March 23-29, 2019
In this week's issue:
- NACAA Comments on Proposed Hydrochloric Acid RTR (March 28, 2019)
- Electricity Sector Groups Again Urge EPA to Leave MATS in Place (March 26, 2019)
- Global Energy-Related CO2 Emissions Reached Record Levels in 2018 (March 25, 2019)
- Clean Air Science Panel Teleconference Sparks Controversy (March 28, 2019)
- Senate Votes Down Green New Deal (March 26, 2019)
- House Democrats Introduce Bill to Require Action to Meet Paris Agreement Goals (March 27, 2019)
- Republican Senator Outlines “New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy” (March 25, 2019)
- Three Congressional Bills Introduced that Reflect Both Sides of Climate Change Debate (March 26-28, 2019)
- Senate Democrats Announce Special Committee on Climate Change (March 27, 2019)
- Senate PFAS Hearing Explores Challenges, Additional Regulation (March 28, 2019)
This Week in Review
NACAA submitted comments to EPA on the proposed “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production Residual Risk and Technology Review” that was published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2019. In the proposal, EPA announces its determination that the risks remaining after the imposition of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards are acceptable and that there are not developments in controls that warrant amending the rule. EPA also seeks comment on the use of the updated Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk values for ethylene oxide (EtO) for regulatory purposes. In its comments, NACAA states that it is correct and appropriate for EPA to use the updated IRIS risk value for EtO for regulatory purposes. IRIS has been, and should continue to be, EPA’s primary source for risk information. Furthermore, the EtO risk values in IRIS were updated in 2016 following a thorough and comprehensive evaluation and there would be no justification for abandoning their use. NACAA also comments on certain elements of EPA’s risk assessment methodology, including the use of census tract centroids in determining long-term exposures, consideration of facility-wide risks and strategies for evaluating acute exposures.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/hydrochloric_acid_RTR_comments.pdf
Several electricity sector organizations and unions sent a second letter to EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bill Wehrum urging the agency to leave the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) in place and to complete the required Risk and Technology Review (RTR) on the source category as expeditiously as possible. The signatories note that sources have already spent $18 billion to fully implement MATS and call upon EPA to “leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective” and “take no action that would jeopardize these investments or the underlying rule.” EPA is currently accepting public comment on a proposal to reverse the “appropriate and necessary” finding that was the basis for the MATS rule. The agency’s proposal relies on a new cost-benefit analysis that does not include co-benefits from reductions in particulate matter. The organizations also note in their letter that in reviewing costs, EPA “should consider the impacts such an action would have on these costs already borne by industry and how the recovery of these sunk costs could be put in jeopardy, consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive in Michigan v. EPA to ‘consider cost.’” The same organizations wrote a similar letter to EPA on July 10, 2018, urging EPA to leave MATS in place and complete the RTR as soon as possible. They include the Edison Electric Institute; American Public Power Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Clean Energy Group; Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group; Global Energy Institute at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Large Public Power Council; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; and Laborers International Union of North America.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/utilities-MATS.pdf
According to an annual assessment conducted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy-related CO2 emissions climbed to their highest recorded level last year, reaching 33.1 Gigatons. The number represents a 1.7-percent increase over 2017 and is the largest rate of growth observed since 2013. IEA found that the increase was driven by higher energy demands that were largely met by new fossil fuel generation. Global energy consumption grew 2.3 percent with fossil fuels meeting 70 percent of the new demand. China, India, and the U.S. accounted for 85 percent of the net emissions increase with respective national increases of 2.5, 3.1 and 4.8 percent. Meanwhile emissions declined in other countries, namely Germany, Japan, Mexico, France and the United Kingdom. By generating technology, global emissions from new coal-fired power plants, which grew 2.9 percent, were the single largest cause of the increase.
For further information: https://www.iea.org/geco/
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent, seven-member group that provides advice to EPA, chaired by Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr. of Cox Associates in Denver, held a public teleconference during which the committee discussed its review of and response to EPA on the agency’s draft Integrated Science Assessment for the ongoing review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates (PM2.5). The materials for consideration included a draft letter from CASAC to EPA, prepared by Mr. Cox, that asserts that EPA ignored evidence that PM2.5 air pollution does not, in fact, cause premature death; criticizes the method used by agency staff to determine whether specific air pollutants harm health; and calls for a wholesale change in EPA’s approach to the setting of NAAQS. Dr. Mark Frampton, the sole research scientist on CASAC, criticized the draft letter to EPA, noting that the changes called for in the letter are dramatic and unsupported by science, and that it does not reflect, and even ignores, CASAC member’s input provided at a December 2018 meeting at which the methodology issues were discussed. Other CASAC members were either supportive of or silent on the changes called for in the draft letter. In letters submitted before the teleconference, and in public comments provided at the start of the teleconference, the recommended changes in methodology were widely rejected by former CASAC members, environmental groups and those representing scientific organizations, among others. There was also an overwhelming call for the reinstatement of the CASAC PM Review Panel, comprised of 20 members with expertise specific to PM2.5, which was disbanded in October 2018 by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. Historically, the PM Review Panel has assisted CASAC with PM NAAQS reviews.
For further information: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/bf498bd32a1c7fdf85257242006dd6cb/4f40665ad1ddcef6852583a000645464!OpenDocument&Date=2019-03-28
The Green New Deal failed, 0 to 57 with 43 Democrats voting present, to clear a procedural vote in the Senate. The resolution – introduced by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to force a vote on a measure introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), which is identical to one introduced in the House by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) – includes calls to achieve net-zero U.S greenhouse gas emissions, create millions of jobs and provide universal health care. The vote fell largely along party lines, with all 54 Senate Republicans and three Senate Democrats – Doug Jones (D-AL), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) – voting against the resolution. Though 12 Senate Democrats are cosponsors of the Green New Deal resolution, the entire caucus agreed to vote present to protest Senator McConnell’s decision to hold a floor vote on the resolution. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained his frustration with the vote: “How about the contradictions of the Republican Party and the senators here? Putting a bill on the floor that they’re going to vote no on. […] All we are asking for is not a sham vote, where every person who put the bill up on the floor are voting no because they don’t want to have a debate. But rather, a real discussion and real debate and real amendments,” said Schumer before calling for the creation of a bipartisan Senate select committee on climate change.
For further information: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00052 and https://www.democrats.senate.gov/news/press-releases/schumer-floor-remarks-calling-for-the-creation-of-a-bipartisan-select-committee-on-the-climate-crisis
Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL), Chairwoman of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, introduced a bill – H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act – giving President Trump 120 days to develop a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation plan to meet the GHG emissions goals set by the Obama Administration under the Paris Agreement. The U.S. had pledged to cut its economy-wide GHG emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 prior to the Trump Administration’s announcement in June 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Agreement. The bill also prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for the U.S. to leave the Agreement and requires the President to update the emission reduction plan annually. Seventy-one Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have cosponsored the measure.
For further information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/9
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) offered a proposal to address climate change through substantial investment in new energy technologies. The proposal, unveiled by Alexander in a Senate floor speech and called the “New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy,” challenges the U.S. to meet 10 goals within the next five years: 1) build one or more advanced nuclear reactors; 2) develop more efficient combustion technologies to reduce carbon emissions from natural gas; 3) lower the cost of carbon capture technology; 4) improve battery technology; 5) reduce building energy use; 6) increase electric vehicle use; 7) lower the cost of solar power; 8) make meaningful progress on fusion-based power generation; 9) maintain U.S. leadership in advanced computing technology; and 10) double federal energy research funding. “I believe climate change is real. I believe that human emissions of greenhouse gases are a major cause of climate change,” Alexander said before contrasting his proposal with the “Green New Deal” resolution introduced by Democrats earlier this year. “Basically the Green New Deal is an assault on cars, cows, and combustion. With nuclear power available, its strategy for fighting climate change with windmills makes as much sense as going to war in sailboats,” Alexander said. Instead, the senator argued that the U.S. should focus on research and technology development to address climate change.
For further information: https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/one-republican-s-response-to-climate-change-a-new-manhattan-project-for-clean-energy-10-grand-challenges-for-the-next-five-years
The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate saw the introduction of three bills to address domestic and international aspects of climate change and, in one case, to oppose U.S. participation in international climate work. On March 28, 2019, Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) reintroduced the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, a cap-and-dividend bill the pair has introduced in past Congresses. The legislation would require economy-wide reductions in CO2 emissions of 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2040. Money raised through the sales of emission allowances would be returned to U.S. citizens as a quarterly dividend check. Two days earlier on March 26, 2019, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced the Women and Climate Change Act alongside identical companion legislation in the Senate from Senator Maize Hirono (D-HI). The proposal would establish a federal interagency working group to lead an international effort addressing the impact of climate change on women and girls. The bill has been designated H.R. 1880 in the House and S. 868 in the Senate. Offering a different perspective on the international effort to address climate change, Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) reintroduced legislation he has previously sponsored that would prohibit the U.S. from funding the United Nations (U.N.) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Green Climate Fund. The proposal has been assigned bill number H.R. 1881.
For further information: https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1290, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/868 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1881
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced the formation of a 10-member Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) will serve as the committee’s chairman. Schumer had sought a Senate vote on a resolution to establish a bipartisan special committee but instead announced the one-party committee after Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to allow a vote on the proposal. According to a press release from the Democratic leader’s office, the special committee will hold hearings, conduct investigations and make findings on the economic, environmental and national security risks associated with climate change as well as the related opportunities to improve public health, create jobs and grow the economy. In addition to Chairman Schatz, the committee roster includes Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
For further information: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/in-wake-of-senate-republicans-refusal-to-take-action-on-climate-crisis-schumer-launches-new-senate-democratic-special-committee-on-the-climate-crisis
Lawmakers on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing to explore efforts to understand and regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) committed to hold a hearing on PFAS after EPA released its PFAS action plan last month. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) criticized EPA’s response to these chemicals, saying the agency didn’t seem to be acting with urgency despite, he said, the agency’s Administrator calling PFAS “part of the biggest environmental threat that we face in this country.” Witnesses included David Ross, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water, Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Patrick Breysse, Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Maureen Sullivan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment. While Dr. Birnbaum testified that “approaching PFAS as a class, rather than as thousands of individual compounds, is the best approach for assessing exposure and environmental impact, and for protecting public health,” the American Chemistry Council panned that approach in a recent release. Birnbaum said NIEHS is working with EPA’s Office of Research and Development to study more than 100 PFAS and determine whether they can be grouped into classes. Those results should be available “in months, not years,” she said. David Ross, who has been acting as EPA’s PFAS czar, said the agency would be producing a risk communication kit that state, local, and tribal agencies can use to communicate risks associated with release and exposure to PFAS. The Department of Defense is one of the largest users of PFAS for firefighting chemicals and has come under public criticism that it has been trying to delay its regulation. Maureen Sullivan from the Department of Defense rejected those criticisms, arguing that “the Department takes our cleanup responsibilities seriously. We are not seeking a different or weaker standard.” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have been discussing legislation to address PFAS in drinking water, with technical assistance and an enforceable drinking water standard. Last month, Sens. Carper and Capito introduced S. 638 (116) that would designate all PFAS as hazardous for the purposes of Superfund. In 2016, EPA established a lifetime health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for the combined concentration of two types of PFAS in drinking water. Communities and public health advocates have also argued for handling PFAS as a class, saying it would take centuries to develop the science necessary for regulations if the thousands of chemicals are handled individually. EPA’s PFAS Action Plan makes no commitment to do so. In July 2018, NACAA released a factsheet and a technical resources web page to provide resources to highlight connections between clean air and PFAS.
For further information: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=918A6066-C1F1-4D81-A5A0-F08BBE06D40B and http://www.4cleanair.org/pfas