becoming available in the U.S. One of the case studies in the 79-page IEEFA report [pdf] concludes that the troubled Boundary Dam CCS project in Saskatchewan has missed its carbon capture by about 50%. The 13 “flagship, large-scale” projects in the analysis account for about 55% of the world’s current carbon capture capacity, the institute says in a release. Those 13 projects captured a grand total of 39 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the report found, about one-ten thousandth of the 363.3 billion tonnes that emitters spewed into the atmosphere in 2021… “Many international bodies and national governments are relying on carbon capture in the fossil fuel sector to get to net-zero, and it simply won’t work,” said report co-author Bruce Robertson, a veteran investment analyst and fund manager now serving as IEEFA’s energy finance analyst for gas and LNG. Though there is “some indication it might have a role to play in hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, fertilizers, and steel, overall results indicate a financial, technical, and emissions reduction framework that continues to overstate and underperform.” “...But “about half of the carbon sequestration credits claimed by industry over the last decade were later revoked by the [U.S. Internal Revenue Service] because the companies failed to monitor or verify their capture of the greenhouse gas” as required by the Environmental Protection Agency, Oil & Gas Watch says. Of the $894 million that companies claimed between 2010 and 2019 without monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plans in place, enforcement officials disallowed about $531 million, according to IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig.
Financial Times: US climate law institutes first greenhouse gas fee on oil industry
Myles McCormick, 8/31/22
“The landmark climate law signed by US president Joe Biden last month contains billions of dollars of financial carrots to reward investment in clean energy. The lone stick has been less heralded: a first-of-its kind fee on leaks of methane from the oil and gas sector,” the Financial Times reports. “...The fee established by the Inflation Reduction Act marks the US’s first nationwide price on a greenhouse gas, as efforts to tax CO₂ fizzle. Oil lobbies were quick to condemn it. “Fundamentally, we don’t think the government should raise taxes, particularly in the middle of a recession. And in the middle of a global energy crisis,” Frank Macchiarola, senior vice-president at the American Petroleum Institute, told FT… “Having this sort of Congressional law is the gold standard for emissions reduction,” Nathan Hultman, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability and a former policy adviser in the Biden administration and that of Barack Obama, told FT. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the fees will bring in revenues of more than $6bn by the end of the decade. Yet the breadth of the fee programme falls short of many environmentalists’ goals. Exemptions were carved out during months of negotiations between Senator Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat representing West Virginia, which is a big hydrocarbon producer; and Delaware’s Tom Carper, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee… “Another clause exempts operators that are deemed to already be in compliance with parallel regulations that are pending from the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill also grants emitters more than $1.5bn to help clean up, effectively subsidising laggards.”
New York Times: After Deadly Fires and Disastrous Floods, a Canadian City Moves to Sue Big Oil
Norimitsu Onishi, 8/29/22
“Nothing has been rebuilt since flames devoured the tiny village of Lytton last year, turning it into a national symbol of climate change. It was in Lytton, about 90 miles northeast of Vancouver, that temperatures set a national record of 49.6 degrees Celsius — 121.3 Fahrenheit in Canada! — before the deadly fire erupted,” the New York Times reports. “...Now, the region is fighting back. Vancouver’s City Council took preliminary steps in July toward suing major oil companies, seeking damages for the local costs of climate change. The move, in a city that has been a leader of the environmental movement in Canada and was the birthplace of Greenpeace, would be the first lawsuit of its kind in the country against the fossil fuel industry, whose carbon emissions contribute to global warming. Jay Averill, the spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told the Times that Vancouver “could not function today without the use of oil and natural gas.” “Funding a lawsuit to sue the very industry that has invested billions of dollars in British Columbia over decades, created thousands of jobs and delivered billions of dollars in government revenues to support health care, infrastructure, and social programs across the province, is not an efficient use of taxpayer’s money,” he added. The lawsuit’s proponents argue that energy companies should be held responsible for their share of Vancouver’s climate costs because they knew about their industry’s effects on climate change decades ago, but covered up evidence and lobbied against climate action. They point to a series of a catastrophic and rare weather-related events in the past year in the region as evidence.
Bloomberg: Canadian Oil Sands Royalties Surge as Project Costs Are Paid Off
Robert Tuttle, 8/31/22
“Canadian oil sands producers are poised to pay an increasing share of their revenue to the government in coming years as surging oil prices allow them to pay off the costs of multibillion dollar well and mining projects earlier than planned, bumping them into a higher royalty bracket,” Bloomberg reports. “Five oil sands projects reached so-called “post-payout” royalty status last year from “pre-payout” and two more are expected to reach to post-payout each year from 2022 to 2025, the Alberta government said in a budget update Wednesday. A windfall of cash from higher oil has allowed companies to pay off the up-front costs incurred when oil sands well sites or mines were built, sometimes years in the past. Once paid off, oil sands projects are pushed into a higher bracket for royalty payments, meaning a bigger portion of revenue generated by companies goes to the government. Companies themselves have contributed to the trend as they resist building new projects or expanding older ones in order to pay down debt and return cash to shareholders… “Alberta’s two-tier royalty structure means companies pay little or no royalties when they are still paying off the costs of their initial investment.“
OPINION
The Hill: Who will protect communities of color from climate disaster?
John Beard is the director of Port Arthur Community Action Network in Texas, Brian Frosh is the attorney general of Maryland, Roishetta Ozane is the organizing director for Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas for Healthy Gulf, as well as the founder, director and CEO of The Vessel Project of Louisiana, 8/31/22
“Imagine waking up every day to the smell of sulfur dioxide, gas fumes and other foul-smelling chemicals. Even if you don’t live near gas export terminals on the Gulf Coast, you know the air must smell bad. Imagine your children are constantly breathing these chemicals and your elders have among the highest incidence of cancer in the nation. Now imagine that you also hear daily sirens warning of gas leaks and potential catastrophic explosions. What you’ve imagined — this is the reality for Gulf Coast communities,” John Beard, Brian Frosh and Roishetta Ozane write for The Hill. “Too many of our coastal communities are being sacrificed to the fossil fuel industry, an industry whose main product is driving climate change, leading to rising seas, and causing increasingly volatile, damaging storms. And while the billions in investments in clean energy sources and climate mitigation passed by Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act are undeniably historic, they won’t save these communities. Despite all evidence that the U.S. must dramatically scale back the production and use of fossil fuels — not just to save frontline communities but to protect communities throughout our country and the world that are harmed by climate change — the industry is planning to actually expand export capacity at 18 projects along the Gulf Coast… “For decades, FERC has failed to properly scrutinize the damage new export terminals and other gas infrastructure do to communities of color… “Early this year, the commission proposed plans to change how the agency evaluates the environmental justice and climate impacts of new gas infrastructure. These long-overdue reforms would help ensure that FERC fulfills its responsibility to take a hard look at the impacts of proposed projects on communities of color and the climate. But it seems after renewed protests from some Republicans in Congress and the gas industry, FERC walked back its reforms, and the new protections communities of color so urgently need are now tangled up in the insider politics of Washington… “To underscore the urgency of this issue, we’ve invited FERC commissioners to tour our communities and witness the environmental and social devastation resulting from export facilities and other gas infrastructure.”
Edmonton Journal: Opinion: Why the federal oil and gas emissions cap is a win for Albertans
Jan Gorski is director of the Pembina Institute’s oil and gas program, 8/31/22
“Tradition tells us that when our oil and gas industry is experiencing a boom, we feel the benefits right through our economy,” Jan Gorski writes for the Edmonton Journal. “In this sense, it is in every Albertan’s interest that our oil and gas sector remains competitive. Which is why you might have been alarmed to hear some political and industry figures claim in recent weeks that forthcoming federal regulations aimed at capping and cutting sector emissions will be tantamount to a forced production cut that would hurt the industry, and Alberta’s economic outlook. But look more deeply at the policy and the context, and you’ll find the opposite is true. We are actually talking about preparing our oil and gas sector for the future… “Efforts by the federal government to cap and cut absolute emissions can therefore be seen as a recognition that in the medium long term, to keep up with the ESG demands of investors — and in a context of reduced oil demand overall — producers must decarbonize their operations to stay competitive. In doing so, the industry can not only do its fair share in combating climate change, but also make sure looming financial liabilities of cleaning up disused wells and oilsands tailings ponds do not end up being piled on to Albertans, when producers themselves can no longer meet those costs due to being outcompeted… “The cap is also a reflection of the government’s seriousness when it comes to Canada’s climate promises, in which every industry will need to do its part. Oil and gas production remains our biggest source of emissions, but is only being asked to do its fair share in contributing to the same economy-wide emissions cuts as everyone else. Our research shows not only that the emissions reductions are achievable, but that that the sector has all the technology and funds it needs to get started right away; all that is missing was increased certainty in the investment environment. The emissions cap should solve that last problem.”