Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
US Lawmakers Predict Uncontentious Reconciliation of TSCA Bills
Jul 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Senator Tom Udall, co-author of the Senate bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, is optimistic that reconciliation of the differences with the House version will not be contentious. The bill is currently awaiting floor action. -
US EPA to Update its Asbestos Standard
Jul 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has agreed to update its Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in response to a recommendation by its Office of Inspector General (OIG). -
Lawmakers Seek Criminal Probe of Ex-Chemical Agency Head
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top members of the House Oversight Committee want the Justice Department to investigate whether a former Obama administration official lied to their committee. -
House Lawmakers Call for DOJ Investigation of Ex-CSB Chairman
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate whether the former chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board made false statements to Congress during two committee hearings examining his conduct. -
Column: McConnell: Fighting for Kentucky Jobs
Jul 8, 2015 | Cincinnati Inquirer
By Mitch McConnell
For years, the Obama administration and its overzealous bureaucratic regulators at the EPA have waged a war against Kentucky coal jobs, miners and their families. And I’ve vowed to do all I can to stop them. -
McConnell Takes Credit for Anti-EPA Policy Riders
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today took credit for a host of policy riders in the upper chamber's fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA. -
McConnell Won’t Back Down in EPA Spending Fight
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged Wednesday that he’ll keep up his fight to stop Obama administration environmental rules through spending bills. -
McCarthy Defends EPA and Clean Power Plan Against Potential Budget Cuts
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
Ahead of a tough week for U.S. EPA on Capitol Hill, Administrator Gina McCarthy is defending the agency and making it clear the Obama administration won't stop its aggressive push to curtail greenhouse gases. -
Green Groups Lobby Against House Interior-EPA Bill
Jul 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
A coalition of 19 environmental groups are lobbying lawmakers to oppose a House bill that contains a nine percent cut for EPA and a host of riders that would block several regulations, including ones addressing climate change and water. -
Energy Companies Meeting with Obama Officials; EPA Spending Bill Sparks an Outcry
Jul 8, 2015 | Washington Post
By Steven Overly
Energy companies and trade groups have been storming Washington in recent weeks for meetings with Obama administration officials, hoping to soften the power plant regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to finalize this summer. -
FY16 Bills Cut EPA Research Funding, Seek To Bar Controversial Studies
Jul 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad and David LaRoss
The House and Senate fiscal year 2016 spending bills for EPA would cut the agency's research budget by tens of millions of dollars from FY15 appropriated levels and eliminate the Obama administration's proposed boost to the agency's science and technology account, in order to block efforts -- such as hydraulic fracturing and climate research -- that GOP lawmakers oppose. -
Businesses Flock to White House in Bid to Shape Power Plant Regs
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy companies and industry groups are flocking to the White House in a last-ditch effort to convince the Obama administration to change its forthcoming carbon emission regulations for existing power plants. -
In Broad ESPS Legal Defense, McCarthy Downplays 'Narrow' Mercury Ruling
Jul 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is rejecting critics' claims that the Supreme Court's recent ruling remanding the agency's mercury rule for power plants will bolster future legal challenges to its forthcoming greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for the power sector, arguing the two rules are authorized by different sections of the Clean Air Act. -
Senators Question Obama Ability to Implement Climate Plans
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senators sparred Wednesday over the effectiveness and legality of President Obama’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international climate agreement later this year. -
Think Tank Urges States to Reject Clean Power Plan
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A think tank linked to industrialists Charles and David Koch launched a campaign today to stop states from complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Pa. Eyes 'Trade-Ready' Plan to Comply with EPA Carbon Rule
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Pennsylvania's chief air regulator thinks the state can craft a way of complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that will be "trade-ready," enabling the exchange of carbon allowances with other states to reach federal goals for emission rate reductions. -
Debate on Smog Pollution Should be About Health, Not Lobbying and Politics
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By William N. Rom, MD
The two years since my testimony to the House Energy and Power Subcommittee have been dispiriting.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
US Lawmakers Predict Uncontentious Reconciliation of TSCA Bills
Jul 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Senator Tom Udall, co-author of the Senate bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, is optimistic that reconciliation of the differences with the House version will not be contentious. The bill is currently awaiting floor action.
The full House passed the TSCA Modernization Act (HR 2576) by an overwhelming 398-1 vote last month (CW 24 June 2015), while the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved the Senate bill (S 697) in April (CW 29 April 2015). The latter is expected to be taken up for Senate floor consideration before the August recess.
If the Senate passes S 697, then it and the House version would go to a conference committee of the two chambers to reconcile differences. The unified version will then have to be approved by both chambers before it goes to the president's desk.
“Probably the biggest differences are in the preemption areas of the bills [and] I believe these are things we can work through,” said Mr Udall (D-New Mexico). He was discussing TSCA reform at a recent forum with Representative John Shimkus (R-Illinois), author of the House bill.
“There are a lot of different ways to get a mixture of both the House and Senate preemption proposals,” he added. In the House bill, preemption kicks in only after the EPA makes a final determination following a risk assessment on a chemical, but in the Senate version it would start soon after the EPA takes up a chemical for assessment.
Defending the preemption provisions, Mr Udall said that even an “aggressive” state like California has only been able to propose action on three chemicals, after enacting a chemical safety bill in 2008. “So what that tells me is that we have a lot of work to do at the EPA, at the federal level.”
There are other provisions in the Senate bill that the House chose not to address, he said, but “we can probably find a way to deal with [them in conference] and have a bill that is a good solid compromise bill.” One way to do it is to find “common ground” via informal discussions, before the measures go to conference, and “make it a very quick conference after we resolve those [differences]”, Mr Udall said.
He said he did not see a situation where the House bill would be considered on the Senate floor instead.
Senator Barbara Boxer, a critic of S 697, has proposed that the Senate take up the House bill instead of its own because it has overwhelming bipartisan support and the backing of several states (CW 30 June 2015). The Senate bill is a “good solid piece of legislation”, Mr Udall said. “It is the one that senators are most familiar with,” he said, pointing out that it now has 41 co-sponsors, nearly half of them Democrats. “So we are going to put that one on the floor.”
Both Mr Udall and Mr Shimkus rejected the premise that discussion in conference committee would be contentious. The bills' objectives are the same, said Mr Shimkus. It becomes difficult only when you get “the same type of bills but the goals [and] objectives are different”, he added.
-
US EPA to Update its Asbestos Standard
Jul 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has agreed to update its Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in response to a recommendation by its Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Since 1973, under the NESHAP Regulation, the EPA has allowed buildings that are structurally unsound and in imminent danger of collapse to be demolished, without first removing regulated asbestos-containing materials, the OIG said in a report.
The agency's alternative asbestos control method experiments show that this can result in the release of significant amounts of asbestos into runoff wastewater. The experiments also demonstrate that the amount of released asbestos “often exceeds the legally reportable quantity” of one pound in a 24-hour period, the OIG said, and recommended that the EPA should update its guidance to address such potentially harmful releases and assess the potential public health risk posed by them.
In response, the agency agreed that its guidance in the area was “dated and disparate” and said it would put together a team of asbestos experts to advise it in producing an “updated consolidated guidance document, which has practical application to the regulated community.”
-
Lawmakers Seek Criminal Probe of Ex-Chemical Agency Head
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top members of the House Oversight Committee want the Justice Department to investigate whether a former Obama administration official lied to their committee.
Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said Rafael Moure-Eraso, who was the chairman of the Chemical Safety Board until March, made various statements to the panel at hearings that were later contradicted by documents or other witnesses.
The lawmakers, who are the chairman and ranking member of the committee, respectively, wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch Wednesday asking her to launch an investigation into Moure-Eraso to determine whether he committed various “serious crimes” and whether to prosecute him.
“The inconsistencies between Mr. Moure-Eraso’s testimony and other information received by the committee raise significant concerns about the truthfulness of Mr. Moure-Eraso’s testimony,” Chaffetz and Cummings wrote.
“Furthermore, the testimony in question is related to key aspects of the committee’s investigation, and in each case, Mr. Moure-Eraso appeared to answer questions in such a way as to avoid additional scrutiny.”
Moure-Eraso’s statements concern an investigation the Oversight Committee has been conducting since early last year into allegations he retaliated against whistleblowers, illegally used a personal email account for official business, created a generally hostile and abusive work environment, and other claims.
Those allegations led an increasing number of lawmakers of both parties to call for his resignation. He refused, leading President Obama to ask him to step down, which he did in March.
In an Associated Press interview, he denied knowingly lying to Congress.
“I never knowingly presented to Congress, to the oversight committee, any false information,” he told AP, adding, "I don’t think this has anything to do with bad faith on my part.”
He accused the lawmakers of trying to discredit the work he did throughout his five years at the chemical agency.
Chaffetz and Cummings accused Moure-Eraso of lying about three details: consulting with the agency’s lawyer about accessing employees’ emails, who was responsible for providing emails for an inspector general investigation and when he stopped using his personal email account.
“We are concerned by information and documents that suggest that Mr. Moure-Eraso’s testimony was not truthful,” the lawmakers wrote.
The panel also produced a video showing lawmakers asking Moure-Eraso various questions about the allegations in hearings and some of his responses.
-
House Lawmakers Call for DOJ Investigation of Ex-CSB Chairman
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
This story was updated at 1:45 p.m. EDT.
Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate whether the former chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board made false statements to Congress during two committee hearings examining his conduct.
Former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso may have committed perjury by making statements he knew were false, said the letter, which was signed by Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
The lawmakers wrote that their review of nine transcribed interviews of CSB staff members, including Moure-Eraso, and thousands of pages of documents obtained from the agency, found the ex-chairman's testimony "may have implicated federal statutes that prohibit lying under oath, making false statements and obstructing Congress."
Specifically, the committee alleged that Moure-Eraso testified under oath that he consulted with CSB General Counsel Richard Loeb before approving a request to search the emails of two employees, but Loeb said that Moure-Eraso did not talk with him before taking the action.
In addition, Moure-Eraso told the committee that the CSB's former chief information officer was responsible for overseeing the production of emails to the U.S. EPA Inspector General's office, but the CIO's sworn statement contradicted the claim.
Advertisement
The committee also said that Moure-Eraso's description of when he stopped using a personal email account to conduct official business differed from agency records. Moure-Eraso told lawmakers he stopped using the account "about a year and a half" before a June 2014 committee hearing, but lawmakers say documents show he kept using the account "until a much later date."
These inconsistencies, the lawmakers wrote, "raise significant concerns about the truthfulness of Mr. Moure-Eraso's testimony."
Moure-Eraso resigned from the Chemical Safety Board under pressure from the White House earlier this year (Greenwire, June 29). Vanessa Sutherland, the general counsel at the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has been nominated to replace Moure-Eraso at the agency (Greenwire, June 29).
Congressional referrals to the Department of Justice are rare, but DOJ is not obligated to seek charges against Moure-Eraso or other officials whom lawmakers suspect of wrongdoing.
Moure-Eraso said he was surprised by the action and was expecting to speak with his attorney later today to discuss the referral. He said he believed he had been truthful when testifying before the Oversight Committee.
It can "spoil your whole day, this type of news," Moure-Eraso said.
James Rudio, a Virginia attorney who is representing Moure-Eraso, said he was still reviewing the referral.
"Mr. Moure-Eraso believes his answers were accurate to the best of his knowledge and information at the time and that there was no intent on his part to mislead the committee," Rudio said.
The Department of Justice didn't respond to a request for comment this morning.
-
Column: McConnell: Fighting for Kentucky Jobs
Jul 8, 2015 | Cincinnati Inquirer
By Mitch McConnell
For years, the Obama administration and its overzealous bureaucratic regulators at the EPA have waged a war against Kentucky coal jobs, miners and their families. And I’ve vowed to do all I can to stop them.
I’m pleased to report that recently the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, took an important step toward using Congress’s power of the purse to rein in the agency on several fronts, efforts that should help those not only in the coal industry but also farmers and Kentucky job creators.
Earlier this year, I joined the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee responsible for funding the EPA. I joined this subcommittee specifically to be in a position to oversee the EPA’s budget and to protect Kentucky jobs. As a member of this subcommittee, I was able to secure a number of policy provisions in this EPA funding bill that passed out of committee, provisions that seek to scale back the overreach of the EPA.
One of the most egregious of the EPA’s assaults on Kentucky is the agency’s attempt to impose a so-called “Clean Power Plan” that would have a dramatic impact on existing coal-fired power plants. For example, here in Kentucky, abiding by this regulation would mean closing power plants, cutting more jobs and increasing the cost of electricity for families and job creators across the state.
This plan would shrink our state’s economy by almost $2 billion and raise electricity rates by double digits. And it would reduce the affordable, plentiful energy we get from coal, which is critical to industries throughout Kentucky.
Because of the detrimental impact this regulation could have on Kentucky and other states, not to mention the question of whether this regulation is even within the EPA’s legal authority, I wrote a letter to every governor in the country urging caution, for the sake of their constituents and their state’s economies, before complying with the EPA’s request for state implementation plans.
Well, the provisions I included in the bill that passed the Appropriations Committee would guarantee that governors who heeded my warning would be protected. If enacted, the measure I secured would restrict the EPA from using its funding to force states to submit an implementation plan. Kentucky’s next governor, no matter who wins the election, could forgo compliance with this regulation without fear of retaliation from the agency.
The Interior Appropriations bill contains provisions to halt other burdensome EPA regulations that would hurt Kentucky, too. For some time, I’ve spoken in opposition to an Obama administration regulation known as the “Waters of the U.S.” rule that would classify nearly all wetlands in the state – potentially small ponds and ditches – as “navigable” waters, and thus subject them to interference by Washington bureaucrats. Such a regulation would wreak havoc on many industries across Kentucky, especially agriculture, and trample on Kentuckians’ private property rights. The bill language I secured would prohibit funding for the EPA to implement this onerous regulation.
I also inserted language in the bill to prevent funding for a new ozone rule that would have a serious detrimental effect on jobs and electricity prices until certain thresholds are met. The language would prohibit the EPA from regulating a standard for ozone or “smog” levels until at least 85 percent of counties nationwide that are not currently complying are able to do so.
Furthermore, this bill, as written, would also prohibit the EPA from enforcing a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting system for manure management systems; it would prohibit the agency from promulgating any regulation to limit livestock emissions; and it expresses the committee’s concerns with the Department of Interior rewriting the Stream Buffer Zone rule. I also worked with the subcommittee to reduce funding for the EPA’s core regulatory function by 10 percent to slow the agency’s work on harmful regulations like these.
This bill makes it clear to the EPA that Congress is prepared to try to rein in the agency’s regulatory overreach, and passing the measure out of the Appropriations Committee was an important first step. However, much work still remains to be done before the provisions become law. The bill, as written, needs to pass the Senate, and President Obama must sign it.
Congress must do its best through the power of the purse to hold the line against the bureaucratic and regulatory menace the EPA has become, at least until America elects a new president who is more sympathetic to the needs of Kentucky’s coal families, farmers and small-business owners. I can assure you, I will not stand idly by while this administration tries to wipe out the lifeblood of our state’s economy.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, is Senate Majority Leader.
-
McConnell Takes Credit for Anti-EPA Policy Riders
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today took credit for a host of policy riders in the upper chamber's fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA.
In a column in the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Kentucky Republican said he inserted language into the bill that would target EPA's Clean Power Plan, halt the agency's plan to change the scope of waters that receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act and delay the agency's update to the national ozone standard.
A member of the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, McConnell also took credit for the bill's policy provision that would block EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations and said he worked to make sure the bill expressed the committee's concerns with Interior's rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule.
"I joined this subcommittee specifically to be in a position to oversee the EPA's budget and to protect Kentucky jobs," McConnell wrote. "As a member of this subcommittee, I was able to secure a number of policy provisions in this EPA funding bill that passed out of committee, provisions that seek to scale back the overreach of the EPA."
The fiscal 2016 bill approved by the full Senate Appropriations Committee in June would overall provide EPA with $7.6 billion, a cut of $538.8 million below current funding levels. The Interior Department would see $11 billion and the Forest Service $5.12 billion under the bill.
Democrats voted against the bill in committee for what they called 11 "poison pill" riders aimed at environmental regulations, including many of the ones McConnell is taking credit for in today's column. It's unclear when the full Senate will take up the bill, which faces an uphill road to enactment.
Advertisement
The Clean Power Plan rider would bar EPA from putting in place a federal implementation plan for states that don't comply with the program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at power plants. It tracks with McConnell's earlier argument that states should "just say no" to the plan to slow down the implementation process.
In the column, McConnell referenced a letter he sent to governors urging them to take "caution" before complying with the proposed rule, which EPA is set to finalize this summer.
"If enacted, the measure I secured would restrict the EPA from using its funding to force states to submit an implementation plan," McConnell wrote. "Kentucky's next governor, no matter who wins the election, could forgo compliance with this regulation without fear of retaliation from the agency."
McConnell said he was similarly able to secure a provision -- the same as one that's contained in the House fiscal 2016 spending plan being debated on the floor this week -- that would prevent EPA from using funding to put in place its recent final Waters of the U.S. rule. McConnell and other critics argue the rule is a power grab that would harm agricultural producers.
The Senate majority leader also said he inserted language that would prevent EPA from lowering the national ambient air quality standard for ozone until 85 percent of counties meet the limit that the agency set in 2008. EPA in November proposed to lower the standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion based on a review of public health data.
"I also inserted language in the bill to prevent funding for a new ozone rule that would have a serious detrimental effect on jobs and electricity prices until certain thresholds are met," McConnell wrote.
The House GOP appropriations bill contains the same provision. The language tracks with stand-alone legislation introduced earlier this Congress by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in the Senate and Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) in the House. That bill would also require EPA to insert cost calculations into its decision to change the ozone standard, a sharp departure from the Clean Air Act's current requirement that EPA consider only public health effects.
In a conference call with reporters yesterday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy slammed similar policy riders in the House GOP budget bill, warning that they would harm EPA's core mission of protecting public health and the environment.
"Those provisions are very problematic," she said, "and we strenuously object to inclusions of such provisions."
-
McConnell Won’t Back Down in EPA Spending Fight
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged Wednesday that he’ll keep up his fight to stop Obama administration environmental rules through spending bills.
In a column in the Cincinnati Enquirer, McConnell claimed credit for the Senate appropriations provisions that block Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts, saying it is his responsibility to protect Kentucky from them.
“I’m pleased to report that recently the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, took an important step toward using Congress’s power of the purse to rein in the agency on several fronts, efforts that should help those not only in the coal industry but also farmers and Kentucky job creators,” McConnell wrote.
McConnell earlier this year placed himself on the appropriations subcommittee with authority over the EPA, in an effort to exercise more power over the agency.
“As a member of this subcommittee, I was able to secure a number of policy provisions in this EPA funding bill that passed out of committee, provisions that seek to scale back the overreach of the EPA,” he said.
McConnell’s column was published the day after Obama administration officials lashed out at the Senate’s EPA funding bill, along with a similar measure the House will vote on this week.
Both make significant cuts to the agency’s budget while blocking a number of controversial rules.
Specifically, the Senate bill blocks funding to enforce carbon dioxide limits for power plants in states that do not consent. It also blocks funding to enforce the EPA’s “waters of the United States” rule on the federal government’s Clean Water Act jurisdiction, and funds that would make final a proposed rule to reduce ozone pollution that contributes to smog.
McConnell said Congress needs to use funding to stop the EPA until a Republican president can do more to roll back President Obama’s agenda.
“Congress must do its best through the power of the purse to hold the line against the bureaucratic and regulatory menace the EPA has become, at least until America elects a new president who is more sympathetic to the needs of Kentucky’s coal families, farmers and small-business owners,” he said.
“I can assure you, I will not stand idly by while this administration tries to wipe out the lifeblood of our state’s economy.”
-
McCarthy Defends EPA and Clean Power Plan Against Potential Budget Cuts
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
Ahead of a tough week for U.S. EPA on Capitol Hill, Administrator Gina McCarthy is defending the agency and making it clear the Obama administration won't stop its aggressive push to curtail greenhouse gases.
The House of Representatives is debating appropriations language this week that would block the agency from implementing the Clean Power Plan, an unprecedented effort to reduce the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels.
Republican-sponsored riders would also block EPA from finalizing a controversial regulation defining what bodies of water are protected by the Clean Water Act, and tightening ozone standards. Overall, EPA funding would drop by more than $700 million (E&E Daily, July 7).
Yesterday morning, McCarthy said the legislation "significantly cuts the core function of the agency, not just areas that people may focus on, like, don't implement the Clean Power Plan."
Speaking after a panel organized by the Christian Science Monitor, McCarthy said, "We're talking about threats to clean air, clean water. States [are] calling us all the time. Congresspeople [are] calling us all the time when there are challenges in their communities. Who are they going to call if it's not EPA? Ghostbusters won't answer the phone."Sending an 'exact signal' to other countries
In addition to the appropriations fight, two committee hearings this week will likely provide forums for House and Senate Republicans to raise concerns about the cost and scope of the Clean Power Plan. This morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), will focus on the Obama administration's international carbon reduction commitments. Tomorrow, McCarthy will also testify during a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing.
Congressional Republicans have made the Clean Power Plan a high-profile target this year. Led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), they have raised concerns about how the regulation will affect domestic energy prices, endanger jobs in the coal industry and infringe on states' ability to set their own energy policies.
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Photo courtesy of EPA.
"Our clean power rule does not reinvent the wheel," McCarthy said yesterday. "It builds on the progress that businesses, states and utilities have been making for years."
During the panel, McCarthy framed EPA regulations as the backbone of the plan the United States will present at U.N. climate talks in Paris this winter. "I think one of the things we need to make sure is we keep on targets with all of the commitments the president made, so we're sending an exact signal to the international community about our seriousness," she said.
"I'm looking forward to finalizing the Clean Power Plan. You know we put out our heavy-duty vehicle rule," McCarthy said, listing recent EPA climate steps. "We just finalized a rule that will reduce the options on ozone-depleting substances that look at high global warming potential. We're taking those out of the field of play. So we're looking at a variety of actions looking forward -- reductions on methane and oil and gas, that's now in interagency review, and landfill methane reductions. So we're doing our part."
The Clean Power Plan is expected to be finalized this summer, though the administration has not tipped its hand on whether an announcement will come in July or August.
-
Green Groups Lobby Against House Interior-EPA Bill
Jul 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
A coalition of 19 environmental groups are lobbying lawmakers to oppose a House bill that contains a nine percent cut for EPA and a host of riders that would block several regulations, including ones addressing climate change and water.
“The bill includes funding levels that are woefully inadequate to protect the environment and a bevy of policy riders that would weaken our bedrock environmental protections,” the groups wrote to lawmakers today. And several GOP amendments that will receive votes this afternoon “could make the bill even more extreme,” they wrote.
The groups also seek support for several Democratic amendments eliminating some of the Republican riders. Those amendments are likely to lose and the bill is expected to pass. But it has received a veto threat, putting the GOP riders and the spending cuts at risk in any future talks with the Senate and White House. -
Energy Companies Meeting with Obama Officials; EPA Spending Bill Sparks an Outcry
Jul 8, 2015 | Washington Post
By Steven Overly
Energy companies and trade groups have been storming Washington in recent weeks for meetings with Obama administration officials, hoping to soften the power plant regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to finalize this summer. The Hill reports that officials at the EPA and the White House have hosted at least eight meetings on the topic in the past three weeks. Among those making a last-ditch pitch were Duke Energy, Honeywell, the National Mining Association and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
EPA SPENDING BILL SPARKS OUTCRY. Republicans are attempting to use an appropriations bill working its way through the House this week to curtail the EPA’s budget and block implementation of regulations pertaining to power plants, clean water and the ozone. As expected, the Obama administration is stomping mad. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan criticized the political maneuvering in a phone call with reporters, according to the Huffington Post. Donovan said the budget reductions were “irresponsible” and would “harm” the nation’s economy. McCarthy, for her part, said cuts in the bill “would have far-reaching consequences for the agency’s ability to ensure protections for public health and the environment.”
SANDER WANTS MORE SOLAR. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would create a fund to help low-income families install solar power at home, making the renewable energy source more accessible to a larger segment of the population. The Department of Energy fund would be available to homeowners as well as organizations that provide solar power to low-income communities, the Hill writes. “Families across this country struggle to pay electricity bills and access to solar energy can help reduce these costs,” the 2016 presidential contender said in a statement. The legislation, the Low Income Solar Act of 2015, was introduced on the same day as an Obama administration initiative that also aims to make solar power available to low-income individuals and those living in federally subsidized housing.
-
FY16 Bills Cut EPA Research Funding, Seek To Bar Controversial Studies
Jul 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad and David LaRoss
The House and Senate fiscal year 2016 spending bills for EPA would cut the agency's research budget by tens of millions of dollars from FY15 appropriated levels and eliminate the Obama administration's proposed boost to the agency's science and technology account, in order to block efforts -- such as hydraulic fracturing and climate research -- that GOP lawmakers oppose.
President Obama has threatened to veto the House's FY16 funding bill, H.R. 2822, because it includes more than $700 million in spending cuts for the agency and would block a host of major rules including EPA's utility climate regulations, increasing prospects for a budget standoff if the Senate approves a similar measure with cuts and riders.
The veto threat comes as the GOP already faced an uphill battle to pass spending bills in the upper chamber, since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has threatened to filibuster spending bills unless the GOP agrees to abandon the same discretionary spending caps Obama is now targeting, known as the sequester. But Republicans have not suggested a willingness to reverse the cuts or drop the policy bars.
As a result, the White House late June 23 issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) saying that Obama's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2822.
A stand-alone House bill introduced June 18, H.R. 2840, would forbid appropriators in FY16 and future years from allocating any money for the science and technology account. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), is unlikely to pass but underscores the GOP-controlled Congress' hostility toward the agency as legislators debate the FY16 budget.
Both H.R. 2822, and the Senate's EPA spending bill, S. 1645, contain similar funding levels for science and technology, reducing funding by roughly $30 million from FY15 appropriations. The House bill would provide $704.9 million in spending, while the Senate bill would provide $703.9 million, compared to the $734.6 million appropriated in FY15.
EPA's Research
The two bills also seek to steer EPA's research program away from areas that Congress does not support.
For example, both bills propose similar funding levels for EPA research office's Air, Climate and Energy research program -- $88.2 million from the House and $90.4 million by the Senate. The House report for H.R. 2822 states that the proposed funding level "does not include funding for proposed additional hydraulic fracturing research activities with the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior."
The Senate report includes similar language, and calls for dropping funding for EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research program by $2.5 million to $104.9 million. The report adds, "In fiscal year 2016, the Agency is directed to complete the hydraulic fracturing study that examines whether there is a relationship between hydraulic fracturing activities and drinking water. While the Committee appreciates the Agency's work to address this important topic, more than $25,000,000 has been provided for this study since it was first requested in 2010. As such, the Committee believes the study should be completed by the end of fiscal year 2016. No additional funding for hydraulic fracturing research is provided." The House report also includes similar language.
The House bill, which proposes funding the water research program at $102.6 million, adds that "includes no funding for the climate research plan that EPA initiated in [FY15] without Congressional approval."
The Senate, meanwhile, proposes dropping by $10.6 million funding for EPA's Clean Air and Climate research portfolio.
The Senate also proposes a $14.8 million reduction in funding for EPA's Sustainable Community research program, a cut it explains as in line with Obama's proposed FY16 budget.
Proposed Cuts
For EPA's Chemical Safety and Sustainability research program, which contains the agency's burgeoning National Center on Computational Toxicology, the House would maintain funding of $126.9 million while the Senate seeks to cut $982,000 from FY15 levels.
The House report explains, "The Committee continues to support EPA's leadership role in the creation of a new paradigm for chemical risk assessment based on the incorporation of advanced molecular biological and computational methods in lieu of animal toxicity tests. The Committee encourages EPA to continue to expand its support for computational approaches in health research to further define toxicity and disease pathways and develop tools for their integration into evaluation strategies. Fiscal year 2016 funding should be prioritized to expeditiously incorporate these emerging scientifically validated tools in EPA risk assessments along with other Agency programs as a way to more effectively and efficiently identify risks."
The spending bills do include some increases. For example, the Senate bill would increase EPA's indoor air and radon research budget by $258,000, for a total of $6.3 million, stating that "[t]he proposed elimination of radon activities has been rejected." The Senate bill also proposes increasing EPA's pesticides licensing funding by $27,000.
Ammunition Regulation
Meanwhile, the Senate bill also includes a policy rider that EPA cannot use any of its FY16 funding "to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act . . . or any other law."
Environmentalists early in the Obama administration petitioned the agency to regulate lead ammunition and fishing tackle under its TSCA authority, but the agency declined to do so, and defended itself against subsequent lawsuits over the petition. Despite EPA's lack of interest in advancing the issue, some members of Congress remain concerned that EPA might do so. Several bills and budget riders have sought to address the issue in recent years. The House budget does not appear to do so.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, describes the rider as one of several intended to "stop EPA executive overreach," in a June 16 statement.
But Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), ranking member of the subcommittee, listed it as one of the "poison pill riders" and reasons he is "deeply disappointed" in the bill, according to a June 16 statement.
-
Businesses Flock to White House in Bid to Shape Power Plant Regs
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy companies and industry groups are flocking to the White House in a last-ditch effort to convince the Obama administration to change its forthcoming carbon emission regulations for existing power plants.
Regulators and White House officials have hosted at least eight meetings with groups in the last three weeks, ahead of an expected August release of rules at the centerpiece of the president’s climate change agenda.
Companies ranging from electricity giant Duke Energy to manufacturer Honeywell have met with White House and Environmental Protection Agency officials to encourage changes to the sweeping rule as it enters the final review stage before publication.
Some of the groups meeting with the White House said they used their audience with top officials to reiterate their long-standing concerns about the controversial rule, including its impact on the coal sector and energy reliability.
“The point we left with them was that in the Clean Power Plan, EPA is offering governors a basket of rotting carp,” said Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association, which sent executives to the White House on June 23.
Other business groups, however, raised more nuanced issues in hopes of carving out concessions they believe would benefit them the most.
At issue are the administration’s landmark regulations designed to cut power plant carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, setting state reduction targets and outlining ways to meet those goals.
Opponents of the rule, such as Popovich’s group, warn that it would lead to higher energy costs for consumers and set emission reduction targets too high for states to meet.
“The agency wants governors to transform their state’s power grid with a plan based on wholly implausible assumptions and underestimated costs to their states,” he said. “Caveat emptor was never better advice than in this instance.”
Utility interests including Duke, the Edison Electric Institute and American Electric Power met with administration officials in mid-June. American Electric Power spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said the company’s representative raised concerns over the plan’s emission targets and timelines and its impact on grid reliability.
“Cutting greenhouse gas emissions will require significant changes in the way our country produces, delivers and uses energy,” Ridout said. “The proposed rule is too prescriptive and the timeline is unrealistic.”
Many of the groups’ remarks at the meetings echoed criticisms of the rule hurled when it was first made available for public comment last year. The Edison Electric Institute, for example, said then that the EPA should look to write a rule that “ensure[s] that the emission rate goals can be achieved without compromising the reliability and affordability of electricity.”
Other groups went in with specific requests for tweaks to the rule. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), in its meeting with manufactures and engineering companies like Honeywell and Siemens, asked officials to specifically mention in the final rule that states could use “third-party delivered energy efficiency” to meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Energy efficiency improvements are one of the four main ways states can meet those goals, but the rule doesn’t explicitly say they can count efficiency improvements from industrial plants. NEMA government affairs director Joseph Eaves said the EPA should at least mention that as an option for states.
“Our ask was really simple: we asked them to call out third-party delivered energy efficiency as a compliance measure,” he said. “We suggest states should encourage those projects and measure and verify those savings and use it as a way to comply with the rule.”
Similarly, the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA) asked officials to give states the option to count hydropower they import from Canada toward their emission targets. The CEA combed through public comments from industry groups, utilities and states and presented officials with all those suggesting hydropower as a potential compliance option.
“We want it to be abundantly clear that those affected utilities are indeed permitted and encouraged, if I can say that, to look north if that’s a part of their solution and it’s part of their mix,” said Sergio Marchi, CEA president and CEO, who was not at the meeting.
Even after their meetings, groups said they don’t know which way the Obama administration will go on the final rule, which now awaits review at the White House. It’s scheduled to be released publicly in August.
At his meeting, Eaves said groups and companies were given half an hour to make their points, and that it was mostly a “listening session” for the regulators, who asked few if any questions. Marchi, too, said he respects “that the officials have to wear their poker faces, and we’ll await their final word.”
“I wouldn’t say they tipped their hands at all,” Eaves said. “We’re hopeful, but because we’re in Washington, D.C., you’re not completely sure until you see something in writing, and even then you still don’t know.”
-
In Broad ESPS Legal Defense, McCarthy Downplays 'Narrow' Mercury Ruling
Jul 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is rejecting critics' claims that the Supreme Court's recent ruling remanding the agency's mercury rule for power plants will bolster future legal challenges to its forthcoming greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for the power sector, arguing the two rules are authorized by different sections of the Clean Air Act.
“Making a connection between the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) decision and the Clean Power Plan is comparing apples and oranges. Last week's ruling will not affect our efforts,” McCarthy said during July 7 remarks at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington, D.C.
The remarks come as part of a broader defense of the legal foundation of the GHG rule, a critical piece of this year's international climate negotiations, with McCarthy downplaying state resistance to the existing source performance standards (ESPS) and arguing that it will be very difficult for a future administration to undo the regulation.
“The court seemed to go out of its way to narrow this decision, in so many ways,” she said.
She said the June 29 ruling in Michigan v. EPA -- which found the agency unreasonably declined to address costs when making a threshold finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions from the power sector -- concerns a provision that applies only to Clean Air Act section 112 air toxics rules for the sector.
She noted that air act section 111, which gives EPA authority for the ESPS, requires the agency to consider costs, and that it has done so from the outset of the rulemaking.
Further, she said the ruling did not implicate any other provisions in MATS, and that the high court was not “sending a signal on how to do cost” reviews.
“They really went out of their way” to issue a narrow ruling, she said. “Had they not, it could've had much broader implications. It simply didn't. And I think they did that for good reason.”
Because the ESPS will be so critical to the United States meeting its international pledge to cut GHG emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025, the Obama administration has been stressing that the rule is on sound legal footing and will be implemented at a similar level of “ambition” as the proposed rule.
As part of that effort, McCarthy downplayed initial resistance to the rule from some Republican governors, including Indiana's Mike Pence, Oklahoma's Mary Fallin and Wisconsin's Scott Walker. To varying degrees, they have pledged not to comply with the ESPS if the agency does not make significant changes to the final version.
Although some governors “have sent signals [opposing the rule], some stronger than others,” McCarthy said, “it's, to me, very limited at this point.”
She added: “While there may be governors that are making statements, those statements are not filtering down to the very tables that continue to be set, to look at how states are operating and how states might think about how to design a plan that's effective for them, and making sure their reliability and affordability is maintained.”
She argued that “some of the states that are vocal are already benefiting from some of the solutions that we'd want them to have on the table for a Clean Power Plan.” Further, McCarthy said EPA will have a “backstop federal plan that we can call upon if need be, in hopefully very small circumstances when it's necessary.”
'Regulatory Action'
McCarthy also addressed regulatory uncertainty that could come from a subsequent administration in 2017 that opposes strong climate policies. While the Obama administration has committed to finalizing the ESPS before it leaves office, much of the rule's implementation will be left to the next president.
But McCarthy said it would be difficult to simply rescind the rule. “You will have to take regulatory action in order for this to be any different than how we have designed it. You cannot just simply decide, 'I'm not implementing.' You're going to have to make the case that we were wrong. And EPA will make sure that this rule is legally solid, technically accurate, and relies on science as we've always done.”
She added: “We're very confident that we not only know how to do that, but that we certainly know how to defend lawsuits. The Clean Power Plan will absolutely be litigated. Is there a single rule that I would talk about that is not going to be? So while we explain to other countries to expect litigation . . . we're actually very good about writing rules and defending them. This will be no exception.”
The administrator also reiterated EPA's stance that its rule is crafted entirely as an environmental regulation under the Clean Air Act, rather than an energy policy, and is simply building on existing changes in the power sector.
EPA is “staying in our lane” and writing a rule focused on pollution, while leaving energy choices up to the states, she said, adding that “EPA wasn't tipping its hand on energy policy issues.”
That argument could be important when determining whether the agency will receive judicial deference under the high court's Chevron precedent, which holds that courts must defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Agency critics have suggested that the justices' recent ruling in King v. Burwell -- which upheld tax subsidies in the Affordable Care Act -- may undercut EPA claims that it is entitled to judicial deference under Chevron.
“I don't think the court is going to give EPA deference in interpreting the scopes of its own powers,” Bracewell & Giuliani attorney Jeff Holmstead told Politico recently.
Holmstead was referring to the portions of the health care ruling in which the majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, declined to grant deference to the administration's interpretation of the statute, finding that Congress did not intend to delegate authority to the IRS when determining which consumers are eligible for subsidies under the law.
Instead, the court majority interpreted the law itself and found that the subsidies were lawful because they are consistent with the law's overall intent.
Holmstead and others say this could signal problems if EPA hopes to win Chevron deference for its interpretation of the air act, arguing that EPA is in a similar position as the IRS because it has not traditionally issued energy policy. “One thing we've learned from Burwell, that's probably something that the court will do on its own,” he says.
'Extraordinary' Chevron Case
But the Natural Resources Defense Council's David Doniger in a July 6 blog post says EPA will likely receiveChevron deference when it defends its GHG rule, saying the Burwell ruling was an “extraordinary” case underChevron, while the MATS ruling was a more ordinary application of the precedent.
Because EPA is the “expert agency charged with carrying out the Clean Air Act,” he predicts that it is “very likely that courts reviewing the Clean Power Plan will accord EPA Chevron deference.”
Doniger adds that Michigan shows that EPA “can still lose” under Chevron, but that “if EPA presents a clear and persuasive argument for its statutory interpretations in the final Clean Power Plan rule, the agency will prevail.”
Regardless of any legal precedent from the Michigan ruling, EPA critics say the ruling provides a cautionary tale for why a court should stay implementation of the ESPS pending legal challenges.
That will be a major fight in the legal challenges to the ESPS, given that utilities argue they will have to make major investment decisions early in the compliance period, and those decisions cannot be changed even if the rule is later struck down in court.
In a June 29 blog post for the Cato Institute, Baker Hostetler attorney Andrew Grossman says the ruling “means utilities and their customers spent tens of billions of dollars complying with a regulation that was always unlawful. One can imagine the Court won't be eager for that to happen again.”
Grossman added that the ruling could be read as a “shot across the bow” from the Supreme Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: “when the next billion-dollar rule comes up, and there's any legal question about EPA's authority, put the rule on hold so the courts have a chance to do their business.”
-
Senators Question Obama Ability to Implement Climate Plans
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senators sparred Wednesday over the effectiveness and legality of President Obama’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international climate agreement later this year.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Obama’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025 “is not only unrealistic, it does not add up.” He cited an analysis from a former Sierra Club climate expert who said the actions pursued by Obama — including regulations on everything from power plants to cars and trucks — would fall well short of his goal.
Inhofe also questioned whether the Obama administration has the right to enter into an international climate treaty and pursue further greenhouse gas reductions without congressional approval. He suggested a future presidential administration might be able to undo what Obama commits to accomplish during the talks.
“If there were to find a way to do something without ratification, without Congress’s input, wouldn’t the next administration be in the same position to undo anything that was done?” he said at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Wednesday.
The United Nations is hosting a climate conference in Paris this December with the goal of reaching a landmark agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
Congressional Republicans have warned that the United States may not be able to reach the goals Obama has so far set out, and if he were to go to Congress asking for more help to do so, he wouldn’t get it.
“There is no public support or congressional support that would ratify that,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said.
But Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that doesn’t matter, because the Clean Air Act gives the Obama administration the right to institute climate policies on its own.
“I believe this is achievable because the president’s climate action plans contains the tools to get it done, even without Congress,” she said. “The bottom line is, we have the Clean Air Act.”
Republicans pushed back on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to institute their new emissions rules under current law, noting recent Supreme Court decisions, including one last week, that said the agency has gone too far in some of its rule-making.
On Tuesday, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said the court’s rulings were narrow and shouldn’t impact the Obama administration’s biggest emissions strategies, including the Clean Power Plan regulations on power plants due out this summer.
“The court seemed to go out of its way to narrow this decision, in so many ways,” McCarthy said. “They really made it just about this single provision that they said Congress told us really to treat this differently.”
At the hearing, Boxer tangled with a law professor over the Obama administration’s right to negotiate a climate treaty without congressional ratification. She said the administration could rely on a UN framework on climate change the Senate ratified in 1992.
“The Clean Air Act governs here, you have a treaty that governs here, you have a president that is carrying out the Clean Air Act,” she said.
Republicans’ star witness was David Bookbinder, who used to be the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel but has since questioned the ability of the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas reduction strategies to meet the emissions goals.
“This is arithmetic, it’s nothing but arithmetic,” he said. “This should come as no surprise to you, and this is no surprise to anybody, we’re not the only ones who can do the numbers. I promise you, the rest of the world can look at the same regulatory measures and do the numbers just as well as we can.”
Bookbinder said that more would need to be done to reduce emissions, including proposals Republicans would oppose, including a tax on carbon or efforts to reducing emissions from the agriculture sector.
“These are the things that you can imagine,” he said. “My point is, if they really are serious about meeting their commitment, they almost have to do those things.”
The U.S.’s emissions targets are just one of those proposed by countries ahead of the UN’s December climate talks. Other major emitters like the European Union and China had said they will work to bring down their emissions as well, and green groups have credited the Obama administration with bringing the Chinese to the negotiating table.
Despite the commitments, success at the climate conference is not guaranteed. Republicans, including Inhofe, have looked to warn that the U.S. might not be able to achieve its goals, risking the effectiveness of the overall treaty.
In the hearing Wednesday, he raised the specter of the failed 2009 UN climate talks in Copenhagen and suggested something similar could happen this year.
“I personally went to Copenhagen … I said no, what they’re telling you isn’t true,” Inhofe said. “We’re not going to be passing cap and trade as they told you, and this was 2009, and of course that didn’t happen.”
-
Think Tank Urges States to Reject Clean Power Plan
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A think tank linked to industrialists Charles and David Koch launched a campaign today to stop states from complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The Institute for Energy Research sent letters to public utility commissions in all 50 states, warning that existing generation is cheaper than any replacements that would arrive under EPA's draft rule.
"It's really a message to the [public utility commissions]," said Dan Simmons, IER's vice president of policy. "The reason we don't think states should be submitting plans is because there are multiple legal theories that are very strong. As we saw with MATS, you're shutting down plants, increasing electricity rates."
IER is calling on states to reject costs incurred under the new EPA rule, slated to be finalized this summer. In the letter, IER argued that the Supreme Court's ruling that EPA should have considered costs before issuing its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will have legal ramifications for the Clean Power Plan.
IER in its letter said the court's ruling "warrants an honest assessment of the cost of tearing down existing sources and building new sources" and that state PUCs should "stand up and protect American families" from higher energy costs.
EPA responded to critics of its power plant rule in a February website posting.
"As with anything EPA does, a handful of special-interest critics are automatically opposed," spokesman Tom Reynolds said in the EPA blog (E&ENews PM, Feb. 25).
Reynolds, who managed communications for President Obama's inaugural committee and presidential campaign, said reliability is a "top issue" for EPA.
-
Pa. Eyes 'Trade-Ready' Plan to Comply with EPA Carbon Rule
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Pennsylvania's chief air regulator thinks the state can craft a way of complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that will be "trade-ready," enabling the exchange of carbon allowances with other states to reach federal goals for emission rate reductions.
"I think we'll look at it certainly as part of our analysis," said John Quigley, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
"There's a possibility to design our approach such that we'd be trade-ready," he said in an interview.
The concept could be crafted without the need to join "any particular group," such as the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. But there are discussions among stakeholders about "some type of new configuration or confederation with some of the states perhaps in the PJM [Interconnection] territory," Quigley said, referring to the operator of the electrical grid serving the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest.
Groups such as the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Great Plains Institute have been out front in promoting the virtues of interstate trading of CO2 emission allowances. States could adopt such plans without entering into formal agreements or coordinating program details with other states, they assert, and any power plant owner in a trading-ready state could use allowed tons or allowances from any other trading-ready state.
"This could go any number of ways; we want to look at all of the options. At the end of the day, the governor's direction is we have to develop a Pennsylvania-centric plan, something that works for the commonwealth; that preserves the role of coal-fired generation in our energy portfolio and that preserves the state's position as a net-energy exporter," Quigley said.
But "it's pretty difficult to get beyond the conceptual conversation because we don't have a final rule yet. Never has there been more talk about something that isn't real yet than the Clean Power Plan," Quigley said.Quick turnaround
Pennsylvania has been doing more than most states, though. It is one of four that were chosen to participate in a National Governors Association "Policy Academy" to mull over "cost-effective strategies" for compliance with the rule, expected in August, which aims to slash carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030.
John Quigley, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Photo courtesy of the DEP.
The other states in the academy are Michigan, Missouri and Utah.
With NGA's technical assistance, "we've been doing some preliminary modeling runs, just trying to scope out the universe of alternatives," he said. "But without the final rule, it's really difficult and somewhat unproductive to really get into the weeds; we certainly want to engage meaningfully with stakeholders in a very transparent way as we develop the response."
Under a law enacted last year, Quigley's agency will have to provide the General Assembly with its compliance plan 100 days before submitting it to EPA. With only a year to "turn this around, we'll have to work backward from the deadline and factor into it the consultation that's required with the General Assembly. So I anticipate it will be a very significant and pretty intense amount of work over a course of several months."
Since Democrat Tom Wolf defeated Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in his re-election bid last November, Pennsylvania has done a 180-degree turnaround on the Clean Power Plan. The comments filed by Quigley's predecessor with EPA in late November are inoperative, he said.
"There wasn't any point in rescinding them. The essential position of the previous administration is that 'you can't do this.' We don't share that view. We are anxious to see the plan and are eager to craft a plan that complies with it and that advances the ball economically for the commonwealth," Quigley said.
"EPA is very well aware of our position. I talk to [EPA Region 3 Administrator] Shawn Garvin all the time."
-
Debate on Smog Pollution Should be About Health, Not Lobbying and Politics
Jul 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By William N. Rom, MD
The two years since my testimony to the House Energy and Power Subcommittee have been dispiriting. I’ve seen something as dangerous as smog pollution gradually devolve from a life and death struggle, into a “he said, she said” political issue filled with behind the scenes lobby meetings and PR strategies. What makes it worse is that this devolution is happening in light of the Surgeon General’s recent historic summit, which I attended, to draw attention to the serious public health consequences of climate disruption and air pollution. It’s time for the politics surrounding stronger smog protections to stop.
As a doctor of 40 years, I consider a person’s health to be sacred. During my testimony, which I did on behalf of the American Thoracic Society, I took pains to describe the heartbreaking symptoms that smog pollution can trigger in defenseless children, the elderly, and asthmatics -- citing numerous reports, personal stories, and statistics that painted a vivid picture that called for action from the people’s representatives.
So, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) called for strengthening the smog pollution protections in November, I couldn’t help but smile. The thought of a chronic asthma, bronchitis, or emphysema sufferer going outside in July and taking a deep breath without coughing or wheezing is the reason my department exists; we want to help people who suffer from environmentally-triggered illnesses. But the backlash from some industry groups and members of Congress to the EPA’s proposal has shown me that not everyone feels the same way.
The debate has shifted away from the very real health risks of breathing in coal plant emissions and tailpipe exhaust, and the reasonable steps communities and businesses can take to protect their health, to flashy PR campaigns that ignore or significantly downplay the consequences of doing nothing. Googling the issue in the Washington D.C. area, for example, yields little news on the respiratory and cardiovascular harm that smog pollution causes across the country, but stories abound on how much industry lobbying groups are spending to sway, message, and donate their way to weakening the final rule.
This is troubling when you’ve spent your life caring for hundreds of people who will continue to suffer if nothing changes. Short term exposure to today’s high smog levels can shorten your life, has been linked to increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits, and, most significantly, can devastate the body of a young child. The American Lung Association frequently compares children breathing in smog pollution to getting sunburns on their lungs.
Children’s development is especially at risk from smog pollution because 80 percent of the essential air sacs in the lungs (called alveoli) grow after birth and continues to grow through adolescence. Exposure to smog and other types of air pollution can create serious respiratory issues in the very beginning of a person’s life and plague them throughout adulthood. That is why prestigious medical organizations like American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America have come out strongly for strengthening our current 75 parts per billion (ppb) smog pollution standard to 60 ppb.
Study after study shows that anything above 60 ppb puts millions of children and other vulnerable groups at risk. Further research shows that if a 60 ppb standard were put in place, it would prevent roughly 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school days, and 7,900 premature deaths annually. It would also go a long way in combating the growing divide between air pollution impacts in different communities in the United States.
I urge industry groups and the other stakeholders who have deliberately strayed the debate away from a discussion about public health to reconsider their strategy. For many people, this rule is a matter of life and death, so instead of attacking a stronger standard, please consider working with one of the devoted medical organizations I mentioned above to balance your business ambitions with the health of your customers , friends, and family. Getting a lid on smog pollution shouldn’t be about who spends the most on lobbyists or PR strategists to sway a particular stakeholder, it should be about public health and protecting our most vulnerable members of communities.
Rom is the director of the William Rom Environmental Lung Disease Laboratory and the Sol and Judith Bergstein Professor of Medicine and Environmental Science at New York University.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested