August 10-16, 2019
In this week's issue:
- States, Cities and Environmental Groups Sue to Overturn ACE Rule (August 13-14, 2019)
- EPA Issues Exceptional Events Prescribed Fire Guidance (August 9, 2019)
- EPA Releases Environmental Justice Progress Report (August 14, 2019)
- House Members Encourage Automakers to Join California’s Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission Standards Agreement (August 14, 2019)
- EPA Holds Public Hearing on Regulatory Proposal to Rescind “Once-In-Always-In” Policy (August 15, 2019)
- NRDC, Sierra Club Challenge NHTSA’s Reduction of Penalties for Failure to Comply with CAFE Standards (August 12, 2019)
- EPA to Hold Twelfth Conference on Air Quality Modeling (August 13, 2019)
- EPA Proposes Risk and Technology Review Standards for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (August 15, 2019)
- EPA Finalizes Updates to Air Pollution Control Cost Manual on Flares (August 16, 2019)
- Study of Renewables Finds Air Pollution Health Benefits Greatly Exceed Implementation Costs (August 12, 2019)
- July 2019 Becomes Warmest Month on Record for the Globe (August 15, 2019)
- Study Highlights Prevalence of Microplastics in Snow (August 14, 2019)
This Week in Review
A coalition of 22 states, the District of Columbia and six cities filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which repeals and replaces the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) regulating greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants. Separately, 10 environmental groups also filed a petition for review of the rule. This brings the total number of D.C. Circuit cases challenging the ACE rule to three; they are consolidated under lead case American Lung Association, et al. v. EPA (No. 19-1140), which was filed on July 8 by public health groups. Several industry groups have moved for leave to intervene to support EPA in defending the rule. The deadline for filing additional lawsuits is September 6. The ACE rule identifies heat rate improvement technologies that can be installed at individual power plants as the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) for the power sector and directs states to determine which technologies should be installed at each particular plant. New York Attorney General Letitia James, leader of the state coalition opposing the ACE rule, asserted that EPA has ruled out “the most cost-effective, proven, and successful approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions” by rejecting the CPP’s approach to BSER: power shifting from coal-fueled generation to less carbon-intensive generation. The ACE rule, she stated, will have virtually no impact on greenhouse gas emissions and will increase the nation’s reliance on coal-fired power plants, thus “obstructing progress of states toward clean, renewable, and affordable electricity generation.” Joining New York in the lawsuit are the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and the cities of Boulder, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and South Miami. The environmental group petitioners are the Appalachian Mountain Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/New_York_v_EPA_19-1165_PFR.pdf and http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Appalachian_Mountain_Club_v_EPA_19-1166_PFR.pdf
EPA released Exceptional Events Guidance: Prescribed Fire on Wildland that May Influence Ozone and Particulate Matter Concentrations. This non-binding guidance is an addendum to EPA’s existing Wildfire Ozone Guidance and is intended to help air agencies prepare demonstrations for prescribed fire events that meet the requirements of EPA’s 2016 Exceptional Events Rule, which stipulates that prescribed fire on wildland can be a human-caused event that is eligible for treatment as an exceptional event. EPA indicates that in response to stakeholder input the agency organizes and clarifies in the Prescribed Fire Guidance how to meet key provisions of the 2016 Exceptional Events Rule such as how to demonstrate that a prescribed fire 1) was the cause of an event-related exceedance or violation, 2) was not reasonably controllable or preventable and 3) is not likely to recur at a particular location. In addition, EPA stresses in the Prescribed Fire Guidance the importance of communication and collaboration among air agencies, fire managers and Federal Land Managers.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/documents/ee_prescribed_fire_final_guidance_-_august_2019.pdf
EPA released its FY 2018 Environmental Justice Progress Report, an annual report required by the 1994 Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. In this year’s report, EPA emphasizes its commitment to advancing environmental justice by providing “increased certainty” in three areas: 1) to its federal, state, local and tribal partners; 2) in EPA programs; and 3) in how it communicates risk. “This certainty will help to strengthen environmental and public health protections for low-income, minority, indigenous, and disadvantaged communities that are disproportionately likely to live near contaminated lands or be impacted by environmental hazards,” the agency declares. In the area of collaboration with states, EPA points to the activities of its Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization Council, which in FY 2018 issued a memo on the agency’s environmental justice and community revitalization priorities and created a workgroup focused on integrating environmental justice into its work with states and cooperative federalism. Within the air program, EPA highlights several efforts as examples of its advancement of environmental justice in communities across the country. These include PM2.5 monitoring, which EPA notes has shown a significant improvement in the percentage of the low-income population living in counties where the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are being met; several near-port community capacity-building pilot projects, which aim to support effective engagement between the port industry sector and community stakeholders; its grant-funding activities under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, including grants for many projects in areas disproportionately affected by air pollution; and the Targeted Airshed Grant Program, for which EPA Region 9 in FY 2018 helped develop EJ-related criteria to ensure grant applicants consider the needs of vulnerable communities affected by ozone and PM2.5.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/annual-environmental-justice-progress-reports
Eight leaders of the House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition (SEEC) sent letters to 14 automobile manufacturing companies urging them to join the July 25, 2019 agreement between California and Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW on a voluntary framework for light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards (see related article in the July 20-27, 2019 Washington Update). “This agreement rejects the Administration’s proposal to flatline standards and ensures greenhouse gas emissions reductions in coming years,” wrote the lawmakers, who added, “We encourage all automakers to come to the table and work towards pragmatic solutions that will better protect the planet while preventing years of litigation and economic uncertainty.” The eight signatories are Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-VA), Rep. Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA) and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME). The letters were sent to the leaders of Aston Martin, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Toyota and Volvo. Last week, 30 U.S. Senators sent similar letters to the same 14 automakers.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/LDV-Senior_House_Ds_Letter_to_Automakers-081419.pdf
EPA held a public hearing on the proposal that would allow a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to reclassify itself as an area source after it has limited its HAP emissions to below major-source thresholds. The proposal, which would rescind the long-standing Once-In-Always-In policy, and which EPA is referring to as “Major MACT to Area” (MM2A), was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2019. Most of the witnesses speaking before the panel of three EPA employees represented environmental and public interest organizations and expressed strong opposition to the proposal. However, at least one industry representative spoke in favor of the proposed rule. EPA will accept written public comment on the proposal until September 24, 2019.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under-section-112-clean and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/documents/mm2a_speaker_list_15august2019.pdf
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the Administration’s July 12, 2019 final rule rolling back the level of monetary penalties to be paid beginning in 2019 by automakers that fail to comply with the applicable Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The final rule was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and repeals a December 28, 2016 rule in which NHTSA – in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement Act signed into law in November 2015 – adjusted for inflation the penalty for noncompliance from $5.50 for every tenth of a mile per gallon (mpg) over the standard per vehicle to $14 for every tenth of a mpg over the standard per vehicle, to take effect in 2019. Under the new rule, the penalty is cut back to $5.50 for every tenth of a mpg (see related article in the July 13-19, 2019 Washington Update). The $5.50 CAFE penalty was set in 1997 and was a $0.50 increase over the $5.00 penalty that had been in effect since 1975. In a press statement, Sierra Club Senior Attorney Alejandra Nuñez is quoted as follows: “We won’t stand by idly while the Trump Administration allows automakers to violate the law, spewing more climate disrupting emissions into our air and threatening the health of Americans across the nation. Strong civil penalties, which encourage automakers to comply with CAFE, are a critical part of the clean car standards, one of our nation’s most effective climate policies. NHTSA must comply with the law and set effective penalties that promote fuel economy.” A multistate coalition of state Attorneys General filed a similar challenge last week.
For further information: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/NHTSA%20Civil%20Penalties%20Petition%20for%20Review%20-%20As%20filed.pdf
EPA formally announced in the Federal Register (84 Fed. Reg. 40,044) that it will hold the Twelfth Conference on Air Quality Modeling October 2-3, 2019 at its campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA is required by Section 320 of the Clean Air Act to hold this conference every three years. The purpose of the conference is to provide 1) an overview of the latest features of the currently preferred air quality models and 2) a forum for public review and comment on potential revisions to the way EPA determines and applies the appropriate air quality models in the future. The agency is now open to receiving public comments and invites members of the public wishing to speak or present at the conference to contact the agency by no later than September 13. Because the conference is a public hearing, registration is not required; however, EPA strongly encourages those planning to attend to register so that it can provide them with security information and expedite their entry onto EPA’s campus. The conference will not be broadcast via a livestream or webinar, but EPA will post the transcripts, audio recording and presentations on the SCRAM website and to the conference docket.
For further information: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-13/pdf/2019-17305.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/scram/12th-conference-air-quality-modeling
EPA proposed a Risk and Technology Review standard for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category. The agency is proposing that additional control measures are not warranted because the risk remaining from the source category after the implementation of the 2003 National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants is acceptable and there are no new developments in practices, processes or control technologies that would further reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. EPA is proposing minor amendments that revise the requirements for startup, shutdown and malfunction to be consistent with recent court decisions, require electronic reporting of performance test results and call for periodic performance testing every five years for facilities using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with the standard. There will be a 45-day public comment period that begins with publication of the proposal in the Federal Register, which is expected shortly.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards
EPA finalized updates to its Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, a guidance document used to help estimate the costs associated with the installation, operation and maintenance of air pollution control measures. The updates – to Section 3, Chapter 1 – cover flares. The agency released draft updates to this section of the manual, for review and comment, in May 2017. EPA is engaged in a comprehensive update to the Control Cost Manual, “to ensure that the Agency’s rules and guidance are based on the most current economic data and air pollution control technology.” The agency expects to complete the full update in 2022, and is making each finalized chapter available upon completion.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution
A team of economists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington released a study that combines economic and air pollution models to measure the regional economic impacts of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) on air quality and human health, as well as on the economy and climate change. The authors of the study found that the health benefits from reduced air pollution already exceed the cost of existing RPS programs, but that as greater investments are made in renewables the air pollution benefits grow substantially, so that doubling RPS goals would create health benefits that exceed implementation costs by more than 2:1. The economists also looked at carbon pricing and found even more significant benefits resulting from reduced air pollution health harms to citizens. Benefits were especially noticeable in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware.
For further information: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab31d9
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that global temperatures last month – July 2019 – broke the existing record for the warmest month in the 140-year history of NOAA’s global temperature dataset. In particular, NOAA reports that the “July temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.71°F above the 20th century average of 60.4°F and was the highest for July in the 1880–2019 record. July 2019 bested the previous record – set in 2016 – by 0.05°F.” In addition, year-to-date temperatures for 2019 are tied with those in 2017 as the second warmest on record for the period of January through July.
For further information: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201907
Six researchers from Germany and Switzerland published the findings of a study they undertook to assess how microplastics find their way into snow even in remote locations, including the Arctic where “ubiquitous and considerable quantities prevail.” To determine whether atmospheric transport plays a role the researchers analyzed snow samples from ice floes in the Fram Strait (the passage between Greenland and Svalbard) and compared them to snow samples from remote (in the Swiss Alps) and populated (in Bremen, Germany) European sites. Although MP concentrations in the Arctic snow samples were significantly lower than those in the European snow samples they were still “substantial.” Also, although there were wide variations in polymer composition, varnish, rubber, polyethylene and polyamide “dominated overall.” With respect to particle size, most particles were in the smallest size range with a great number below the detection limit of 11 micrometers. Based on their data, the researchers have concluded that atmospheric transport and deposition can be “notable pathways” for MPs and further research is warranted. The study, “White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic,” was published in Science Advances.
For further information: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/8/eaax1157.full.pdf