Latest news with #HouseBill49
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Oil companies win protections from Texas Legislature ahead of selling fracking water
The Texas Legislature has given oil and gas companies legal cover to sell wastewater to be treated and released into the state's rivers, lakes and streams. State Rep. Drew Darby's House Bill 49 — on its way to Gov. Greg Abbott — marks a step the oil and gas industry has said is a key barrier to expanding the treatment of the brine it generates, known as produced water, and making it available for reuse. The bill protects landowners, oil, treatment and transportation companies from liability should consequences arise after they sell or treat the liquid. In Texas, record oil and gas production is only outmatched by the backwash that surfaces with the fossil fuels. There are five barrels of produced water for every barrel of oil. Texas oil companies are increasingly using this liquid, which is trapped in the rock where drilling and fracking occur, to frack more. Now, companies believe the water can help replenish the state's water supply, which is under strain due to a larger population, withering infrastructure and climate change. Four treatment companies applied for state permission to release the water into the state's waterways. 'I think this will really free up some water transactions to start happening, where people will more freely exchange water,' said Laura Capper, a produced water expert and oil and gas consultant. [Can Texas clean up fracking water enough to use for farming? One company thinks so.] Under Darby's bill, companies that sell the water can't be held responsible for the consequences if someone else uses the water. Treatment and transportation companies and landowners also qualify for protection, including in cases of personal injury, death, or property damage. Companies and landowners can only be sued when they are grossly negligent, commit intentional, wrongful acts of omission, break state or federal laws, or fail to satisfy standards set by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which sets and enforces the state's environmental rules. The bill directs the environmental quality commission to write rules around produced water research and reuse. Darby's bill also prohibits courts from issuing what are known as exemplary damages, or additional punitive measures, to deter companies from committing the same mistake. Cyrus Reed, a legislative and conservation director for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy organization, said the state is moving too fast. He said scientists and regulators should continue experimenting with treatment methods until they can be sure the water can be treated continuously. In 2021, lawmakers began to fund treatment research, putting $10 million toward the effort, called the Texas Produced Water Consortium. The environmental quality commission has said the consortium's findings will help decide whether to let companies release water into the environment. But Reed said the consortium should spend more years on pilot projects, experimenting on soil, before laws are introduced, adding that the water, even when treated, could still contain contaminants the environmental quality commission has not accounted for. 'I understand why (lawmakers) want this,' Reed said. 'They're trying to make it work so that this water can be reused, but who's going to ultimately pay the price? It's going to be the public.' Capper, the water consultant, said the law places the responsibility on the state's regulatory agencies to make sure the water is safe, which also gives the industry security to sell it. She said there is enough research through Texas and New Mexico, which has also funded produced water treatment research, to make the water safe to discharge. 'We've studied this water to death,' she said. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Oil companies want protection as Texas considers allowing treated fracking water released into rivers
ODESSA — Oil and gas companies are seeking legal shelter as Texas comes closer to using waste brine once considered too toxic for anything other than fracking to replenish Texas' water shortages. Legislation filed by state Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, could give them, transportation companies and landowners such protection. Darby told a Texas House panel in March his bill will give industries the certainty they need to ramp up treatment of the industrial waste, known as produced water. The full House approved the legislation earlier this year and it is awaiting a Senate debate. Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders have made water a priority issue this session. Several proposals aim to increase the state's water supply, which is under duress from a growing population, climate change and leaking infrastructure. Cleaning produced water is one of several ways lawmakers hope to boost supply. There is an extraordinary amount of backwash from oil production, which continues to break records, especially in West Texas. For every barrel of oil produced, as many as five barrels of water are captured, Darby told lawmakers on the committee on natural resources, where he introduced the bill. That water is either reused for fracking or stored underground. [Can Texas clean up fracking water enough to use for farming? One company thinks so.] However, industry and legislators have put millions of dollars toward researching treatment methods. And now, some companies say they have scrubbed out the toxic contaminants to help refill drying bodies of water in West Texas. But the oil and gas industry is hesitating to expand this effort unless it can be sure it is shielded from liability after it hands off the water. If legislators fail to assure the industry, companies might not want to treat the water and sell it, said Michael Lozano, who leads government affairs at the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. 'Without developing this field with legal certainty, Texas will miss out on millions of barrels of day of treated produced water that could benefit industrial and land application of water uses, which could continue to decrease reliance on fresh water in these sectors,' Lozano said. Darby's bill, House Bill 49, says that after an oil company agrees to sell the water for beneficial use by someone else, it is generally not liable if there are consequences later on. Neither are the companies treating the water. The bill also protects landowners who pay to treat the water and sell it, including in cases of personal injury, death, or property damage. Companies can be liable in some cases, including gross negligence, intentional, wrongful acts of omission, breaking state and federal treatment laws, or failing to meet standards under the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental regulator. It also directs the commission to write more rules outlining how the water should be treated and used. In a statement to The Texas Tribune, Darby called liability a 'key barrier' to expanding produced water treatment, adding the bill 'does not shield bad actors — anyone who violates the law or their permit remains fully liable.' It's unclear when the state might begin allowing treated produced water into nature. Four treatment companies have applied for permits with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to discharge or dispose of produced water into the state's bodies of water. Darby's proposal has set off alarms among environmental policy experts who say that regulators authorizing companies to discharge produced water are not working with enough data to support their decisions. The commission, which oversees all discharges, including those from oil and gas, has said the agency follows state and federal guidelines. Regulators are also gathering information supplied by the Texas Produced Water Consortium, a research initiative consisting of five pilot projects established by lawmakers in 2021 to study treatment methods of produced water. The amount of chemicals in produced water varies by sample. Some estimates have detected hundreds, establishing the liquid as one of the most complicated to treat. Nichole Saunders, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, said she does not trust the permits to account for every chemical and toxic contaminant. She said the water could still contain dangerous contaminants that the permit does not account for. Regulators and scientists should continue to improve testing before issuing permits, she said. 'We're basing the responsibility for outcomes on the safety net of our regulatory system with this bill,' she said. 'Not on what outcomes might be possible in a best-case scenario.' Dan Mueller, an engineer and a produced water expert, agreed that there is not enough data to issue permits. Mueller raised concerns about the capability of the treatment technologies, saying the five pilot projects have not been running long enough to ensure they clean the water reliably. And if the treated water causes environmental or human harm, he said, there are no assurances that the companies that discharge the water can afford to remediate all issues. He says the bill and permits should include financial mechanisms that can cover environmental problems, should they occur. Without these assurances, 'the responsibility to clean up any contamination that might occur is going to fall to the state, and ultimately that falls to the taxpayer, who will have to foot the bill,' he said. 'That's just not right.' Lozano, with the industry trade group, said there are no existing protections for oil and gas companies that treat and sell the water, adding that treatment gives them another alternative for the excess. 'If this segment of the industry cannot develop and mature, it could impact the record production that has occurred in the Permian Basin,' he said. Disclosure: Environmental Defense Fund and Permian Basin Petroleum Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Critics sound off after new legislation exempts hospitals from key policy: 'We think it was unnecessary'
Hospitals in Maryland will no longer be required to cut building emissions under the state's signature climate policy — a move that some climate advocates say could set a dangerous precedent. This year, lawmakers passed House Bill 49 to modify the Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) program, Maryland Matters reported. The program has been revised to exempt hospitals from the rules and requirements. The new legislation exempts hospitals and certain equipment used in hospitals and medical facilities from the BEPS program, which aims to reduce building pollution by 2040 in Maryland. The Maryland Hospital Association pushed for the change, arguing that continuous, reliable power is critical for patient safety in facilities like intensive care units, emergency rooms, and operating rooms. The MHA added that power disruptions could have deadly consequences. Natasha Mehu, the MHA's vice president of government affairs and policy, said hospitals do support efforts to fight rising global temperatures but need special consideration for an exemption. The nonprofit organization Chesapeake Climate Action Network was initially in favor of House Bill 49, but lawmakers started discussing broader revisions to the program, which included exempting residential buildings and hospitals. "We think it was unnecessary," said CCAN lobbyist Jamie DeMarco, per Maryland Matters. "No other BEPS in the country exempts hospitals." Scaling back the rules and weakening the policies could delay Maryland's path to its 2040 net-zero emissions. This could also raise energy costs and limit job creation in the clean energy sector. Beyond the economic impact, the BEPS rollback could also have consequences on the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, indirect emissions from homes and businesses accounted for 31% of total emissions in the U.S. in 2022. Exempting large buildings could enable them to continue relying on dirty energy sources that contribute to warming the climate and exposing people to harmful indoor air pollution that can cause respiratory issues and heart disease. Do you think governments should ban gas stoves? Heck yes! Only in new buildings Only in restaurants Heck no! Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. These new changes to Maryland's BEPS program could slow down the progress toward cleaner energy in the state's big buildings. While the setbacks is discouraging, there are still ways to push for meaningful change. Maryland has other acts and initiatives that are still in place, including ENERGIZE Maryland, which aims to boost clean energy production in the state to 75% of the total. It could help accelerate the state's journey toward achieving 100% clean energy by 2035 and reduce its pollution at the same time. The best thing individuals can do to lobby for stronger environmental policies is to vote for pro-climate candidates during elections. Supporting them could give pro-climate leaders the power to push for policies that can make a difference and pave the way for a cleaner and safer future for all. Other ways that individuals can help include staying informed about critical climate issues and policies and supporting local retrofitting projects and initiatives. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Maryland's building emissions rules got ‘trimmed' this session
Two air source heat pumps installed on the exterior of a house. ( photo by Nimur.) Environmentalists who feared an extensive rollback of one of the state's signature climate programs, instead managed to escape this year's legislative session with what they say are just revisions to the Building Energy Performance Standards. The BEPS program, adopted as part of the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, requires large buildings in the state to electrify over time, and reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, or pay fees. This year, lawmakers exempted hospitals from the rules, amid other changes, but largely left the program intact to the relief of environmentalists. 'BEPS was trimmed, not cut down,' said Jamie DeMarco, a lobbyist for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. CCAN initially supported House Bill 49, which would have given buildings some more flexibility, including with a waiver program for specific cases. The Maryland Department of the Environment, which enforces building emissions rules, proposed the bill. But midway through the legislative session, lawmakers began discussing broader modifications to the rules, including exempting residential buildings and hospitals, said Brittany Baker, CCAN's Maryland director. 'Once we were having these BEPS conversations, legislators had all of this angst … about BEPS, that now they wanted to attach all of these weakening amendments to the bill,' Baker said. Moore issues executive order that could delay EV sales penalties That came about the same time that a bill rolling back Maryland's electric vehicles program was advancing in the legislature. Ultimately, that bill failed, but not before Gov. Wes Moore issued a similar executive order, allowing his administration to pause penalties for the first two years of the EV program, which requires manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of electric cars in Maryland. 'This legislative session was a tough, tough few months,' read an online post from CCAN. 'However, our advocacy changed the trajectory of the session in a tangible way.' Residential buildings don't appear in the passed bill, which is on the governor's desk. But hospitals were exempted, and emissions associated with steam sterilization and back-up generators at medical facilities, nursing homes and laboratories are also exempt under the bill. 'We think it was unnecessary. No other BEPS in the country exempts hospitals,' DeMarco said. 'But that's what happened.' Prior to this year's bill, historic buildings, elementary and secondary schools, manufacturing buildings, agricultural buildings and federal buildings could all apply to be exempted from BEPS. In testimony on the original bill, the Maryland Hospital Association pushed for lawmakers to exclude hospitals, arguing that they are held to unique HVAC standards, and intensive care units, emergency rooms and operating rooms need 'continuous and guaranteed access to power.' 'While hospitals support efforts to combat climate change, the unique nature of hospitals — and the potentially deadly consequences of power failure on patient safety — requires special consideration for an exemption,' wrote Natasha Mehu, vice president of government affairs and policy at MHA. This year's bill also clarified the relationship between the state and a similar building emissions program established in Montgomery County, in a way DeMarco called 'fair and reasonable': It lets MDE certify county-level programs and waive the state rules for buildings in counties that have approved regulations. Tom Ballentine, vice president for policy and government relations for Maryland NAIOP, a commercial real estate association, said the change reconciles 'overlapping requirements at the state and local level' and lets building owners focus on Montgomery's rules, which include earlier deadlines. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Buildings — with fossil-fuel burning furnaces, water heaters and stoves — contributed 16% of Maryland's greenhouse gas emissions as of 2020. Under state law, Maryland's overall emissions must be net-zero by 2045. In addition to reducing emissions, Maryland's BEPS program requires large buildings (over 35,000 square feet) to reduce their 'energy use intensity,' which measures annual energy use per square foot. The exact reductions haven't been set yet, after the General Assembly required MDE last year to take in energy use data from buildings first. Ballentine said that the energy use regulations represent an 'expansion of the policy scope that needs some consideration,' because it goes beyond greenhouse gas emissions. 'The way that energy efficiency has been managed in the past is through building and energy codes that are developed through a process that puts a high value on technical feasibility and cost effectiveness,' Ballentine said. 'MDE doesn't have that same mandate.' The bill exempted buildings with permanent 'sensitive compartmented information facilities,' or SCIFs, owned by certain federal agencies, from the energy use requirements. These facilities are essentially secure rooms where classified information is discussed, protected by security technology. DeMarco said he would have preferred to see SCIFs themselves exempted from the rules, rather than any building that contains a SCIF. 'The fear is that any data center, if it wants to be exempted from energy-use intensity, could just find a SCIF to be contained in it. But most data centers right now do not have SCIFs,' DeMarco said. Lawmakers approve energy reform bills aimed at cutting rates, boosting in-state generation Meanwhile, BEPS waivers focused on economic feasibility were stricken from the bill. The energy use regulations are a 'co-equal pillar' of the BEPS rules, DeMarco said, because they help prevent building owners from purchasing cheaper yet more inefficient electric heating systems, forcing tenants to deal with high bills. As originally introduced, this year's bill, which came from MDE, would have set up alternative compliance payments for the energy use segments — instead of only the greenhouse gas emissions. But that language was scrapped from the bill. Ballentine said the fees were set far too high. Using data from Montgomery County, his association estimated that the worst performing condominium building might have paid up to $600,000 per year. 'I was very surprised, actually, that in a session where the BGE bill impacts of increased energy costs and power surcharges were such an item of discussion, the energy intensity fee didn't get more attention,' Ballentine said. 'Because it is big for some buildings. It's a substantial number. With MDE's backing, the fees may resurface in the legislature. Getting the balance right is critical, DeMarco said. The fees must be high enough to encourage building owners to make the building renovations, but low enough that they don't bankrupt building owners who cannot comply. 'It essentially caps how much any building will ever have to pay, and knowing that there's an upper bound of how much you would ever have to pay provides a lot of beneficial certainty,' DeMarco said.
