![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/nacaa-internal-banner-1024x210.jpeg)
August 3-9, 2019
In this week's issue:
- Thirty Senators Call Upon Additional Automakers to Join Agreement with California on Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission Standards (August 6, 2019)
- EPA Seeks Nominations, by August 21, for “Scientific Consultants” to Support CASAC in Reviewing PM and Ozone NAAQS (August 7, 2019)
- United Nations Panel Examines Interplay Between Climate Change, Land Use and Degradation, and Food Security (August 8, 2019)
- Proposed NSR Project Emissions Accounting Rule Published in Federal Register, Comments Due October 8 (August 9, 2019)
- EPA Takes Final Action on Areas Classified Moderate Nonattainment for 2008 Ozone Standard (August 7, 2019)
- Thirteen State AGs Challenge Administration’s Rollback of Penalties for Failure to Meet Fuel Efficiency Standards (August 2, 2019)
- Moderate House “New Democrats” Propose Climate Principles (August 7, 2019)
- Congresswoman Releases Rural Green Partnership Policy Principles (August 6, 2019)
- Scientists Find July 2019 Is Likely the Hottest Month on Record (August 5, 2019)
- Rollback of Federal LDV GHG and Fuel Efficiency Standards Would Cost U.S. Economy up to $400 Billion (August 7, 2019)
- Inspector General Reports EPA Went Beyond President’s Deregulatory Goals (August 9, 2019)
- EPA Region 6 Gets New Administrator (August 5, 2019)
This Week in Review
![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/US-Capitol-5-437x328.jpeg)
Thirty U.S. Senators sent letters to the leaders of 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 (LDV) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards (see related article in the July 20-27, 2019 Washington Update). In the letters, the Democratic Senators – all of whom represent states that signed the Nation’s Clean Car Promise (see related article in the June 6-12, 2019 Washington Update) – state, “In the absence of an agreement between the Federal government and states, the California agreement is a commonsense framework that provides flexibility to the industry to meet tailpipe standards while also taking important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on fuel for consumers.” The letters were sent to Aston Martin, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Toyota and Volvo.
For further information: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/8/78b26564-e0a6-4f0b-83fe-3757dd28aa0b/FD77C8B16C47B41E7E980399D52A09DF.letter-to-gm.pdf
EPA published in the Federal Register (84 Fed. Reg. 38625) a notice in which the agency requests public nominations for “a pool of scientific consultants to support the chartered CASAC [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee] by providing subject matter expertise, as requested, on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) and ozone.” In an April 11, 2019 letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, CASAC provided the results of its peer review of the agency’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft) – October 18, 2018 (Draft ISA). In addition to recommending preparation of a Second Draft ISA, CASAC recommended that EPA, by the time of the review of the Second Draft ISA, reappoint the previous CASAC PM panel (or appoint a panel with similar expertise) and add expertise in specific disciplines. Notwithstanding the group’s recommendations, in his July 25, 2019 response, Administrator Wheeler advised CASAC that he had “asked that staff maintain their focus on meeting our statutory deadlines while reflecting the latest scientific information in a final PM ISA.” In addition, the Administrator wrote that he has directed his staff to “[c]reate a pool of subject matter expert consultants that the seven-person chartered CASAC, through the chair, will draw from as needed to support its PM and ozone reviews” and that the agency intended to solicit public nominations for this pool of consultants so that the individuals will be available to CASAC by August 31, 2019. Nominations pursuant to this week’s Federal Register notice are due to EPA in two weeks – by August 21, 2019.
For further information: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-07/pdf/2019-16913.pdf
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a major report in which it examines how climate change impacts and is affected by land use, as well as the associated impacts on food security and land-based ecosystems. Climate change has already adversely affected food security due to warming, changing precipitation patterns and extreme weather events, the IPCC finds. At the same time, agricultural activities and emissions associated with food production are a major component of anthropogenic GHG activities. Land is simultaneously a source and a sink of carbon dioxide. In the report, the IPCC identifies a number of adaptation and mitigation response options that can combat desertification and land degradation and enhance food security. The report was released in summary form in Geneva and is one of three special reports the IPCC is preparing as part of its Sixth Assessment Report cycle. Its full title is Climate Change and Land, an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
For further information: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/
EPA published in the Federal Register (84 Fed. Reg. 39244) its proposed rule to revise the New Source Review (NSR) applicability regulations that apply to sources proposing to undertake a project under the NSR permitting program. The rule, which would essentially codify the regulatory interpretation that EPA announced in its March 13, 2018 “Project Emissions Accounting” memorandum, would require that during “Step 1” of the two-step process used to determine whether a project is a “major modification” subject to NSR permitting requirements, emission decreases are to be considered along with emission increases. To summarize how the two-step process works: In Step 1, the source determines whether the proposed project, by itself, is projected to result in a significant emissions increase (this step used to be known as “project netting”; EPA now calls it “project emissions accounting”). If so, the process moves to Step 2, where the source evaluates whether the project will result in a significant net emissions increase, considering any other increases and decreases in actual emissions throughout the facility. An emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is considered significant at Step 1 or 2 if the increase would be equal to or greater than any of the pollutant-specific significant emissions rates listed under the definition of “significant” in the applicable NSR regulations. Prior to the March 2018 memorandum, EPA allowed sources to evaluate only projected emission increases at Step 1. In the memorandum, EPA announced its new interpretation of the existing regulations as allowing the project emissions accounting approach. The proposed rule would revise the regulatory language to directly state that both emissions increases and decreases “shall” be included as part of the Step 1 calculation. EPA is seeking comment on implementation aspects of project emissions accounting, including how sources should keep records of their emissions increases and decreases. In addition, EPA is seeking comment on whether states must modify their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to accommodate the rule’s clarifications if it becomes final. The agency states in the preamble, “EPA is currently aware of a few states and locals where the applicable SIP-approved regulations expressly preclude project emissions accounting. With respect to this situation, we request comment on whether the EPA should determine that the revisions … that we are proposing here constitute minimum program elements that must be included in order for state and local agency programs implementing part C or part D to be approvable under the SIP.” Comments on the proposed rule are due by October 8, 2019. EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposal if one is requested by August 30.
For further information: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-09/pdf/2019-17019.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/nsr/project-emissions-accounting-1
EPA took final action regarding the status of 11 areas classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. These areas were to have attained the 2008 standards by July 20, 2018 and EPA, by January 20, 2019, was to have determined whether or not they had achieved attainment and, if not, taken appropriate action. This week’s action provides EPA’s final determination for each of the 11 areas, based on ozone monitoring data for 2015 through 2017. EPA has determined the following: 1) Two areas – Baltimore, MD and Mariposa County, CA – attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the prescribed attainment date; 2) two areas – Inland Sheboygan County, WI and Shoreline Sheboygan County, WI – are granted a one-year attainment date extension, until July 20, 2020, as allowed under Clean Air Act Section 181(a)(5); and 3) seven areas – Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Greater Connecticut, CT, Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX, Nevada County (Western part), CA, New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, CT-NY-NJ and San Diego County, CA – failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the prescribed attainment date and will be reclassified as Serious nonattainment, effective 30 days after this final action is published in the Federal Register, with a new attainment date of July 20, 2021.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/2008-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-nonattainment
Letitia James and Xavier Becerra, the Attorneys General (AG) of New York and California, respectively, led a coalition including 11 other state AGs in filing a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the Administration’s July 12, 2019 final rule reducing the level of monetary penalties to be paid beginning in 2019 by automakers that fail to meet applicable Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. The final rule, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 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. A press statement released by AG James’ office reads, “In the lawsuit, the 13 Attorneys General assert NHTSA’s new rule is unlawful and rewards automakers that fail to manufacture fuel-efficient vehicles. The coalition argues that the replacement rule violates federal law which mandates that public agencies update their civil penalties to account for inflation using a clear timetable and formula for adjustment, and relies on an erroneous economic impact of the inflation-adjusted penalties.” The other 11 AGs joining the petition are from Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.
For further information: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/cafe_penalty_petition_w._exhibit.pdf
The New Democrat Coalition, a caucus of 101 centrist Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives, released an 11-page set of Principles for U.S. Climate Policy. In these principles, the Coalition articulates three overarching goals: 1) establishing U.S. leadership in fighting climate change, 2) instituting “climate-forward” economic transitions toward pro-climate incentives and jobs and 3) investing in community resilience and relief efforts. Although the document is not a bill, it matches a framework for a climate bill recently released by top Energy and Commerce Democrats in that it calls for net-zero U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. Among the recommendations made by the Coalition in the section titled “Combatting climate change requires global action” are rejoining the Paris Accord, becoming a global leader in next generation technologies to reduce emissions and aligning defense investments with threats multiplied by climate change-induced scarcity and disasters. In a section describing “Transitions to a climate-forward economy” the Coalition includes principles for working economy-wide toward reductions, minimizing market barriers to clean energy deployment, using clear pricing signals and durable markets to deliver predictability to those investing in a climate-forward economy, setting decarbonization goals rather than paths to enable innovation and implementation flexibility and ensuring workers across the U.S. have the opportunity to succeed in the climate-forward economy. In the third section, which calls for “investing in communities, resilience and relief,” the Coalition begins with an acknowledgement of disproportionate impacts to vulnerable communities and a commitment to addressing these as an integral part of any subsequent legislation. It also calls for centering action on “community needs, fostering adaptation that incorporates nature-based solutions, investing in resilience and risk mitigation, and improving disaster response and recovery.” The principles were introduced by the New Democrat Coalition’s Climate Change Task Force, led by Reps. Sean Casten (D-IL), Elaine Luria (D-VA), Don Beyer (D-VA) and Susan Wild (D-PA). The Coalition’s net-zero-by-2050 target is also aligned with the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, in which the IPCC argues that this will be the minimum effort necessary to avert global temperature averages exceeding a catastrophic threshold. In the Green New Deal, another legislative framework introduced in Congress, the sponsors – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) – call for a “World War Two” scale economic mobilization to reach net-zero emissions by 2030.
For further information: https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Climate%20Change%20Task%20Force%20US%20Climate%20Policy%20Priorities%20Document_FINAL.pdf and https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/imo/media/doc/New%20Democrat%20Coalition%20Climate%20Change%20Task%20Force%20Priorities%20One-Pager.pdf
In a letter to the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL) announced a proposed package of federal, state and local “Rural Green Partnership” polices designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while driving economic growth in rural parts of the U.S. “[C]limate change is an existential threat to my constituents, and the severe flooding across the Midwest this spring only underscores this threat. I will not stand by and watch the crisis grow,” wrote Bustos, who goes on to urge the Select Committee to partner with rural areas as it considers policies to address climate change. In the Partnership document, Bustos outlines five guiding principles: 1) expand and improve conservation programs, 2) make investments in rural infrastructure such as CO2 transfer pipelines, 3) target financial incentives to new clean energy technologies, 4) increase research funding for sustainable land use practices, carbon capture, storage and utilization and other technologies to reduce or sequester GHG emissions and (5) support green workforce development. Bustos further identifies more specific policy recommendations across the agriculture, land use and forestry; electricity; transportation; commercial and residential and industrial sectors.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/RPG-SCCC-Letter.pdf and http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Rural-Green-Partnership-1.pdf
The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Center reported its finding that the average global temperature for July 2019 was comparable to or marginally higher than July 2016, the warmest month ever recorded. The average temperature for July 2019 was 1.2 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average. In a news release, the Climate Center notes that July is typically the warmest month of the year and that the previous four years – 2015 through 2018 – have been the four warmest on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is scheduled to release its analysis of July’s global temperature data on August 19.
For further information: https://climate.copernicus.eu/another-exceptional-month-global-average-temperatures
The Administration’s effort to rollback light-duty vehicle (LDV) greenhouse (GHG) emission standards and fuel efficiency standards by freezing those standards, adopted in 2012, at model year (MY) 2020 levels through MY 2026, would come at a cost to the U.S. economy of up to $400 billion (real U.S. dollars, discounted at 3 percent annually) through 2050, according to Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, Inc., which conducted an analysis of the Administration’s August 2018 proposal. This conclusion is among those reported in Economic, Emissions Impact of Trump Administration Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions Standards Freeze; Implications for California, “Section 177” States, Canada. Another adverse impact of freezing GHG and fuel economy emission standards at MY 2020 levels is increased GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Energy Innovation reports that its modeling shows the greatest emissions increases would occur in the 2030s with a 10-percent increase in carbon dioxide equivalent occurring in 2035 (assuming manufacturers will continue to sell more efficient gasoline vehicles even when electric vehicle adoption increases). In addition, freezing the standards as the Administration is poised to do would increase gasoline use in 2035 by 20 percent, says Energy Innovation, which also notes that the Administration’s plan would have negative implications for fuel economy and GHG emissions in Canada. Energy Innovation’s final conclusion is this: “Freezing federal fuel economy and GHG emissions standards will harm U.S. consumers, who will pay more money to drive their cars. It will harm businesses that rely on light-duty vehicles, such as taxi, food delivery, and ride-sharing services. It will worsen climate change and reduce U.S. energy security. It will lead to court battles with California and the Section 177 states and fragment the North American automobile market, increasing costs to automakers. The Trump administration says that it will help sell more cars, but as the United Auto Workers union and 17 major automakers have let the Trump administration know, it will reduce the competitiveness of U.S. vehicle manufacturing – U.S. companies will be left behind as foreign manufacturers produce increasingly efficient vehicles to meet fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards in other global markets. And according to the Trump administration’s own analysis, it will cost Americans 60,000 jobs. The only winners are the oil companies, who stand to sell more gasoline at the expense of American consumers, manufacturers, and the environment.”
For further information: https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Impacts-of-Trump-Fuel-Economy-Standard-Rollback-on-US-Section-177-States-Canada-8.7.19.pdf
EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released EPA Exceeded the Deregulatory Goals of Executive Order 13771. On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued the Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (EO 13771), in which he states that “it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” He goes on to say in the EO that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” OIG has found that in FYs 2017 and 2018 EPA exceeded the President’s “two-for-one” mandate. In particular, OIG says, in FY 2017 EPA took 16 deregulatory actions and one regulatory action and achieved an annualized cost savings of $21.5 million. OIG’s report also says that in FY 2018, EPA took 10 deregulatory actions and three regulatory actions and achieved an annualized cost savings of $75.1 million. With respect to EPA’s actions, OIG says it found that “both the transparency of EO decision-making and the outreach for deregulatory recommendations could be enhanced and clarified” and has included in its report the following recommendations to be taken by the EPA Deputy Administrator: 1) Amend guidance for the agency’s Regulatory Relief Task Force to specify a) the frequency of meetings, b) the public dissemination of progress reports and regulatory and deregulatory recommendations and c) the frequency and means of stakeholder outreach, and 2) establish or identify an accessible portal that can provide up-to-date information on EPA’s deregulatory and regulatory actions taken under EO 13771. OIG reports that EPA concurred with the intent of Recommendation 1a and partly concurred with Recommendation 1b but declined to provide corrective actions that would update the Regulatory Relief Task Force’s guidance. OIG also reported that EPA disagreed with Recommendation 1c and Recommendation 2. At this time, all recommendations remain unresolved. Included in the report, as an appendix, is EPA’s response to OIG’s findings.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/report-epa-exceeded-deregulatory-goals-executive-order-13771
Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the appointment of Ken McQueen as Regional Administrator for EPA Region 6 (which includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas as well as 66 Tribal Nations). Most recently, McQueen served as the Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department. Prior to that, he worked on water, energy and natural resource issues in the south-central region of the U.S. In particular, McQueen was Vice President of Williams/WPX Energy, where he managed the company’s assets in New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma; an adjunct professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Tulsa; a joint venture engineer for Vintage Petroleum, Inc.; and a petroleum engineer with Amerada Hess Corp. Of his appointment, former New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez said, “I applaud the President’s choice to appoint Ken McQueen as the EPA Administrator of Region 6. Ken has proven his strong leadership and depth of knowledge within the private sector and as my Energy Cabinet Secretary. I wish Ken much success in his new role.” McQueen replaces Anne Idsal, who is now EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation in Washington, DC.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-appoints-ken-mcqueen-region-6-administrator-0