![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/nacaa-internal-banner-1024x210.jpeg)
May 11-17, 2019
In this week's issue:
- House Appropriations Subcommittee Approves Bill with Increases for EPA (May 15, 2019)
- EPA Publishes Proposed RTRs for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastics (May 17, 2019)
- House Ways and Means Committee Holds Hearing on the Economic and Health Consequences of Climate Change (May 15, 2019)
- Sierra Club Rebuts EPA’s Defense of Significant Impact Levels Guidance in D.C. Circuit (May 16, 2019)
- CDP Releases Report Evaluating City-based Climate Action (May 13, 2019)
- House Committee Chairwoman Urges EPA to Reinstate Particulate Matter Advisory Panel (May 15, 2019)
- Department of Energy Releases State Energy Information Portal (May 16, 2019)
This Week in Review
![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Jefferson-Monument-3-492x328.jpeg)
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies marked up and approved the FY 2020 appropriations bill containing EPA funding, calling for significant increases for the agency’s overall budget. The bill calls for the following: $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); $50 million for funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program (as compared to $87 million in FY 2019 and $10 million in the Administration’s FY 2020 request); $30 million for Targeted Airshed Grants (as compared to $52 million in FY 2019 and zero in the Administration’s FY 2020 request); and funding for fine particulate matter monitoring to remain under the authority of Section 103, rather than shifting to Section 105 (NACAA has asked Congress to retain this funding under Section 103 authority). The documents the Subcommittee released do not include details about the total amount of funding for Section 103/105 grants. That information is typically released to the public when the full committee has held mark-up, which is expected soon, perhaps as early as next week.
For further information: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY2020%20Interior%20Sub%20Markup%20Draft.pdf (bill text) and https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releases-fiscal-year-2020-interior-environment-funding (press release)
EPA published in the Federal Register (84 Fed. Reg. 22,642) proposed Risk and Technology Review (RTR) standards for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Manufacturing source categories, which had been announced on April 19, 2019. The publication begins the public comment period, which closes on July 1, 2019. The agency is proposing to determine that the risks from this source category are acceptable and that there are no new cost-effective controls available. The proposal would clarify that the standards are applicable during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction and require electronic reporting of compliance reports, including performance test results.
For further information: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-17/pdf/2019-09583.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/boat-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air
The House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax legislation, assembled a panel of five witnesses to examine the health and economic impacts of climate change. Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) opened the hearing with a statement summarizing evidence of human-caused climate change and noting efforts from the business community to plan for climate change. Neal also made a case for federal intervention: ‘[I]t’s time for Congress to get on board. We cannot rely solely on the business community to solve this problem for us. The federal government has a significant role to play in creating real pathways for meaningful, long-term economic growth that creates solutions to reduce carbon emissions.” Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-TX), the committee’s top Republican, offered prepared remarks about the importance of innovation to address climate change. At the same time, however, he rejected a carbon tax as a policy response to climate change, stating that such taxes have had negligible emissions impacts when implemented in other countries and describing it a tax increase on working families. Brady went on to criticize the Green New Deal. “Regrettably, today the leading Democrat plan to combat climate change is the so-called ‘Green New Deal,’ which many Democrats on this Committee have enthusiastically embraced. That plan is socialist policy simply masquerading as ‘green’ – it is outlandish, unrealistic, and frankly unhelpful,” Brady said. The hearing witnesses included Dr. Katherine Marvel, Associate Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Dr. Ashisha Jha, Dean for Global Strategy at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Roy Wright, President and CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety; Ted Halstead, Chairman and CEO of the Climate Leadership Council; and Rich Powell, Executive Director at ClearPath Action.
For further information: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/neal-opening-statement-hearing-economic-and-health-consequences-climate, https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/brady-opening-statement-at-full-committee-hearing-on-the-economic-and-health-consequences-of-climate-change/ and https://waysandmeans.house.gov/legislation/hearings/economic-and-health-consequences-climate-change
In a reply brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sierra Club again urged the court to vacate EPA’s April 2018 “Guidance on Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for Ozone and Fine Particles in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting Program,” which recommends threshold emission levels below which a new or modified stationary source’s emissions can be presumed to not cause or contribute to a violation of the ozone or PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or PSD increments. Sierra Club, which has long maintained that SILs are not authorized by the Clean Air Act, petitioned for judicial review of the guidance in June 2018 and argued in its opening brief that it creates an unlawful exemption from the PSD permitting program’s modeling requirements. In response, EPA asserted that the SILs guidance is not a “final agency action” subject to judicial review, and that even if it were, it represents a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Sierra Club argues in its reply that the guidance meets the court’s three-part test for being reviewable final action, in that EPA has taken a definitive legal position on the meaning of “cause or contribute” in CAA § 7475(a)(3), the case presents a purely legal question, and the guidance imposes an immediate and significant practical burden on Sierra Club’s members. The group also dismisses as meritless EPA’s argument that the guidance is unreviewable because permitting authorities retain discretion not to use SILs and its claim that the guidance does not “establish any new norms” (Sierra Club points out that this guidance is the first time EPA has set SILs for ozone). Sierra Club reiterates arguments from its opening brief that the guidance is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. “EPA gives no response to the multiple examples of how sources can comply with a SIL but still cause or exacerbate a violation” due to their air quality impacts, Sierra Club asserts. “Because the SILs Memo authorizes the permitting of major sources notwithstanding demonstrated violations of these not-to-be-exceeded thresholds, it is illegal.”
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Sierra_Club_v_EPA-Sierra_reply_5-16-19.pdf
CDP, a non-profit organization that helps cities, states and other groups to self-report and track environmental data, released its inaugural rankings of city-led actions to address climate change. The group evaluated 596 cities globally, including twenty-four in North America. Forty-three cities – seven percent of total cities surveyed – were assigned a top class “A” ranking. North American cities were among the most successful, accounting for 56 percent of the cities awarded an “A” grade. In order to qualify for the CDP’s top-ranking tier, cities need to, among other things, have climate adaptation and climate action plans, a citywide emissions inventory, and a citywide emissions reduction target. U.S. cities on the “A List” include Arlington, VA; City Benicia, CA; Boston, MA; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Emeryville, CA; Fremont, CA; Hayward, CA; Indianapolis, IN; Lakewood, CO; Minneapolis, MN; Oakland, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Piedmont, CA; Rochester, NY; San Francisco, CA; San Leandro, CA; Seattle, WA; West Palm Beach, FL; Washington, DC; and New York City, NY.
For further information: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/24-cities-in-north-america-score-an-a-grade-in-new-cities-climate-change-ranking
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, wrote EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to ask that he reinstate the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s (CASAC’s) Particulate Matter (PM) Review panel. Administrator Wheeler dissolved the panel, whose membership included twenty-four research scientists with PM expertise, last October. “In its place, you tasked CASAC – a seven person panel that lacks an epidemiologist – to review the relevant science on its own,” Johnson wrote. The letter also outlines objections to the dissolution put forth by former PM panel members and by CASAC’s current membership, including an April letter from CASAC “officially confirming its inability to provide a comprehensive expert review of the PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards documents.” That letter also asked EPA to reestablish the expert PM panel.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Johnson_CASAC_PM_Panel_Request_15_May_2019.pdf
The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released a preliminary version of a “State Energy Portal” to improve public access to state-level energy data. The portal displays energy-related information from more than 50 sources, including some from outside of EIA, offered via a wide selection of customizable charts, tables and maps. In addition to extensive information about energy infrastructure, generation and use, the portal includes environmental data on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, allowing users to review them by fuel-type or by sector. EIA has released the portal as a non-final “Beta” version and is seeking feedback from the public before finalizing the tool.
For further information: https://www.eia.gov/beta/states/overview