![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/nacaa-internal-banner-1024x210.jpeg)
March 30 – April 5, 2019
In this week's issue:
- EPA Administrator Testifies Before Congress on FY 2020 Budget (April 2-3, 2019)
- D.C. Circuit Partially Vacates 2016 HFC Replacement Rule (April 5, 2019)
- House Energy and Commerce Committee Approves Bill Requiring President Trump to Act on Paris Agreement Goals (April 4, 2019)
- EPA Releases Two Exceptional Events Guidance Documents (April 4, 2019)
- ICCT Projects Cost Parity of EVs with Conventional Vehicles to Occur in Mid-2020s (April 2, 2019)
- EPA Seeks Comment on Draft National Program Guidance for FY 2020-2021 (April 1, 2019)
- Senate Bill Would Block Roll-Back of Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and GHG Emission Standards (April 3, 2019)
- Congressman Introduces “Green Real Deal” Resolution (April 3, 2019)
- More Than 100 House Democrats Urge Ways and Means Committee to Purse Clean Energy Tax Incentives (April 4, 2019)
- USDA Concludes GHG Benefits of Corn Ethanol Greater than Projected (April 2, 2019)
- House Energy and Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on State and Local Climate Action (April 2, 2019)
- House Foreign Affairs Committee Holds Hearing on the Threats of Climate Change to U.S. National Security (April 2, 2019)
- House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Holds Its First Hearing (April 4, 2019)
- Petitioners File Opening Briefs in Litigation Challenging EPA’s Denial of Section 126 Petitions (March 29, 2019)
- American Meteorological Society Publishes Guide to Help Communities Improve Climate Resilience (April 4, 2019)
- Worldwide Fuel Charter Committee Seeks Comments on Proposed Charters for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel and Methane (April 3, 2019)
This Week in Review
![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/White-House-1-437x328.jpeg)
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, accompanied by EPA Chief Financial Officer Holly Greaves, testified before both the House (April 2) and Senate (April 3) Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. In his testimony, Wheeler defended the Administration’s proposed budget for EPA, which was announced on March 11, 2019. The recommended budget calls for significant cuts to EPA funding, including a $2-billion reduction for EPA overall (to $6.1) and a 33-percent cut in funding for state and local air grants (from $228.2 million to $152 million). During the House hearing, members questioned Wheeler about a range of topics. Several members criticized the Administrator for significant proposed cuts to the agency’s budget (including state grant funding), regulatory rollbacks EPA is undertaking (mobile source standards and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards) and reductions in enforcement activities. Wheeler was questioned about the loss of staff at the agency, to which he responded that the agency is working hard to replace retiring employees. Wheeler testified that the proposed budget returns the agency to “its core mission” and that deregulatory activities will result in savings of $3 billion. Subcommittee Chair Betty McCollum (D-MN) said that the Subcommittee would increase funding levels over those contained in the proposed budget. During the Senate hearing, Wheeler was again questioned about reductions in staffing levels and enforcement activity. In his opening statement, Subcommittee Vice Chair Tom Udall (D-NM) reported that EPA enforcement has declined to its lowest level since EPA established its dedicated enforcement office 25 years ago. Udall also criticized the proposed budgets, saying they “savage” state funding, while expecting states to do more work. During one exchange, Wheeler was asked about his decision to do away with the advisory panels of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. He defended the decision, stating that having the panels, which are not required by the Clean Air Act, prevented the agency from meeting Clean Air Act deadlines for review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every five years. Additional lines of questioning for the Administrator covered asbestos, PFAS and climate change, among others. Subcommittee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) stated that the proposed budget did not line up with the goals of the agency and that the final budget from the Subcommittee will be different.
For further information: https://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/hearings/budget-environmental-protection-agency and https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/review-of-the-fy2020-budget-request-for-the-environmental-protection-agency
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down EPA’s 2016 “HFC Replacement Rule” to the extent that it requires manufacturers to replace hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that were previously installed as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under earlier rules issued under Title VI of the Clean Air Act. In a per curiam judgment in favor of the petitioners in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, No. 17-1024 (Mexichem II), the court determined that it is bound by its decision in an earlier case brought by the same petitioners with respect to the 2015 HFC Replacement Rule (Mexichem I). EPA promulgated the 2015 and 2016 rules due to concerns that HFCs, designated in earlier EPA rules as suitable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, are contributors to global climate change, and should thus no longer be acceptable for various uses in aerosols, motor vehicle air conditioners, commercial refrigerators and foams. The court held in Mexichem I that once a manufacturer has replaced an ozone-depleting substance with a substitute that had at the time been deemed acceptable by EPA, the agency cannot subsequently require the manufacturer to replace that substitute with an alternative later determined to be safer. In the newly issued Mexichem II decision the court found that “the prior merits holding binds us, and … we must grant the new petitions if no procedural issues detain us.” It rejected arguments by three intervenors – HFC replacement producers Honeywell and Chemours, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council – that the petitioners were time-barred from challenging the 2016 rule because they hadn’t filed their petitions for review within 60 days of the rule’s publication. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the petitioners that its consideration of the timeliness issue was barred by the doctrine of “offensive issue preclusion,” which precludes litigants from disputing even jurisdictional issues that were decided in a previous case. The court found that the same timeliness issue, though not expressly decided in the previous case, was fully briefed and that it must assume the previous court implicitly found the petitions timely. “In sum, we reject the timeliness challenge raised by the three Intervenors,” the court stated. “Seeing no other jurisdictional issue, we vacate the 2016 rule only to the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs that were previously and lawfully installed as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.”
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Mexichem-Fluor_II_Judgment-4-5-19.pdf
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the Climate Action Now Act, which would give President Trump 120 days to develop and submit a plan for the U.S. to meet the emission reduction pledges submitted by the Obama Administration under the Paris Agreement. The bill, H.R.9, was approved by a vote of 29 to 19. The legislation has also been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and must be approved there before it can be considered for final passage on the House Floor.
For further information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/9
EPA announced the availability of two non-binding guidance documents related to exceptional events. The purpose of the first, Guidance on the Preparation of Demonstrations in Support of Requests to Exclude Ambient Air Quality Data Influenced by High Wind Dust Events Under the 2016 Exceptional Events Rule, is to help air agencies meet the requirements of the Exceptional Events Rule for high wind dust events (i.e., those involving PM10 and PM2.5) and offer guidance on key components of successful exceptional events demonstrations. The agency states that this guidance document “supports EPA’s continued efforts to ensure that exceptional events demonstrations are ‘right-sized’ and considered in a nationally consistent manner.” The second document, Additional Methods, Determinations, and Analyses to Modify Air Quality Data Beyond Exceptional Events, seeks to clarify the kinds of regulatory determinations, actions and analyses for which EPA may consider certain modified air quality monitoring data including those for which certain air quality monitoring data may be excluded, selected or adjusted. The information provided in this document is intended to supplement the 2016 revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule and, according to EPA, is “consistent with the direction contained in the President’s April 2018 Memorandum on Promoting Domestic Manufacturing and Job Creation – Policies and Procedures Relating to Implementation of Air Quality Standards.”
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/high_wind_dust_event_guidance.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/clarification_memo_on_data_modification_methods.pdf
The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) released a report providing an analysis of electric vehicle (EV) costs for various vehicle types (cars, crossovers, sport utility vehicles) for the time period of 2020 to 2030. Among the key conclusions ICCT has reached, based on many sources and studies, is that EV initial cost parity with conventional vehicles is likely to occur between 2024 and 2025 for shorter-range EVs and 2026 to 2028 for longer-range EVs, based on battery costs decreasing to about $104 per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2025 and $72/kWh in 2030. ICCT notes in its report that, “As the cost parity point is reached, governments can dramatically accelerate the shift to clean mobility with regulations that spur electric vehicle deployment.”
For further information: https://www.theicct.org/publications/update-US-2030-electric-vehicle-cost
EPA issued draft FY 2020-2021 National Program Guidance documents for comment. Among the draft documents are guidance for the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The documents describe key activities expected to be undertaken by EPA, states, local agencies and tribes, aligning with the agency’s strategic plan and the Administration’s budget request. The guidance will be the basis for negotiations between EPA and state and local agencies and the development of work plans. The comment deadline is May 3, 2019.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/national-program-guidances, https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/draft-fy-2020-2021-office-air-and-radiation-oar-national-program-guidance and https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/draft-fy-2020-2021-office-enforcement-and-compliance-assurance-oeca-national-program
Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), joined by 14 of their Senate colleagues, introduced the Greener Air Standards Mean Our National Security, Environment, and Youth (GAS MONEY) Saved Act, a bill to block the Safer, Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule proposed by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in August 2018. (The proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would rollback light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards adopted by EPA and NHTSA in 2012.) Under the GAS MONEY Saved Act, which was also introduced in the last Congress, the EPA-NHTSA 2012 final rule would retain the force and effect of law as would EPA’s January 12, 2017 Final Determination on the mid-term evaluation of the model year 2022 through 2025 LDV GHG standards established in that rule and would preclude the EPA Administrator from “issu[ing] any rule or tak[ing] any action that would effectively reduce the stringency of greenhouse gas emissions standards required to be attained by each fleet of light-duty vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States through calendar year 2025 pursuant to the [2012 final rule and January 2017 Final Determination].”
For further information: https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-reintroduce-legislation-to-block-trump-admin-efforts-to-roll-back-fuel-economy-emissions-standards and https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAS%20MONEY%20Saved%20Act.pdf
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) introduced a “Green Real Deal” resolution as an alternative to the “Green New Deal” introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). The new measure, H.Res. 288, lays out seven federal goals to address climate change: 1) economy-wide greenhouse gas reductions; 2) innovation-driven expansion of clean energy; 3) U.S. leadership on carbon capture technologies; 4) regulatory reforms to speed the deployment of new energy technologies; 5) a commitment that the “federal government should not pick winners and losers”; 6) support for states and individuals to develop low-emitting technologies; and 7) improving resilience for communities, the military and infrastructure. The bill also identifies 13 projects to help achieve the Green Real Deal’s policy goals; among them are grid modernization, changes to the National Environmental Policy Act and new tax incentives for homeowner efficiency improvements. Gaetz unveiled the resolution at a press conference where he criticized both Republican and Democrat policy positions on climate change. “History will judge harshly my Republican colleagues who deny the science of climate change. Similarly, those Democrats who would use climate change as a basis to regulate out of existence the American experience, will face the harsh reality that their ideas will fail.” The resolution currently has one co-sponsor, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL).
For further information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/288 and https://gaetz.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-matt-gaetz-unveils-green-real-deal
More than 100 House Democrats signed a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) urging him to help address climate change by developing tax legislation to better incentivize clean energy, clean transportation and energy efficiency. “Right now the U.S. tax system has over forty provisions that provide billions in subsidies, which are overly complex and provide different subsidies to similar technologies, many with no discernible rationale. It continues to provide permanent subsidies to polluting industries while leaving clean, renewable energy companies in the lurch year after year,“ the group writes. The letter goes on to list top priorities for potential tax legislation, including incentives for wind and solar power generation, electric vehicles, residential and commercial building efficiency, and waste heat to power technologies at industrial facilities.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Ways_and_Means_Tax_Incentive_Letter_4_April_2019.pdf
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the results of a study of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production and combustion of corn ethanol. In a 2010 life-cycle analysis
(LCA), EPA projected that by 2022 the GHG emissions profile of corn ethanol produced at a new refinery would be 21 percent lower than that of an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline. However, based on information from studies that have since been conducted, USDA now concludes that the GHG emissions profile of corn ethanol is between 39 percent and 43 percent lower than gasoline. The authors of the USDA study state, “Since 2010, the RIA LCA for corn ethanol has dominated policy discussions and federal regulations related to ethanol as a renewable fuel and a GHG mitigation option. During this time, a large body of new data, scientific studies, technical reports, and other information has become available collectively showing that the emissions pathway corn ethanol has followed since 2010 is much lower than that projected in the RIA. Our objective is to assess corn ethanol’s current GHG profile in light of this new information. This work is timely as many countries (e.g., Colombia, Japan, Brazil, Canada and the European Union) are developing renewable energy policies that require biofuel substitutes for gasoline to reduce GHG emissions by more than 21%. Our results could help position US corn ethanol to compete in these new and growing markets.”
For further information: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a hearing to examine state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions following President Trump’s June 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. According to a briefing memorandum prepared for the hearing by the Committee’s majority staff, 23 states and more that 400 mayors have pledged action to address climate change since Trump’s announcement. Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) served as the lone witness on the hearing’s first panel. The Governor emphasized the urgent need to address climate change, pointed to examples of state leadership and explained the importance of federal action while striking an optimistic tone. “[W]e as a nation are uniquely positioned to invent, create and build the equitable clean energy economy that is key to defeating climate change. Having seen the incredible innovation happening all across my state and all across the country, I’m more convinced of our ability to transform our economy than ever before,” Inslee said. The hearing’s second panel included five mayors representing four U.S. cities and one U.S. county: Mayor Steve Benjamin, Columbia, SC; Mayor Jackie Biskupski, Salt Lake City, UT; Mayor James Brainard, Carmel, IN; Commissioner Daniel Camp, Beaver County, PA; and Mayor Jerry Morales, Midland, TX.
For further information: https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-lessons-from-across-the-nation-state-and-local-action-to
The House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore how climate change threatens U.S. national security. Rep. William Keating (D-MA), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and the Environment, led the hearing and was broadly critical of the Trump Administration, contrasting longstanding efforts by the Pentagon and Congress to recognize climate change threats to national security with recent actions by the Trump Administration, particularly its decision to leave the Paris Agreement. “I can’t help but wonder, 30 or 50 or 100 years down the road, when people look back at this era, what they’ll be saying about the way the United States dealt with this problem. I don’t think it will be very kind,” he said. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), the Committee’s Ranking Member, led the Republican response. While acknowledging the threat climate change poses to national security, McCaul called the Paris Agreement’s goals “unrealistic” and economically harmful. “I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their recommendations for a way forward that appropriately balances the very real need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and around the globe – especially in China, the world’s number one emitter – with the need for economic growth and a reliable, affordable supply of energy.” The hearing witnesses were Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment; Sherri Goodman, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security; Paul Weisenfeld, Executive Vice President, International Development, RTI International; and Barry Worthington, Executive Director of the U.S. Energy Association.
For further information: https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/4/keating-opening-statement-at-climate-change-hearing and https://republicans-foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/hearing-how-climate-change-threatens-u-s-national-security/
The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, formed earlier this year, used its inaugural hearing to hear from young climate activists. Committee Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-FL) explained the reasoning behind the Committee’s initial focus: “[T]oday we’re starting with the people who are the most affected by the climate crisis: young people who are growing up in it, who bear the costs and burdens, and who will help find the opportunities before us.” The following witnesses spoke at the hearing: Lindsay Cooper, Policy Analyst with the Office of the Governor of Louisiana, Office of Coastal Activities; Aji Piper, a plaintiff in the Juliana v. United States litigation; Chris Suggs, student and activist from Kinston, NC; and Melody Zhang, Campaign Coordinator for Climate Justice and Co-Chair of Young Evangelicals for Climate Action.
For further information: https://climatecrisis.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/generation-climate-young-leaders-urge-climate-action-now
Petitioners in litigation challenging EPA’s denial of Maryland’s and Delaware’s petitions to the agency under Clean Air Act Section 126 filed their opening briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case relates to EPA’s action on September 14, 2018 denying four petitions submitted by Delaware and one petition submitted by Maryland in which the two states requested that EPA make findings that emissions from specific out-of-state sources contribute significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone in Maryland and Delaware. It its opening brief, Maryland argues that EPA’s reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update to deny the petition was arbitrary and capricious and that EPA improperly refused to consider the petition under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Delaware argued in its brief that the court should vacate EPA’s arbitrary decision that Delaware failed to satisfy its threshold requirements for a Section 126(b) petition and that EPA’s reliance on the CSAPR Update to deny Delaware’s petition is arbitrary and capricious. Finally, citizen petitioners in the litigation argue that the court should vacate EPA’s unlawful and arbitrary denial of Delaware’s ability to seek relief through Section 126(b) under the 2015 ozone standard, that EPA’s rejection of the Maryland and Delaware petitions on the basis that no cost-effective emission reductions are available at the petition units is unlawful and arbitrary and that EPA’s denial of the Section 126(b) petitions is arbitrary and unlawful in light of the larger pattern of EPA’s persistent delays and denials in implementing and enforcing the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act and regulating interstate transport of ozone pollution.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Litigation-MD-v-EPA-Sec_126-MD_Brief-032919.pdf, http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Litigation-MD-v-EPA-Sec126-DE_Brief-032919.pdf and http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Litigation-MD-v-EPA-Sec126-CitizenPetsBrief-032919.pdf
The American Meteorological Society published a roadmap to help state and local governments prepare for climate change. The report, initiated by the Obama Administration to help government officials act in response the findings of the National Climate Assessment, began its development within a specially chartered Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) until President Trump disbanded the committee in 2017. Many of the FAC members then reconvened as an independent group to complete and release the report, entitled Evaluating Knowledge to Support Climate Action: A Framework for Sustained Assessment. The National Climate Assessment was released in two volumes in October 2017 and November 2018 and summarizes the scientific consensus on climate change and describes its observed and predicted impacts across the U.S.
For further information: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0134.1 and https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4
The Worldwide Fuel Charter (WWFC) Committee solicited comments on two proposed documents: 1) Worldwide Fuel Charter: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, Sixth Edition and 2) Worldwide Fuel Charter: Gaseous Methane Transportation Fuel, First Edition. Each of these proposed documents includes fuel quality recommendations from automobile and engine manufacturers. In addition to these charters, the WWFC Committee has published guidelines for ethanol and biodiesel blend stocks. According to the Committee, the purpose of the charters and guidance is twofold: First, to inform policymakers and other interested parties about how fuel quality can affect the operation, durability and emissions performance of vehicles and engines and, second, to promote worldwide harmonized fuel quality consistent with vehicle, engine and emission control system needs “for the benefit of consumers and the general environment.” (Additional background information is provided on page ii of each document.) If your agency has comments on these proposals, please provide them, by May 2, 2019, to Dan Bowerson at dbowerson@autoalliance.org, Tia Sutton at tsutton@emamail.org or amicuspolicygroup@gmail.com. Members of the WWFC Committee are the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Auto Alliance), Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA).
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/WWFC2019_GASOLINE_DF_Proposed-compresse%CC%81.pdf and http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/WWFC2019_METHANE_Proposed-compresse%CC%81.pdf