In towns across America, hydraulic fracturing continues to be a hot-button issue, with municipalities in at least twelve states adopting measures to ban hydraulic fracturing altogether on a temporary or permanent basis. Recent developments in Texas, California, and Colorado demonstrate that battles continue over local bans on hydraulic fracturing. (more…)
WE KNOW ENERGY®
INFOGRAPHIC: EPA’s Regulatory Timeline for Disclosure and Reporting of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals9:18 am by Bracewell & Giuliani
In May 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comments on its proposed rule regarding disclosure and reporting requirements for chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Comments for this proposed rule for the upstream shale industry are due September 18, 2014.
For a printable version of this infographic, please click here.
Earlier today, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) released two proposals designed to enhance the safety of the transportation of crude by rail. The first, short proposal seeks comments on a potential rulemaking which would increase the oil-spill planning required for crude by rail transport. The second, more lengthy proposal seeks comments on a suite of enhancements intended to enhance the safety of rail transportation itself. (more…)
To address past issues associated with invalid Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) generated for compliance with the renewable fuels standard (RFS), EPA has established a voluntary quality-assurance program (QAP). 79 Fed. Reg. 42,078 (July 18, 2014).
Types of RINs Available
Under the voluntary QAP, independent third-party auditors can certify the validity of various types of RINs. Three of the four types of RINs available to establish compliance under the RFS program are verified RINs: (more…)
Sandra Snyder, Richard Alonso, Jeff Holmstead and Charles Nixon
On Monday, June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in UARG v. EPA, the case that questioned EPA’s authority to require stationary sources to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V air permits for greenhouse gases (GHGs). Specifically, the Court considered: (1) whether a stationary source can be required to obtain a PSD or Title V air permit based solely on its potential to emit GHGs and (2) whether sources that have to obtain PSD and Title V permits based on their potential to emit traditional criteria pollutants (so called “anyway sources”) must also obtain a permit limit based on the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for controlling GHG emissions. Ultimately, the Court held that GHG emissions alone cannot trigger an obligation to obtain a PSD or Title V permit, but that EPA can require a source to have a BACT limit for GHGs in its PSD permit if the source is required to obtain a PSD permit for any other pollutant. (more…)
Bracewell & Giuliani
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Courts, Crude and Products, DOE, Electric, Enforcement, Environmental, Litigation, Midstream, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Offshore, Power, Regional Energy Law, Renewable Energy/Cleantech, Shale Development, Transmission, Upstream Energy