The climate crisis will require life style changes and spending changes!

From Stephanie Wissman, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 9, 2023

Regarding the article “Pittsburgh-based plan passed over as hydrogen hub selections draw statewide praise” (Oct. 13, TribLIVE): Building a lower carbon future means ensuring the success of the Department of Energy’s new hydrogen hubs. The hubs are networks of clean hydrogen producers, consumers and connective infrastructure working together to kick-start the growth of a low-carbon hydrogen economy.

Pennsylvania and the Appalachian region’s abundant natural gas and skilled workforce make our area a prime location for hydrogen development, with the promise of economic growth and advancing shared climate goals.

A recent study found that if policies are implemented to support all types of hydrogen development, it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 37% through 2050 and inject billions of dollars into the economy through jobs. To unlock these benefits, we need to start building the necessary infrastructure.

Given a workforce of over 423,000 already supported by the natural gas and oil industry, Pennsylvania is ready to embrace this new energy opportunity. With over half the proposed hubs using hydrogen produced from natural gas and carbon capture, this project will kick-start the next generation of energy development.

Pennsylvania has a proud history of energy production and a wealth of potential for innovation. Let’s all work together to make hydrogen a cornerstone of our cleaner energy future.

>>> Stephanie Catarino Wissman, Executive Director, American Petroleum Institute Pennsylvania, Harrisburg

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

‘Climate Scam’: 180+ Groups Tell Biden to Drop Support for Hydrogen

From an Article by Jake Johnson, Common Dreams, August 22, 2023

“Calling hydrogen clean energy is a scam to prop up the oil and gas industry,” said one campaigner.

More than 95% of hydrogen produced in the United States is made using fossil fuels, but that hasn’t stopped its backers — including industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — from touting the energy source as critical to the fight against climate change.

A diverse coalition of advocacy organizations on Tuesday implored the Biden administration to stop buying into the hype.

In a letter to officials at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), more than 180 groups called on the administration to abandon plans to invest in hydrogen projects, warning that “a large-scale buildout of hydrogen infrastructure will further exacerbate the climate crisis and disproportionately harm people of color, low-income communities, and Indigenous peoples.”

Two recently enacted pieces of legislation—the Inflation Reduction Act and a bipartisan infrastructure measure championed by oil industry ally Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—include benefits for the hydrogen industry.

The latter bill authorized the Department of Energy to spend roughly $8 billion on developing Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs), drawing outrage from community organizers in Colorado, New Mexico, and other states behind the Western Interstate Hydrogen Hub, a project aimed at expanding U.S. hydrogen production.

“We recognize that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs DOE to fund these hubs, but we ask DOE to find a different path and reject this false solution. It’s time for DOE to do the right thing,” the groups wrote in their letter on Tuesday.

The groups behind the letter — including the Center for Biological Diversity and Food & Water Watch — note that hydrogen production generates significant planet-warming emissions.

“Hydrogen lifecycle emissions which use carbon capture and storage are 20% greater than directly burning natural gas or coal, and 60% greater than burning diesel oil, because of the increased fossil fuels required to power it,” the letter states. “The process of producing gray and blue hydrogen is a major source of fugitive methane emissions from flaring, transportation, and other upstream processes—releasing even more potent greenhouse gases and exacerbating atmospheric warming over the next two decades.”

“President Biden can’t claim to be a climate leader while his administration continues to embrace the hydrogen climate scam and other policies that continue to perpetuate fossil fuel production and infrastructure.”

As Nature explained in an editorial warning against “overhyping” hydrogen, “Most hydrogen is currently made by processes—such as steam reformation of natural gas (methane)—that produce large amounts of CO2 as a by-product.”

“Although ‘green’ hydrogen can be made by using electricity from renewable sources to split water molecules,” the outlet added, “this process is costly compared with more conventional production methods.”

Silas Grant, a campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity, said Tuesday that “calling hydrogen clean energy is a scam to prop up the oil and gas industry.”

“The Biden administration’s plans to expand this dirty energy will only increase oil and gas extraction at a time when the climate emergency demands the opposite,” said Grant. “We need investment in affordable, reliable, community-supported renewable energy like wind and solar.”

The coalition’s letter comes two months after New Mexico-based advocacy organizations urged the Biden administration to reject funding for the Western Interstate Hydrogen Hub, arguing the initiative would “devastate public health, clean air, Indigenous sacred places, and the climate.”

“The climate crisis poses a grave threat to all life on Earth,” the groups wrote in a letter to the U.S. Energy Department. “DOE has the power to help lead a transformation to a more sustainable future. To do so, you must help phase out fossil fuels and reject false solutions like hydrogen.”

But the Biden White House has yet to waver in its support for hydrogen, claiming in a brief last month that “clean hydrogen has the potential to play an important role in decarbonizing the U.S. economy.”

Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, countered Tuesday that investments in hydrogen are “a distraction from real climate action that will cause more pollution, more strain on water resources, and more extraction of climate warming fossil fuels.”

“President Biden can’t claim to be a climate leader while his administration continues to embrace the hydrogen climate scam and other policies that continue to perpetuate fossil fuel production and infrastructure,” Walsh added.

REP. Carolyn Maloney (D - NY) on COMMITTEE Assignment

From an Article by Matt Egan and Ella Nilsen, Cable News Network, October 28, 2021

(CNN) — House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney announced at the end of Thursday’s hearing with top executives from the fossil fuel industry that she plans to subpoena the oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

Her announcement came after executives from ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce, testified in front of Congress for the first time about their role in climate disinformation.

Maloney said that while the companies and trade groups did provide many documents that were publicly available, they did not supply “a substantial portion of the key documents the committee requested.”

“We are at code red for climate and I committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children,” the New York Democrat said during her closing remarks. “We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas we will.”

Specifically, Maloney said the oil companies have not produced “detailed funding information” the lawmakers requested to understand their “payments to shadow groups,” public relations firms and others. Other documents requested include corporate strategies around climate change and internal documents and communications from senior executives about their companies’ role in the climate crisis.

“I have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily, but the oil companies employ the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy: delay and obstruction,” Maloney said.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who chairs the committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment, told CNN later Thursday that he and Maloney had decided during the middle of the fossil fuel hearing to subpoena the companies. “It wasn’t the plan that we were going to do that,” Khanna told CNN. “We’re very cautious to issue a subpoena, and we hadn’t issued any subpoenas up until now.”

Khanna said he and Maloney had huddled and made the decision 20 to 30 minutes before she made the announcement at the end of the hearing, with the congressman calling the decision “very significant.”

Khanna, who said there’s a chance lawmakers will call the CEOs back to testify again, added that the committee’s fossil fuel disinformation investigation could take six months. The committee’s investigation has been ongoing for about three months. Lawmakers particularly want to know more about the companies’ more recent activities, from 2015 to the present, including their presence and ads on social media.

During the hearing, committee members pressed the executives about their knowledge of the climate crisis, the role fossil fuels have played in it and their desire to put profits over a climate solution. An undercover video released this summer appeared to show former ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy admitting the company “aggressively” fought climate policy and the science behind it. Maloney played the video during the hearing.

“Our witnesses today would like you to think that their actions I have laid out and put in the record are ancient history, but they’re not,” Maloney said.

Khanna urged US oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron to follow in the footsteps of their European rivals in planning to cut production to address the climate crisis. “Are you embarrassed as an American company that your production is going up while European counterparts are going down?” Khanna asked Chevron CEO Michael Wirth.

The Chevron boss responded by pointing out that demand for energy is going up around the world.
Khanna cited calls from the United Nations and the International Energy Agency to cut oil and gas production to save the planet. When Khanna asked if Chevron would commit to lowering production, Wirth declined to do so. “With all due respect, I’m very proud of our company and what we do,” Wirth said.

Democrats took turns pressing the executives for specific answers about their role in the climate crisis and the disinformation surrounding it. Several of them said the executives should resign.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, said that the companies “hide” behind front groups that lobby public opinion against clean energy. “When you look at these ads, they don’t say the name ‘Exxon,’ ‘BP,’ ‘Chevron’ anywhere,” Tlaib said. “Y’all hide and you deceive the public.”

Republicans on the committee questioned the legitimacy of the hearing, saying they should instead focus on the Biden administration’s energy policies and the progress that the US has already made to reduce emissions. Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana — whose constituents face some of the highest flooding risk in the country — delivered a fervent defense of oil executives.

“It’s abhorrent my colleagues across the aisle have called a so-called hearing today to demonize American industry whose products make modern life possible,” Higgins said, later adding: “It’s insane what my colleagues across the aisle are putting these good American men and women through and attacking American workers as our country dissolves around us. You push patriots too far; you’ve gone a bridge too far. We won’t take it anymore.”

Higgins represents an area very vulnerable to climate change impacts. Cameron Parish in southwest Louisiana — which is part of Higgins’ district — is the most vulnerable county in the US to flood risk, according to a recent nationwide flooding analysis by nonprofit research and technology group First Street.

Fossil fuel companies used their time to focus on their commitment to solving the climate crisis, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and to emphasize the steps they are taking to lower emissions.
“Exxon does not, and never has, spread disinformation regarding climate change,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said in his prepared remarks. “Its public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time.”

Wirth, Chevron’s CEO, said the idea this his company is spreading misinformation about the climate crisis is “simply wrong.” Wirth said Chevron accepts that “climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.” But when Khanna asked the executives to tell the American Petroleum Institute and other groups to stop lobbying against electric vehicles and methane regulations — two initiatives the oil companies themselves support — he was met with silence.

“You could do something here,” said Khanna. “You can tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. You could end that lobbying. Would any of you take that opportunity to look at API and say ‘stop it?’” The committee room fell silent. “Any of you?” he asked. “Could you commit? Any of you?”
No CEO responded to Khanna’s question. community at the time.”

Wirth, Chevron’s CEO, said the idea his company is spreading misinformation about the climate crisis is “simply wrong.” Wirth said Chevron accepts that “climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.” But when Khanna asked the executives to tell the American Petroleum Institute and other groups to stop lobbying against electric vehicles and methane regulations — two initiatives the oil companies themselves support — he was met with silence.

“You could do something here,” said Khanna. “You can tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. You could end that lobbying. Would any of you take that opportunity to look at API and say ‘stop it?’” The committee room fell silent. “Any of you?” he asked. “Could you commit? Any of you?”

No CEO responded to Khanna’s question.

Drilling / fracking / gas processing are becoming more complex with time

From an Article by Laura Legere, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, November 8, 2021

Pennsylvania’s oil and gas regulators are rolling out a voluntary program meant to encourage fracking and pipeline companies to reduce their environmental impact in ways that go far beyond what’s typically required. But will anyone actually use it?

The suite of 15 good deeds promoted in the program includes minimizing noise, plugging abandoned oil wells, powering equipment with renewable energy, improving water quality in historically polluted streams and planting trees to offset greenhouse gas emissions. Commit to enough good deeds and your earthmoving permit application for building a well pad or pipeline corridor will move to the top of the stack for review, leapfrogging those in line for a standard review.

During years of development, regulators with the PA Department of Environmental Protection have called the initiative an innovative, one-of-a-kind approach unlike any being pursued in other oil and gas drilling states — a way to help enhanced environmental practices catch on with all carrot and no stick.

So far, the industry seems uninspired. In comments on the draft “prioritized review” process, the Pennsylvania branch of the American Petroleum Institute called it “a cumbersome bureaucratic quagmire.”

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, based in Robinson, said it surveyed its members — who produce and transport most of the state’s natural gas — and none were interested in using the program in its current form.

The Wexford-based Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, which represents both shale and conventional companies, said its members also wouldn’t use the program as drafted. “The incentive is not worth the substantial additional effort and obligations required,” Dan Weaver, PIOGA’s executive director, wrote. “If the goal of the prioritized review process is to encourage applicants to incorporate superior environmental enhancements into their projects, why make the process so difficult, time consuming and costly?”

A two-part approach — PA-DEP officials say they are trying to find a balance so the program is ambitious but accessible.

The program envisions two classes of enhanced projects. One group would surpass typical practices for building or restoring oil and gas sites, like taking extra steps to protect wetlands, avoiding unnecessary fragmentation of forests, seeding with only Pennsylvania native plants, controlling invasive vegetation and improving habitat for threatened species. Many of those options were informed by practices that the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources requires of oil and gas operations in state forests.

The second group includes an array of practices that aim to clean up environmental scars from past fossil fuel development — like plugging abandoned wells — or to reduce the environmental footprint of the current industry by cutting down on emissions of air pollution and climate warming greenhouse gases.

Projects in the first group are worth one point, and projects in the second group are worth two. A successful application needs a total of nine points.

If the qualifications aren’t demanding enough, PA-DEP fears being flooded with too many priority applications and slowing down review times for standard permits. “We want this to be a success,” Scott Perry, the deputy secretary in charge of DEP’s oil and gas office, said at an advisory board meeting in September. “If, in fact, it is not being utilized, then we will certainly reengage folks to make tweaks to what qualifies and the point system.”

A second attempt — The new program emerged when it became clear that an earlier fast-track permit review, known as an expedited review, wasn’t working. With expedited review, earthmoving plans prepared and certified by a licensed engineer were supposed to be approved within 14 business days instead of 60 calendar days under a standard review.

But environmental groups repeatedly challenged permits issued through the fast-track process in court and won, and PA-DEP was on the hook for their legal fees. In response, the agency started to scrutinize the expedited permits more rigorously, which bogged down the turnaround times.

In addition, ineligible or inaccurate submissions from companies backed up the queue. A 2016 review by PA-DEP found nearly 60% of applications for the expedited earthmoving permits between 2014 and 2016 had flaws that disqualified them from the speedier review process.

PA-DEP decided to scrap expedited review in favor of the incentive program.A key concern voiced by industry trade groups is that the carrot isn’t appetizing enough: There is little certainty that the new prioritized review process will actually result in faster permits.

Review times vary across regions, with the southwest district consistently taking more days on average to issue oil and gas earthmoving permits than the northwest and eastern districts, according to DEP statistics from 2017 through 2020. (DEP attributed a slowdown in the southwest district in 2020 to “significant compliance matters [that] required extensive engineering reviews.”)

The Marcellus Shale Coalition wrote that embarking on a prioritized review process without addressing the inconsistency in permit review times “is akin to building a permanent detour rather than fixing the roadway.”

Industry commenters also said it would be too hard to amass the number of points needed to qualify for a priority review. In some cases, the enhanced environmental projects could cost more than the erosion and stormwater control measures that are the purpose of the permit.

Not giving up yet — Still, neither the industry nor regulators want to give up, especially because the program was crafted with significant collaboration over the last three years.

“The intent of this venture is commendable and worth saving,” Mr. Weaver of the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association wrote. “PIOGA is kindly asking that the department does not let all of this hard work, great ideas and concept sharing for enhancing the environment go to waste.”

Mr. Perry has promised PA-DEP will adjust the program if not enough companies are using it. “We are committed to keeping track of the success of this program so that we can hold it out as a model,” he said in September. “I really think it’s a model for all other oil and gas producing states.”

Now that the comment period on the draft is closed, DEP officials said they will review and respond to the comments and use them to make changes to a final draft.

Pleasants Station on Ohio River generates fog

Distributed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), May 8, 2018

WASHINGTON – An unusual coalition representing natural gas, power, renewable energy and energy efficiency industry associations submitted a legal analysis to the Department of Energy (DOE) late Monday opposing federal use of emergency authority to provide a long-term subsidy for aging and uneconomic power plants that would otherwise retire. Such federal action is under consideration following a request from FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), an owner of power plants now in bankruptcy proceedings.

The industry groups’ legal analysis notes that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently rejected a similar proposal from DOE and initiated a broader review of electric power system “resilience” to determine whether any change in market rules is needed. FES has since petitioned DOE to use its emergency powers under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to prevent the company’s power plants from closing, and others have pointed to even more obscure statutory provisions to seek similar action.

The analysis refutes that an “emergency” exists requiring the use of emergency authorities, pointing out that none of the referenced emergency authorities appropriately apply to the requested relief for power plants whose retirements do not threaten the reliability of electric power.

The legal analysis makes the following key points:

1. The orderly retirement of inefficient, aging power plants in 2020 and 2021 does not constitute an emergency. “FirstEnergy’s claim that an emergency exists rests entirely on the observation that some coal and nuclear plants – most importantly those owned by FirstEnergy – are losing money and are therefore likely to retire in the coming years. That is not an emergency. The retirements [First Energy cites] will unfold over a period of years and will be carefully planned.” (page 3)

2. Further to this point, the paper quotes grid operator PJM Interconnection’s recent response to FirstEnergy’s petition: “…the PJM Transmission System will remain reliable and therefore the generating units listed above may plan to deactivate as scheduled.” (page 3)

3. DOE must reject FirstEnergy’s petition under Section 202(c) to provide above-market pricing to power plants. “Section 202(c) authorizes the Department to order generators to run during times of war or other emergencies … The orderly retirement of power plants in PJM will unfold over a period of years and in the context of ample supply of generating capacity. There is no ‘emergency’ that could serve as the basis for using … Section 202(c).” (page 5)

4. “FirstEnergy’s petition seeks to stretch Section 202(c) far beyond what its text can support… It does not give the Department authority to set national energy policy or to advantage one type of fuel for electric generation over others.” (page 5)

5. The Defense Production Act does not contain authority to provide above-market pricing to power plants. “The Defense Production Act allows certain types of market interventions that are rare in American law. Even so, as broad as it is, the DPA is not broad enough to do what the supporters of these uneconomic power plants would like. The DPA does not allow the government to set prices. Nor does it allow the government to force market participants to buy products or services they do not wish to buy.” (page 7)

6. Section 215A of the Federal Power Act authorizes only temporary measures in response to grid security emergencies. The 2015 FAST Act added Section 215A to the Federal Power Act authorizing DOE to issues emergency measures in response to a ‘grid security emergency,” defined as cyberattacks, EMP attacks, geomagnetic storms and direct physical attacks with significant adverse effects on the reliability of critical electric infrastructure. “The retirement of coal and nuclear plants would not, of course, fit within any of these categories.” (page10)

7. “Orders for ‘emergency measures’ may last only 15 days before an additional emergency finding is required. The 15-day limitation shows clear that … Congress meant them in the ordinary sense that emergency measures are temporary and short-lived. FirstEnergy’s request that certain favored power plants receive rate recovery for four years…would far exceed an authority limited to providing temporary, emergency relief.” (pages 11-12)

The white paper is available here.

####

Association Media Contacts: Advanced Energy Economy: Monique Hanis, mhanis@aee.net), American Petroleum Institute: Michael Tadeo, tadeom@api.org), American Wind Energy Association: Evan Vaughan, evaughan@awea.org), Electric Power Supply Association: Nancy Bagot, nbagot@epsa.org), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America: Cathy Landry, clandry@ingaa.org), Natural Gas Supply Association: Daphne Magnuson (daphne.magnuson@ngsa.org).

Commentary: On Becoming an Energy Citizen?

By S. Thomas Bond, Citizen Farmer, Citizen Chemist, and Citizen Voter

There’s a lot of twisted stuff going on this election time. One of the most curious is something called Energy Citizens 2012. You get a mailer from the American Petroleum Institute which is an unembarrassed plug for burning hydrocarbons, with an oil well and a couple of the oversize pickups that characterize the workers in that business on the front.

You can’t see the “oilfield trash and proud of it” on the back windshields or smell the oil, but you know they’re there. The front of the oversize postcard also contains several very optimistic claims for the importance of hydrocarbon burning.

The back says “IT’S TIME TO CHOOSE – BUT FIRST MAKE SURE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ENERGY. The candidates’ position on energy is important. When it comes to jobs, security and economic growth, A VOTE FOR ENERGY HOLDS THE KEY. To find out how, visit energycitizens2012.org.”

So you turn to your computer, click up “energycitizens2012.org”, and what comes up?  Information? Naa, “JOIN THE MOVEMENT – BECOME AN ENERGY CITIZEN,” is what you get.

The reader is asked to pledge to vote for: (1)  American Energy Security, (2)  Sensible Regulations on Oil and Gas,  (3)  The Keystone XL Pipeline, and (4)  U. S. Energy Jobs.

And then you are asked to sign your identifying information. No explanation of what measures you will be supporting is given, none at all. No candidates are named. No electoral races are mentioned, no information about people who will be using your name (and doubtless asking you for money) and no careful explanation of objectives. Over it all waves the American flag, suggesting blind conformity to “the movement” is a virtue.

It has been suggested this year that it might be a good idea if employers could tell employees which candidate to vote for. This is a little bit further beyond that – the candidates and parties are immaterial, you are to submit yourself to what is essentially an economic interest. The folks at the top of an industry are given the right to decide how to regulate not only themselves, but also society, ostensibly for your benefit.

For the voting individual, this is an immense leap of faith, to let leaders in a single industry decide for all. Or would it really be a leap of hopeful ignorance?

Advertising done by the “fracking” industry is ridiculous. It is everywhere: newspapers, all kinds of magazines, internet. Everywhere. The truth is, no corporation exists without legislation. Business on a small scale can be done the libertarian way, but all corporations have to have favorable legislation.

What the shale drilling industry fears the most is loss of legal privilege. The lax regulation, favorable legislation, the tax exemptions are at risk as investors and the public come to realize how they operate. They can’t deal with the details in public discussion. They have to have a supporting political force, and hence the manipulation of public opinion.

It would be very interesting to see what fraction of the shale drilling industry’s investments is in politics and public relations. It might shake some investors, too.

>>> S. Thomas Bond operates a 500 acre cattle farm near Jane Lew in Lewis County, WV. He is a retired teacher of chemistry at both the high school and college level. And, he has been active in the Guardians of the West Fork and the Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact. <<<