Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
California Proposes Prop 65 Exposure Amendments
Sep 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released draft amendments affecting safe harbour levels of chemicals listed under Proposition 65. -
The EPA River Spill: Tale of Two Cleanups
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Daniel McGroarty
Breaking News: An engineering crew working heavy digging machinery at an old mine site “inadvertently unleashed into a tributary of the Animas River a …million-gallon soup of toxic mining wastewater.” -
Feds: Oil Exports Could Lower Gas Prices
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Lifting the ban on exporting crude oil would not raise domestic gasoline prices and could even reduce them, a new report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted on Tuesday. -
Ad Campaign to Preserve Export Ban Spreads to 5 More States
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A new group opposed to lifting the nation's decades-old ban on oil exports expanded its campaign into five states today, targeting key bipartisan senators ahead of possible votes this month as Congress returns from August recess. -
Crude Export Shift Would Hit Refiners, Not Drivers -- EIA
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jenny Mandel
The big winners or losers in the ongoing debate over whether to ease existing restrictions on crude oil exports would be not American drivers but the nation's refiners, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a study released today. -
EPA's 'Initial' ESPS State Plan Requirements May Undercut Stay Motions
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for the existing power fleet has significantly scaled back proposed requirements for what states must include in their “initial” state compliance plans, a move that supporters of the rule say could undercut critics' argument that the plans will impose irreparable harm that justifies a stay of the rule. -
EPA Eyes Late October For Publishing Climate ESPS
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is planning on publishing its final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants in the Federal Register in mid- to late-October, according to recent agency legal filings in litigation where EPA is opposing novel requests for an appeals court to stay implementation of the final rule prior to its publication in the Register. -
Utility Defends Bid For Emergency Stay Of EPA MACT
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
Western utility Tri-State Generation and Transmission Inc. is defending its bid for an emergency stay exempting a Colorado power plant from having to meet an emission limit in EPA's power plant air toxics rule, saying it has tried but failed to win compliance flexibility and faces pressure to decide on whether to install emission controls. -
Advocates Tout Narrowing Of Texas 'Flexible' Air Permits Despite Suit Loss
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are touting a federal appeals court ruling as narrowing the scope of Texas' controversial "flexible" Clean Air Act permit program so that it applies only to smaller "minor" emissions sources and cannot be used by larger "major" sources to avoid stricter permits, though advocates lost a suit over the program's overall legality. -
EPA Poised To Decide On Rescinding Alabama's CWA Permitting Authority
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi
EPA Region 4 officials are slated in the coming weeks to release a final response to a five-year old petition from an Alabama environmental group seeking to strip the state of its delegated Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permitting authority, although sources say it would be unlikely for the agency to take back the permitting duties even though state lawmakers have sought to slash funding for the program. -
Enviro Groups' Ads Attack GOP Senators Over Clean Power Plan
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush and Jennifer Yachnin
A coalition of environmental groups today launched an ad campaign against four Republican senators running for re-election next year who oppose U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Group Mobilizes Democrats Opposed to EPA Ozone Plan
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Early this year, Gary, Ind., Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson was among several local officials who urged U.S. EPA to set a more stringent national ambient air quality standard for ozone. -
Gloomy Obama Calls Alaska 'Leading Edge of Climate Change'
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
President Obama landed in Alaska yesterday, painting an apocalyptic picture of the devastating conditions in store for the state's coastal communities and other vulnerable parts of the world if international leaders don't take immediate action to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
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.
-
California Proposes Prop 65 Exposure Amendments
Sep 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released draft amendments affecting safe harbour levels of chemicals listed under Proposition 65. The pre-regulatory language published by the agency includes a possible amendment to the maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead and a potential change to the regulatory code governing levels of exposure to chemicals causing reproductive toxicity.
The OEHHA has proposed to repeal its existing MADL for lead and replace it with one defined by intermittent exposure. This would set maximum levels of lead exposure for different exposure frequencies.
The regulatory activity comes in response to a petition submitted earlier this year by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) calling on the OEHHA to repeal, or amend, the MADL for lead. It said that the existing 0.5µg/day limit was not sufficiently protective to human health (CW 5 August 2015).
The OEHHA's draft proposal would define the MADL by 13 distinct daily lead exposures, ranging from 0.2µg/day when exposed daily, to 8µg/day when occurring once every 116 or more days.
The agency will hold a hearing on the CEH petition on 14 October, and will accept written comments until 28 October.
Also under consideration is a proposed amendment to clarify how to calculate exposure for an average consumer to reproductive toxicants in a product.
The OEHHA has proposed a modification to Section 25821(c)(2) of the regulatory code to specify that exposure of an average consumer shall be calculated by an arithmetic mean, as the “OEHHA believes it is appropriate to weigh all individual consumers equally.”
The agency says the regulation as currently written does not clearly define how to determine average consumer exposure. The proposed change would specify that an arithmetic mean is the “appropriate metric,” rather than a geometric mean, median value, or other calculation.
There will be a workshop on 19 October, and the OEHHA will accept comments on the proposed amendment until 2 November.
-
The EPA River Spill: Tale of Two Cleanups
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Daniel McGroarty
Breaking News: An engineering crew working heavy digging machinery at an old mine site “inadvertently unleashed into a tributary of the Animas River a …million-gallon soup of toxic mining wastewater.”
The spill is soon revised upward to 3 million gallons. The media calls for comment: “…This is just something that happens when we’re dealing with mines sometimes," says an official associated with the group that caused the spill.
Seven days later, a senior executive ventures out to the spill site – well, out to a microphone stand within 55 miles of the site, which after all “is a significant distance away” over unpaved roads – and pronounces that “the river seems to be restoring itself.”
Imagine the outcry against the company responsible for the spill, and the officials who uttered such callous comments.
After all, just last year, a West Virginia company spilled 10,000 gallons of chemicals into a nearby river – an amount surpassed in the Animas spill in the first ten minutes of a million-gallon torrent. Mine officials at the West Virginia company were given jail time, the company was fined and ultimately went bankrupt.
But that won’t happen to those who caused the Animus spill. It won’t happen because the engineering team worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. So don’t expect to see the EPA official who offered the “this just happens sometimes” explanation frog-marched to jail – or Gina McCarthy, the EPA adminstrator who touted the river’s restorative powers just one week after the spill, to lose her job.
In fact it’s far more likely that the EPA’s misuse of its authority will result in the agency gaining even more power.
That’s what a retired geologist named Dave Taylor wrote in a Letter to the Editor to a local Colorado paper before the EPA disaster: “within seven days, this “grand experiment” in my opinion will fail, …with a toxic outflow to follow.” The geologist offered a second prediction: “And guess what [EPA]… will say then? Gee, “Plan A” didn’t work so I guess we will have to build a treatment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million….”
Cynical? Yes, but not half as much as anti-mining groups’ rush to use a spill caused by the EPA at a mine closed in 1923 to put the breaks on mines being planned and permitted right now. EarthWorks -- whose director admitted in Congressional testimony that the organization had never judged a single U.S. mine as having met their standards -- declared the Animas spill reason for a wholesale revision of U.S. mining law. The Natural Resources Defense Council looked past EPA’s role at Animas to take a swipe at the mining sector: “After this month's mine disaster on the Animas, there is even less reason to believe the self-serving, impossible promises of mining executives who claim that with good engineering, they can protect our waters for centuries.”
Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of the anti-mining activist: It’s a case of “What, Me Worry?” when the EPA pollutes a river – and an inconvenient truth when private sector cleans up a mining mess others left behind.
Which is precisely what’s happening at a place called Holden Village in Washington State. The mess at Holden dates to mining done between 1938 and 1957. The mine owner who left the mess did one good deed: he signed the land over to a religious community to build a spiritual retreat that has welcomed thousands of pilgrims to the remote mountain region ever since.
But the mess remained, and in the decades that followed, the closed mine passed from one owner to another, and finally on to Rio Tinto when it bought Canadian mining giant Alcan in 2007.
After conducting soil and water tests and fashioning a reclamation plan, Rio Tinto set about a comprehensive cleanup that, all told, will take five years and $400 million -- as local media put it, “repairing a mountain where [the company] never once pulled out even an ounce of ore.” But don’t expect a Breaking News banner for this story.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the EPA Administrator announced a “hiatus” for the EPA teams poking around old mine works across the United States. As for anti-mining activists who will seek to turn the EPA’s disaster into an expansion of federal power over the U.S. mining industry, after Animas, forget a hiatus -- they’ll be working overtime.
As for reform, here’s an idea: whenever the EPA crews do go back to work, maybe the agency should run the next cleanup plan past that retired geologist who saw the Animas disaster coming.
McGroarty is president of American Resources Policy Network, a nonpartisan education and public policy research organization in Washington, D.C.
-
Feds: Oil Exports Could Lower Gas Prices
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Lifting the ban on exporting crude oil would not raise domestic gasoline prices and could even reduce them, a new report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted on Tuesday.
The conclusion of the report strongly takes the side of oil producing companies, who have ramped up their efforts to export crude and tried to fight back accusations that consumers would suffer through higher gas prices.
While listing a number of caveats to its analysis and warning that the economic factors at hand are extremely complicated, the EIA said oil drillers would benefit from higher crude prices if the United States’ market were opened to the world, while margins for petroleum refiners would be squeezed.
“Petroleum product prices in the United States, including gasoline prices, would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports,” the EIA wrote in the report.
Prices of gasoline and other refined petroleum products are much more closely linked to the Brent crude benchmark, an international price, than West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the main domestic crude price benchmark.
Ending the export ban is likely to increase the Brent price and potentially decrease the WTI price slightly, the EIA said.
“As domestic producers respond to the higher WTI price with higher production, the global supply/demand balance becomes looser unless increased domestic production is fully offset by production cuts elsewhere,” it said.
Although other reports from outside the federal government have come to similar conclusions, the definitive nature of the EIA’s analysis is likely to add more heft to arguments from oil companies, Republican lawmakers and others that the ban should be lifted.
Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, an ad-hoc coalition of independent refiners who support the current export restrictions, argues that exports would increase prices for refiners, who will pass the costs onto consumers, increasing pump prices.
The House is likely to vote this fall to allow oil exports after Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his support for the policy in July.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed a bill to end the prohibitions early in August, setting up a likely vote in the coming months on the Senate floor.
-
Ad Campaign to Preserve Export Ban Spreads to 5 More States
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A new group opposed to lifting the nation's decades-old ban on oil exports expanded its campaign into five states today, targeting key bipartisan senators ahead of possible votes this month as Congress returns from August recess.
Allied Progress, a nonprofit group run by syndicated columnist and Democratic strategist Karl Frisch, launched an approximately $37,000 campaign in Colorado, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and New Mexico, calling on people to urge their senators to vote against any attempt to repeal or weaken the ban. The ads are slated to run throughout the week.
The campaign began in New Jersey targeting Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez (E&ENews PM, Aug. 25). The new ads target Sens. Michael Bennet (D) and Cory Gardner (R) of Colorado, Susan Collins (R) and Angus King (I) of Maine, Jon Tester (D) and Steve Daines (R) of Montana, Kelly Ayotte (R) and Jeanne Shaheen (D) of New Hampshire, and Democrats Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.
Frisch said during an interview that the senators were chosen because they publicly supported American energy independence and policies that would keep gasoline and heating oil prices low. Allied Progress is funded through the New Venture Fund, a 501(c)(3) public interest charity, Frisch said, and receives money through foundations, progressive donors and online donations.
A number of the targeted senators have also recently signaled a willingness to negotiate on lifting the ban, making them a target for Allied Progress' campaign.
Heinrich and King, for example, said during a recent Senate hearing that they would consider some exemptions if they're offered language to extend tax incentives for wind and solar generation (E&E Daily, July 31).
Advertisement
Those senators made their openness known as the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed legislation from Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to lift the ban altogether. Murkowski's "Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act of 2015," or the "OPENS Act," cleared the committee 12-10. The bill would lift the export ban and increase coastal states' share of federal revenue raised by drilling off their coasts.
"Hopefully, we don't see many more coming out and saying they're willing to bargain with something like this," Frisch said. "This isn't something you take to a game of congressional poker."
Allied Progress formed a couple of weeks ago with the intent of taking on the political influence of payday lenders, energy companies and major financial institutions, and is warning that lifting the ban could trigger a spike in gas and heating oil prices, push U.S. jobs overseas, and threaten the nation's energy independence.
But those assertions are already drawing fire from independent oil producers eager to repeal the ban.
"The claims made by this organization are verifiably false and not supported by one credible independent analysis," said Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, or PACE, a coalition of 16 independent producers that formed last year to push for scrapping the ban.
Creighton said that as bipartisan support for lifting the ban grows, PACE remains confident that Congress, the Obama administration and the public will recognize a growing body of independent research that has found crude oil exports will actually expand the U.S. economy, protect and create jobs, lower gas prices, and bolster national security.
Creighton pointed to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's release of a long-awaitedanalysis today, which concludes that domestic gasoline prices "would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports" (see related story).
The study echoes earlier EIA analyses that found lifting the ban would have positive economic effects in the United States because domestic gasoline prices are largely driven by the price of Brent crude, the global benchmark, rather than the light, sweet Western Texas Intermediate crude produced at home. As a result, U.S. exports would increase global oil supplies, pushing gasoline prices downward.
Today's report also touches on a key argument of export opponents: that lifting that ban will hurt domestic refiners.
"With or without current crude oil export restrictions, domestic refiners are also expected to maintain a significant advantage compared to offshore refiners given the continued projected availability of low-cost domestic natural gas, which is used as both a fuel and feedstock by refiners," it states.
The study comes as export supporters are gearing up to push for repeal this fall. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week said he's willing to sit down with Republicans to discuss the issue provided extending renewable energy tax credits is part of the discussion (Greenwire, Aug. 25).
Yet Frisch said Allied Progress' warning to the public about lifting the ban is based on comments from senators, recent hearings and a report from the Center for American Progress, which found that lifting the crude export ban would drive up demand for drilling in the United States, resulting in a loss of land larger than Delaware to oil and gas infrastructure over the next 15 years (Greenwire, Aug. 21).
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
-
Crude Export Shift Would Hit Refiners, Not Drivers -- EIA
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jenny Mandel
The big winners or losers in the ongoing debate over whether to ease existing restrictions on crude oil exports would be not American drivers but the nation's refiners, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a study released today.
If restrictions on exporting U.S.-produced crude were lifted, "petroleum product prices in the United States, including gasoline prices, would be either unchanged or slightly reduced," the agency concluded in an analysis.
Refiners' profit margins, on the other hand, would be trimmed along with the price spread between domestic crude, which drives input costs, and world crude, around which refined product prices are set, EIA said.
The assessment is the last in a string of studies by EIA, the Energy Department's analytical arm, looking at the potential consequences of easing federal restrictions on crude oil exports that date back to the 1970s Arab oil embargo (EnergyWire, May 7; EnergyWire, April 7). Demand for EIA's input on the subject has been led by oil interests in Congress, particularly Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, who leads the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
In its latest look at the issue, EIA compared various scenarios for domestic oil and gas production levels and world oil prices with and without current policy restrictions that limit crude exports other than those to Canada and from certain U.S. oil fields in Alaska and California.
The analysis found that under current export policy, domestic production in 2025 would range between 9.5 million barrels per day and 13.6 million barrels per day, depending in part on world oil prices as measured by the Brent crude index.
Advertisement
Domestic oil prices, as measured by the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark, would average about $15 per barrel below that during the 2020 to 2025 time frame, EIA predicted, with the discount reflecting the price incentive needed to spur domestic refiners to invest in additional processing capacity that would be needed to handle the additional light, sweet crude produced.
The assessment found that without export restrictions, the Brent-WTI spread would range between $6 and $8 per barrel.
That price spread "is consistent with the costs of moving WTI from Cushing, Oklahoma, to overseas markets where it might compete with Brent," EIA said, meaning that level of price spread represents a new normal for U.S. industry.
"The historical situation of approximate parity reflected competition between Brent- and WTI-based crudes in the Gulf Coast and Cushing where Brent-based crudes have now been largely displaced," analysts added.
That is significant because export policy critics often point to the size of the Brent-WTI spread as evidence that current export policies are hurting U.S. producers by pushing down the value of their product relative to world markets.
EIA's modeling suggests that in cases where the Brent-WTI spread is in this low range, U.S. producers would not see higher prices from a lifting of export restrictions and would not boost output. In cases where that price spread grows, broadened oil exports would lead to higher wellhead prices for domestic producers and additional production, the agency said.Number-crunching for refiners
The biggest impacts of a policy change might fall on domestic refiners, which have enjoyed booming profits as world crude prices have plummeted while gasoline prices have stayed strong.
In August, Valero Energy Corp. reported that its refining profits had nearly doubled, while integrated supermajors have leaned on their refining businesses to offset price impacts on their upstream production arms (EnergyWire, Aug. 3).
EIA said refinery profits could take a hit from a policy change.
"A rough calculation suggests that refining sector gross profits (gross revenue net of crude costs) in the [high oil and gas resource] case are about $22.7 billion lower in 2025 without crude oil export restrictions than they would be if those restrictions were maintained," the authors wrote.
Regardless of the oil export policy question, EIA said domestic refiners have numbers on their side.
"Even with the removal of export restrictions, the projected Brent-WTI spread would still be higher than its average level in 2014," the agency said.
"With or without current crude oil export restrictions, domestic refiners are also expected to maintain a significant advantage compared to offshore refiners given the continued projected availability of low-cost domestic natural gas, which is used as both a fuel and feedstock by refiners."
EIA's analysis suggests that if export restrictions remain in place, U.S. refiners will invest in new equipment to handle the domestic light, sweet oil glut, "notwithstanding the risk of future changes in crude oil export policy or market conditions."
Click here for EIA's report.
-
EPA's 'Initial' ESPS State Plan Requirements May Undercut Stay Motions
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for the existing power fleet has significantly scaled back proposed requirements for what states must include in their “initial” state compliance plans, a move that supporters of the rule say could undercut critics' argument that the plans will impose irreparable harm that justifies a stay of the rule.
A state source, while still reviewing the final requirements for the initial compliance plan, says they appear “less stringent than what was in the proposal. . . . It's more than just a single page, but I also don't think it's the book that EPA was looking for” in the proposed version of the rule.
The required components of the initial plans are important because the September 2016 deadline for submitting such plans is the only near-term deadline that states face to comply with the existing source performance standards (ESPS) rule. Final plans are not due until late 2018, and emission cuts don't have to begin until 2022.
But state and industry critics are already citing the deadline for their initial plan submissions as a key source of irreparable harm in their novel emergency petitions to stay implementation of the rule pending court challenges.
“With this firm deadline, the Rule requires States to spend significant and irrecoverable sovereign resources now to begin preparing their State Plans,” a coalition of 15 states says in an Aug. 13 court filing. “Absent an immediate stay, the States are and will continue to be irreparably harmed by the displacement of sovereign priorities and the steps they must take to begin reordering the way their citizens receive and consume energy.”
The states asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a writ staying all of the rule's deadlines until litigation is complete. They asked for such a writ by Sept. 8, roughly one year before the Sept. 6, 2016, deadline for the initial plans. The court required EPA to respond to the states' petition by Aug. 31.
EPA in its Aug. 31 filing said it opposes the requests to stay the agency's pre-publication version of its final ESPS, arguing the petitioners have failed to prove they face “irreparable harm” to justify the unusual step of blocking a rule prior to its formal publication. EPA also faults the procedural posture of the suits, arguing they are “premature” and an “attempt to bypass the straightforward, and soon available, judicial review procedures in the Clean Air Act.”
The states have until Sept. 4 to respond to EPA. But ESPS supporters have argued that a host of changes in the final ESPS boosted EPA's ability to block requests by states and industry to stay the rule.
For example, Sierra Club attorney Joanne Spalding said during an Aug. 10 press call that states cannot “demonstrate irreparable harm by pointing to the planning process.” She pointed to the 2018 deadline for final plans, and argued that the “initial submissions are not burdensome,” at least to the extent they would impose irreparable harm.
Beyond the planning process, Spalding also noted the final rule's two-year delay to the start of the compliance period, until 2022, as well as a “gradual application” of requirements during the early years of the program. That “gets rid of the so-called cliff” that many critics had feared when EPA first proposed steep targets that began in 2020. Those changes also make it more difficult for states to show irreparable harm, she said.
Eased Requirements
EPA's proposed ESPS included much more comprehensive requirements for initial plans than what the agency later included in the final rule, including that states must describe their plan approach, provide an initial quantification of the plan's level of emission reductions and include a commitment to maintain existing measures that limit or avoid GHG emissions.
Further, the initial plan would have included “a comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan,” a list of existing emission programs and agreements with other states, a description of steps the state has already taken toward completing a plan, and evidence of an opportunity for public comment.
EPA had also floated the possibility of requiring states in their initial plans to demonstrate that they have “at least proposed any necessary regulations and introduced any necessary legislation.”
But under the final ESPS, initial plans must meet a set of three requirements for states to receive a two-year extension, until September 2018, to submit final plans. If a state does not submit an initial plan, or its initial plan is not satisfactory, the state would be subject to a final federal implementation plan, which EPA has proposed to be a backstop emissions trading program.
EPA in the preamble to the final ESPS describes the initial plans less as a formal regulatory document and more as a rough planning document. “It is important to note that the EPA is not requiring the adoption of any enforceable measures or final decisions in order for the state to address any of the initial submittal components by September 6, 2016,” EPA says, adding that none of the required components in the initial plans is “onerous.”
The agency adds that states need not pass legislation or regulations before the initial plans to receive the two-year extension, though the “initial submittal should describe any concrete steps the state has already taken on legislation and/or administrative rulemaking and detail what the remaining steps are in those processes before a final plan can be submitted.”
Initial Plans
An initial plan must address three broad areas: identifying final plan approaches “under consideration,” an explanation for why the state needs another two years to develop the final plan, and a demonstration of public comment opportunity and “meaningful engagement” with vulnerable groups and other stakeholders.
While a state can indicate key decisions in the initial plan -- such as whether to opt for a rate- or mass-based target, or whether to submit a single-state plan or work with others -- it doesn't have to.
The discussion of plan approaches in the first submission does not “need to be final and/or formalized through a state legislature,” the agency says, adding that states can identify consideration of more than one approach or “indicate the status of the deliberation of this issue within the state.”
EPA adds: “Importantly, such identification in an initial submittal does not obligate the state to then actually adopt that approach in their final plan.”
The agency is also requiring states to submit an “update” in 2017, which must include a “commitment to a plan approach,” as well as a summary of the status of required components of the final plan. They must also include an “updated comprehensive roadmap with a schedule and milestones for completing the plan.”
-
EPA Eyes Late October For Publishing Climate ESPS
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is planning on publishing its final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants in the Federal Register in mid- to late-October, according to recent agency legal filings in litigation where EPA is opposing novel requests for an appeals court to stay implementation of the final rule prior to its publication in the Register.
The publication date is important because it is the starting gun for opponents to file lawsuits challenging the final regulation. Under the Clean Air Act, opponents have 60 days to file suits after Register publication, though many groups are unlikely to wait that long.
In its Aug. 31 court filing, EPA said it expects publication to come “by late October.” It adds that top agency officials are spending this week “correcting any textual errors” in the 3,083 pages of regulatory text before it sends the package to the Government Printing Office, which publishes the Register -- a step the agency expects to take by Sept. 4.
The package includes the final existing source performance standards (ESPS), as well as a companion rule for new, modified and reconstructed power plants, and a proposed federal implementation plan for the ESPS.
And while EPA “does not control the timing of publication,” it expects “based on past experience with other large rules, that the final rule will be published in the Federal Register by late October,” said the agency's filing in the lawsuit, In re: State of West Virginia, et al., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Joel Beauvais, EPA's policy office chief, filed a declaration outlining the specific internal review process under way for the suite of power sector GHG rules before they are sent for publication.
Beauvais says that since the rules were signed Aug. 3, “review has been moving on an expedited basis,” and staff issued formal memos of corrections for acting agency air chief Janet McCabe to review. Those memos will also be reviewed by Beauvais, EPA Associate General Counsel Lorie Schmidt and finally by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Beauvais adds that EPA asked the Register for “expedited publication,” which could result in a final rule posting there by mid-to-late October.
As Inside EPA reported, EPA's main goal with its filing was to argue that state and industry critics of the ESPS have not shown they will face “irreparable harm” from the rule while litigation progresses. That is a key hurdle for groups to clear in requesting courts to stay implementation of a rule.
Also, because the rule has not yet been published, the agency argues the suits are “premature” and an “attempt to bypass the straightforward, and soon available, judicial review procedures in the Clean Air Act.” The opponents are pursuing the stay after they filed earlier novel lawsuits challenging the proposed version of the rule.
Under the ESPS, states do not have to begin making GHG cuts until 2022 and have three years to submit a final compliance plan, EPA says. Therefore the rule's critics “do not face any irreparable harm from the deadlines in the Rule, let alone any irreparable harm in the brief period of time before they may file a lawful challenge to the Rule under the [air act]. There is absolutely nothing that Petitioners are required to do in this brief period before Rule publication.”
EPA added that while states face a Sept. 6, 2016, deadline to file “initial” state plans, those submissions “are not burdensome,” and that a deadline extension until September 2018 is “easily obtainable.”
-
Utility Defends Bid For Emergency Stay Of EPA MACT
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
Western utility Tri-State Generation and Transmission Inc. is defending its bid for an emergency stay exempting a Colorado power plant from having to meet an emission limit in EPA's power plant air toxics rule, saying it has tried but failed to win compliance flexibility and faces pressure to decide on whether to install emission controls.
In an Aug. 31 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, Tri-State rejects EPA's criticisms of the company's two motions for an emergency stay of the utility rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to control toxics from the sector. The D.C. Circuit rejected the first request, saying the company needed to first ask Colorado and EPA for compliance relief.
The D.C. Circuit is now considering on remand from the Supreme Court whether to scrap the rule entirely or remand it to EPA without vacatur, while the agency responds to the high court's June 29 ruling that EPA should have considered compliance costs in a preliminary finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the sector. The agency has told the appellate court that it will craft a new finding that will include consideration of costs.
The court allowed for the company to re-file if it did not win the reprieve it says it needs from regulators. Tri-State subsequently said it approached state and EPA officials by letter to ask for relief. The company wants to delay an April 16 deadline for compliance with the rule's hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limit, saying the court should stay the issue until EPA issues its revised “appropriate and necessary” finding.
After the D.C. Circuit's Aug. 17 ruling rejecting the initial request for a stay of the HCl limit, “Tri-State immediately sent a detailed letter to EPA explaining the situation at Nucla and asking for relief,” the company says. EPA did not respond to the letter, but the company concedes it gave the agency only three days to do so.
EPA and the State of Colorado recently agreed that the state will lift a Sept. 1 deadline, originally agreed between the state and the utility, by which Tri-State was supposed to decide whether to install controls or shutter the plant by a compliance deadline of April 16. The state has already extended the April deadline by one year.
In an Aug. 28 filing, EPA announced that it has agreed with Colorado regulators to lift the Sept. 1 deadline. This move, EPA says, means there is no “emergency,” and that Tri-State should file a formal request for another one-year compliance extension with the agency and that the court should reject the stay request.
The stay would apply to the small Nucla Station power plant in Colorado, which Tri-State says operates infrequently and would be uneconomic to retrofit with pollution controls. Critics, however, say if the court grants the stay request it could clear the path for attempts by many other utilities to avoid compliance with the utility MACT.
Tri-State in its Aug. 31 filing replies that lifting of the Sept. 1 deadline -- which it did not request -- does not change the situation because “[u]nless the April 2016 deadline is extended, eliminating the September 1 deadline does not provide meaningful relief.” The company adds, “In EPA’s mind, this last minute legal maneuvering apparently undercuts Tri- State’s motion, but this is not the case.”
The company says it needs sufficient time to decide whether to pursue the lengthy process of purchasing and installing controls to meet the HCl limit. “To ensure compliance by April 2016, Tri-State must meet various key milestones for delivery and installation to occur, including ordering the equipment in September 2015.”
Tri-State rejects EPA's accusation that it is seeking to undermine the motions to govern process under which parties to the MACT litigation are asking the court for their preferred course of action on remand.
The company further rejects the notion that many other plants could follow Nucla's example. Arguing that the company seeks “very limited relief,” Tri-State says it “apparently is in a unique situation and is the only party to request emergency relief from the Court.”
-
Advocates Tout Narrowing Of Texas 'Flexible' Air Permits Despite Suit Loss
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are touting a federal appeals court ruling as narrowing the scope of Texas' controversial "flexible" Clean Air Act permit program so that it applies only to smaller "minor" emissions sources and cannot be used by larger "major" sources to avoid stricter permits, though advocates lost a suit over the program's overall legality.
One industry source counters that Texas' program has always only applied to minor air pollution sources and that environmentalists' claim about the ruling merely echoes industry's long-running defense of the program.
The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), et al. v. EPA is the latest of several cases environmentalists have pursued against the flexible permit program, which allows industrial facilities to obtain permits setting a facility-wide emissions limit based on maximum permissible emissions from individual sources within a facility, rather than a permit with unit-specific limits.
Environmentalists claim the facility-wide caps could allow actual emissions of a source to exceed the air law's major source threshold -- a facility emitting more than 100 tons per year (tpy) or 250 tpy of air pollution, depending on the pollutant, is considered "major" -- without triggering the stricter permitting requirements that apply to major sources. Advocates claim a minor source unit below those thresholds could increase emissions and become a major source yet escape the strict new source review (NSR) emissions control requirements for such sources if the facility's overall emissions remain below the plant-wide cap.
EPA in the prior 5th Circuit litigation in State of Texas v. EPA took a similar position, arguing that the program could allow NSR circumvention by major sources. However, the court in its 2012 ruling disagreed, finding that EPA had wrongly disapproved Texas' permit program's inclusion in its state implementation plan (SIP). A SIP is a state blueprint for Clean Air Act implementation. Despite previously opposing the program, EPA then approved a slightly revised version of the program, relying on the court's opinion in State of Texas to justify the change in position.
Environmentalists continued to oppose the concept of flexible permitting and filed a lawsuit over EPA's subsequent approval of the slightly revised program, again warning it allows facilities to avoid NSR.
But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit issued a three-page unpublished opinion July 20 in EIP that advocates' latest challenge to the permitting program largely echoes arguments they raised in an unsuccessful suit several years ago claiming that flexible permits violated the air law by allowing circumvention of NSR mandates, and rejected the latest suit.
Judges' Opinion
In their per curiam opinion, Judges W. Eugene Davis, Patrick Higginbotham and E. Grady Jolly say, "The petitioners have not materially distinguished their arguments from the EPA's arguments in the earlier proceeding, which we already rejected."
The judges add that, "In essence, all of the petitioners' arguments rest on the assumption that the SIP will somehow allow flexible permit holders to bypass Major NSR when making major modifications to existing constructions. Our 2012 opinion forecloses that assumption. As we explained, the flexible permit plan by definition covers only Minor NSR and affirmatively requires compliance with any applicable Major NSR."
The opinion adds that, "If, as the petitioners argue, some flexible permit holders attempt to evade Major NSR, they will be doing so not in accordance with the SIP but in violation of it."
EIP does not plan to seek further legal review of Texas' flexible permitting, says an EIP source. But the source adds that even though the group lost the 5th Circuit case, "the Court also authoritatively interpreted Texas's federally-approved program to 'categorically' exclude major sources and major modifications."
The source adds, "Limiting the program in this way directly addresses many of the concerns we raised in our petition and should effectively end the program as it had been implemented prior to EPA's approval."
The industry source who has long defended the permit program as only applying to minor sources is critical of the environmentalists' position. "That is incomprehensible," the source says. "That is exactly the point that we and the State of Texas kept making. Is there some sort of victory here?"
The source calls EPA's initial rejection of the Texas program "a very surreal breach in federalism," referring to the air law's system of co-operative federalism under which states are given wide discretion in how to write their SIPs so long as they are lawful under the Clean Air Act. The source further notes that "the shortness of the opinion makes it clear there is no gray area," contrary to the assertions of EIP and others in the case.
SSM Litigation
In unrelated litigation, the 5th Circuit is also considering a challenge to EPA's recent "SIP Call," a rule requiring states to remove various regulatory exemptions that apply to industry during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). The rule responds to rulings against such exemptions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, now hearing parallel litigation on the issue.
However, the court has already upheld certain SSM exemptions under the Texas SIP, and industry litigants along with Texas air regulators are now seeking to use that precedent to overturn the rule, at least as it applies to Texas.
Should the court reject EPA's motions to move all SIP Call suits to the D.C. Circuit, and decide to hear the case, it might also rule against EPA as it did over the flexible permits rule in 2012. "It is human nature for courts to act quickly and decisively when their prior decision is in play," the industry source says.
-
EPA Poised To Decide On Rescinding Alabama's CWA Permitting Authority
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi
EPA Region 4 officials are slated in the coming weeks to release a final response to a five-year old petition from an Alabama environmental group seeking to strip the state of its delegated Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permitting authority, although sources say it would be unlikely for the agency to take back the permitting duties even though state lawmakers have sought to slash funding for the program.
A coalition of Alabama environmental groups, in a series of petitions to EPA Region 4 filed in 2010 and 2012, raised concerns that the state's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program was violating the CWA and had "neglected responsibilities," in part due to a series of budget cuts. The groups asked that EPA take immediate action to remove the Alabama Department of Environmental Management's (ADEM) NPDES authority.
"Alabama's water pollution program is fundamentally broken and does not meet minimum federal standards," the groups wrote in their 2010 petition to strip the state of its delegated authority. "Most concerning is the state's refusal to commit the funds and resources necessary to carry out even the most basic requirements of a NPDES program."
The groups also reiterated these concerns in a 2012 supplement, saying the state "has systematically eviscerated the program by levying budget cuts on top of budget cuts" and "putting our very health and well being at risk."
Region 4 in an April 2014 "interim response" to the petition agreed the groups raised valid concerns but said the agency "deferring a decision on the petitions with respect to these issues, and will work with ADEM and give ADEM an opportunity to address EPA's concerns before EPA determines whether it is necessary to order the commencement of proceedings for program withdrawal."
Among Region 4's concerns are "activities, processes, or policies that [state revolving fund] data and/or file metrics show as major problems requiring EPA oversight," the 2014 response signed by Region 4 Administrator Heather McTeer Toney says. And the region said ADEM should implement new, revised procedures to ensure "accurate reporting of enforcement and compliance data" in its NPDES program.
But Region 4 also noted that while the agency had previously raised many concerns about ADEM's data and monitoring of its NPDES program, the state had made significant improvements.
An EPA spokesman says a final response to the petitions "is still under review and we can't provide further information."
A state source says the de-delegation petition process is one of the few ways environmental and other groups have to force EPA oversight of a state's CWA programs.
"Most of the CWA is designed to go after facilities. It's not designed to look at the state program overall," the source says. "There aren't the same places in the legal realm where you can go after the [state] agency not doing its job."
Budget Woes
EPA's deliberations come as Alabama elected officials are struggling to pass a balanced budget, with Gov. Robert Bentley (R) vetoing a spending bill earlier this year that would have eliminated all funding for ADEM. While state regulators would still have money from federal sources and permitting fees, the state's NPDES program would have to shut down and EPA would be forced to initiate NPDES withdrawal proceedings, ADEM said.
The state legislature failed last month in a special session to pass a revised spending bill, and local news reports say it is unclear how the situation will be resolved in a second, yet to be scheduled, special session.
Alabama's budget fight echoes Michigan's economic crisis in 2009 when then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) recommended shifting oversight of the state's wetlands permitting program back to EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. Michigan is one of only two states with delegated CWA section 404 permitting authority, compared to 46 states with delegated section 402 NDPES authority.
But while Michigan initiated the process to return its 404 authority, the state legislature eventually passed a bill to retain oversight of its federally delegated wetlands permitting program rather than returning authority to federal regulators, a move that EPA and others warned would have caused an upheaval for permit applicants and scaled back protections.
The state source says it is extremely rare for a state legislature to completely cut funding for water programs, and EPA has never been faced with taking back a NPDES program. "I don't think they have done [it at EPA headquarters]," the source says. "There are usually more informal conversations about how the state can adjust its program."
The source adds that it would be difficult to predict the true budgetary or environmental impact on a state if it were to give its authority back to EPA: "You wouldn't know how much of an impact on the state's ability to implement [water programs] it would have. If you look at the budget and they have been funded at 90 percent state revenues, and 10 percent at federal revenues, it could be clear that they will have challenges, but if a state program is really robust it would be hard to predict based on just financials."
-
Enviro Groups' Ads Attack GOP Senators Over Clean Power Plan
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush and Jennifer Yachnin
A coalition of environmental groups today launched an ad campaign against four Republican senators running for re-election next year who oppose U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The 30-second spots being run by the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters are aimed at GOP Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Richard Burr (N.C.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), all of whom have come out against the Obama administration's plan to slash power-sector carbon emissions.
In Ohio, the Sierra Club is launching a television and digital ad blitz criticizing proposals Portman has floated this year that would block EPA from implementing the final version of the Clean Power Plan, which came out last month.
Portman and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2016 budget resolution in March that would exempt states from complying with the rule and bar EPA from imposing a federal implementation plan if states claim the regulation would create a hardship.
"When Sen. Rob Portman led the fight to let power companies release unlimited carbon pollution into the air, he put polluters' profits ahead of your family's health," a narrator says in one of the ads.
The other ad also highlights Portman's opposition to the rule and notes that the freshman lawmaker has accepted more than $1 million in contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Both commercials will hit the airwaves Sept. 8 in the Cleveland area and run through the end of the month, a Sierra Club spokesman said.
Advertisement
Portman's position on the EPA rule appears to be at odds with a majority of Ohio voters who back the proposal, according to a survey released by Public Policy Polling last month.
The poll found that 55 percent of Ohioans support the plan, compared to 42 percent who oppose it. The poll was part of a survey of 4,517 registered voters, taken July 31 to Aug. 3 across seven swing states, that had a 1.5-point margin of error.
"Who is Rob Portman listening to, the people of Ohio or big polluters?" Mary Ann Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said on a conference call with reporters.
Portman, who is seeking a second term, is a top target for Democrats who need to flip five Senate seats -- or four if the party retains control of the White House -- to win a majority in the chamber next year.
His top Democratic opponent, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, led Portman by 6 to 9 points in polls released earlier this year but has lost ground of late. Strickland led Portman 44 to 41 percent in a survey released last week (Greenwire, Aug. 25). That survey had a 3-point margin of error.
In Pennsylvania, EDF Action and the NRDC Action Fund will spend about $1 million on a pair of monthlong television and digital ads targeting Toomey.
Both 30-second spots feature a similar message, urging Toomey to support the emissions reduction regulations while also criticizing the senator for accepting campaign contributions with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
"Let's clear the air: There are no limits on the amount of carbon pollution power plants can release, and our Sen. Pat Toomey led the fight to keep it that way," a narrator states in thespot sponsored by EDF Action.
"Carbon pollution, a major cause of climate change, leads to more asthma attacks in children. Over 1 million Pennsylvanians now suffer from asthma, and Sen. Toomey took over $1 million from polluters," the ad continues. "Tell Sen. Toomey: It's time to clear the air, vote for the Clean Power Plan."
The NRDC Action Fund ad features similar content, and concludes: "Tell Sen. Toomey to vote for the Clean Power Plan, because unlimited pollution shouldn't be a right, but playing outside should be."
NRDC Action Fund Director of Government Affairs David Goldstein called Toomey "out of step on a critical issue" in a conference call with reporters today.
"Sen. Toomey is a focus because he is from a state where the public supports action on climate and yet has been opposed to any real action and has not even been willing to acknowledge that the human contribution to climate change is significant enough that action is called for," Goldstein said.
Both former Rep. Joe Sestak, who narrowly lost the 2010 Senate race against Toomey, and former White House Council on Environmental Quality chief Katie McGinty are competing for the Democratic nod.
The Toomey campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A campaign spokesman for Portman defended his record on energy issues.
"Rob Portman's strong record on energy use and the environment is well documented," Corry Bliss said in an email. He added, "Governor Strickland and his allies are so desperate that they will say or do anything to distract from Strickland's struggling campaign."
The League of Conservation Voters also launched $2.2 million in ads against Johnson and Burr focused on their opposition to the Clean Power Plan. The two lawmakers, like Toomey and Portman, are top targets for Democrats this cycle.
In Wisconsin, LCV will spend $1.6 million on new ads in Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee highlighting Johnson's opposition to the Clean Power Plan, the group said.
"People need to know about Ron Johnson's record of putting the health of Wisconsinites at risk," Kerry Schumann, executive director of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement.
Schumann also linked Johnson to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate and vocal critic of the Obama administration's energy and climate policies.
"Our leaders in Congress, as well as Gov. Walker, should support the Clean Power Plan instead of allowing unlimited carbon emissions for big polluters," Schumann said.
The ads build on an earlier campaign LCV launched against Johnson last month.
In North Carolina -- where Democrats have yet to draft a marquee candidate to challenge the first-term GOP senator -- the LCV will spend $640,000 on a 30-second spot featuring a Greensboro woman whose child has asthma.
The LCV said the spot, which will run on television and online, is the first of multiple planned ads that will target Burr.
"Tell Sen. Burr to support the Clean Power Plan," a narrator says in the ad.
-
Group Mobilizes Democrats Opposed to EPA Ozone Plan
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Early this year, Gary, Ind., Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson was among several local officials who urged U.S. EPA to set a more stringent national ambient air quality standard for ozone.
But the closure of one of U.S. Steel Corp.'s coke plants caused the Democratic mayor to take "another look" at EPA's proposal to tighten the standard. The closure spurred job losses and took a bite out of Gary's tax revenue, so Freeman-Wilson wrote in a July opinion piece that she worried a lower ozone limit would have a similar effect.
EPA in November proposed to lower the Clean Air Act limit for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion -- set during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb. The agency's final limit is currently under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
"Those of us at the local and state level already have limited resources, a fact that will only be exacerbated by efforts to comply with the new standard," Freeman-Wilson wrote in The Indianapolis Star.
As the Obama administration gears up to release the final standard, opponents of a tighter ozone standard have been highlighting local and state Democrats like the Gary mayor who have penned letters and opinion pieces warning that a more stringent ozone limit would upset a balance between environmental regulation and economic growth.
Industry and business groups say the recent statements from the president's party mirror their own deep concerns about the Obama administration's proposal and provide more reason for EPA to retain the existing limit of 75 ppb.
Advertisement
"The opposition to the proposal is widespread and bipartisan," said Karen Kerrigan, president and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.
SBE's Center for Regulatory Solutions project is publishing a series of reports on the proposal that highlights local Democratic opposition in mostly purple states around the country.
"This is a big complex issue, and it takes a while to kind of work through all these analyses -- health and environment as well as economic and technological," Eric Burkland, president of the Ohio Manufacturers' Association, said on a recent call with CRS. "We're seeing as leaders of both parties begin to understand the implications of this coming out against this."
But whether there's an actual rift among Democrats on the proposal is under contention. And whether the Democratic opposition seeping through the cracks actually matters as the administration works toward a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to release the final ozone standard is also up in the air.
John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, pushed back that industry is overstating Democratic opposition and that a relatively small number of the president's party proportionately, especially in urban areas known for heavy air pollution, had weighed in against EPA's proposal.
"Those claims are really outlier views," he said.'Tilting at environmental windmills'
At least 60 mayors who identify as either Democratic or independent have filed comments in the federal docket against the proposal, according to a review by the National Association of Manufacturers, an industry group opposed to EPA's proposal.
A handful of Democratic governors have publicly stated opposition to a tighter ozone standard, including Kentucky's Steve Beshear and West Virginia's Earl Ray Tomblin. Yesterday, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper also said he was skeptical about EPA's proposal, according to local news reports. He joins Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who last week came out in opposition to EPA's bid to tighten the standard, in expressing concerns that a lower limit would leave many counties in the state in "nonattainment" (Greenwire, Aug. 27).
And at least two dozen state lawmakers, city leaders, union representatives and former Democratic officials have penned letters to the White House calling on the Obama administration to retain the existing standard.
Many of the missives from local and state Democrats carry similar themes: that EPA needs to strike a balance between environmental regulation and economic growth, and that a new ozone standard would be too costly.
"I do believe that progress in any ozone issue must not be made at the expense of another," New York state Rep. Michael Miller wrote in a May 18 letter to Brian Deese, Obama's top environmental adviser. "By potentially seeking significantly lower ozone standards at this time, the Environmental Protection Agency threatens the economic stability of the district I represent and counties throughout New York State."
Several Democrats who oppose EPA's proposal said they otherwise supported Obama administration initiatives.
"I have been a proud supporter of President Obama. He is one of the few public office holders on the national scene who has consistently shown concern for the needs of the low-income African American families who are part of my constituency," North Carolina state Rep. Nathan Baskerville, a member of the General Assembly's Black Caucus who in 2008 worked for the Obama for America campaign, also wrote in May to Deese.
EPA's proposal, he said, "is a case of tilting at environmental windmills."
Some Democratic opposition has focused on urban areas where residents -- particularly minorities -- are still recovering from the recession and officials are straining under budget constraints.
Carolyn Berndt, program director for sustainability at the National League of Cities, said that lowering the ozone limit may have unintended consequences on low-income residents.
"One example of a minority or low-income impact is that a lot of these companies and cities might have programs with the city for job training or education-type programs and partnerships," she said. "If those companies are leaving the cities, that program disappears."
In March, the National League of Cities signed onto a letter with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties and National Association of Regional Councils urging EPA to retain the 75 ppb limit. A new standard, the groups wrote, would place "financial and administrative burdens on local governments."
"Typically urban areas have higher ozone levels, but they're also disproportionately impacted by the cost of this regulation," said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at NAM. "Moving forward with the regulation -- yes, you are trying to further air quality issues in urban areas, but at the same time, you're kind of really, from an economic standpoint, placing one more major hurdle on this urban core."
A fear expressed by some local officials is that already congested urban areas will lose federal money for not complying with a tighter standard. While it's happened only a handful of times, the government can withhold transportation funding if local transportation planners in areas that don't meet the ozone standard don't show that new projects won't harm air quality.
"Many local officials, some of them Democrats from heavily-Democratic urban areas, as well as state officials are concerned that they will lose federal highway money if their areas fall short of the new standards," former Democratic Rep. Albert Wynn of Maryland wrote in a recent editorial in The Baltimore Sun. "Therefore, the new ozone standards could well impose on them a Hobbesian choice between inhibiting job growth or forfeiting federal funding for improved roads and bridges."
Moreover, some are slamming Obama for upsetting the base of political support that elected him president and casting the ozone standard as a legacy issue.
"President Obama has made it abundantly clear that furthering the cause of his urban base -- perhaps the most vital component of the coalition that swept him to power -- is near the top of his lengthy and ambitious agenda," former Rep. Ed Towns wrote in an Aug. 2 editorial in the New York Post.
"As the president and his team strive to finish strong," the New York Democrat added, "it's vital that they also keep a close eye on the big picture regarding their agenda's impact on urban communities and avoid any policy shifts that could undo the significant progress that's been made to date."
Some current Democratic House members have also joined Republican colleagues in calling on EPA to reconsider its proposal. In July, about 15 Democratic representatives signed onto a letter urging the agency to retain the 75 ppb limit (Greenwire, July 29).'Talking points circulating'
Mark Alan Hughes, a former Philadelphia official and professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Design, said that a tighter standard wouldn't necessarily mean the economic doom predicted by those opposed. Officials would have flexibility to target air quality improvements toward specific sectors, he said.
"Under these flexible regulations, you can have a conversation about, OK, what kind of changes do we need to make in the transportation system in order to have enough room for both improved air quality and larger numbers of industrial jobs?" he said.
EPA has estimated that the majority of the country would be in compliance by 2025 with its proposed ozone limits thanks to other air quality regulations that are either proposed or already in place.
Local and state Democrats appeared to be merely channeling industry arguments in opposition to EPA's proposal, Hughes said.
"There's clearly some talking points circulating," Hughes said.
Many of the local and state Democrats in opposition to EPA's proposal cite a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers that found a 65 ppb ozone standard would cost up to $140 billion a year between 2017 and 2040, or the most expensive regulation ever.
Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council has long slammed the report for relying on unrealistic costly scenarios, such as a national cash-for-clunkers-type program, for meeting a tighter ozone standard.
"They haven't gotten the traction they wanted with that biased study, except for some Republican politicians," Walke said, "so heading into September they're now trying to pretend that there is broader opposition among Democrats and minority groups than there is in fact."
He added that the concerns raised about the costs of a tighter standard ignored the health benefits that people stand to gain, particularly in urban areas that are often clogged with air pollution.
The proposal's benefits include "reduced asthma attacks, reduced mortality, reduced ER and hospital visits, increased days that people can attend work and school," he said. "Those urban areas will benefit most from safer air and the health benefits that EPA has found will outweigh the compliance costs."
In June, five Democratic governors called on EPA to set a tighter standard, warning of potential adverse health effects linked to high ozone levels and pushing back against compliance cost concerns.
The Local Government Advisory Committee, a formal EPA advisory committee made up of mayors and other local officials, also in March recommended that EPA follow through with its proposal to tighten the ozone standard.
Democratic Mayor Freeman-Wilson of Gary is a member of the group.
Freeman-Wilson said that her recent flip should not be mistaken as "an opposition to clean air" but that there were "better methods" to clean up the air than putting in place a stricter ozone standard.
"The experience of U.S. Steel results in us taking three steps forward and two steps backward. It is virtually impossible to revitalize a city under such circumstances," she said. "I urge the president and the administration to work with environmentalists, local officials and the business community to achieve our common goals of protecting the air quality and the economic viability of American cities."
-
Gloomy Obama Calls Alaska 'Leading Edge of Climate Change'
Sep 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
President Obama landed in Alaska yesterday, painting an apocalyptic picture of the devastating conditions in store for the state's coastal communities and other vulnerable parts of the world if international leaders don't take immediate action to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
In a speech at a State Department climate change conference, Obama called for international support for a strong climate agreement at the United Nations' December negotiations in Paris.
He warned that without aggressive action to cut carbon emissions, world leaders will "condemn our children to a world they will no longer have the capacity to repair."
"The fact is that the climate is changing faster than our ability to address it," he told the room full of foreign dignitaries. "We're not acting fast enough. None of the nations represented here are moving fast enough."
President Obama spoke at the Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement and Resilience (GLACIER) Conference at Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center in Anchorage yesterday as Secretary of State John Kerry looked on.Photo by Andrew Harnik, courtesy of AP Images.
Obama described the Arctic as "the leading edge of climate change -- our leading indicator of what the entire planet faces."
With Alaska's climate warming twice as fast as the rest of the nation's, the president said the state faces "thawing permafrost [that] destabilizes the earth on which 100,000 Alaskans live, threatening homes, damaging transportation and energy infrastructure, which could cost billions of dollars to fix."
Obama's blunt language and emergency call to action won praise from environmentalists at the conference. But some Alaska officials asserted that the president's speech was more directed at the Lower 48 and international climate change negotiators, rather than to the Alaskan people.
"It reinforced my belief that Alaska is being used as a backdrop for climate," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) charged. "And when the president goes to Paris, when Secretary [of State John] Kerry is in Paris, that will be a very convenient talking point for them.
"But Alaskans are asking: What does this mean for me and my family when it comes to our energy security?"
Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she was hoping Obama would include an "action plan" for energy development in Alaska that mentioned fossil fuels as well as wind and wave power.
"I'm a strong believer in renewable energy," she said. "But I also recognize that renewable energy is intermittent energy. And until we can do more to build out the microgrids here in Alaska, the energy solutions that [the government is] working on in the Lower 48 don't help me here."
None of the speakers at the conference mentioned the elephant in the room: Obama's August decision to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea for the first time in 24 years.
But in the opening plenary session, Northwest Arctic Borough Mayor Reggie Joule said Alaskans "have learned that with diligence and oversight that you can balance resource development and still have the animals and the fish and the plants flourish."
"Our message is quite simple," he said. "Development of our resources must include food, culture, energy and economic security for Alaska's First People. And any development of oil on the outer continental shelf must include revenue-sharing to our impacted communities."Obama's agenda
Today, Obama is due to travel to Seward, Alaska, where he'll visit the Exit Glacier and take a boat tour of the Kenai Fjords National Park. He's also scheduled to take the unlikely step of appearing on a special episode of "Running Wild with Bear Grylls," a reality TV show that focuses on outdoor survival skills.
While in Seward, the president will announce plans to acquire a new heavy icebreaker for the Coast Guard by 2020, two years ahead of the current schedule.
At the same time, he'll outline plans to push Congress for funding for additional icebreakers. The Coast Guard currently has one "heavy" icebreaker, the Polar Star, and one "medium" icebreaker, the Healy. A third icebreaker called the Polar Sea is not operational; in 2013, the Coast Guard estimated that renovating it would cost $100 million.
The White House said Obama will also release plans by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard to chart a transit route through the Aleutians and Bering Strait to improve safety for the growing marine traffic navigating the Arctic's open waters.
Meanwhile, administration officials say the president intends to re-energize the Denali Commission to provide federal help to Alaska's coastal villages that are being forced to relocate due to rising sea levels and erosion.
The commission, created in 1998 to cut federal red tape and help deliver government services to Alaska residents, has been relatively dormant in recent years.
Murkowski said the commission is a likely vehicle for directing federal assistance to vulnerable Native communities like Newtok, Shishmaref and Kivalina.
But she noted that the commission's current $11 million budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the soaring costs of helping even one Native community move to a new site.
She encouraged Obama to "put your money where your mouth is" to back the effort.
"If you don't put the resources behind it, it's nothing more than yet another program on paper," she argued. "It will take real dollars to move these communities."Ministers huddle
Obama spoke at the end of a daylong climate change conference during which U.S. officials met in closed session with ministers from 10 other nations and the European Union to negotiate a joint climate statement.
The outcome of those talks was a declaration affirming the importance of the Framework for Action on Black Carbon and Methane, adopted in April at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting.
The ministers also called for additional research on the impact of global warming on Arctic permafrost and for cooperation on wildland fire management. And they committed to helping vulnerable Arctic communities build resilience to climate impacts and to working with rural villages to deploy low-carbon solutions.
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