June 15-21, 2019
In this week's issue:
- EPA Announces Final Affordable Clean Energy Rule Alongside Clean Power Plan Repeal (June 19, 2019)
- House Holds Hearing on Administration’s Proposal to Rollback Clean Car Standards (June 20, 2019)
- EPA Administrator Wheeler Letter Criticizes CARB Chair Nichols’ Statement for House Hearing on Proposal to Rollback Clean Car Standards, Nichols Responds (June 20, 2019)
- Democrat Leaders of House Committee Question Oil Industry Advocates About Their Involvement in Rule to Rollback LDV GHG and Fuel Economy Standards (June 19, 2019)
- House Debates “Minibus” Appropriations Bill Including EPA Funding for FY 2020 (June 21, 2019)
- House Adopts “Minibus” Appropriations Bill with Climate-Related Measures (June 19, 2019)
- White House Releases Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Greenhouse Gases (June 21, 2019)
- EPA Files Initial Brief in Litigation Challenging CSAPR Close-Out Rule (June 14, 2019)
- New Jersey Rejoins Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (June 17, 2020)
- EPA Releases New Guidebook on Energy Efficiency EM&V (June 21, 2019)
- Proposed Senate Bill Would Impose Deadline for Small Refinery Requests for RFS Hardship Waivers (June 13, 2019)
- President Signs Executive Order to Cut Advisory Committees by a Third Across All Federal Agencies (June 14, 2019)
- Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus Re-launches for Current Congress (June 20, 2019)
- EPA Proposes RTR for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (June 11, 2019)
- LaFleur to Depart FERC (June 20, 2019)
- South Coast’s Wayne Nastri Named Local Co-Chair of NACAA Criteria Pollutants Committee (June 21, 2019)
This Week in Review
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a final agency action repealing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. EPA proposed the ACE rule last October together with changes to the agency’s implementing regulations for Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) and the New Source Review (NSR) program. The action signed by Wheeler does not include the proposed NSR changes but finalizes the other two aspects of the October 2018 proposal. According to the final rule’s preamble, “EPA intends to take final action on the proposed [NSR] revisions at a later date in a separate notice of final action.” The ACE portion of the action sets new emission guidelines for CO2 emissions from existing power plants, finding that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reduction (BSER), and requiring air agencies to evaluate the application of six “candidate technologies” alongside improved operating and maintenance practices at affected power plants. States are then required to set appropriate rate-based emission standards. The ACE rule also allows states to consider some non-BSER approaches to reduce power plant CO2 emissions, including natural gas co-firing and carbon capture and storage, but prohibits averaging, trading and biomass co-firing as compliance mechanisms. In contrast, the CPP included a BSER determination based on a combination of heat rate improvements and generation shifting to natural gas and renewable energy sources and allowed states to choose between emission rate limits for affected EGUs and a statewide carbon budget. Underlying both the ACE rule’s final BSER determination, which is limited to technologies and practices applied “at or to” the affected power plants, and the decision to repeal the CPP is a change in EPA’s legal interpretation of the CAA. “The text of CAA section 111 is clear, leaving no interpretive room on which the EPA could seek deference for the CPP’s grid-wide management approach. Accordingly, EPA is obliged to repeal the CPP to avoid acting unlawfully,” the agency writes. The changes to the 111(d) implementing regulations include, among other things, extended default timeframes for states to submit state plans, for EPA to review state plan submissions and, if needed, for EPA to finalize a federal plan. The rule’s accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis develops a single “illustrative policy scenario” to project the ACE rule’s impacts against a no-CPP baseline with “snapshots” in 2025, 2030 and 2035. According to the signed pre-publication version of the rule, “the impacts of the illustrative policy scenario in terms of change in emissions, compliance costs, and other energy-sector effects are small compared to the recent market-driven changes that have occurred in the power sector.”
For further information: http://4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/frn_ace_2060-at67_final_rule_20190618disc.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/affordable-clean-energy-rule
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Consumer Protection and Commerce and Environment and Climate Change held a joint hearing, titled “Driving in Reverse: The Administration’s Rollback of Fuel Economy and Clean Car Standards.” During the hearing, which lasted over five hours, the Chairs and Ranking Members of both Subcommittees and the full Committee, as well as two additional Subcommittee members, provided opening statements. Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) described the Administration’s August 2018 proposed rollback rule – issued jointly by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA – as “one of this Administration’s most egregious assaults on American consumers, the U.S. economy, and the climate.” He also stated that “this harmful proposal comes from the same Administration that insists that the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. But that is exactly what this rollback does. It picks one winner, the oil industry, while everyone else loses.” He went on to say that, the day before, his Committee had “launched an investigation into a secret social media campaign run by the oil industry to mislead the American people about this rollback” with the intention of uncovering “whether the oil industry coordinated with the Administration on this deceptive campaign” (see related article below). Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Ranking Member John Shimkus (R-IL) said he appreciated that this hearing had been called on this important topic, “which goes to the very heart of what we do, which is the Interstate Commerce Clause.” Shimkus went on to say that we need to have “one market, one standard set at the federal level” and that “for the unity of the Republic” we should not have “a fractured market that caters to urban customers at the expense of customers, and what they need, in rural areas.” The Subcommittee then heard from 10 witnesses. Testifying on the first panel were Heidi King, Deputy Administrator of NHTSA, and Bill Wehrum, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. In her testimony, King stated that, with respect to the harmonized light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards set in 2012, and agreed to by all stakeholders, the “fresh consideration of relevant information” that NHTSA and EPA undertook at the start of the Trump Administration revealed that a number of the assumptions about the future made in 2012 were “likely incorrect” and that “information currently available suggests that the CAFE standards previously set for model year 2021 are unlikely to be maximum feasible, and the greenhouse gas standards previously set for MY 2021 are unlikely to be appropriate under the Clean Air Act.” She also cited “an affordability crisis in the new car market” and stated that “[c]ontinuing to increase prices due to regulatory burdens will price more and more consumers out of safer, cleaner, and more efficient new vehicles.” Wehrum, in his statement, said the NHTSA-EPA proposal “would revise the existing national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles by setting new 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards.” He went on to say that the joint proposal “estimates that the preferred alternative [to freeze fuel economy and vehicle GHG standards for MYs 2021 through 2026 at MY 2020 levels] will prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule, as more people can afford safer, new cars.” Wehrum also noted in his statement that “EPA has worked with NHTSA throughout the rulemaking process. Deputy Administrator King and I, and our technical teams, have regular meetings and will continue to do so until the rule is finalized.” During the lengthy Q&A that followed, the two witnesses were questioned by more than 20 members. In response to a question from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), King elaborated on the market assumptions made in 2012 that were found to be incorrect, including that fuel prices in 2017 were 40 percent less than forecasted and sales of heavier passenger cars rose rather than declined. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) questioned Wehrum on the role of the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), which is part of the Office of Air and Radiation that Wehrum directs, in the development of the joint proposed rollback rule. Wehrum responded that he worked extensively with NHTSA but Tonko pressed him on OTAQ’s role, given the vast specific expertise of OTAQ staff, citing materials in the docket from OTAQ staff asking NHTSA to remove EPA’s name from the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) because the PRIA was authored by NHTSA, not EPA, and the technical assessment underlying it was conducted independently by NHTSA. Tonko also queried Wehrum about the fact that the proposed rule was developed using a NHTSA model – one that EPA has never used for its vehicle rulemakings – rather than the EPA OMEGA model. Reps. Shimkus and Greg Walden (R-OR) questioned Wehrum and King about the processes they followed for developing the proposed rule. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) questioned Wehrum about EPA’s decision to preempt California’s waiver authority under the Clean Air Act. Wehrum noted that no final decisions had yet been made to which Matsui responded that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler had appeared before the Committee in April and testified that EPA was moving forward to preempt California. She then stated that California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Mary Nichols was open to negotiations with EPA but that EPA would not engage; Matsui asked Wehrum why. Wehrum announced that Wheeler had, that morning, sent a letter to Reps. Shimkus and Walden taking issue with Nichols’ written statement for the hearing (which had been made available the day before), particularly with respect to her characterization of EPA’s engagement with California on the proposed rule. (See related article below.) Those testifying on Panel II were CARB Chair Mary Nichols, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, Colorado Department of Transportation Executive Director Shoshana Lew and representatives of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, United Auto Workers, Shiloh Industries (which designs and manufactures lightweighting technologies), the Heritage Foundation and Consumer Reports. Nichols provided a written statement for the record but read just one paragraph of it, in response to the letter Wheeler had sent that morning. Other witnesses provided various perspectives on the proposed rule. During the Q&A, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) asked Nichols if she is prepared to go “back to the table” with the Administration to negotiate a suitable compromise national rule. In response, Nichols said that California has “always been ready – yes.” Various other Subcommittee members from both sides of the aisle expressed support for getting the parties back to the table to negotiate.
For further information: https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-driving-in-reverse-the-administration-s-rollback-of-fuel
Thursday morning, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler sent a letter to Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and John Shimkus (R-IL), Ranking Members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Consumer Protection and Commerce and Environment and Climate Change, respectively, to “clear the record regarding the Trump Administration’s upcoming fuel economy regulations.” In particular, Wheeler took issue with the prepared testimony of California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols for the Subcommittees’ joint hearing that morning – “Driving in Reverse: The Administration’s Rollback of Fuel Economy and Clean Car Standards,” for which witnesses’ prepared statements were posted prior to the hearing. In his letter, Wheeler wrote, “I believe it is important for the members of the subcommittees to understand that when Ms. Nichols states that she offered a counterproposal for the proposed rule as if she operated as a good faith actor in this rulemaking, that is what is false.” During the hearing, Nichols’ asked that her prepared statement be entered into record and opted instead to provide additional remarks, but made a point to read one paragraph of her written statement, in response to Wheeler’s letter, which Nichols said she had just learned about from the press. Nichols read, “California has worked hard to address this challenge with the spirit of innovation we bring to all we do. We have met more than a dozen times with members of this Administration, including at the White House on multiple occasions, to try to come to resolution. We have been open to accommodations that would adjust compliance timing and flexibility, that would create new paths to promote innovative technologies and zero emission vehicles, and that would benefit the public. Each time, the Trump Administration has been unwilling to find a way that works. Their claim that California offered no counter-proposal is false. They unilaterally decided to cut off conversations – an action which the automakers have asked them to reverse.” Upon concluding the paragraph, Nichols stated, “I stand by every single word in that paragraph, Madam Chairman.”
For further information: http://4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/WheelerLettertoRepubLeadersofHouseECRE062019LDVHearing-062019.pdf
Three top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee sent letters to oil industry advocates seeking information and documents related to their potential involvement in “a covert lobbying and social media campaign” to support the Trump Administration’s efforts to rollback light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards and in the development of the proposed rule to accomplish this, issued jointly by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA. E&C Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) wrote in their letters to Marathon Petroleum, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the American Legislative Exchange Council, Energy4US and Americans for Prosperity that they also seek to ascertain “whether, and to what extent, the lobbying and social media efforts were coordinated with NHTSA, EPA, or the Executive Office of the President (EOP).” Pallone, Schakowsky and Tonko note that the Administration’s proposed rule, “if finalized, would harm public health and welfare by increasing tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Moreover, the purported safety benefits of the rule have been significantly called into question.” To assist the E&C Committee in conducting oversight and investigating the stated issues the three Representatives ask the recipients of the letters to respond in writing to a series of questions regarding communications with Administration officials, direct or indirect involvement in lobbying and social media efforts related to the proposed rule, communications with former EPA Administrator Pruitt at the June 2017 AFPM board meeting and comments submitted to the dockets on the proposed rule. They further request that the recipients provide all documents exchanged and communications with current or former employees of NHTSA, EPA or EOP related to the proposed rule as well as a list of all meetings with any current or former employees of NHTSA, EPA or EOP related to the proposed rule, including all attendees, and copies of all documents exchanged or discussed at the meetings. Recipients are asked to respond to these inquires by July 1, 2019.
For further information: https://energycommerce.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ec-leaders-launch-investigation-into-oil-companies-involvement-in-rollback
The U.S. House of Representatives held debate on H.R. 3055 – appropriations legislation containing FY 2020 funding for several federal departments and agencies, including EPA. Debate on a long list of amendments is expected to conclude early next week at which time the House will vote on final passage. The bill, entitled the “Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2020,” was approved by the House Appropriations Committee on May 22, 2019. It calls for $238.2 million for state and local air quality grants under sections 103/105 of the Clean Air Act (as compared to $228.2 million in FY 2019 and $151.96 million in the President’s FY 2020 request). It also includes $9.52 billion for EPA’s total budget (as compared to $8.85 billion in FY 2019 and $6.1 billion in the Administration’s FY 2020 request). On June 18, 2019, the White House issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” expressing opposition to the passage of H.R. 3055. According to the White House, the bill would raise the discretionary spending caps and add to the deficit, among other things, and if Congress adopts the bill the President’s advisors will recommend that he veto it.
For further information: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20190522/109552/BILLS-116–AP–AP00-FY2020_Interior_Approps.pdf, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20190522/109552/HMKP-116-AP00-20190522-SD003.pdf (House Draft Report Language for FY 2020 Appropriations Bill – EPA section begins on page 75 and EPA charts begin on page 196) and https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SAP_HR-3055.pdf
By a vote of 226 to 203, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted H.R. 2740 – a “minibus” appropriations package that includes FY 2020 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State and Energy. While not providing appropriations for EPA (see related article above), the $985-billion bill funds the majority of the federal government and includes measures related to climate change. Provisions include $15 million (under the Health and Human Services budget) to address the health impacts of climate change, as well as (under the State Department’s budget) authorization for the Green Climate Fund, a prohibition on the use of funds to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, $10.5 million for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and report language acknowledging that climate change is a threat to national security and directing the Secretary of State to submit a report on efforts to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Amendments adopted during debate on the House floor included measures that would: block funds for the Department of Energy (DOE) to finalize a proposed rule on efficiency standards for certain lightbulbs, prevent funds from being used to reject grant applications that reference climate change and clarify that DOE’s Section 1703 loan guarantee program funds only clean energy projects that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or human-caused emissions of greenhouse gas.” Several amendments were rejected, including measures to prohibit funds for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UNFCCC, the Green Climate Fund and the Paris Climate Agreement.
For further information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2740 and https://appropriations.house.gov/amendments-to-hr-2740
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released draft guidance on how agencies are to account for the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the proposal, CEQ states that, “[a]gencies should attempt to quantify a proposed action’s projected direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect GHG emissions when the amount of those emissions is substantial enough to warrant quantification, and when it is practicable to quantify them using available data and GHG quantification tools.” CEQ has been without NEPA GHG guidance since April 5, 2017 when the Trump Administration withdrew guidance finalized the previous year by the Obama Administration. The new draft is signed by CEQ Chairman Mary Neumayr and has not yet appeared in the Federal Register. It will be open to public comment for 30 days once published.
For further information: http://4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/CEQ-NEPA-Draft-GHG-Guidance-0331-ZA03-Final-062119.pdf
EPA filed its initial brief in a case in which states and environmental and citizen groups have challenged the agency’s final rule, Determination Regarding Good Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (referred to as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule [CSAPR] Close-Out Rule), published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 65878). In the CSAPR Close-Out Rule, EPA determined that the October 26, 2016 CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards fully addresses the interstate pollution transport obligations of the 20 states covered by CSAPR under the good neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act and that there is no need to establish additional ozone transport reduction requirements for sources in CSAPR-region states, nor is there a need for CSAPR-region states to submit State Implementation Plans establishing additional requirements to control ozone transport beyond the CSAPR Update Rule. The downwind states seeking to overturn that determination argued in their April 19, 2019 opening brief, first, that EPA unlawfully measured upwind states’ compliance based on projections of improved air quality in 2023, when the next relevant statutory deadline for attainment of the 2008 ozone standard is 2021. Second, they claimed that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that no cost-effective controls were available to reach attainment by 2021. Finally, they argued that EPA relied on faulty modeling to conclude that downwind states will, without further regulatory action, come into attainment with the 2008 ozone standard by 2023. Environmental and citizen-group petitioners echoed these arguments in their brief, asserting that EPA’s determination “subjects millions of people in downwind states to unhealthy levels of pollution and elevated risk of asthma attacks, permanent lung damage, and death.” EPA counters in its initial brief that the agency reasonably interpreted the statute to set an analytic year under the good neighbor provision and that it reasonably selected a 2023 analytic year in consideration of upcoming attainment dates and feasible controls; that its application of the statute to the CSAPR Close-Out Rule was appropriate and that the record supports EPA’s conclusion that upwind obligations could not be addressed by 2020; and that its modeling conclusions were sound. The state and city petitioners are New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the City of New York. The environmental and citizen-group petitioners are Downwinders at Risk, Appalachian Mountain Club, Sierra Club, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Air Alliance Houston and Clean Wisconsin. Oral argument is scheduled for September 20, 2019.
For further information: http://4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Litigation-CSAPR_Closeout-Rule-EPA_Initial_Brief-061419.pdf and http://4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/LitigationCourtOrderforOralArgumentCSAPRClose-OutRule-062119.pdf
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced that the state has adopted a regulatory package of two environmental rules to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Though New Jersey was one of RGGI’s founding members the state withdrew from the trading program in 2012. The first rule caps New Jersey’s power sector CO2 emissions at 18 million tons in 2020 and requires a 30-percent cut through 2030. It also establishes a framework to allow New Jersey to trade emission allowances with other RGGI states. The second rule establishes a state program to spend proceeds from RGGI allowance auctions. In a press release, Governor Murphy’s office notes that program funds will be distributed with an emphasis on projects that benefit environmental justice communities.
For further information: https://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/562019/approved/20190617a.shtml
EPA’s State and Local Energy and Environment Program released a Guidebook for Energy Efficiency Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V). The EM&V Guidebook is designed to help state, local and tribal air and energy officials, as well as key stakeholders such as utility energy efficiency implementers, learn about, establish or refine the way they quantify and apply the savings from energy efficiency projects and measures. The program builds on input EPA received from NACAA and its members over many years of partnership and from other state agency associations such as the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the National Association of State Energy Officials. The EM&V Guidebook offers resources to these agencies and can also help air officials understand the basics of EM&V and work with their energy counterparts to capture the air quality and public health benefits of these existing investments.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/guidebook_for_energy_efficiency_evaluation_measurement_verification.pdf
Senators Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) introduced S. 1840, the Renewable Fuel Standard Integrity Act. The bill would establish an annual deadline of June 1 for small refineries to request a hardship waiver under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS); require that additional information about waiver requests be made public; call upon EPA to report to Congress on its methodology for granting waivers; and require EPA to account for exemptions when determining the annual volume requirements for the RFS.
For further information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1840?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22s+1840%22%5D%7D&s=3&r=1
President Trump signed the Executive Order on Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees, in which he calls upon each federal agency to evaluate the need for each of its current advisory committees established under section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and to “terminate by one-third” such committees by September 30, 2019. In the order, the President states that advisory committees to be cut include those for which the stated objectives have been met; the subject matter or work of the committee has become obsolete; the primary functions have been assumed by another entity; or the agency determines the cost of operation is “excessive” relative to the benefits to the federal government. The President has capped the total number of advisory committees government wide at 350; once the cap is reached, no agency may establish a new advisory committee under section 9(a)(2) of FACA unless it obtains a waiver to do so from the Office of Management and Budget.
For further information: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-evaluating-improving-utility-federal-advisory-committees/
The Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group of U.S. House members that meet to discuss solutions to climate change, has re-launched for the current congressional session with representatives Ted Deutch (D-FL) and Francis Rooney (R-FL) as co-chairs. The group, first formed in 2016, temporarily disbanded after the 2018 election when many of the caucus’s Republican members lost their congressional seats. The group has historically required an even balance of Democrat and Republican members, but chose to relax that requirement during this Congress. The re-launched roster includes 41 Democrats and 22 Republicans, but any new members will be required to join in bipartisan pairs.
For further information: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ccl-welcomes-relaunch-of-the-bipartisan-climate-solutions-caucus-in-the-house/
EPA announced the proposal of a Risk and Technology Review (RTR) standard for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. The agency is proposing to determine that the risks related to emissions from this source category are acceptable and that there have been no improvements in technologies, processes or practices that would result in further emission reductions. Therefore, revisions to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard to address emissions are not necessary. However, EPA is proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions to make them consistent with recent court decisions, including work practices that would apply during startup periods. Additionally, the proposal would require sources to submit electronic copies of compliance reports, including performance tests. The upcoming publication of the proposal in the Federal Register will open a 45-day public comment period.
For additional information: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/solvent-extraction-vegetable-oil-production-national-emission
Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will leave the agency at the end of August. LaFleur was appointed to the Commission by President Obama in 2010 and served three separate stints as FERC’s Chairman between then and 2017. During her time on the Commission she was a key player in national energy conversations surrounding the widespread replacement of coal with gas and renewables, the since-rescinded Clean Power Plan and recent discussions of power sector “resiliency pricing” to subsidize coal. Prior to serving on FERC she worked in the electric and natural gas regulatory arena in New England, including as Executive Vice President and CEO of National Grid USA. In a tweet, LaFleur announced, “After 9 amazing years, I will be leaving @FERC at the end of August. The July Open Meeting will be my last, and I have a lot of people to thank. I am looking forward to the future, but no announcements on that at this time.” Commissioner LaFleur’s departure will leave a second open seat at on the five-member board, as a replacement for former Chairman Kevin McIntyre has not been named. Currently politically evenly split, Republicans will hold a 2 to 1 majority on the Commission once LaFleur leaves.
For further Information: https://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/lafleur/lafleur-bio.asp and https://twitter.com/CLaFleurFERC/status/1141783991982395393
NACAA Co-President Richard Stedman (Monterey, CA) announced the appointment of Wayne Nastri as the local agency Co-Chair of the NACAA Criteria Pollutants Committee, effective July 1, 2019. Wayne is the Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles, CA, a position he has held since 2016. From October 2001 through January 2009, Wayne was U.S. EPA’s Regional Administrator for Region 9. Wayne currently serves as local Co-Chair of the NACAA Public Outreach Committee, a position he will vacate on June 30. He will replace Lynne Liddington (Knoxville, TN), who has served as local Co-Chair of the Criteria Pollutants Committee since 2004, and work alongside state Co-Chair Tad Aburn (MD). Lynne will retire from public serve in July. Please join us in congratulating Wayne and thanking Lynne and wishing her well in her retirement.