Preview Newsletter
ACC AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Supporters See Progress on Child-Products Regulation
Apr 8, 2015 | Capital New York
By Scott Waldman
Of the hundreds of bills that fail to pass the Legislature each year, the Child Safe Products Act stands out for its broad base of support. -
House Committee to Discuss Draft Chemical Reform Bill
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch
By Lydia Wheeler
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy will hold a legislative hearing next week to discuss the draft of a House bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws. -
Legislation to Overhaul TSCA Greeted By Partisan Split Among Attorneys General
Apr 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
At least nine Democratic attorneys general have weighed in opposing preemption provisions of a bill that would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
House's TSCA Bill Scales Back State Preemption From Senate Alternative
Apr 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
House lawmakers a floating draft bipartisan legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that significantly scales back preemption of state chemicals programs compared to an alternative pending Senate bill, opening a gap between the two chambers over the issue of preemption that has long hindered approval of a bill. -
Why Environmentalists Should Support a Bill Co-Sponsored by David Vitter (Seriously) | Commentary
Apr 7, 2015 | Roll Call
By Jack Pratt
Is Sen. David Vitter, R-La., becoming an environmental champion? No way. That’s why many are understandably wary of a new bill he co-sponsored to overhaul our main chemical safety law. -
More Than Oil
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bill Mohrwinkel
Recently it seems that in the public conversation, both in the media and by our representatives in Washington, D.C., the importance of my state has been reduced to just one thing--oil. -
Reinventing the Carbon Tax
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Wyoming State Rep. Norine Kasperik (R)
Is a recently proposed Department of Interior rule change a classic "bait-and-switch" plan designed to curtail energy production rather than benefit taxpayers? -
White House Emphasizes Health Effects In Push for Action to Curb Greenhouse Gases
Apr 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House is emphasizing the link between a changing climate and public health as part of an effort to boost support for its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
Google, Microsoft Join Obama to Prepare For Health Effects From Climate Change
Apr 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Justin Sink
President Barack Obama is warning that climate change will start affecting Americans' health in the near future, and he's recruiting top technology companies to help prepare the nation's health systems. -
White House Touts Climate, Health Impact Study To Help Justify GHG Cuts
Apr 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
The White House is highlighting its major new draft study and other data showing a range of adverse public health impacts from climate change as a tool to spur local adaptation efforts and to bolster the political justification for its broader suite of regulations to curb greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause climate change. -
Obama: ‘A Lot More Work to Do’ on Climate
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama -
President Obama called attention to the public health impact of climate change Tuesday and said the country has to do more to reverse it. -
White House: Obama 'Greenest President' Ever
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill
By Jordan Fabian
President Obama's environmental record will make him remembered as the “greenest” president in history, the White House said Tuesday. -
What Will Happen After People Stop Ignoring the Evidence on Climate Change
Apr 8, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
On Sunday, Post reporters Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and I reported that the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council is stressing that (in our words) it “does not deny climate change” and has been “overhauling their organization to be more transparent and more welcoming to divergent views.” -
5th Circuit Sets Deference Test For Review Of EPA CWA Petition Response
Apr 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is backing environmentalists' claims that EPA's response to Clean Water Act (CWA) rulemaking petitions can be judicially reviewable but is setting a test that is highly deferential to the agency for deciding whether the response is lawful so long as it is based on existing statutory authority.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Supporters See Progress on Child-Products Regulation
Apr 8, 2015 | Capital New York
By Scott Waldman
Of the hundreds of bills that fail to pass the Legislature each year, the Child Safe Products Act stands out for its broad base of support.
The act, which would regulate some chemicals in children's toys, has sailed through the Assembly. It was supported by two-thirds of the State Senate, including some of the most conservative members of the Legislature, such as Republican Kathy Marchione of Saratoga County, and some of the most liberal, including Democrat Liz Krueger of Manhattan.
For years, supporters of the bill, including health and environmental groups, have made its passage a priority. They've held press conferences with children in duck costumes posing for the cameras, or innocently using some of the allegedly dangerous products.
And yet the bill has never passed out of the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos did not allow it to come for a vote in the waning days of last year's session, even though many of his members and co-leader Jeffrey Klein supported the measure.
MORE ON CAPITALCapital Playbook: Butts warns de Blasio; Bill Clinton ‘backstage’Albany Pro: Cries of pork in the state budgetCapital Health Care: Raju’s vision; Lobbying for chemicals
Chemical industry lobbyists, who spent tens of thousands of dollars in New York in 2014, intensively pushed to kill the bill, which would limit chemicals in some toys and products for children, including mercury and arsenic. It would create a list of chemicals banned in the state.
Clean and Healthy New York, a group that supports safer chemicals in products, has purchased children's toys commonly available in stores across the state, including flashlights, jewelry and even a breast cancer awareness bracelet, that contained those chemicals and others the group says are harmful to a developing child.
This year, the Child Safe Products Act may have its best chance of passing, in some form, simply because of the support that has gathered behind it over the years. It is expected to easily pass through the Assembly sometime around Earth Day later this month.
The effort to pass the act in New York is now being supported by Seventh Generation, a manufacturing company, which is providing financial and strategic help.
The groups that support the bill have also mounted an aggressive new effort to pressure state legislators in their home districts. Albany County was the first in the state to pass the legislation. Legislatures in Suffolk and Westchester counties have taken up the measure. This week, advocates traveled to Erie and Monroe County to push legislatures there to pass a similar measure. It's no accident that local papers will be carrying headlines about the bill at the same time many lawmakers are in their home districts during the legislative recess.
Governor Andrew Cuomo said in his budget book that he would work with the Legislature to pass the Child Safe Products Act, but hasn't publicly followed up in any significant way.
Republican senator Phil Boyle of Long Island said he is confident this legislation will come up for a vote in the Senate this year. Boyle said negotiations have been ongoing to find a version of the bill that could be supported by all sides, and that advocates will soon meet with the Cuomo administration to enlist additional support. He would not say if Skelos will allow a vote on the act this year, but acknowledged that it could be weakened from previous proposals.
“I understand we may not get the entire Child Safe Products Act in its current form, but we're going to get as much as we can,” he said Tuesday.
So far, 30 senators have committed to supporting the bill. Klein has made it a priority for his five-member coalition, Boyle said.
There is still considerable opposition to the bill among the groups involved in manufacturing the toys and products that could be affected by the legislation. In the last two years alone, more than $400,000 has been spent on lobbying by organizations that oppose the legislation.
The American Chemistry Council spent more than $180,000 lobbying in New York last year on a variety of efforts, state lobbying records show. That's an increase from the $156,201 the group spent in 2013, records show.
The Toy Industry Association, which represents toy manufacturers, spent $50,000 in 2014, records show. The group spent the same amount in 2013.
-
House Committee to Discuss Draft Chemical Reform Bill
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch
By Lydia Wheeler
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy will hold a legislative hearing next week to discuss the draft of a House bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws.
The TSCA Modernization Act aims to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is widely viewed as unenforceable. Lawmakers have already introduced two competing bills to reform the decades-old law in the Senate. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) are behind the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act while Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter are pushing a bill named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg. The fight has been heated at times with Boxer and Markey accusing Udall and Vitter of letting industry daft their legislation, which they argue gives the EPA the authority to regulate any of the 84,000 chemicals in commerce.
The House bill according to the committee chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) would provide a new system by which the Environmental Protection Agency can evaluate risks associated with chemicals already on the market.
“The TSCA Modernization Act is an effort that everyone should be able to get behind as reforming the law is a win-win for safety and our economy,” ” Shimkus said in the release. “I appreciate my colleagues’ willingness to come to the table and work together on this important issue and I’m more hopeful than ever that we can achieve bipartisan success.”
EPA Administrator Jim Jones is expected to testify at Tuesday’s hearing.
-
Legislation to Overhaul TSCA Greeted By Partisan Split Among Attorneys General
Apr 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
At least nine Democratic attorneys general have weighed in opposing preemption provisions of a bill that would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act.
At least eight Republican attorneys general support the legislation.
The attorneys general have written letters to senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee about the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act , S. 697.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced the bill March 10 (47 DEN A-19, 3/11/15).
Concerns voiced by the Democratic attorneys general centered on a section of S. 697 that would prevent states from adopting new chemical laws or regulations to address a chemical of concern once the Environmental Protection Agency decided to analyze a “high-priority” compound to determine what risks it poses.
The preemption provision would apply if the scope of the EPA's risk assessment included the potential risk a state sought to address through legislation or regulation.
The Democratic attorneys general also objected to a provision of the bill that prevents states from enforcing chemical standards even when those standards are identical to federal requirements.
Four of the nine states with attorneys general who have objected to S. 697—Iowa, Maine, Maryland and Massachusetts—have Republican governors.
West Virginia: ‘S. 697 is a Needed Improvement.’
Eight Republican attorneys general who have written letters supporting S. 697 are in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.
West Virginia's governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, is a Democrat, while the remaining seven states have Republican governors.
In a March 18 letter, Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia's attorney general, said S. 697 would help prevent situations such as the lack of chemical toxicity data available to help the state in 2014 when 75,000 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol contaminated the water supply in nine West Virginia counties (8 DEN A-13, 1/13/14).
“This bill establishes a framework for the systematic evaluation of all active chemicals and requires additional safety reviews of high-priority substances,” Morrisey wrote.
Streamlines Information Gathering
“It also streamlines the process of gathering the information necessary to determine whether a chemical is safe for its intended use, identifies and acts on chemicals that may pose safety concerns and ensures that necessary information concerning a chemical be shared with public officials and first responders in the event of an emergency.
“In short, S. 697 is a needed improvement to the current chemical regulatory framework,” Morrisey wrote.
States have diverse opinions on S. 697, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), told Bloomberg BNA April 7.
ECOS doesn't have a position on the bill or on another TSCA-reform measure that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced March 12, Dunn said. She referred to S. 725, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act (49 DEN A-2, 3/13/15).
The council's Cross-Media Committee, which works on chemical issues, will discuss the TSCA reform bills during the week of April 13, she said.
-
House's TSCA Bill Scales Back State Preemption From Senate Alternative
Apr 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
House lawmakers a floating draft bipartisan legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that significantly scales back preemption of state chemicals programs compared to an alternative pending Senate bill, opening a gap between the two chambers over the issue of preemption that has long hindered approval of a bill.
But the House's draft legislation, unveiled April 7 by House Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL), appears to take a similar approach to the Senate bill on other issues such as retaining the current “unreasonable risk” bar EPA would have to meet in determining the safety of chemicals, and removing a mandate that EPA assess the “least burdensome” alternative to restrictions for that substance.
The draft legislation builds off of Shimkus' efforts last Congress to advance a bill, known as the Chemicals in Commerce Act, and is slated for an environment subcommittee hearing April 14.
The House measure “seeks to modernize the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in an effort to improve the safety of chemicals while encouraging continued innovation and economic growth. The goal is to provide the public greater confidence in the safety of American-made chemicals and the products that contain them, and to facilitate interstate and global commerce,” according to an energy panel summary.
Divisions in the House over the preemption issue helped to kill the lower chamber's TSCA reform push last year, with states opposed to legislation that would block existing or future chemicals programs.
Preemption has already reemerged as a divisive issue for TSCA reform in the Senate, as a bipartisan bill floated by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) would broadly preempt states from regulating chemicals.
Several states, most recently Minnesota, have criticized the preemption provisions in the Vitter-Udall bill, S. 697. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) are pushing a competing bill that would not include the sweeping preemption language.
Now the House appears to be pursuing a much more limited approach to preemption than S. 697. The draft House bill appears to be pared back somewhat from Shimkus' effort at TSCA reform last year.
At least one key Democrat -- Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), ranking member of the full energy committee -- has already offered his support, saying in a joint press release with Shimkus that the bill is a “good starting point, and I look forward to hearing from and working with stakeholders as we move forward.”
Some stakeholders have suggested that giving the chemical sector its long-sought “gift” of preempting state chemical programs as part of TSCA reform could secure the sector's backing for a comprehensive industry fee program that would amply fund a robust new EPA chemicals program created by reform.
House Legislation
The draft bill says that preemption of state chemicals programs would only occur after EPA issues a requirement or a rule for a particular substance under section 5 of TSCA, which applies to new chemicals, or section 6 of the toxics law, which allows EPA to take action on chemicals already in the marketplace.
In contrast, opponents of the Senate bill say it would restrict states from enacting identical chemical management rules, and that it would block existing state chemicals rules when EPA launches a safety assessment for a chemical it deems "high-priority" under the prioritization scheme that the bill would establish.
Opponents say the language would block states' ability to be "co-enforcers" of the law and would leave a potential seven-year regulatory gap until EPA issues a final rule during which no chemical restrictions would apply.
But the Shimkus draft bill is also likely to draw criticism from some stakeholders because it would include the section 5 new chemicals program in the preemption provisions, which some have said is not necessary because the agency has been able to successfully manage the program under current TSCA.
The differences between the House and Senate on their preemption provisions could pose fresh hurdles for TSCA reform, because if both chambers approve their leading bills are currently drafted they would have to resolve their differences in conference talks -- possibly requiring a compromise on preemption.
EPA's toxics chief Jim Jones testified at an EPW hearing last month that the agency is looking “very hard” at the preemption language, while suggesting various other changes to the bill. Jones is also slated to testify at the April 14 hearing on the House bill, along with an unidentified “panel of stakeholders.”
'Unreasonable Risk'
Meanwhile, the draft House bill does appear to share some of the Senate effort's approaches to other issues, including the safety standard EPA would have to use in determining risks from chemicals.
“At this step, cost and other factors not directly related to human health and environment are not taken into account when determining what constitutes an unreasonable risk,” according to the summary.
Once EPA opts to take action under section 6 on a chemical under the House bill, however, the agency would be required to “compare the relative risks, estimated costs, and efficiencies of the action to be taken under this title and an action to be taken under such other law to protect against such risk,” the bill says.
The Society of Toxicology is recommending that pending TSCA reform legislation be revised to include language requiring EPA to define a safety standard for the agency to review chemicals, saying there is longstanding confusion about the "no unreasonable risk" standard in current TSCA reform efforts.
The House draft legislation differs in its approach form the Senate bill to how EPA considers action to take to mitigate risks from chemicals used in “articles” or finished products. The House draft bill says that EPA may apply prohibitions or restrictions on articles on the basis of a chemical ingredient “only to the extent necessary to mitigate the necessary risk.” It also appears to exempt replacement parts manufactured prior to the effective date of a rule absent an EPA finding that the parts contribute “significantly” to the identified risk.
Critics of the Senate bill have attacked language they say would "hamstring" EPA's ability to regulate chemicals in articles by requiring the agency to prove that consumers face "significant exposure" to harmful substances in articles before the agency could regulate them.
-
Why Environmentalists Should Support a Bill Co-Sponsored by David Vitter (Seriously) | Commentary
Apr 7, 2015 | Roll Call
By Jack Pratt
Is Sen. David Vitter, R-La., becoming an environmental champion? No way. That’s why many are understandably wary of a new bill he co-sponsored to overhaul our main chemical safety law. But here’s the twist: This legislation would actually give the federal government significant new powers to restrict chemicals tied to cancer, Parkinson’s and other serious illnesses. In fact, a bill progressive Democrats negotiated with Vitter is our best chance to protect our health from toxic chemicals.
To understand why requires some background. Our main chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, is four decades old and badly broken. Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals every day in cleaning products, clothing, furniture and many other products. Scientists link common chemicals to a host of serious health problems, and pregnant woman, infants and children are especially vulnerable. Yet only a small fraction of chemicals in use today have ever been adequately tested for safety and the Environmental Protection Agency can’t even restrict chemicals we know are dangerous.
With the feds hamstrung by TSCA, state governments have stepped up and taken action on certain chemicals. Some states have imposed restrictions on chemicals of concern like mercury, BPA and flame retardants; they’ve also passed labeling and disclosure requirements. Some retailers (such as Walmart and Target) have also established restrictions of their own that are reducing the use of some problematic chemicals.
While we should applaud those efforts, they are insufficient. For one thing, these restrictions only deal with chemicals we already know pose risks. States are not checking a chemical before it goes on the market, or requiring safety testing for those already in use. And when states impose a restriction on a chemical, companies often simply replace it with another similar chemical that may be just as harmful (like switching out BPA for its close cousin BPS). And even with all that action, only about a dozen chemicals or classes have been restricted in this way by states in four decades. Finally, state protections are not called a “patchwork” for nothing: huge swaths of the country remain wholly unprotected. This is a national problem and it requires a national solution.
One important benefit of the state and retail actions is that it has been a major headache for business. Chemicals are used to make 96 percent of products and companies now have to comply with different standards in different states, even while they have lost the trust of average Americans. The result is, after years of denial, many companies are now willing to accept more regulation to secure a predictable system that restores confidence in the safety of their products.
That brings us to the new bill before the Senate, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S 697, named in honor of the late senator who had the courage to seek out a bipartisan path to reform TSCA. The new bill is the result of two years of tough negotiations by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Vitter. Vitter didn’t bump his head and become a liberal, far from it. Rather, he is calling for the “common rulebook” that industry needs, in exchange for greater EPA powers.
Thanks to the Udall-led negotiations, that preemption of state laws is much more limited than in the original bill. Under the new bill, actions states took in the absence of a strong federal system remain intact. Going forward, states can act to restrict a chemical until and unless the EPA takes up the same chemical as a high priority. Other types of state actions on chemicals, such as reporting or monitoring requirements, are not affected.
The other provisions in the new bill give EPA powerful new tools to start dealing with the tens of thousands of chemicals in use today — a problem that is much too big for any state, retailer or individual to handle on their own. The new bill mandates safety reviews of new chemicals before they come on the market, and of all chemicals already in use. It requires explicit protections for the most vulnerable to chemical exposures, such as pregnant women and infants. And it drives more information on chemicals into the open by imposing limits on companies’ ability to hide chemical safety data.
The trade-off is that states will no longer be as free to restrict a chemical once the feds step in. In an ideal world, states would be able to continue to impose their own restrictions even when the EPA acts. But with businesses that use chemicals to make everything from aerosols to airplanes raising the alarm about the challenges that could pose to them, is it any wonder they and their Republican allies in Congress are seeking to limit state actions?
We know what happens in Washington when a bill fails; it takes years to before we get another chance. We saw it with healthcare, climate change, and past efforts to reform TSCA. And there is a real cost to continued federal inaction. Unregulated chemicals are taking a toll on our health, and delayed action means more children will be unnecessarily exposed to harmful chemicals. I don’t blame people for looking at any deal presented by Washington skeptically, particularly one supported by some polarizing figures. But we should look past the names on the bill and take a good deal when we see it.
Jack Pratt is chemicals campaign director at the Environmental Defense Fund and previously served as chief of staff to Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y.
-
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bill Mohrwinkel
Recently it seems that in the public conversation, both in the media and by our representatives in Washington, D.C., the importance of my state has been reduced to just one thing--oil. As an Alaskan and business owner I find this incredibly disheartening. My state, and the people who live here, have so much more to offer.
For one thing, Alaska is home to incredible natural beauty and wildlife that simply can't be found anywhere in the Lower 48. There is a sense of the wild here that not only inspires those of us who live here, but draws people from near and far. The possibility for adventure, the opportunities to test yourself, and the sheer wonder of what awaits in the undeveloped north is what has fueled my small outdoor guiding business for 30 years.
And I'm not alone. More than 92,000 Alaskans have jobs thanks to outdoor recreation, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. Consumers spend more than $9.5 billion on outdoor gear, guiding services and other outdoor recreation needs, and their adventures generate more than $700 million in state and local tax revenue each year for our state.
It is places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that help drive this outdoor economy and support our way of life. For those that haven't been, the Refuge's coastal plain, boreal forests, towering mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, and lagoons are a must-see. On any given trip to the Refuge visitors can see caribou herds traveling over the tundra, bears and wolves following, and an amazing number of birds that will eventually make their way to all 50 states.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only refuge specifically designed for wilderness. The Obama administration and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell were right to recommend that a large portion of the Refuge remain as wilderness for future generations. The recommendation not only follows the original intent of Congress, but reflects current widespread support from the American public for preserving this special place. More than 1 million people, including a majority of Alaskans who participated, submitted comments asking the Obama administration to recommend wilderness protections for the Refuge. I for one am pleased the administration listened.
While the oil industry would open any and all available places to oil and gas development, there remain some places that are too special to drill, including the Arctic Refuge. Opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling could permanently alter the Refuge, worsen the effects of climate disruption that are already being felt here in Alaska, and prevent the development of an economy not tied to the fuels of the past.
Alaska's state motto is 'North to the Future'. It appears the Obama administration has taken that to heart, even if our other leaders are choosing to remain mired in the past.
Mohrwinkel, of Palmer, Alaska, is co-owner of the guide business Arctic Wild.
-
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Wyoming State Rep. Norine Kasperik (R)
Is a recently proposed Department of Interior rule change a classic "bait-and-switch" plan designed to curtail energy production rather than benefit taxpayers?
Opponents of fossil fuel development would have you believe a change is necessary. This proposal would undo the current valuation of coal and replace it with a complex system designed to punish coal producers with higher costs and significant uncertainty. It is not about maximizing revenue for taxpayers; it's about cutting off production of federal coal from Wyoming and other states.The anti-fossil fuel crowd regularly invokes the same tired argument in a failed attempt to prove their point - energy producers are not paying their fair share to taxpayers and should therefore have their taxes, royalties and leases raised. Yet, the fallacy of this argument should be noted. Those opposed to energy development want taxpayers to receive no benefit from America's resources.
The current system provides stable and very significant tax and royalty revenue. In Wyoming, companies pay to lease federal coal, pay royalties on that coal when it is produced, federal income taxes on any profit, as well as severance taxes, ad valorem taxes, sales taxes, and other fees. Federal, state and local governments receive over $1 billion a year from coal production in Wyoming alone.
Wyoming produces approximately 40 percent of America's coal, much of which is federally leased. Producers operating in the state have been good corporate citizens, and Wyoming's share of money from coal goes directly toward building schools, as well as other essential services. All counties in the state are beneficiaries, and the claim that taxpayers are in any way short-changed is misleading at best.
In addition, much of the rest of the country benefits from the affordable, reliable electricity made possible by Wyoming coal. And there are emerging, energy-starved markets in Asia that are desperate for the cheap, clean, and affordable coal we produce in our state. We are proud of our incredible resources and are utilizing them responsibly.
The idea of a carbon tax has been debated and rejected time and again. Even a like-minded president with a super-majority in the U.S. Senate and control of the U.S. House could not get a carbon tax across the finish line. Fossil fuel opponents regularly dismiss meaningful ways to reduce CO2 emissions, like carbon capture, use and sequestration (CCUS) or high-efficiency boiler technology, which America's ally Japan is funding.
The extreme environmental movement will stop at nothing to advance this anti-fossil fuel agenda, including advocating for an obscure office within the Department of the Interior to re-write major energy policy rather than have this critical issue debated and decided by our elected representatives in Congress. There is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that the current rules for royalty valuation don't work, or that the American people are not getting their fair value from current royalties on coal. There is a great deal of evidence that the extremists are prepared to hoodwink the American people, manipulate the media, and subvert the law to keep coal in the ground. Regretfully, their goal does a disservice to America's economy and energy security.Kasperik has represented state District 32 in the Wyoming House of representatives since 2011.
-
White House Emphasizes Health Effects In Push for Action to Curb Greenhouse Gases
Apr 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House is emphasizing the link between a changing climate and public health as part of an effort to boost support for its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
President Barack Obama participated in a roundtable discussion April 7 at Howard University School of Medicine and the administration released a report detailing the impact rising temperatures will have on public health as the administration attempts to link its efforts to regulate greenhouse gases to tangible health impacts.
“No challenge poses a greater threat to future gens like climate change, but this is not just a future threat. This is a present threat,” Brian Deese, senior adviser to the White House, told reporters April 7.
A changing climate will increase the severity of extreme heat days, storm surges and algal blooms, the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program said in its draft report, released April 7. Deese said changing temperatures will also increase the prevalence of pollens and ozone pollution, which can trigger asthma attacks.
“What this all stacks up to is more people are exposed to the triggers that can cause asthma attacks,” he said.
Obama has designated April 6 through 12, 2015, as National Public Health Week and his administration is using that opportunity to highlight the health impacts of climate change. As part of its outreach efforts, the Obama administration is releasing more than 150 health-related data sets through its Climate Data Initiative that can be used by researchers to identify and minimize the impacts of climate change. It will also present a Climate Change and Public Health Summit later this spring, and the Department of Health and Human Services will release a Health Care Facilities Toolkit through its Sustainable and Climate Resilient Health Care Facilities Initiative to improve health providers' access to data on climate change and health.
White House Stresses Outreach
A large portion of the White House's latest climate push will focus on outreach to public health professionals and engagement with local governments looking to boost their climate mitigation strategies. In addition to Obama's roundtable, the surgeon general will participate in a White House Climate Change and Health Summit this spring and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will release its Adaptation in Action Report, which spotlights successful steps taken by state and local officials to reduce the health impacts of climate change.
The White House also announced that the deans of 30 medical, public health and nursing schools had committed to training upcoming doctors and nurses to better address the health impacts from climate change.
The administration also is recruiting top technology companies to help prepare the nation's health systems for those health impacts (see related story).
The White House previously sought to highlight the public health impacts from climate change in 2014 when it proposed the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would set the first limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants (115 DEN A-7, 6/16/14).
Report Identifies Health Impacts
The administration also released April 7 a draft report detailing the potential health impacts from a changing climate, which include as many as 10,000 temperature-related deaths and increased susceptibility to illness. Vulnerable populations will be disproportionately impacted by illnesses caused by a changing climate, the draft report said.
“The socially isolated, economically disadvantaged, some communities of color, and those with chronic illnesses are also especially vulnerable to death or illness,” the draft report said.
Rising temperatures will also increase the formation of particulate matter and ozone, and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase the prevalence of allergens, the draft report said. All of those factors are expected to cause an increase in the risk of asthma attacks.
“The challenges we face are real and they are clear and present in people's daily lives,” Deese said.
The Environmental Protection Agency will accept comments on the draft report until June 8. Comment can be made athttp://www.globalchange.gov/health-assessment.
-
Google, Microsoft Join Obama to Prepare For Health Effects From Climate Change
Apr 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Justin Sink
President Barack Obama is warning that climate change will start affecting Americans' health in the near future, and he's recruiting top technology companies to help prepare the nation's health systems.
The administration unveiled a series of initiatives April 7 to help mitigate the effects it says a warming planet will have on increasing smog, lengthening allergy seasons and increasing risks of extreme weather-related injuries and illnesses.
“The challenges we face are real, and they are clear and present in people's daily lives,” senior presidential adviser Brian Deese said in a telephone conference call with reporters April 7. Seven in 10 doctors are seeing effects on their patients' health related to climate change, which is “posing a threat to more people in more places,” Deese said.
The White House plans meetings during the next several days with medical professionals, academics and other interested parties. Later this spring, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy will host a climate change and health summit in Washington.
The administration also is making more government data available to researchers. Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and 10 other technology companies have said they'll use the data to help scientists fight infectious diseases and identify outbreaks around the world.
Obama planned to speak about the initiatives during a discussion at Howard University in Washington April 7 (see related story).
Help for ‘the Most Vulnerable.’
“The sooner we act, the more we can do to protect the health of our communities, our kids, and those that are the most vulnerable,” according to a White House statement. The actions “will allow us to better understand, communicate and reduce the health impacts of climate change on our communities.”
Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., has donated 10 million hours of high-performance computing to help scientists work to eliminate the spread of infectious disease. The Internet search company also will provide staff time to help the scientists create early warning capabilities and public disease- risk maps, according to the White House statement.
Microsoft, the software maker based in Redmond, Wash., is developing drones that would collect mosquitoes and conduct gene-sequencing and pathogen detection, the administration said in its statement. The drones can offer early alerts to authorities about rapidly spreading disease.
Work Toward Climate Agreement
The Obama administration has pledged to cut the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025. That effort is part of the administration's work to secure a global climate agreement during negotiations in Paris scheduled for later this year (62 DEN A-1, 4/1/15).
Critics of the efforts say the administration is hurting business and killing jobs. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has announced his campaign for the presidency in 2016, said the “facts and data” didn't support claims made by “global warming alarmists.”
“The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years,” Cruz said in an interview with the Texas Tribune. “Now that's a real problem for the global warming alarmists. Because all those computer models on which this whole issue is based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain't happening.”
The Obama administration believes there is “an increasing awareness and acceptance” that climate change exists, Deese said. The administration has also found that highlighting the health risks poised by climate change has helped build traction on the issue.
“One thing that we know is, the most salient arguments around climate change are associated with the health impacts and meeting people where they are,” Deese said.
-
White House Touts Climate, Health Impact Study To Help Justify GHG Cuts
Apr 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
The White House is highlighting its major new draft study and other data showing a range of adverse public health impacts from climate change as a tool to spur local adaptation efforts and to bolster the political justification for its broader suite of regulations to curb greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause climate change.
During an April 7 press call, White House climate advisor Brian Deese said the study and other actions come “in the context of our larger push with our Climate Action Plan to take a set of aggressive actions to try to reduce carbon pollution and get ahead of this problem. That, for us, is animated importantly by these health impacts.”
Following the release of the draft study, which outlines health risks such as heat-related deaths and worsened air quality, President Obama, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and other top officials are fanning out across the country to highlight the issue.
Together with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the three officials are slated to convene an April 7 roundtable discussion in Washington, D.C., on climate-related health impacts.
And in Austin, TX, White House Council on Environmental Quality managing director Christy Goldfuss was scheduled to participate in a discussion with Mayor Steve Adler (D) and public health professionals on the health impacts of climate change.
The study, conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an interagency program that includes EPA and several other agencies, finds that climate change threatens human health in two ways -- “by changing the severity or frequency of health problems that are already affected by climate and weather factors” and also “by creating unprecedented and unanticipated health problems or health threats in places where they have not previously occurred,” according to an executive summary of the draft study.
It projects “thousands to tens of thousands of additional deaths each year from heat in the summer” due to climate change -- offset partially by fewer deaths in cold months -- as well as changing weather conditions that are “increasingly conducive” to ground-level ozone formation that will stress EPA and states' air quality efforts.
Asked whether the administration's efforts on climate and health would help make the issue of climate change more tangible for the public, Deese said the “most salient arguments around climate change are associated with the health impacts and are ones that meet people where they are” regarding localized damages.
There is “an increasing awareness and acceptance among the public that not only climate change is real, but that the impacts, including the health impacts, are things that are affecting more and more people in their daily lives,” he said, adding that the administration “definitely will continue to lift up the arguments around public health as we go forward in taking the broader action” to reduce GHGs.
A key part of Obama's climate mitigation effort is EPA's proposed regulation to curb GHGs from the existing power fleet, though EPA and other agencies are issuing other rules boosting energy efficiency in appliances, curbing methane from the oil and gas sector, improving fuel economy in the transportation sector and phasing out refrigerants that contribute to climate change.
Health Impacts
The draft study, “Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment,” will be open to public comment through June 8. After that, it will undergo revision and further review, followed by a “final federal interagency clearance.” A final version is expected in early 2016.
A National Academy of Sciences panel began a review of the draft report during a closed March 20 meeting, and the panel has scheduled additional meetings for April 20 and May 8. The report is being developed by a USGCRP working group and is part of the program's ongoing efforts under the National Climate Assessment.
Deese on the press call said the “significant and expansive document . . . lays out in concrete terms the scientific basis for the nexus between climate change and public health impacts.”
The air quality and heat-related deaths sections of the report are part of a range of health threats, though they are two areas in which researchers were able to quantify projected impacts to the U.S.
Regarding air quality, the report finds climate change will “tend to make it harder for any given regulatory approach to reduce ground-level ozone pollution,” largely due to higher temperatures and more stagnant air conditions. The study includes downscaled climate models showing between a 1 to 4 degree Celsius increase in temperatures and “1 to 5 parts per billion increases in daily 8-hour maximum ozone at 2030 throughout the continental United States.”
That “climate penalty” would have to be offset by additional emission cuts or risk “tens of thousands of additional ozone-related illnesses and premature deaths per year.”
For the heat assessment, researchers found that people are not only susceptible to extreme temperatures, but also “smaller deviations of even a few degrees from seasonal averages,” and that some populations such as the elderly, economically disadvantaged, some minority groups and those with chronic illnesses are “especially vulnerable.”
“Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to a warming of both average and extreme temperatures, leading to an increase in deaths and illness from heat and a potential decrease in deaths from cold,” the study says, adding that quantifying projected impacts is based on historical data from heat waves and deaths.
-
Obama: ‘A Lot More Work to Do’ on Climate
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama -
President Obama called attention to the public health impact of climate change Tuesday and said the country has to do more to reverse it.
Obama participated in a roundtable discussion in Washington with administration officials such as Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, as well as health and climate experts.
Following the roundtable, Obama said health is one of the many considerations to take into account in making the case for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that warm the globe.
“What we know is that the temperature of the planet is rising,” Obama said. “And we know that, in addition to the adverse impacts that may have when it comes to more frequent hurricanes, or more powerful storms, or increased flooding, we also know that it has an impact on public health.”
The Tuesday remarks came as part of a multi-pronged push by the White House to link climate change to public health.
While it is not a new argument, it provided for administration officials another major benefit for regulations that reduce greenhouse gases, like fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and carbon dioxide limits for power plants.
Those efforts lead White House press secretary Josh Earnest to declare Tuesday that Obama will go down as the “greenest president” ever.
Obama said climate change increases particulate matter, extends allergy seasons, exacerbates asthma and could bring insect-borne illnesses to North America that were not previously here.
“But we’ve got a lot more work to do if we’re going to deal with this problem in an effective way and make sure that our families and our kids are safe,” he said.
Murthy backed Obama’s remarks with more medical details. He said climate change increases smog and smoke, and that hotter weather can make heat stroke more likely.
The surgeon general noted his uncle died from an asthma attack, which he said makes the issue personal to him.
“As surgeon general, one of my larger messages to our country is that we all have a stake in health,” he said. “And as a result, we all have a responsibility to protect it.”
-
White House: Obama 'Greenest President' Ever
Apr 7, 2015 | The Hill
By Jordan Fabian
President Obama's environmental record will make him remembered as the “greenest” president in history, the White House said Tuesday.
“The president is going to go down in history as the greenest president we’ve ever had,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.
Earnest’s comment came the same day the administration launched a new initiative to highlight the negative health effects caused by man-made climate change.
Republicans have criticized Obama’s energy and environmental policies, saying they have had a negative impact on job growth. Earlier this year, the GOP slammed the president for vetoing a bill that would have fast-tracked approval for the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
But some environmental groups have said Obama has not done enough to implement climate-friendly policies. This month, green groups ripped new Obama regulations on hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas as an industry giveaway.
Earnest cites fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, new Environmental Protection Agency carbon pollution rules and investments in renewable energy sources as major environmental achievements for Obama.
-
What Will Happen After People Stop Ignoring the Evidence on Climate Change
Apr 8, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
On Sunday, Post reporters Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and I reported that the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council is stressing that (in our words) it “does not deny climate change” and has been “overhauling their organization to be more transparent and more welcoming to divergent views.” The story also reports that the Southern Company, a major utility, will cease funding the climate “skeptic” scientist Willie Soon later this year.
The apparent shift here is epitomized by a quotation in our story:
“The science issue just isn’t as salient as it once was,” said Scott Segal, who represents energy interests at Bracewell & Giuliani. Debate over climate science was “all the rage” in the past, he said. “But today, the key issue is whether proposed regulations cost too much, weaken reliability or are illegal.”
The Post’s Dana Milbank today writes that this means that climate change “skeptics” are “in retreat.” Indeed, it’s possible that we’re living through a moment that will later be remembered as a key marker in the decline of climate change doubt as a whole.
[This conservative group is tired of being accused of climate denial — and is fighting back]
It’s hard to recognize such a moment right as it happens. But many signs of a turn in the debate are already there, mainly in the form of huge political momentum developing on climate this year — an expected encyclical from the Pope, and a major international meeting in Paris in December to bring the world together around new carbon cuts.
So what would happen if we actually stopped fighting about the science of climate? The answer, as Segal’s quotation suggests, is that then we would fight over the policy of emissions reductions measures. And there would still be broad disagreements — for example, there is debate over whether the EPA’s Clean Power Plan will indeed “weaken reliability” of the grid, as Segal says — but the difference would be that everyone would share the same baseline information about the nature of the problem.
It would basically amount to a kind of frame shift — with major implications for the tone of debate (it’s harder to compromise or find shared ground when you’re arguing over the very existence of a problem, rather than how to address it) and for how we focus our attention. And our story about ALEC makes the point that much of this is occurring for pragmatic reasons: While some ideologues may always feel the urge to fight science, energy companies need to operate in a given economic and regulatory environment — and they can plainly see that change is coming to that environment.
But there may be broader implications of ceasing to fight about the science of climate change, ones that go beyond the climate issue itself. Let me explain.
For many years now, we’ve been living in a world of highly politicized science. What that means is that again and again, we’ve seen politicians and the interest groups that support them refuse to accept the mainstream scientific community’s expertise and advice on topics like climate change, embryonic stem cell research and many others.
Instead, those skeptical of mainstream science have embraced a kind of “fight the science” strategy, which involves second-guessing the conclusions of mainline experts, on climate and on much else. We saw the epitome of it two weeks back, with a widely challenged statement from Republican Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz, who had asserted that “satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming. None whatsoever.”
Cruz didn’t take the scientific community’s word for it on climate change — he found his own data, and his own way of looking at it, to undermine the consensus. But many scientists, including satellite specialist Carl Mears, explained that it’s misleading to seize on an especially warm year 17 years ago in order to start a trend analysis — and that it’s also questionable to only look at satellite data.
The point, though, is that Cruz’s remark fits “fight the science” to a tee.
But in the ALEC story and in Segal’s quotation, we see the glimmer of what could be a different relationship between science and politics — an understanding that scientists produce knowledge, and politicians and political actors consult that knowledge as one factor (but only one) in decision-making.
In this view, both groups have different spheres. Scientists operate in the realm of knowledge creation and knowledge assessment — but it’s not their job to make explicit policy recommendations. Politicians, meanwhile, operate in the realm of decision-making — and they can base their decisions on many factors beyond purely scientific ones, such as economics or morality — but it’s not their job to second-guess science.
The principle, as articulated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is for scientists to provide information that is “policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive.”
Thus, sticking with the climate example, climate scientists can tell us the world is warming, how fast it’s happening, and what the likely projections are for temperatures and sea level rise out to 2100 and beyond. But they can’t tell us, based strictly on science, why a cap-and-trade plan is better than a carbon tax, or whether the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is the right way to go.
In some ways, a “policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive” approach would not be so much an innovation as a restoration of an older paradigm — one that prevailed before the modern era of highly politicized conflict over science.
A key precedent here is the long dismantled Office of Technology Assessment, which provided science advice and technology forecasting to Congress until its demise in the early years of the Gingrich Revolution. Across a body of hundreds of reports, the OTA avoided making explicit policy recommendations, but it nevertheless gave sound, mainstream assessments that let elected leaders know which ideas were worth taking seriously in the world of science, which ones weren’t, and what the future would look like if key trends — like, say, global warming — were to continue.
The dismantling of OTA and the new era of increasingly politicized science arrived at around the same time. But across the intervening two decades, scientists never gave up on the idea of remaining policy relevant but also policy neutral. And in our story about ALEC, we hear at least a hint of the idea that that’s how things could be again.
It would be a very long, hard road back — but hey, you can hope.
-
5th Circuit Sets Deference Test For Review Of EPA CWA Petition Response
Apr 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is backing environmentalists' claims that EPA's response to Clean Water Act (CWA) rulemaking petitions can be judicially reviewable but is setting a test that is highly deferential to the agency for deciding whether the response is lawful so long as it is based on existing statutory authority.
As a result, a three-judge panel of the court in a unanimous April 7 decision in Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), et al. v. EPA sides with the agency in overturning a district court's order for EPA to craft a substantive response to GRN's petition seeking federal water law standards in the Mississippi River Basin. The petition sought an EPA finding that strict standards for nutrients are necessary to protect environmental health in basin states.
EPA in its 2012 response to the Mississippi nutrient petition said that even if water rules in the Mississippi basin are inadequate, federal requirements would be an inefficient way to fix the problem, as they would be difficult to implement and lead to years of litigation. GRN sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and a judge in a September 2013 ruling said the agency needed to provide a more substantive response.
The Department of Justice on EPA's behalf then appealed the case to the 5th Circuit. While the judges in their ruling are backing EPA's power to decline to respond to the petition substantively, they rejected EPA's arguments that courts have no jurisdiction to review its choice on whether to respond to such petitions. They remanded the case to the federal district court to determine whether the agency's response in this case was adequate.
Senior Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, writing the opinion on behalf of fellow panel Judges Edith Brown Clement and Stephen A. Higginson, says the lower court should use a test that is heavily deferential to EPA's decisionmaking on responding to CWA petitions -- as long as EPA can justify its answer based on the text of the statute.
EPA's decision is subject to a “highly deferential standard of review” provided the agency can show that its reason for declining to respond is “grounded in the statute,” according to the ruling. “As applied to refusals to initiate rulemakings, this standard is ‘at the high end of the range’ of deference, and 'such review is “extremely limited” and “highly deferential”' . . . the agency's burden is slight,” Higginbotham writes.
GRN represents a novel application of the Supreme Court's 5-4 Massachusetts v. EPA decision in 2007 that required the agency to respond substantively to Massachusetts' petition asking EPA to develop first-time greenhouse gas rules. Sources tracking GRN had suggested that the CWA case could set a wide-ranging precedent on what petitions are subject to the Massachusetts requirement -- something the judges noted at Dec. 4 oral arguments.
For example, during arguments Higginson said, “It's a narrow statutory issue but it's a huge, very pertinent issue. We have a national crisis, whether it's water quality or immigration. There is no federal action. Can courts step in, or can the government just say you can't review enforcement decisions?”
Environmentalists in the case sought to force the agency to act under a CWA section 303 mandate that says when "the Administrator makes . . . a determination" that a state's water rules are inadequate to achieve CWA goals, then EPA must issue federal requirements unless the state quickly crafts stricter regulations on its own.
EPA's Response
EPA justified the petition denial and the problems that could be caused from issuing the standards GRN sought by citing the years-long legal battle over the agency's 2009 CWA determination requiring strict nutrient standards in Florida. An appeal in that case is pending before the 11th Circuit.
The agency claimed that the decision on whether to make a determination is entirely committed to EPA's discretion, and therefore unreviewable in court, but the 5th Circuit held that the CWA mandate is similar enough to the Clean Air Act language at issue in Massachusetts for the high court's decision to apply in this case.
“Both statutes are structured the same way: the agency has a mandatory obligation to take regulatory action if it makes a judgment (or determination) that regulation is required. This is in contrast to provisions that other courts have found unreviewable that use exclusively discretionary language, stating only that the agency 'may' regulate, but need not do so,” Higginbotham says in the GRN decision.
The court rejects EPA's claim that the determination is more similar to an enforcement decision, which is generally accepted as discretionary and exempt from judicial review, than to rulemaking actions that are reviewable in federal courts.
When EPA makes a CWA determination, Higginbotham says, the agency “must determine that the state’s standards do not meet the federal requirements. An action to correct that inadequacy could be termed an enforcement mechanism. But the two sections are set off by the disjunctive 'or,' which suggests that section [303] does not require a finding of inadequacy, a feature more in line with rulemaking.”
But the decision notes that Massachusetts allows agencies to give a “reasonable explanation” for declining to substantively respond to petitions, as long as those explanations are closely linked to the text of the governing statute.
“The agency cannot rely on alternative policy grounds, even if reasonable, if those explanations do not find clear textual support. Nor can it resort to general claims of scientific uncertainty -- if it justifies its refusal to make a threshold determination on that basis, it must be explicit about what uncertainty is present,” Higginbotham writes.
To support that principle, he points to Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Massachusetts, where the justice argued that the “reasonable explanation” test was too restrictive, and that agencies should be allowed to give any explanation “not inconsistent with the statute.”
“That the majority rejected this reading suggests a tighter linkage is required,” Higginbotham says.
However, the GRN ruling goes on to note that when lower courts review EPA's grounds for refusing to respond, they should apply the “arbitrary and capricious” standard set out in the Administrative Procedure Act -- which is generally considered to be extremely difficult for challengers to overcome. And the 5th Circuit says that high bar “is particularly true when the statute is as broadly written” as the CWA section at issue in GRN.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested