Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US To Gina McCarthy Sent by: Lala Alston cc 10/02/2012 02:14 PM bcc Subject Accepted: Meeting with Sierra Club, EDF, and NRDC Lala Alston/RTP/USEPA/US To Gina McCarthy 10/02/2012 02:17 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Meeting with Sierra Club, EDF, and NRDC Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US To Gina McCarthy Sent by: Lala Alston cc 10/02/2012 02:56 PM bcc Subject Accepted: Meeting with Sierra Club, EDF, and NRDC Lala Alston/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 01/30/2013 09:29 AM cc bcc Subject Accepted: HOLD | S02 and NAAQS Meeting with Sierra Club Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe Sent by: Lala Alston cc 01/30/2013 10:43 AM bcc Subject Accepted: HOLD | S02 and NAAQS Meeting with Sierra Club Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe Sent by: Lala Alston cc 01/31/2013 08:25 AM bcc Subject Accepted: Prebrief for 2/6 Meeting with Sierra Club re: S02 and NAAQS Lala Alston/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 01/31/2013 08:30 AM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Prebrief for 2/6 Meeting with Sierra Club re: S02 and NAAQS Lala Alston/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 06/30/2011 03:16 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe Sent by: Lala Alston cc 07/01/2011 02:48 PM bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Lala Alston/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 07/01/2011 02:52 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Larke Williams/DC/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 01/30/2013 04:58 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Prebrief for 2/6 Meeting with Sierra Club re: S02 and NAAQS Larry Dollison/DC/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe, Amit Srivastava 05/04/2011 01:47 PM cc bcc Subject American Lung (ALA) FOIA request
Ms. McCabe,
I have finished this FOIA request you will find a copy of all documents related to the index search under your folders. The folder name is ALA FOIA if you have any questions please give me a call.
Thanks, Larry Dollison USEPA_OAR_IO_OPMO ISO / IT Specialist [email protected] MC 6102A ARN 6510M (202)564-1325 (W) (202)343-9306 (W) (202)821-5293 (C)
WARNING INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY INCLUDE SENSITIVE AND/OR PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION; THE FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OF WHICH (BEYOND THE RECIPIENTS TO WHOM IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED) MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY REGULATIONS, CIVIL AND/OR CRIMINAL LAW WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT TO RELEASE AND/OR DISSEMINATE FURTHER BY THE U.S. EPA. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER BY REPLY E-MAIL AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ATTACHMENTS. Laura To Janet McCabe McKelvey/RTP/USEPA/US cc Cindy Huang 08/19/2011 12:36 PM bcc Subject Re: Heads up from Lesley Fields, Sierra Club
I have a call in to Leslie Fields already and have tried to contacts in Region V too but since it's Friday I'm not sure how successful I'll be. I'll let you know if I hear anything.
I'm not leaving for the conference until Mid day on Monday so hopefully we can get something together before the tour.
Laura Leslie Fields To Bob Perciasepe
Dear Bob Thank you for the productive Title VI Alliance meeting on Tuesday. We will be certain to submit comments about the papers by the deadline. Yesterday, I enjoyed your comments at the AABE Energy Policy Summit. I've been a member of AABE for sometime and always learn a lot at their functions. Your commitment to environmental justice is greatly appreciated and noted and we look forward to a continued productiverelationship.. Warm regards, Leslie Fields -- Leslie G. Fields Director, Environmental Justice & Community Partnerships Program Sierra Club 50 F Street NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-548-4586 [email protected] www.sierraclub.org/ejcp Leslie Fields To Denny Larson, Bob Perciasepe
Thanks Lena! I sent the EPA request to Bob Perciasepe (Deputy Administrator) and Lisa Garcia. Usually when we meet with Perciasepe we get representation from all the offices but I'll make the request to make sure Air/Radiation is in with us. best, Leslie
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Denny Larson
Denny Larson Global Community Monitor www.gcmonitor.org
On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Lena Moffitt
> We'll be meeting with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Judy Garber at the State Department at 10am. Denny, Leslie and I are still trying for meetings with EPA and CEQ and will let you know as soon as we get them! Katherine is putting together individualized itineraries for each participant, which we hope to send out tomorrow. Just wanted to keep everyone updated! > Thank you! > > -- > Lena Moffitt > Sierra Club > 202-675-2396 (w) > 505-480-1551 (c)
-- Leslie G. Fields Director, Environmental Justice & Community Partnerships Program Sierra Club 50 F Street NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-548-4586 [email protected] www.sierraclub.org/ejcp Leslie Fields To Lisa Garcia, Bob Perciasepe
Dear Mr. Perciasepe and Ms. Garcia
I hope you're well. I'm writing on behalf of a delegation of refinery community members, some of whom you may know, who will be in town on Tuesday, February 19th to speak with various officials about the impacts of petroleum refineries to their communities. We very much appreciate the ongoing work of EPA to help reduce the public health impacts of this sector and we would love to discuss additional areas opportunities to utilize NEPA to ensure agencies are most effectively protecting the over-burdened populations. Please let us know if you have any availability on February 19th. Your assistance is much appreciated, as always.
The delegation will include the following participants, representing some of the most impacted areas of our country:
Mr. Hilton Kelley, Port Arthur, Texas
Mr. Kelley is the recent recipient of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize (2011). As one of the most renowned environmental justice leaders in our country, Mr. Hilton is at the forefront of the fight to protect communities from harmful industrial pollution in the Texas, Gulf Coast. Mr. Kelley is also the Founder and CEO of Community In-power & Development Association Inc., the Coordinator of the Southeast Texas Bucket Brigade, and Mobile Community Outreach Director for the Coming Clean Collaborative.
Denny Larson,
Mr. Denny Larson is the Executive Director of Global Community Monitor and has twenty three years of experience as a community organizer and campaigner working with industrial communities fighting for justice. He developed the first national network in the U.S. focused on oil refineries and the giant corporations that own them. Mr. Larson has published a series of community organizing handbooks and co-authored a variety of environmental legislation and regulation pertaining to air pollution, accident prevention and environmental monitoring policies. Mr. Larson has negotiated two dozen binding agreements with major polluters in conjunction with impacted communities to reduce tons of dangerous pollution and create direct community oversight.
Vincent Martin, Michigan
Mr. Martin is the epitome of a community activist. Born in Cuba, Vincent brings multiple community perspectives to the various coalitions in which he plays a crucial role. Specifically, Vincent is a member of Zero West Coalition, Michigan Environmental Justice Executive Directive Working Group, and is active in the Title VI (of the Civil Rights Act enforcement) Alliance.
Steven Kozel, Sr, Hammond, Indiana
Mr. Kozel is the President of the Calumet Project. The Calumet Project actively works with community members, workers, and other local organizations from Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana, to improve the quality of life in their communities, revitalize the local economy, and address other issues related to improving the welfare of the Calumet region.
Carlotta Blake-King, Hammond, Indiana
Ms. Blake-King is the Vice President of the Calumet Project (described above). As a member of the executive board, Carlotta acts to ensure clean water, clean, air, and good jobs to the people of the Calumet Region.
The participants will be joined by myself and my Sierra Club colleague Lena Moffitt.
Thank you so much, for all you do!
Cheers, Leslie Fields -- Leslie G. Fields Director, Environmental Justice & Community Partnerships Program Sierra Club 50 F Street NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-548-4586 [email protected] www.sierraclub.org/ejcp Lisa Garcia/DC/USEPA/US To Dale Perry 06/22/2010 08:10 PM cc Janet McCabe, Gina McCarthy, Stephanie Owens bcc Subject Re: Sierra club letter
Thanks- this is helpful- just to know what the concerns were as we walk into meetings! Tx Lisa Dale Perry
----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Perry Sent: 06/22/2010 06:20 PM EDT To: Lisa Garcia Cc: Janet McCabe; Gina McCarthy; Stephanie Owens Subject: Re: Sierra club letter Lisa, I literally just sent this approved letter to Stephanie Owens to send from Public Outreach a few minutes ago. This letter has not gone out yet but this is our response.
[attachment "Sierra Club letter.doc" deleted by Lisa Garcia/DC/USEPA/US] Dale H. Perry, Ph.D. Senior Advisor for Science & Crisis Communications U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Mail Code 1701A Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: 202.564.7338 Cell: 202.380.6517 Fax: 202.501.1770
Lisa Garcia Hi all: Please send me a copy of the res... 06/22/2010 06:18:49 PM
From: Lisa Garcia/DC/USEPA/US To: "Gina McCarthy"
Hi all: Please send me a copy of the response to NGOs like the Sierra Club. And Gina S letter. We are meeting with NGOs on the ground in the Gulf (I believe Sierra Club tomorrow) Thanks. Lisa g
Lisa Plevin/R2/USEPA/US To Richard Windsor, Jose Lozano, Judith Enck, Janet Woodka, 12/14/2012 12:55 PM George Pavlou, Debbie Dietrich, Bob Perciasepe cc bcc Subject NJ enviro groups call for smart rebuilding after Sandy fyi
Lisa J. Plevin Chief of Staff US EPA Region 2 (212) 637-5000 N.J. environmental groups want smart planning in storm rebuilding Thursday, December 13, 2012 Last updated: Thursday December 13, 2012, 4:15 PM WAYNE PARRY Associated Press Print | E-mail In the rush to rebuild the shore, New Jersey's main environmental groups want governments to incorporate the painful lessons learned from Superstorm Sandy. Decisions on where and how to rebuild will have far-reaching consequences, and if governments ignore the problems pointed out by the storm, they risk setting up the state for more pain and destruction from future storms, the groups say. A coalition of the state's main environmental groups issued a joint call Thursday for incorporating the lessons of Sandy into planning and land use decisions. They included a set of principles the groups hope to have included in all rebuilding decisions. "There will be many decisions to be made as we move forward from Sandy," said Tim Dillingham, head of the American Littoral Society. "These principles if followed by state, local and private decision makers will result in a restored coastal environment and more resilient communities." He said the possibility of not rebuilding in areas that are routinely trashed by storms needs to be considered. "I've been told time and time again along the shore, people saying, 'I never expected that this would come,'''he said. "That's a real failure to inform our communities." The groups include Clean Ocean Action, Environment New Jersey, the New Jersey Environmental Federation, the Sierra Club, the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters and many others. The environmentalists say governments should include the environment among the factors they consider in rebuilding decisions. They add that rebuilding from storm damage provides a rare opportunity to fix or upgrade infrastructure like sewer lines that were contributing to water pollution before the storm. Ed Potosnak, head of the league of Conservation Voters, said governments need to acknowledge that climate change is real and happening right now, and that sea levels are rising. "We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past, so that when the next storm plays out, it's not playing out like a TV rerun," he said. Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, said rebuilding from storm damage provides a rare opportunity to fix or upgrade infrastructure like sewer lines that were contributing to water pollution before the storm. And Emile DeVito, a scientist at the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, said rising sea levels must be taken into account when rebuilding. Data dating back to 1900 show that ocean levels have risen by 16 inches in 112 years. But over the next 40 years they are projected to rise by an additional 18 inches. By the year 2100, they will be at least 4½ feet higher than they are now, he said.
Nancy To John Millett Grantham/R1/USEPA/US cc 06/12/2012 06:55 AM bcc Subject Fw: round table on weds in boston
----- Forwarded by Nancy Grantham/R1/USEPA/US on 06/12/2012 06:55 AM -----
From: Nancy Grantham/R1/USEPA/US To: Brendan Gilfillan
Curt is not able to stay for the q and a -- which they know. thoughts on this? thanks ng
Clean Air Roundtable, June 2012.docx Nancy To John Millett, Brendan Gilfillan Grantham/R1/USEPA/US cc Emily Zimmerman 05/03/2012 09:55 AM bcc Subject Fw: MA Carbon Rule Roundtable looking for your view us having curt do this -- we would obviously carve out that we are within the public comment period that ends june 12 -- and curt's comments could not opine on the proposed rule -- any further than describing what the rule is .. we also need to explain the the audient that the meeting is not an opportunity to provide public comments on the rule -- and that those wishing to officially comment should go through the official channels if we do get comments at the meeting -- we would have to get them into the docket .. and we would obivously coordinate curt's remarks with OPA and OAR .. all this said -- would appreciate you weighing in .. thanks ng ----- Forwarded by Nancy Grantham/R1/USEPA/US on 05/03/2012 06:59 AM -----
From: Dan Abrams/R1/USEPA/US To: Nancy Grantham/R1/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/01/2012 08:17 AM Subject: Fw: MA Carbon Rule Roundtable
Sorry for his font choice --- Dan Abrams Executive Assistant to Curt Spalding, Regional Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 New England office: (617) 918-1067 mobile: (857) 321-3084
----- Forwarded by Dan Abrams/R1/USEPA/US on 05/01/2012 08:17 AM -----
From: Joe Elcock
Patrick Fitzgerald To Bob Perciasepe, Stephanie Owens
Bob and Stephanie,
I hope you both are well. I wanted to be sure you had a copy of this letter sent earlier this morning focused on EE funding not just at EPA, but also at NOAA, NSF and NASA.
All my best, Patrick
Patrick Fitzgerald Director of Education Advocacy National Wildlife Federation National Advocacy Center 901 E St, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 www.nwf.org
Phone: (202) 797-6821 | Fax: (202) 797-6646 | [email protected] | Twitter: PatrickNWF
Celebrating 75 years of protecting wildlife.
Learn More: www.BeOutThere.org/Policy www.Eco-SchoolsUSA.org www.CampusEcology.org
From: Patrick Fitzgerald Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:53 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Letter of Support for Environmental Education Funding in FY 2014 Budget at EPA, NOAA, NASA and NSF June 6, 2012
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama:
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters across the country, we urge you to include funding for environmental education and climate change education programs at EPA, NOAA, NSF and NASA in your FY 2014 budget request.
We sincerely appreciate some significant Administration efforts to support environmental education, including the Department of Education’s U.S. Green Ribbon Schools Award Program, the newly re-invigorated Interagency Task Force on Environmental Education and the new MOU between Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to get more kids learning outdoors in National Parks and public lands. However, we found the Administration’s budget request for FY 2013 to be inadequate, calling for the elimination or phasing out of critical programs at EPA, NOAA and NSF. We believe that, without adequate federal funding for environmental education, America will be left behind in the 21st Century global economy.
Specifically, we request that you fund the following programs in your FY 2014 budget request:
z At least $9.7 million for EPA’s National Environmental Education Act programs; z At least $26.7 million for NOAA’s Environmental Literacy Grants program and the Bay-Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program; z At least $10 million for NSF’s Climate Change Education program; and z At least $10 million for NASA’s Climate Change Education program.
These funding levels represent the amount provided by Congress for EPA, NSF and NASA in FY 2012 and NOAA in FY 2010. With the complex environmental challenges ahead of us and the potential opportunities of a global, green economy, we believe that these numbers should truly be a minimum benchmark for the FY 2014 budget request.
Each of these agencies plays a critical role in supporting environmental education by building on the agency’s mission and strengths. For example, NOAA’s programs focus on watershed education while NASA’s focus on earth and climate science. We also believe that the new Interagency Task Force on Environmental Education will provide valuable guidance for future budget requests as well as increase coordination among all agencies.
In order to ensure our nation remains globally competitive in the 21st Century workforce and fosters innovation in America, our citizens must have an understanding of the environmental challenges and the opportunities that impact our economy, health, national security and energy independence. Research indicates that environmental education increases critical thinking skills and improves performance on standardized tests, including in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) subject areas. This investment in environmental education is vital to America’s economic future.
In addition, environmental education more broadly has overwhelming public support. Fully 95 percent of American adults and 96 percent of parents support environmental education being taught in the schools according to an environment survey conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide.
The National Environmental Education Act programs at the EPA support life-long environmental education and stewardship through several highly-leveraged, but under-resourced programs including the National Environmental Education Training Program to provide professional development for teachers, the National Environmental Education Foundation to leverage public/private partnerships, and an environmental education grant program to support local environmental education providers. All 50 states benefit from these successful programs.
The Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG) and Bay-Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) programs at NOAA have enabled the agency, as the nation's leading expert on weather, coastal and ocean information, to partner with the nation's top non-profit organizations and educators to put this information to good use while helping to fulfill NOAA's stewardship mandate. As our nation begins to grapple with the complexities and challenges of diminishing ocean, coastal and watershed resources, they are timely and highly relevant. The NOAA ELG program has reached more 8,000 teachers and 2.6 million students each year. The NOAA B-WET program supports locally relevant, experiential learning in the K-12 environment, with the purpose of increasing understanding of how the quality of the watershed affects the lives of the people who live in it. B-WET supports programs for students as well as professional development for teachers, while supporting regional education and conservation priorities. The B-WET program supports 120 projects funded in six regions of the country, impacting 21 states. More than 57,000 students and 2,400 teachers and community leaders are reached each year.
Both NASA and NSF’s climate change education programs are helping to advance the Administration’s clean energy and STEM agendas. The NSF Climate Change Education Program plays a critical, truly educational role in NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability program and will be critical to the success of this important initiative. The NASA Innovations in Global Climate Change Program through the Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP) at NASA advances the critical goal of improving the teaching and learning about global climate change in underrepresented and underserved elementary and secondary schools and on college campuses.
Each of these four programs plays a critical role in preparing our nation for the 21st Century global economy where every job will soon be a “green job.” We again urge you to fund these critical environmental education programs at a minimum of the FY 2012 levels listed in this letter.
Should you have any questions about this letter, please have your staff contact Patrick Fitzgerald at the National Wildlife Federation ([email protected] / 202-797-6821), Jim Elder at the Campaign for Environmental Literacy ([email protected] / 978-526-7768) or Judy Braus at the North American Association for Environmental Education ([email protected] / 202-419-0414). Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
National and Regional Organizations
National Wildlife Federation Association of Zoos and Aquariums Campaign for Environmental Literacy Chesapeake Bay Foundation Earth Day Network North American Association for Environmental Education Sierra Club Afterschool Alliance Alice Ferguson Foundation Alliance for Climate Education Alliance for the Great Lakes American Camp Association, Inc. American Community Gardening Association American Forest Foundation American Forests American Horticultural Society Association of Nature Center Administrators Association of School Business Officials International Association of Partners for Public LandsAudubon Naturalist Society Children & Nature Network Choose Outdoors Common Ground for Conservation Council for Environmental Education Council of Educational Facility Planners International Council of Environmental Deans and Directors Earth Force EarthEcho International Eco Think LLC Ecological Society of America Environment for the Americas Environmental & Human Systems Management Four Corners School of Outdoor Education Healthy Schools Network Izaak Walton League of America Jane Goodall Institute Keep America Beautiful National Association of State Park Directors National Aquarium National Center for Science Education, Inc. National Council for Science and the Environment National Hispanic Environmental Council National Parks Conservation Association National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education National Recreation and Park Association Natural Resources Defense Council NatureBridge The Ocean Project The Outdoor Foundation Project WET Foundation USA Program Recycle Across America and the Environmental Advancement Foundation The School for Field Studies Sea Research Foundation Sierra Nevada Journeys Southwest Conservation Corps Student Conservation Association SustainUS: U.S. Youth for Sustainable Development Trout Unlimited The Wilderness Society Wildlife Conservation Society
State and Local Organizations
350.org of Laramie (WY) Alaska Natural Resource and Outdoor Education Association (AK) Aldo Leopold High School (NM) Alliance for New Jersey Environmental Education (NJ) Alliance for Sustainable Colorado (CO) Anacostia Watershed Society (MD) AnywhereThatsWild.com of Jacksonville (FL) Ancestral Knowledge (Primitive Technology) (OR) Appalachian Trail Conservancy (VA) Arizona Wildlife Education Foundation (AZ) Arkansas Environmental Education Association (AR) Arkansas Wildlife Federation (AR) Artist Boat (TX) Association of Northwest Steelheaders (OR) Audubon Nebraska (NE) Audubon Pennsylvania (PA) Audubon Society of Rhode Island (RI) Bats in Flight (NM) Bayou Land Conservancy (TX) Beyond The Walls Nature Programs (MD) Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program (NM) Buffalo Audubon Society, Inc. (NY) Cache Valley No Child Left Inside (UT) Camp Shady Grove (MD) California Institute for Biodiversity (CA) Canopy in the Clouds (CA) Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (MD) The Center for the Celebration of Creation (PA) Chicago Conservation Corps (IL) Child Abuse Prevention Services, Inc. (NC) Christ Light of the Nations Catholic School (MO) Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PA) Claytor Nature Study Center of Lynchburg College (VA) Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education (CO) Colorado Mountain Club (CO) Colorado Youth Corps Association (CO) Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CT) Connecticut Outdoor & Environmental Educators Association (CT) Conservation Council for Hawai'i (HI) Conservation Federation of Missouri (MO) Core Sound Waterfowl Museum & Heritage Center (NC) Cosley Zoo (IL) Dauphin Island Sea Lab (AL) dcgreenworks.org (DC) Delaware Nature Society (DE) Discover Life (GA) Dragonfly Nature and Science Center (NM) Dumbarton Oaks Park Conservancy (DC) E2 Evaluation (IL) Earthshine Nature Programs (NC) East Bay Regional Park District (CA) Eastern Shore Bird Club (VA) Ecology in Classrooms & Outdoors (OR) Environment Education Connections of South Dakota (SD) Environmental Education Association of New Mexico (NM) The Environmental Education Council of Ohio (OH) Environmental Educators of North Carolina (NC) Environmental Charter Schools (CA) Environmental Education Alliance of Georgia (GA) Environmental Education Association of Oregon (OR) Environmental Systems Analysis & Management Department of Biology Sacred Heart University (MI) Expeditionary Learning (NY) Exploring Portland's Natural Areas (children and nature blog) (OR) Fair Lawn High School Environmental Club (NJ) Florida Wildlife Federation (FL) Forests Forever Incorporated (OR) Friends of the Cobbossee Watershed (ME) Friends of the National Forests & Grasslands in Texas (TX) Friends of Tryon Creek State Park (OR) Galveston County Audubon Group (TX) Geographic Educators of Nebraska (NE) Georgia Wildlife Federation (GA) Georgian Court University (NJ) Getting Kids Outdoors in Emmet County (MI) Grandfather Mountain Stewardship Foundation (NC) Great Basin Bioneers (UT) Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association (NJ) Green Collar Futures (NJ) Green Schools Initiative (CA) Green Schools, Inc (MA) The Greening of Detroit (MI) Greening Youth Foundation (GA) Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (TX) Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition (SC) Hackensack Riverkeeper (NJ) Hardwick Energy Action Resource Team (VT) Hawaii Environmental Education Alliance (HI) Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont Natural History (SC) Idaho Environmental Education Association (ID) Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve Education Programs Stanford University (CA) John Bunker Sands Wetland Center (TX) Kansas Association for Conservation and Environmental Education (KS) Kansas Wildlife Federation (KS) Lincoln Park Zoo (IL) Llano River Field Station (TX) Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MD) Maryland Ornithological Society (MD) Maryland Trout in the Classroom (MD) Materials for the Arts (NY) Metro Omaha Resources for Exploring Nature (NE) Mid-Atlantic Council Trout Unlimited (MD) Minnesota Association for Environmental Education (MN) Montana Wilderness School (MT) Montgomery County Public Schools Outdoor Education Association (MD) Museum of Science, Boston (MA) Nature Connections (CO) Nature Into Action (NJ) Nature's Classroom Institute (WI) Navitat Canopy Adventures (NC) Nebraska Wildlife Federation (NE) New Jersey Audubon (NJ) New Mexico Project Learning Tree (NM) New York Harbor Foundation (NY) North Carolina Children and Nature Coalition (NC) North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NC) NoVA Outside (VA) Openlands (IL) Pacific Education Institute (WA) Pajarito Environmental Education Center (NM) Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Educators (PA) Planning and Conservation League (CA) Rhode Island Environmental Education Association (RI) RiverzEdge Arts Project (RI) Rock Creek Conservancy (DC) Rogers High School Outdoor Education Course C.A.R.E. (Conservation And Recreation Education) (AR) Sandia Mountain Natural History Center (NM) Saturday Environmental Academy (DC) Save The Bay, Narragansett Bay (RI) Science and Engineering Alliance, Inc. (DC) Shaver's Creek Environmental Center (PA) Siskiyou Field Institute (OR) South Carolina Wildlife Federation (SC) SouthEastern Communites Against Pollution (MD) Springfield Township Parks and Recreation (MI) St. Lawrence Land Trust (NY) Talking Talons Youth Leadership, Inc. (NM) Teaching & Learning Collaborative (OH) Tennessee Geographic Alliance (TN) Texas Association for Environmental Education (TX) Third Mind, Inc. (TX) Thunder Hill Nature Alliance (MD) Trees for Trenton (NJ) Trinity University, Sustainability Committee (TX) Trunks & Leaves Inc. (MA) U.S. Green Building Council - Georgia Chapter (GA) University of Hawaii at Manoa Ecology Chapter of the Ecological Society of America, Strategies for Ecology Education, Diversity and Sustainability Program (HI) Upstate Forever (SC) Utah State University Student Sustainability Council (UT) Valley Nature Center (TX) Vietnamese American Young Leaders Association of New Orleans (LA) Virginia Conservation Network (VA) Warner Park Nature Center (TN) Weber High School Environmental Science Class (UT) West Atlanta Watershed Alliance (GA) West Virginia Rivers Coalition (WV) The Wetlands Institute (NJ) Wild Bear Center for Nature Discovery (CO) Wildlife Management Program, University of Puerto Rico at Humacao (PR) Will Steger Foundation (MN) Wisconsin Association for Environmental Education (WI) Wisconsin Environmental Education Board (WI) Wood Land & Cattle (MO) Wyoming Association for Environmental Education (WY) YouthMuse (IL) Zoo Atlanta (GA)
CC: The Honorable Jeffrey Zients, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget The Honorable Nancy Sutley, Chairwoman, White House Council for Environmental Quality The Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency The Honorable Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Honorable Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation The Honorable Charles Bolden, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Patrick Fitzgerald Director of Education Advocacy National Wildlife Federation National Advocacy Center 901 E St, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 www.nwf.org
Phone: (202) 797-6821 | Fax: (202) 797-6646 | [email protected] | Twitter: PatrickNWF
Celebrating 75 years of protecting wildlife.
Learn More: www.BeOutThere.org/Policy www.Eco-SchoolsUSA.org www.CampusEcology.org
Final Ltr to Pres Obama - Fund Enviro Ed in FY 2014 6-6-12.pdf
June 6, 2012
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama:
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters across the country, we urge you to include funding for environmental education and climate change education programs at EPA, NOAA, NSF and NASA in your FY 2014 budget request.
We sincerely appreciate some significant Administration efforts to support environmental education, including the Department of Education’s U.S. Green Ribbon Schools Award Program, the newly re-invigorated Interagency Task Force on Environmental Education and the new MOU between Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to get more kids learning outdoors in National Parks and public lands. However, we found the Administration’s budget request for FY 2013 to be inadequate, calling for the elimination or phasing out of critical programs at EPA, NOAA and NSF. We believe that, without adequate federal funding for environmental education, America will be left behind in the 21st Century global economy.
Specifically, we request that you fund the following programs in your FY 2014 budget request:
• At least $9.7 million for EPA’s National Environmental Education Act programs; • At least $26.7 million for NOAA’s Environmental Literacy Grants program and the Bay- Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program; • At least $10 million for NSF’s Climate Change Education program; and • At least $10 million for NASA’s Climate Change Education program.
These funding levels represent the amount provided by Congress for EPA, NSF and NASA in FY 2012 and NOAA in FY 2010. With the complex environmental challenges ahead of us and the potential opportunities of a global, green economy, we believe that these numbers should truly be a minimum benchmark for the FY 2014 budget request.
Each of these agencies plays a critical role in supporting environmental education by building on the agency’s mission and strengths. For example, NOAA’s programs focus on watershed education while NASA’s focus on earth and climate science. We also believe that the new Interagency Task Force on Environmental Education will provide valuable guidance for future budget requests as well as increase coordination among all agencies.
In order to ensure our nation remains globally competitive in the 21st Century workforce and fosters innovation in America, our citizens must have an understanding of the environmental challenges and the opportunities that impact our economy, health, national security and energy independence. Research indicates that environmental education increases critical thinking skills and improves performance on standardized tests, including in STEM (science, technology, June 6, 2012 Page 2 engineering and math) subject areas. This investment in environmental education is vital to America’s economic future.
In addition, environmental education more broadly has overwhelming public support. Fully 95 percent of American adults and 96 percent of parents support environmental education being taught in the schools according to an environment survey conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide.
The National Environmental Education Act programs at the EPA support life-long environmental education and stewardship through several highly-leveraged, but under-resourced programs including the National Environmental Education Training Program to provide professional development for teachers, the National Environmental Education Foundation to leverage public/private partnerships, and an environmental education grant program to support local environmental education providers. All 50 states benefit from these successful programs.
The Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG) and Bay-Watershed Education and Training (B- WET) programs at NOAA have enabled the agency, as the nation's leading expert on weather, coastal and ocean information, to partner with the nation's top non-profit organizations and educators to put this information to good use while helping to fulfill NOAA's stewardship mandate. As our nation begins to grapple with the complexities and challenges of diminishing ocean, coastal and watershed resources, they are timely and highly relevant. The NOAA ELG program has reached more 8,000 teachers and 2.6 million students each year. The NOAA B- WET program supports locally relevant, experiential learning in the K-12 environment, with the purpose of increasing understanding of how the quality of the watershed affects the lives of the people who live in it. B-WET supports programs for students as well as professional development for teachers, while supporting regional education and conservation priorities. The B-WET program supports 120 projects funded in six regions of the country, impacting 21 states. More than 57,000 students and 2,400 teachers and community leaders are reached each year.
Both NASA and NSF’s climate change education programs are helping to advance the Administration’s clean energy and STEM agendas. The NSF Climate Change Education Program plays a critical, truly educational role in NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability program and will be critical to the success of this important initiative. The NASA Innovations in Global Climate Change Program through the Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP) at NASA advances the critical goal of improving the teaching and learning about global climate change in underrepresented and underserved elementary and secondary schools and on college campuses.
Each of these four programs plays a critical role in preparing our nation for the 21st Century global economy where every job will soon be a “green job.” We again urge you to fund these critical environmental education programs at a minimum of the FY 2012 levels listed in this letter.
Should you have any questions about this letter, please have your staff contact Patrick Fitzgerald at the National Wildlife Federation ([email protected] / 202-797-6821), Jim Elder at the Campaign for Environmental Literacy ([email protected] / 978-526-7768) or Judy Braus at the June 6, 2012 Page 3
North American Association for Environmental Education ([email protected] / 202-419-0414). Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely, National and Regional Organizations
National Wildlife Federation Four Corners School of Outdoor Association of Zoos and Aquariums Education Campaign for Environmental Literacy Healthy Schools Network Chesapeake Bay Foundation Izaak Walton League of America Earth Day Network Jane Goodall Institute North American Association for Keep America Beautiful Environmental Education National Association of State Park Sierra Club Directors Afterschool Alliance National Aquarium Alice Ferguson Foundation National Center for Science Education, Alliance for Climate Education Inc. Alliance for the Great Lakes National Council for Science and the American Camp Association, Inc. Environment American Community Gardening National Hispanic Environmental Association Council American Forest Foundation National Parks Conservation Association American Forests National Project for Excellence in American Horticultural Society Environmental Education Association of Nature Center National Recreation and Park Administrators Association Association of School Business Officials Natural Resources Defense Council International NatureBridge Association of Partners for Public The Ocean Project LandsAudubon Naturalist Society The Outdoor Foundation Children & Nature Network Project WET Foundation USA Program Choose Outdoors Recycle Across America and the Common Ground for Conservation Environmental Advancement Council for Environmental Education Foundation Council of Educational Facility Planners The School for Field Studies International Sea Research Foundation Council of Environmental Deans and Sierra Nevada Journeys Directors Southwest Conservation Corps Earth Force Student Conservation Association EarthEcho International SustainUS: U.S. Youth for Sustainable Eco Think LLC Development Ecological Society of America Trout Unlimited Environment for the Americas The Wilderness Society Environmental & Human Systems Wildlife Conservation Society Management
June 6, 2012 Page 4
State and Local Organizations
350.org of Laramie (WY) Child Abuse Prevention Services, Inc. Alaska Natural Resource and Outdoor (NC) Education Association (AK) Christ Light of the Nations Catholic Aldo Leopold High School (NM) School (MO) Alliance for New Jersey Environmental Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PA) Education (NJ) Claytor Nature Study Center of Alliance for Sustainable Colorado (CO) Lynchburg College (VA) Anacostia Watershed Society (MD) Colorado Alliance for Environmental AnywhereThatsWild.com of Education (CO) Jacksonville (FL) Colorado Mountain Club (CO) Ancestral Knowledge (Primitive Colorado Youth Corps Association (CO) Technology) (OR) Connecticut Forest & Park Association Appalachian Trail Conservancy (VA) (CT) Arizona Wildlife Education Foundation Connecticut Outdoor & Environmental (AZ) Educators Association (CT) Arkansas Environmental Education Conservation Council for Hawai'i (HI) Association (AR) Conservation Federation of Missouri Arkansas Wildlife Federation (AR) (MO) Artist Boat (TX) Core Sound Waterfowl Museum & Association of Northwest Steelheaders Heritage Center (NC) (OR) Cosley Zoo (IL) Audubon Nebraska (NE) Dauphin Island Sea Lab (AL) Audubon Pennsylvania (PA) dcgreenworks.org (DC) Audubon Society of Rhode Island (RI) Delaware Nature Society (DE) Bats in Flight (NM) Discover Life (GA) Bayou Land Conservancy (TX) Dragonfly Nature and Science Center Beyond The Walls Nature Programs (NM) (MD) Dumbarton Oaks Park Conservancy Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program (DC) (NM) E2 Evaluation (IL) Buffalo Audubon Society, Inc. (NY) Earthshine Nature Programs (NC) Cache Valley No Child Left Inside (UT) East Bay Regional Park District (CA) Camp Shady Grove (MD) Eastern Shore Bird Club (VA) California Institute for Biodiversity (CA) Ecology in Classrooms & Outdoors Canopy in the Clouds (CA) (OR) Center for a Livable Future, Johns Environment Education Connections of Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public South Dakota (SD) Health (MD) Environmental Education Association of The Center for the Celebration of New Mexico (NM) Creation (PA) The Environmental Education Council Chicago Conservation Corps (IL) of Ohio (OH)
June 6, 2012 Page 5
Environmental Educators of North Hawaii Environmental Education Carolina (NC) Alliance (HI) Environmental Charter Schools (CA) Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont Environmental Education Alliance of Natural History (SC) Georgia (GA) Idaho Environmental Education Environmental Education Association of Association (ID) Oregon (OR) Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve Environmental Systems Analysis & Education Programs Stanford Management Department of Biology University (CA) Sacred Heart University (MI) John Bunker Sands Wetland Center Expeditionary Learning (NY) (TX) Exploring Portland's Natural Areas Kansas Association for Conservation (children and nature blog) (OR) and Environmental Education (KS) Fair Lawn High School Environmental Kansas Wildlife Federation (KS) Club (NJ) Lincoln Park Zoo (IL) Florida Wildlife Federation (FL) Llano River Field Station (TX) Forests Forever Incorporated (OR) Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MD) Friends of the Cobbossee Watershed Maryland Ornithological Society (MD) (ME) Maryland Trout in the Classroom (MD) Friends of the National Forests & Materials for the Arts (NY) Grasslands in Texas (TX) Metro Omaha Resources for Exploring Friends of Tryon Creek State Park (OR) Nature (NE) Galveston County Audubon Group (TX) Mid-Atlantic Council Trout Unlimited Geographic Educators of Nebraska (NE) (MD) Georgia Wildlife Federation (GA) Minnesota Association for Georgian Court University (NJ) Environmental Education (MN) Getting Kids Outdoors in Emmet County Montana Wilderness School (MT) (MI) Montgomery County Public Schools Grandfather Mountain Stewardship Outdoor Education Association (MD) Foundation (NC) Museum of Science, Boston (MA) Great Basin Bioneers (UT) Nature Connections (CO) Great Egg Harbor Watershed Nature Into Action (NJ) Association (NJ) Nature's Classroom Institute (WI) Green Collar Futures (NJ) Navitat Canopy Adventures (NC) Green Schools Initiative (CA) Nebraska Wildlife Federation (NE) Green Schools, Inc (MA) New Jersey Audubon (NJ) The Greening of Detroit (MI) New Mexico Project Learning Tree Greening Youth Foundation (GA) (NM) Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (TX) New York Harbor Foundation (NY) Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition North Carolina Children and Nature (SC) Coalition (NC) Hackensack Riverkeeper (NJ) North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NC) Hardwick Energy Action Resource NoVA Outside (VA) Team (VT) Openlands (IL) June 6, 2012 Page 6
Pacific Education Institute (WA) Trinity University, Sustainability Pajarito Environmental Education Committee (TX) Center (NM) Trunks & Leaves Inc. (MA) Pennsylvania Association of U.S. Green Building Council - Georgia Environmental Educators (PA) Chapter (GA) Planning and Conservation League University of Hawaii at Manoa Ecology (CA) Chapter of the Ecological Society of Rhode Island Environmental Education America, Strategies for Ecology Association (RI) Education, Diversity and Sustainability RiverzEdge Arts Project (RI) Program (HI) Rock Creek Conservancy (DC) Upstate Forever (SC) Rogers High School Outdoor Education Utah State University Student Course C.A.R.E. (Conservation And Sustainability Council (UT) Recreation Education) (AR) Valley Nature Center (TX) Sandia Mountain Natural History Center Vietnamese American Young Leaders (NM) Association of New Orleans (LA) Saturday Environmental Academy (DC) Virginia Conservation Network (VA) Save The Bay, Narragansett Bay (RI) Warner Park Nature Center (TN) Science and Engineering Alliance, Inc. Weber High School Environmental (DC) Science Class (UT) Shaver's Creek Environmental Center West Atlanta Watershed Alliance (GA) (PA) West Virginia Rivers Coalition (WV) Siskiyou Field Institute (OR) The Wetlands Institute (NJ) South Carolina Wildlife Federation (SC) Wild Bear Center for Nature Discovery SouthEastern Communites Against (CO) Pollution (MD) Wildlife Management Program, Springfield Township Parks and University of Puerto Rico at Humacao Recreation (MI) (PR) St. Lawrence Land Trust (NY) Will Steger Foundation (MN) Talking Talons Youth Leadership, Inc. Wisconsin Association for (NM) Environmental Education (WI) Teaching & Learning Collaborative Wisconsin Environmental Education (OH) Board (WI) Tennessee Geographic Alliance (TN) Wood Land & Cattle (MO) Texas Association for Environmental Wyoming Association for Education (TX) Environmental Education (WY) Third Mind, Inc. (TX) YouthMuse (IL) Thunder Hill Nature Alliance (MD) Zoo Atlanta (GA) Trees for Trenton (NJ)
CC: The Honorable Jeffrey Zients, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget The Honorable Nancy Sutley, Chairwoman, White House Council for Environmental Quality The Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency June 6, 2012 Page 7
The Honorable Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Honorable Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation The Honorable Charles Bolden, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Paul Billings To Arvin Ganesan, Laura Vaught, Bob Perciasepe, Michael Goo,
FYIcheckoutourneweditorialcartoonandPetersblogabouttheimportanceofkeepingthepollution coponthebeat. [email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988
Keep Pollution Cops On The Beat: Congress Proposes Stripping $100 Million From Clean Air Enforcement
By Climate Guest Blogger on Jan 9, 2013 at 10:30 am by Peter Iwanowicz
The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful public health laws we have. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assessment of the Act finds that in 2010 alone, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than: 160,000 cases of premature mortality; 130,000 heart attacks; 13 million lost work days; and, 1.7 million asthma attacks.
Under normal implementation and enforcement of the Act, the EPA projects that in 2020, benefits will be even greater, preventing more than 230,000 cases of premature mortality, 200,000 heart attacks, 17 million lost work days, and, 2.4 million asthma attacks. The health benefits are expected to exceed $2 trillion while the costs will be $85 billion.
We are, however, working in anything but “normal” circumstances and EPA’s ability to realize these benefits is under significant risk.
For the past two years, Big Polluters and their allies in Congress have been working to roll back, weaken and block critically important updates to clean air standards that the EPA is required to make under the Act. These efforts included attempts to permanently block EPA rules that would limit standards to limit toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants and protect us from air pollution that blows into other states. At the urging of Big Oil, members of Congress have also tried to strip away EPA’s authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which not only endangers our health today but also future generations by increasing temperatures that significantly contribute to the formation of lethal ozone (smog) pollution. Other attacks on the Clean Air Act have focused on undermining the very core of this public health focused law by attempting to block consideration of health benefits in setting clean air protections
Thus far, these attempts to impede our nation’s healthy air progress have been thwarted by the leadership in the Senate and the effective implementation of this healthy air law by the Obama Administration. Except for the outrageous decision made by the President in September 2011 to reject EPA’s proposed health standard for ozone, the Administration has largely acted to implement the Clean Air Act as required and as a result millions of people will lead healthier lives and tens of thousands will not die prematurely.
While Congress has reached a short-term agreement to avoid the so called “fiscal cliff,” the across the board budget cuts are still looming and could truly weaken the effectiveness of current air quality safeguards as Congress considers ways to reduce spending. Here’s why: According to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) more than $100 million in budget cuts to EPA’s Air program are proposed. Twenty-percent of the cut would be to the funds provided to states and local governments who monitor air pollution levels and administer permits for industrial facilities among other key aspect of the Act. In addition, EPA’s budget for enforcement would also be cut by $64.5 million.
The inevitable result if these cuts are made will be delayed enforcement, fewer inspections of polluting facilities and a serious hit to the public’s right to know about levels of pollution in the air. Big Polluters might enjoy having fewer cops on the beat, but those who get sick and those that might die prematurely because air quality is not improving or being sufficiently monitored deserve better. The Clean Air Act promises healthy air for all to breathe. Fights over tax rates and deficit reduction should not have us reaching for a gas mask as a means of getting cleaner air.
Over the past two years, public support for the Clean Air Act has prevailed over the wishes of Big Polluters. Now more than ever Congress needs to hear from you. There is a way to balance the need for deficit reduction and at the same time, improve lung health.
Peter Iwanowicz is Assistant Vice President of the American Lung Association. Cartoon by John de Rosier .
*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************
This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.
If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name.
For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.
*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe
Alotofpeoplewillbreatheeasierbecauseoftodaysaction.
Thanks Paul NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe
FYIBob Cheers Paul NOTEnewemail[email protected]Ͳpleaseupdateyourcontacts PaulG.Billings VicePresidentNationalPolicy&Advocacy AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805
Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe
Bob- FYI in can you missed this story
Obama administration slows environmental rules as it weighs political cost By Juliet Eilperin, Published: February 12 After pushing through some of the most sweeping and contentious environmental measures in years, the Obama administration has slowed action on several policies as it calculates what it should undertake before the end of the term. Rules aimed at curbing emissions from cars and light trucks are on hold because the White House has yet to give the Office of Management and Budget the go-ahead to review them. And a proposal to regulate soot, ready last fall, will not be issued before June. Several of the regulations hanging in the balance have broad support among not just environmentalists but key industries as well as hunters and anglers. But they could impose new costs on consumers and certain sectors of the economy, which has sparked opposition and complicated the administration’s political calculus. “Behind the scenes [the Environmental Protection Agency] is pressing to get rules out before the administration pulls up the drawbridge and goes into campaign mode,” said Joe Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton & Williams. “It will be a battle to see how far down EPA’s shopping list they get.” White House spokesman Clark Stevens wrote in an e-mail that the administration would seek to balance economic and environmental considerations when deciding what regulations to issue in the coming year. “The administration has a strong record of implementing smart, sensible steps that protect consumers, public health, and the environment, informed by feedback from the public and industry and guided by the president’s goal of supporting economic growth while protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Stevens wrote. “This includes historic fuel economy standards that will dramatically reduce oil consumption, slash vehicle emissions, all while saving American families thousands of dollars at the pump, as well as the first national standard for mercury emissions.” The fight over whether to propose a new federal fuel and vehicle program — known as “Tier 3,” because it’s the third iteration of rules aimed at curbing emissions from cars and light trucks — epitomizes the dilemma the administration faces. In late December, the EPA completed the package of proposed rules, which would slash the amount of sulfur in U.S. gasoline by two-thirds while imposing fleetwide pollution limits on new vehicles. But because the rules must undergo a review by the Office of Management and Budget before being issued and the White House has yet to grant the agency clearance to send the package over, it remains in regulatory limbo. A broad group of auto companies, environmentalists, equipment manufacturers and state regulators support it because it would curb air pollution and help cars run more efficiently at a modest cost. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies commissioned a study that estimated the cleanup would cost less than a penny a gallon. Automakers say the rule, which would lower the sulfur content of gas from 30 to 10 parts per million, will give them greater regulatory certainty by bringing federal standards in line with those of California. But the American Petroleum Institute said it could force up to seven U.S. refineries to close and boost gas prices 25 cents a gallon, a point that presidential candidate and former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) made during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” a week ago. Obama, Gingrich said, “has an Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would raise the price of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon. There are very few Americans who want to see the price of gasoline raised by government [by] 25 cents a gallon.” On Jan. 12 a bipartisan group of six senators, led by James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), urged EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to “reconsider the timing” for issuing the new rules because “experts suggest it will be expensive to remove additional and de minimus amounts of sulfur from fuel.” Patrick Kelly, the American Petroleum Institute’s senior policy adviser for downstream and industry operations, said the program’s supporters underestimate the number of refineries that could close as a result of the rule and fail to factor in that it will require refineries to increase their carbon emissions because cutting sulfur consumes energy. But Margo Oge, who directs the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said at last month’s Washington Auto Show that API has analyzed a plan “EPA is not planning to propose.” Many state and local regulators say that without the program, they will have to regulate small businesses to meet upcoming air quality standards. Christophe Tulou, who directs the District’s Department of the Environment, said the rule is essential to cutting nitrogen oxide emissions that help form smog. “In D.C., we have nowhere else to go to get the air quality improvements we need,” Tulou said, “no major sources to regulate, and the ones we have are already under much more rigid requirements than power plants outside our region.” Many environmentalists are even more frustrated about the delay in rules that would regulate 1 fine particulate matter, which measures less than 2.5 micrometers, or about / 30 the width of an average human hair. The soot rules have been a source of litigation for years: In 2009 a federal court invalidated regulations proposed under President George W. Bush, and although EPA staff members finalized a new package by last fall, EPA officials have said they will not issue a proposal before June, which could be finalized a year later. Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort, whose group successfully fought the Bush proposal and may sue again, said he could not understand why the agency would delay rules that by its own estimates could prevent at least 10,500 premature deaths each year. Attorneys general from 11 states, led by New York, sued the EPA on Friday in an effort to compel it to update the standard. “We are trying to get EPA off the dime here to do something,” Cort said in an interview. EPA spokeswoman Betsaida Alcantara wrote in an e-mail that the agency had received considerable feedback on several unfinished regulations, whether it was new vehicle and fuel standards or a proposal to classify the waste from coal combustion, known as coal ash, as a hazardous pollutant. The EPA, she wrote “is engaged in a deliberative and extensive process, reviewing hundreds of thousands of comments and engaging all stakeholders to ensure that any standards are both effective and scientifically and legally sound.” In the meantime, the administration’s critics and allies are left wondering what might make it into law. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and power, said the EPA should examine the economic impact of all its pending regulations — including one limiting greenhouse gas emissions from newly permitted utilities, which it plans to propose by the end of the month — before issuing any of them. “The effect of all these rules taken together should be evaluated for overall additional costs to consumers and to business before EPA moves forward,” Whitfield said. Paul Schmidt, chief conservation officer for Ducks Unlimited, was one of several conservation leaders who pressed senior administration officials at a White House meeting Jan. 30 to finalize guidance that would impose stricter pollution controls on millions of acres of wetlands and tens of thousands of miles of streams. “They were sensitive to and supportive of our request, but they were non-committal,” Schmidt said. “EPA has just been a political target. It’s almost that they’re weary of these attacks, and they don’t want to issue a regulation that causes another headline.” NOTEnewemail[email protected]Ͳpleaseupdateyourcontacts PaulG.Billings VicePresidentNationalPolicy&Advocacy AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe
Bob Certainly very true. Peace Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:41 PM, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Paul:
It is good, on what has nationally been a horrible day
Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator
(o) +1 202 564 4711 (c) +1 (b) (6)
From: Paul Billings
Alotofpeoplewillbreatheeasierbecauseoftodaysaction.
Thanks Paul NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe, Gina McCarthy
FYIincaseyoumissedyesterdaysNYTimeseditorialcallforEPAandtheAdministrationtostopfootdraggingon Tier3andotherlifesavingrules. Editorial Rules Delayed, Governing Denied Published: August 11, 2012 It has been 19 months since President Obama signed into law the Food Safety Modernization Act, the first overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration’s food safety laws since the 1930s. But if you think the food supply has become markedly safer since then, think again. The F.D.A. rules needed to carry out the law are still held up as a review by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget enters its eighth month. While coordinating suggestions from various agencies can take time, a delay of eight months and counting lends credence to the suspicions of consumer advocates who think election-year politics are at play, with Democrats trying to avoid Republican charges that rules kill jobs. The budget office denies this, and can point to many rules that have been approved, including a crucial one reducing mercury emissions from power plants. But several important rules, like those on food safety, remain in limbo. Such delays call into question the Obama administration’s commitment to reforms that are needed to make government work better and more effectively. Here are some regulations that must not be allowed to languish: ENVIRONMENT Clean-water regulations that would almost certainly have received White House approval in a nonelection year include a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule to protect millions of acres of wetlands from commercial development. The E.P.A. itself has repeatedly postponed the effective date of a separate rule, approved over two years ago, that would regulate and reduce the harmful nutrients flowing into Florida’s water bodies — a rule hotly opposed by developers in a hotly contested state. On clean air, rules to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline, cut pollution from cement kilns and regulate the disposal of toxic coal ash have been pigeonholed, delayed or revised to industry’s liking. It is not always clear whether the delays emanate from the White House or from the E.P.A. itself, though if the agency is dragging its feet, a push from Mr. Obama would break the logjam. What is clear is that the delayed rules are almost always those that have offended powerful interest groups and been attacked by Republicans as job-killers. HOME CARE AIDES Under longstanding and grossly unfair labor rules, home care aides are deemed “companions,” a label that exempts employers from having to pay minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime. Last December, Mr. Obama held an upbeat news conference to announce new Labor Department rules “guaranteeing home-care workers minimum wage and overtime pay protections.” And yet, eight months later — and five months after the close of the public comment period on the rules — the Labor Department has still not even submitted them to the O.M.B. for the required vetting. In the past, for-profit home-care agencies have argued that labor protections for the workers would harm small business, while some states have argued that they would harm state budgets. The best guess is that those forces are protesting again — behind the scenes. DEBTOR PROTECTION Several agencies submitted a rule to the budget office early this year to block creditors from garnishing bank accounts of individuals who receive federal aid for veterans, the poor, the aged and the disabled. The aim is to ensure that taxpayer-provided benefits are not routed to creditors, and to shield poor recipients from destitution. But the rule had a loophole that would have left some debtors vulnerable to impoverishing garnishment, and the O.M.B. correctly declined to let it sail through the review process. Unfortunately, there has been no sign of progress on a revised rule since then. What is needed are regulations to shield all federal aid from garnishment to protect the needy from ruthless debt collection. These are some of the rules left unfinished when the White House’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, recently resigned. Reform advocates had been disappointed in Mr. Sunstein, and by extension, Mr. Obama, for an approach to rules that often seemed to emphasize their burdens rather than their benefits, playing into the Republican charge that regulation is inherently bad. Which, of course, it isn’t. Well-crafted rules are necessary to ensure fairness, health and safety in a complex, industrialized society, and are a necessary responsibility of government. A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 12, 2012, on page SR12 of the New York edition with the headline: Rules Delayed, Governing Denied. NOTEnewemail[email protected]Ͳpleaseupdateyourcontacts PaulG.Billings VicePresidentNationalPolicy&Advocacy AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe, Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe
'Big Oil' huddles with Obama's 'first friend,' and refining rules stall
Jeremy P. Jacobs and Mike Soraghan, E&E reporters
Published: Tuesday, October 2, 2012
At 9:30 a.m. on a warm day in March, eight men and two women stepped off Pennsylvania Avenue and into the northwest gate of the White House.
They were top-level refining executives from the world's largest oil companies, Chevron Corp., Marathon Oil Corp. and BP PLC, escorted by Jack Gerard, the brash president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's top lobby.
Ushered into the West Wing, they met Valerie Jarrett, a longtime confidante of President Obama and White House power player whose second-floor office was once occupied by George W. Bush consigliere Karl Rove.
In the weeks before the meeting, EPA was advancing toward the White House new restrictions on the amount of sulfur in gasoline. Oil refiners wanted the rules stopped, and they had an argument that could scare any president facing re-election -- the rules would increase gasoline prices.
Prices at the pump were rising toward $4 a gallon, a level that had inspired a Republican rebellion in Congress that threatened Obama's election in the summer of 2008.
Since that meeting with Jarrett, best known as Obama's "first friend," the sulfur rules have stalled in bureaucratic limbo while environmentalists have stewed.
The White House declined to comment or provide information on the specifics discussed at the meeting. Neither would API, but officials there confirmed that delaying development of the rules was a top priority.
The timing is suspicious to those who have spent years fighting to lower the sulfur content of the nearly 370 million gallons of gasoline burned every day.
"It is appalling to think that the president's chief confidante may have sacrificed public health in order to appease Big Oil," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "This meeting could also explain why EPA was never permitted to move forward on these very critical standards. They may have been killed behind closed White House doors." EPA would say only that it is still developing the Tier 3 standards. The oil company executives who attended did not return messages.
The meetings also offer clues about the careful détente that has emerged between the White House and the oil industry on select issues like Tier 3 and hydraulic fracturing.
"A meeting at that level is a great coup for an industry, though maybe not surprising for an industry as powerful as the oil industry," said Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics. "This is the sort of meeting where what is said can go directly to the president."
EPA had been widely expected to propose lowering the sulfur standard from 30 parts per million to 10 ppm, bringing the United States in line with many European countries, Japan and even California, which has already made the shift to tighter limits. The regulations have been a top priority for environmental groups, as lower sulfur leads to significantly less harmful air emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide in tailpipe exhaust.
The oil industry has staunchly opposed the proposal, arguing that the standards would translate into higher gas prices at the pump and could even force some refineries to close.
Momentum builds, along with push-back
In the weeks before the March 7 meeting, momentum was building behind the Tier 3 standards.
Near the end of January, EPA indicated in its regulatory agenda that it would issue the proposal by March with hopes of finishing it in October. Shortly after that, though, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a congressional committee that the target date for finalizing the rules could have slipped by four months or more.
Within the following month, The New York Times editorialized in favor of moving forward and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy fired back at industry with a letter to congressional Republicans rebutting warnings about price increases.
Who was at the meeting?
On the morning of March 7, 10 representatives of the world's largest oil companies met with Valerie Jarrett, a top White House aide and close confidante of President Obama. According to records released by the White House, the following people were in attendance:
• Robert Genovese, vice president for U.S. regulatory affairs, BP PLC.
• Dale Walsh, president, Chevron Products-Americas.
• Garry Peiffer, executive vice president of corporate planning and investor and government relations, Marathon Oil Corp.
• Jack Gerard, president and CEO, American Petroleum Institute.
• Charles Drevna, president, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. • Mike Brien, general manager of federal and international affairs, BP.
• David Sander, manager, federal government relations, Chevron.
• Patricia Richards, vice president, federal government affairs, Marathon.
• Khary Cauthen, federal relations, API.
• Misty McGowen, federal relations, API.
-- Mike Soraghan
The new sulfur limits, McCarthy said, would add a penny a gallon to prices, not the 6 to 9 cents per gallon industry studies estimated. Several refineries, McCarthy wrote, were already reducing sulfur content in their fuel.
"As many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to European countries gasoline that meets this standard," McCarthy wrote (E&ENews PM , Feb. 28).
On top of that, automakers also threw their support behind the proposal, creating an unprecedented level of agreement on an auto air rule at such an early stage, said Paul Billings of the American Lung Association.
"I can't recall any of the previous light-duty rules for tailpipes," Billings said, "where we've had this kind of buy-in up front."
On the other side of the issue, the oil industry was becoming increasingly vocal about its opposition to the measure. API issued multiple studies on the potential cost impact of the new sulfur standard and warned, in conference calls with reporters, that it would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire , Feb. 10).
Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of those who met with Jarrett on March 7, told E&ETV's OnPoint in an interview aired several days before the meeting that Tier 3 could shut down refineries.
"Most refiners are going to have to do significant upgrades for those hydrotreaters to take out that last little bit of sulfur. So, in essence, you may have some refineries not be able to do it. You may have some refineries that will shut down" (OnPoint, March 1).
Republicans on Capitol Hill have repeatedly sought to delay the Tier 3 rules, passing multiple pieces of legislation in the House that target the regulations. But none of those bills has moved in the Senate.
Asked about Gerard's meeting with Jarrett, API spokesman Reid Porter wouldn't provide details but forwarded a transcript of a Feb. 10 media briefing featuring Howard Feldman, API's director of regulatory and scientific affairs. Feldman laid out his organization's top concerns with the Obama administration's plans, including greenhouse gas rules for refineries, air standards for industrial boilers and new emissions standards for refineries. But Feldman started and ended with the industry's objection to the Tier 3 sulfur rules.
"We would again call on EPA to not issue a Tier 3 vehicle emission proposal before there is a full airing of the impacts, costs and benefits of further reductions of sulfur and vapor pressure in gasoline," Feldman said.
In response to questions, EPA issued a statement saying it is still developing the sulfur rules.
"The agency continues to engage a diverse group of stakeholders as it develops the proposal and assesses further cost-effective reductions of harmful tailpipe emissions," the statement said.
Obama's link to the world
It's difficult to clearly define Jarrett's role within Obama's inner circle.
Like the previous occupant of her office, Rove, Jarrett is known as a savvy operative whose title, "senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental relations and public liaison," significantly understates her influence.
Obama met her on his way up in Chicago politics, and her role has been described as the president's link to the world outside the White House bubble.
In early September, The New York Times quoted a former senior White House official who called her "the single most influential person in the Obama White House."
Around the time of her meeting with API and the supermajors, lobbyists for industry and environmental groups were both filling up the appointment calendars of administration officials.
Public health advocates met with Heather Zichal, Obama's top assistant for climate and energy issues, in early March, before the industry meeting with Jarrett, according to a participant in the meeting.
Green groups also had frequent calls with EPA from mid-February into early March. One participant, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said EPA assured them that the proposal was finished by the end of last year, and the agency's top political appointees were comfortable with the package.
But rising gas prices were also entering the presidential race around this time. On Feb. 5, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then still a contender for the Republican nomination, said the policy would raise gas prices by a quarter per gallon, citing a flawed API study. API later revised its projections, lowering its estimate to a 6- to 9-cent-per-gallon increase (E&ENews PM , March 22). The nonpartisan Politifact.com said Gingrich's claim was "false."
"I think that sort of charge, bogus as it was, really intimidated the White House," said O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "And it led to the slowdown."
Ahead of the health advocates' early March meeting, Gerard and six top executives from API had met with Zichal, who'd been a top aide to former Obama energy and environmental adviser Carol Browner before Browner departed the White House.
A little more than a month later, on April 13, Gerard would meet with Zichal again, this time joined by American Chemistry Council Vice President Michael Walls and Regina Hopper, president of America's Natural Gas Alliance.
On the same day, Obama issued an executive order creating a new "interagency working group" to promote the safe development of shale gas and coordinate policy on drilling, a move that API had requested. He tapped Zichal to chair the group.
In May, Zichal started talking publicly about the Obama administration's new and improved relationship with the oil and gas industry.
Invited to speak before reporters at an API luncheon, Zichal touted the administration's support for increased domestic production, challenging the Republican charge that the boom in drilling came despite administration policies to thwart it.
She borrowed some of the language of the oil and gas lobby, stressing the importance of oil and gas for job creation and energy security. And she joined the industry in its position that state oil and gas officials, rather than federal agencies such as EPA, should serve as the "lead regulators" of drilling.
"It's been incredibly helpful, to have their information to inform our thinking," she said.
Since then, the administration has also agreed to an industry request to slow progress on a proposal to require public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public lands. It extended a deadline for drillers to comply with new air rules, which a spokesman cited from the press room lectern as an example of cooperation with industry.
The administration put together a task force set up to resolve drillers' concerns about a multiyear study of hydraulic fracturing by the United States and assembled a working group including EPA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to resolve the gas industry's complaints about EPA figures on the amount of gas that drillers vent into the atmosphere.
After her May speech, Zichal sought to tamp down the idea that the administration had gotten too close with "Big Oil."
"It's probably safe to say the notion that we rolled out the welcome mat or had this hunky-dory relationship where we're all holding hands and singing Kumbaya is not exactly where we're at today." she said. "It's been very good, but it's not terribly smooth sailing, either."
But Gerard didn't hesitate to brag that his industry had brought the administration to heel.
"The administration's views are clearly moving," Gerard told reporters. "There has been a recognition that some of the proposals they have made need to be pushed back and need to be modified because many of them were counterproductive to energy production and job creation in the country."
NOTE new email [email protected]
Paul G. Billings
Senior Vice President, Advocacy & Education
American Lung Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20004-1725
Phone: 202-785-3355 x 3988
Fax: 202 -452-1805
Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe, Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe, Joseph
FYIremindseveryonewhyNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsareimportantandwhatisatstake. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/16/4632996/speakͲyourͲmindͲonͲhealthͲofͲyour.html Editorial: Speak your mind on health of your lungs Published Monday, Jul. 16, 2012 Lydia Rojas' 15- year-old daughter suffered an asthma attack so severe she died. Even though he had never smoked, 33-year-old Robert Linkul of Sacramento contracted a rare from of cancer that forced the removal of the lower lobe of his left lung. Vallejo fifth-grader Jaxin Woodward is an avid runner, but severe asthma forces her to curtail her passion for the sport. These are just a handful of California residents who are set to testify before federal Environmental Protection Agency officials in Sacramento on Thursday. The hearing is one of two EPA is holding across the country to gather information about its proposed new standard for protecting the public from fine particulate pollution, one of the more deadly forms of air irritants. These microscopic bits of dust, soot, metals, acid, pollen and molds can damage lungs, aggravate asthma, trigger cancers and hasten death. EPA has proposed a standard for fine particles that the American Lung Association complains does not go far enough to protect public health. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation that would force the agency for the first time to factor in feasibility and cost when setting air pollution standards. Cost and feasibility are appropriately considered now, but at the state and air district level where final environmental rules are drafted and implemented. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to consider health science only when setting standards. The law is intended to give the public an unvarnished assessment of what is needed to protect it from the damaging impacts of air pollution. Nowhere is the debate over air pollution standards and the methods used to determine those standards more important than in California. Residents of our state breathe the dirtiest air in the nation. At the southern tip of the San Joaquin Valley, particulate pollution is particularly severe. In late summer the primary source of particulates is diesel truck emissions. In winter, it's wood smoke. The American Lung Association says that nationwide tougher standards would prevent 35,700 premature deaths, 2,350 heart attacks, more than 23,000 visits to hospitals and emergency rooms, 1.4 million cases of aggravated asthma and 2.7 million days of missed work or school. Children like Woodward would benefit the most. Their young lungs are still developing. Bits of soot and ash breathed deep can lodge in airways and even enter the bloodstream, impeding lung development with debilitating repercussions that last a lifetime. People who breathe the air in California and have a direct stake in this debate have a rare opportunity this week to weigh in on it. Public hearing The EPA's Sacramento hearing begins at 9 a.m. Thursday at the California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street. NOTEnewemail[email protected]Ͳpleaseupdateyourcontacts PaulG.Billings VicePresidentNationalPolicy&Advocacy AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe, Gina McCarthy, Joseph Goffman, Janet
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-obama-i-kn ow-8280981.html
The Obama I know My long-time colleague and friend always focused on policy, not politics. President Barack Obama is a good man in a crisis and a great leader for better times During my three-and-a-half years in the Obama administration, I was privileged to be present when the President made a number of important decisions. As the election approaches, two of those stand out. It is March 2009. The futures of General Motors and Chrysler are at stake. Battered by the economy and their own mistakes, they need billions of dollars in federal money to survive. Those inside the administration are sharply divided. Outside, many people are arguing vociferously in favour of bankruptcy and against additional federal aid. The sceptics include the 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In the internal discussion, the President makes sure that he has elicited all the competing arguments. He decides in favour of a financial aid package, combined with strict time limits and conditions. He emphasises the centrality of the automobile industry to the US economy – and the importance of preserving countless jobs. It is September 2010. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks to finalise an air pollution rule that would significantly increase the stringency of controls on ozone emissions. Those inside the administration are sharply divided. Outside, many people are arguing vociferously in favour of finalising the rule. The advocates include many environmentalists who have been strongly supportive of President Obama. In the internal discussion, the President makes sure that he has elicited all the competing arguments. He decides to direct me to tell the EPA that he does not support finalising the ozone rule. He emphasises the importance of avoiding regulatory uncertainty, especially in an economically challenging time, and the recent issuance of other environmental regulations to reduce air pollution, including ozone emissions. In 2008, I wrote an article, “The Obama I Know”, describing my long-time friend and colleague from the University of Chicago Law School. I emphasised his independence of mind, his ability to listen, and his insistence on going wherever reason takes him. These characteristics were certainly on clear display during the discussions of the auto bailout and the ozone rule. Steady and calm, he focused only on the policy, not the politics. Of course both decisions were exceptionally controversial. And both of them were exactly right. Historians will devote countless pages to the remarkable achievements of the first term of the Obama administration – the painstaking work in rescuing the US automobile industry; the stimulus package that saved more than a million jobs and helped to avert a depression; health care reform; the ending of the discriminatory policy against gays in the military; fuel economy rules that will save consumers billions of dollars and promote energy security; Wall Street reform to protect consumers and reduce the risk of another financial meltdown; an innovative “race to the top” programme, now improving educational outcomes all over the United States; an unprecedented government-wide review of regulations on the books, designed to streamline and eliminate unduly costly rules and requirements. In the domestic sphere, all this is just the tip of the iceberg. And it doesn’t even include the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ending of the war in Iraq, and the dramatic improvement in the relations between the United States and the rest of the world. The long list of achievements raises an obvious question: Why don’t the polls show that President Obama will win in a landslide? The best answer is also obvious: Whenever the economy is struggling, and whenever the unemployment rate is high, no incumbent president can escape a tough re-election fight. Political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have shown that in the 20th century, presidents have frequently been punished for misfortunes for which they cannot fairly be held responsible, including drought, flu, and even shark attacks. Through careful statistical analysis, they find that “ whenever voters are in pain, they will punish the incumbent government, as long as some more or less plausible cultural understanding connects the pain with the government”. Even with 32 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, many voters will inevitably give serious consideration to the opposing party while people continue to suffer the effects of the worst economic crisis since the Depression. I emphasised his independence of mind, his ability to listen, and his insistence on going wherever reason takes him. In terms of self-marketing, the Republican Party has of course been exceedingly skilful, not least by utterly refusing its co-operation. The intransigence started early. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made his party’s priorities crystal clear, stating, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Consistent with that goal, Republicans blocked sensible proposals, like the American Jobs Act, that borrowed several ideas directly from Republican thinking, and that would have done a lot of good for the economy. They seemed to have a motto: Whatever President Obama was for, they were against (even if they had been for it the day before). In terms of Senator McConnell’s central goal, this approach may have some advantages. Of course it is true that progressive groups have not got everything they wanted. President Obama has balanced a set of competing considerations rather than followed any orthodoxy. The frustrations of the business community, which has benefited enormously from Obama’s policies, could not have been avoided by a president who listens carefully to all sides. In light of the economic and political background, a sharply contested election was inevitable. But since January 2009, the US has been on a steady, sustained path toward economic recovery. There is every reason to think that future historians will be struck, above all, by the contrast between the overheated presidential campaign of 2012 and the strong and principled foundations that President Obama built in the preceding four years. NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe
Bob Idsurelikeanopportunitychat.Anyavailabilityearlytomorrowmorning?Illbeatmydeskby7:30 NOTEnewemail[email protected]Ͳpleaseupdateyourcontacts PaulG.Billings VicePresidentNationalPolicy&Advocacy AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Bob Perciasepe, Teri Porterfield
HiBob Iwaswonderingifyouhadsometimethisweekforabriefchat.Iaminby7:30/7:45mostdayswecan calendarsomethingoryoucancallmycell2(b) (6) whenyouhaveafewfreeminutes. thanks NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Gina McCarthy, Bob Perciasepe, Michael Goo, Joseph
FROM POLITICO: 1/8/13 12:47 PM EST Falling crude oil prices will push gasoline’s retail price down to an average of $3.44 a gallon in 2013 and $3.34 a gallon in 2014, the Energy Information Administration says in its short-term outlook today. Diesel prices are expected to drop as well, the EIA said. The agency said the Brent crude oil spot price will fall to an average of $105 per barrel this year and $99 per barrel in 2014, down from $112 in 2012. In addition, domestic crude oil production will increase to 7.3 million barrels a day in 2013 and 7.9 million barrels a day in 2014, "which would mark the highest annual average level of production since 1988.” NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Gina McCarthy, Joseph Goffman, Michael Goo, Bob
From POLITICO 1/7/2013:
GASOLINE DOWN FROM YEAR AGO: The national average for a gallon of gas yesterday was $3.30, up less than a penny from last week but down 6 cents from one month ago and 7 cents from one year ago, according to AAA. Five states have averages below $3 (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma and Minnesota) while Hawaii is the only state paying more than $4 a gallon. NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To Joseph Goffman, Bob Perciasepe, Janet McCabe, Gina
FYI [email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 From:LyndsayMoseley Sent:Friday,December14,201212:26PM To:[email protected];BrendanGilfillan([email protected]); [email protected];JohnMillett Cc:PaulBillings Subject:Statementsfromhealthgroupssupportingstrongsootstandards Dru,Brendan,Stephanie,John: FYI,hereisalinktotheLungAssociationstatementontodaysannouncementontherevisedPM standard,alsoattached:http://www.lung.org/pressͲroom/pressͲreleases/newͲsootͲstandardͲ2013.html InthereleaseisthisquotefromLydiaRojas,apowerfulmomwhoisfightingwithustomakesureno otherparentlosesachildtoanasthmaattack:"I'mamotherwhoknowsalltoowellhowdevastatingan asthmaattackcanbe,"explainedLydiaRojas,aLungAssociationvolunteerfromOxnard,Californiawho toldEPAataJulypublichearingaboutthedeathofherdaughter,Steph,fromanasthmaattackatschool ."TheEPA'sactiontodaywillmeanthatothermomswhosechildrenstruggletobreathebecauseofsoot pollutioncanknowthatmuchcleanerairiscoming.Stephwouldhavebeen22yearsoldonSunday, December16.Thisisawonderfulbirthdaygiftinhermemory." Alsoincluded(attachedandbelow)aresupportivestatementsfromourhealthpartnersfightingfor strongerairpollutionprotections. Thankyou, LyndsayF.Moseley|DirectorofAdvocacy,HealthyAirCampaign AmericanLungAssociation NationalHeadquarters 1301PennsylvaniaAve.NW,Ste.800 Washington,DC20004 Phone:202Ͳ481Ͳ7668 [email protected]|www.Lung.org
HealthandMedicalGroupsRespondtoNewSootStandard December14,2012 AsthmaandAllergyFoundationofAmerica OnbehalfoftheAsthmaandAllergyFoundationofAmerica,IcommendtheUnitedStates EnvironmentalProtectionAgencysadoptionofairqualitystandardsforparticulatematterthatfully protectthepublicshealth.Thisnewstandardassuresthatthe20millionAmericanswithasthma, including6.7millionchildren,arebreathinghealthyairthatdoesnotdamagetheirlungsandcause asthmaattacks.TodaytheEPAtookastandagainstsoottoprotectthehealthofthosemostatriskand savedthousandsoflives. ͲBillMcLin,PresidentandCEO,AsthmaandAllergyFoundationofAmerica (AAFA)
MediaInquiriesContact:AngelWaldron,AAFAExternalAffairs,202Ͳ466Ͳ7643x248,[email protected] AmericanHeartAssociation "EPA'sactionstodaywillhelptoensurethatAmericansarenotriskingtheirhearthealthbysimply takingabreath,"saidBarryA.Franklin,Ph.D.,pastAmericanHeartAssociationBoardofTrustees memberandauthoroftheAssociation'soriginalscientificstatementonfineparticulatematter."We knowthatexposuretofineparticulatemattercantriggercardiovascularproblemsandreducelife expectancy.WithcardiovasculardiseasebeingtheNo.1killerintheUnitedStates,weapplaudtheEPA foritscommitmenttoprotectingpublichealthbyreducingairpollution." MediaInquiriesContact:ChristopherGuizlo,AssociateCommunicationsManager,AmericanHeart Association,202Ͳ785Ͳ7935,[email protected] AmericanLungAssociation Weknowclearlythatparticlepollutionisharmfulatlevelswellbelowthosepreviouslydeemedtobe safe.Particlepollutioncausesprematuredeathsandillness,threateningthemillionsofAmericanswho breathehighlevelsofit.Bysettingamoreprotectivestandard,theEPAisstatingthatweasanation mustprotectthehealthofthepublicbycleaningupevenmoreofthislethalpollutant.Reducing particlepollutionwillpreventheartattacksandasthmaattacks,andwillkeepchildrenoutofthe emergencyroomandhospitals.Itwillsavelives. ͲNormanH.Edelman,MD,ChiefMedicalOfficerfor theAmericanLungAssociation MediaInquiriesContact:MaryHavellMcGinty,202Ͳ715Ͳ3459,[email protected] AmericanPublicHealthAssociation TheAmericanPublicHealthAssociationhailsEPAsstrengtheningoflimitsforfineparticulatematter, orsoot,frompowerplantsandothersourcesthatcontributestoarangeofserioushealthchallenges, includingheartattack,strokeandasthma,andevenleadstodeath.Thisrule,whichprotects communitiesacrossthecountryfromdirty,harmfulair,isapublichealthvictoryforeveryone,but particularlyforthemostvulnerableamongussuchaschildren,theelderlyandthosesufferingfrom chronichealthconditions. GeorgesC. Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E), executivedirectorof AmericanPublicHealthAssociation MediaInquiriesContact:DavidFouse,202Ͳ777Ͳ2501,[email protected] MarchofDimes "Cleanerairwillmeanhealthiermothersandbabies,"statedJenniferL.Howse,PresidentoftheMarch ofDimes."Sootisimplicatedinhealthrisksforpregnantwomen,includingpretermbirth,aswellasfor theirinfants.Themajorityoflungdevelopmentoccursafterbirth,socleanairisimportantforallbabies butespeciallyforpreemies,whoaremorelikelytosufferfromrespiratoryissues.Giventhat1in8 infantsisbornprematureinournation,thisrulewillhaveasignificantimpactonmaternalandchild health." MediaInquiriesContact:NateBrown,202Ͳ659Ͳ1800or[email protected]. NationalAssociationofCountyandCityHealthOfficials OnbehalfofAmericas2,800localhealthdepartments,NACCHOapplaudstheEnvironmental ProtectionAgencysupdated,evidenceͲbasedstandardonparticulatematter.Theupdatedstandard preventsillnessandhelpsreducehealthcarecosts.Localhealthdepartmentslaythegroundworkina communityforthekindsofchoicesthatkeeppeoplehealthyandsafe,suchasimplementingsmokeͲfree airlaws,andpartnerwithstateandfederalagenciestoensurepeoplehavecleanairtobreathe. ͲRobertM.Pestronk,MPH,ExecutiveDirector,NationalAssociationofCountyandCityHealthOfficials MediaInquiriesContact:AlisaBlum,DirectorofMediaandPublicRelations,NationalAssociationof CountyandCityHealthOfficials(NACCHO),202Ͳ507Ͳ4277,[email protected] TrustforAmericasHealth TodaysfinalizedsootstandardisanimportantstepinguaranteeingthepromiseoftheCleanAirAct. FullimplementationoftheActwillensureournationsenvironmentwillbesafer,peoplewillbe healthier,andthecountrywillsavebillions. JeffLevi,PhD,executivedirectorofTrustforAmericas Health MediaInquiriesContact:AlbertLang,CommunicationsManager,TrustforAmericasHealth, 202Ͳ223Ͳ9870x21,[email protected]
*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************
This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.
This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.
If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.
*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************
Health Partners_ 12 PM Standard Responses_Dec 2012.docx
Soot Standards Announcement 12.14.12.doc Paul Billings To LisaP Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Arvin Ganesan, Michael Goo,
HiAll Attachedaresomeselectedrecentletters,clipsandpollinginformationinsupportoftheastrongPM NAAQSthatyoumaynothaveseen.Includedinthisemailare 1.Aletterfrom9stateAttorneysGeneral 2.AletterfromtheNAACP 3.AletterfromtheAmericanNursesAssociation 4.Dec4,LATimesArticleLifeexpectancyrisesasfineparticleairpollutiondrops 5.Andover(MA)TownsmanOpͲEdfromBarbaraKwetzAllan,formerAirDirector,MassDEP 6.Helena(MT)IndependentRecordOpͲEd 7.GreenbergQuinlanRosnerResearchmemoonrecentpollingthatshowsvotersbya2Ͳ1 marginsupportastrongsootstandard Thisisonlyasmallselectionofitemsinsupportofstrongstandard.Iamhappytoprovidemoreand answeranyquestions.
Cheers NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805
AG Letter to White House OMB on PM Standards.pdf
NAACP_Soot SENATE 12-4-12.pdf
ANA Soot Standards Letter House Senate 12-6-12.pdf
LA Times_Reducing Soot Saves Lives 12-5-12.pdf Helena Independent Record_Soot Protections 11-30-12.pdf
American Lung Association Soot Standards Memo November 2012.pdf
Andover Townsman Outdated standards don't protect us from soot.pdf Paul Billings To "Heather Zichal ([email protected])", "McConville,
WearereleasingourpollcleanergasolineandvehiclesonWednesdayJanuary30.Wewillbehappyto sharethematerialswillyouaftertheyarepubliclyreleased. Media Telebriefing: New Poll Reveals Strong Support for Cleaner Gasoline and Vehicles American Lung Association hosts telebriefing to release public views of stricter standards on gasoline and vehicle emissions Washington, D.C. (January 28, 2013)
WHAT: The American Lung Association is releasing a new, nationwide bipartisan survey examining public views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) setting stricter standards on gasoline and tighter emissions standards for light duty vehicles. The results show a majority of voters across the country supports strengthening standards that limit sulfur in gasoline, which will reduce pollution from cars, trucks and SUVs, protect public health and create jobs by encouraging innovation.
The American Lung Association will host a telebriefing to reveal public opinion on this issue and to discuss upcoming regulatory activity relevant to the new data.
WHO: Paul Billings, Senior Vice President, American Lung Association Andrew Baumann, Vice President, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Lori Weigel, Partner, Public Opinion Strategies
WHEN: Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 11 a.m. ET
RSVP: For dial-in information, or more information, contact Mary Havell McGinty, [email protected]; 202-715-3459. NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Paul Billings To "[email protected]"
PleasefindtheattachedalettertothePresidentfromeighthealthgroupsurgingtheadoptionofEPA Tier3motorvehicleemissionsandfuelstandardsbyDecember31,2013.Thesestandardswill significantlyreducesmogͲformingpollutionfrommotorvehiclesandwillprotectthehealthofall Americans. Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthisissue.Iamhappytoansweranyquestions. Sincerely, PaulG.Billings [email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805
American Heart Association භAmerican Lung Association American Public Health Association භ American Thoracic Society Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America භHealth Care Without Harm National Association of County and City Health Officials dƌƵƐƚĨŽƌŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛Ɛ,ĞĂůƚŚ
January 16, 2013
President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As leading medical and public health organizations, we urge you to adopt lower sulfur gasoline and cleaner vehicle emissions standards no later than December 31, 2013. These stronger public health protections will significantly reduce toxic air pollution from the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, and are urgently needed. Nearly 159 million Americans still live in areas where the air is too dangerous to breathe. Cleaner gasoline will benefit their health immediately.
Passenger vehicles remain one of the major sources of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide emissions that react in the atmosphere to form ozone, which triggers asthma attacks, worsens lung disease and shortens life. Cars, light trucks and SUVs also contribute to ambient fine particulate matter which threatens heart and lung health, as well as increased risk of premature death. Emerging health research indicates that people who live or work near roadways suffer disproportionate adverse health effects from air pollution.
Not only does the nation need these reductions in ozone and particulate matter to protect public health, lower sulfur gasoline and vehicle emissions standards are one of the most cost- effective paths to cleaner air. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies estimates that by lowering the sulfur content in gasoline, the nation could immediately reduce the amount of air pollution equal to removing 33 million cars and light trucks from our roads. Reducing the sulfur in gasoline will build on the strong foundation of your efforts to increase fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution in half by 2025. Americans have the right to breathe clean and healthy air. In our work to improve the health of our patients and the public, we know first-hand that the air too many Americans breathe puts their health and their lives at risk. The new standards will protect the health of all, especially those who are most vulnerable: our children; the elderly; those with chronic lung disease, heart disease or diabetes; and those who have low incomes. We urge you to propose lower sulfur President Barak Obama January 16, 2013 Page 2 gasoline and cleaner vehicle emissions standards immediately to ensure the standards are finalized by December 31, 2013.
Sincerely,
American Heart Association Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America American Lung Association Health Care Without Harm American Public Health Association National Association of County and City American Thoracic Society Health Officials dƌƵƐƚĨŽƌŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛Ɛ,ĞĂůƚŚ cc: Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, US EPA Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA Chris Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US To Patricia Embrey, Joseph Goffman 03/22/2012 06:08 PM cc bcc Subject Enviro intervenors
-Amer. Academy of Pediatrics
-Amer. Lung Assoc.
-Amer. Nurses Assoc.
-Amer. Public Health Assoc.
-Chesapeake Bay Found.
-Citizens for Penn.s Future
-Clean Air Council
-Conservation Law Foundation
-Environment America
-Environmental Defense Fund
-Izaak Walton League of America
-NRDC of Maine
-NRDC
-Ohio Environmental Council
-Physicians for Social Responsibility
-Sierra Club
-Waterkeeper Alliance
Paul R. Versace Attorney Advisor EPA Office of General Counsel Mail Code - 2399A (202) 564-0219 Fax (202)564-5416
ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGED. DO NOT RELEASE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Peter Iwanowicz To Arvin Ganesan, Dru Ealons, Gina McCarthy, Bob Perciasepe,
Thefollowinginformationwasreleasedtoday.Thepublicappearstobesickofsoot,wantsyouto updatethestandardanddoesnotbuyintotheframethattheupdateswillkilljobs. Thougheverythingisupontheweb,pleasecallifyouwouldlikeadditionalinformation. Best,Peter http://bit.ly/sootpoll FORIMMEDIATERELEASE:Contact:MaryHavellMcGinty November29,2012202Ͳ715Ͳ3459 [email protected] NewPollShowsthePublicWantsEPAtoSetStricterSootHealthStandards VotersSupportSettingStrongerFineParticleStandardstoProtectPublicHealth Washington,D.C.(November29,2012)AstheDecember14,2012,deadlineapproachesfortheU.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)toissueupdatedhealthstandardsforfineparticlepollution (soot),theAmericanLungAssociationisreleasingpollingresultsthatexaminepublicviewsonupdating thestandardsandwhethernowistherighttimetoissuethem. EarlierthisyearEPAfinallyproposedupdatedcleanairstandardsthatwillpreventthousandsof prematuredeathsandtakestepstowardclearinghazyair.TheEPAsproposalcameinresponsetolegal actionfiledonbehalfoftheAmericanLungAssociationandtheNationalParksConservationAssociation byEarthjustice. Anewnationalsurveyof942registeredvotersconductedbyGreenbergQuinlanRosnerResearchfor theAmericanLungAssociationfindsthatAmericanvoterssupportaproposaltostrengthenairpollution standardsbyplacingstricterlimitsontheamountofsootreleasedfromindustrialfacilitiesbyabetter than2Ͳ1margin.Supportfortheplanisbothbroadanddeep,crossingpartisan,gender,racial,and geographiclines;theproposalmaintainsstrongmajoritysupportevenafterhearingbalancedmessages onbothsidesofthedebate. Attheoutset,62percentofvotersfavortheproposal,comparedtojust30percentwhoopposeit,and7 percentwhoareundecided.Nearly4ͲoutͲofͲ10voters(39percent)stronglyfavorthestandards,while only20percentexpressstrongopposition. Afterabalanceddebatewithmessagesinsupportofandoppositiontothestricterstandardsonsoot releasedbyindustrialfacilitiesincludingadiscussionontheeconomicandhealthimpactsofthe proposalamajorityofAmericanscontinuetosupporttheplanbyalarge20Ͳpointmargin,5636 percent. ThispollaffirmsthatthepublicissickofsootandwantsEPAtosetmoreprotectivestandards,said PeterIwanowicz,AmericanLungAssociationAssistantVicePresident.Thepublicalsodoesnotbuythe argumentsbeingmadebybigpollutersandtheiralliesinCongressthatthisisnottherighttimeto updatesootstandardsandthatdoingsowouldbebadfortheeconomy.Theybelievewecanhaveclean airandarobusteconomy. Keypollfindingsinclude: z Anoverwhelming81percentofDemocratsfavortheproposal,aswellas57percentof independents;evenapluralityofRepublicans(48percent)backtheplan. z Votersineveryregionofthecountryexpressstrongsupportfortheplan.Nearlythreequarters ofvoters(72percent)intheNortheasternpartofthecountryfavortheproposal,withsupport from6ͲoutͲofͲ10votersintheSouthern(60percentsupport),Central(59percentsupport),and Westernregions(61percentsupport).
z Solidmajoritiesofbothmen(59percent)andwomen(65percent)supporttheplan.
z AfricanAmericanandLatinovotersexpresshighlevelsofsupport,with68and73percent, respectively,whofavortheplan.Sixtypercentofwhitevotersalsosupporttheeffortto strengthensootstandards. ThesurveyclearlyindicatesthatAmericansstronglybacktheEPAtakingactionnowtolimittheamount ofsootreleasedbyoilrefineries,powerplants,andotherindustrialfacilities,saidMissyEgelsky,Vice PresidentatGreenbergQuinlanRosnerResearch.Infact,votersoverwhelminglybelievethatstronger safeguardsagainstairpollutionprovidereasonable,commonsensechangesthatwillprotectAmericans healthfromtheharmfuleffectsofsoot. Thefullsurvey,alongwithslidesandamemofromGreenbergQuinlanRosnerResearchcanbefound here. Methodology :Thesefindingsarebasedonanationalsurveyof942registeredvotersconductedforthe AmericanLungAssociationbyGreenbergQuinlanRosnerResearch,November14Ͳ18,2012.Themargin oferrorforresultsis+/Ͳ3.19percentagepointsata95percentconfidenceinterval. ### AbouttheAmericanLungAssociation Nowinitssecondcentury,theAmericanLungAssociationistheleadingorganizationworkingtosave livesbyimprovinglunghealthandpreventinglungdisease.Withyourgeneroussupport,theAmerican LungAssociationisFightingforAirthroughresearch,educationandadvocacy.Formoreinformation abouttheAmericanLungAssociation,aholderoftheBetterBusinessBureauWiseGivingGuideSeal,or tosupporttheworkitdoes,call1Ͳ800ͲLUNGͲUSA(1Ͳ800Ͳ586Ͳ4872)orvisitwww.lung.org. AboutGreenbergQuinlanRosnerResearch GreenbergQuinlanRosnerisagloballeaderinpublicopinionresearchandstrategicconsulting.GQR helpselectprogressivecandidatesintheU.S.andaroundtheworld,helpsNGOsadvancetheirissues, andhelpscompaniesunderstandtheirreputationsandkeyaudiences.
American Lung Association 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-1725 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872) www.Lung.org PeterIwanowicz AmericanLungAssociation (202)715Ͳ3446 [email protected] PeterIwanowicz AmericanLungAssociation (202)715Ͳ3446 [email protected] Peter Robertson To Bob Perciasepe
Got it.
Peter D. Robertson ANGA 202-789-1301
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "Bob Perciasepe"
Peter
Cats out of bag ------
EPA to impose first greenhouse gas limits on power plants By Juliet Eilperin, Monday, March 26, 7:24 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of new conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.
The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits between 800 and 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed onmercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a new coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.
“This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy.”
The rule provides an exception for coal plants that are already permitted and beginning construction within a year. There are about 20 coal plants now pursuing permits; two of them are federally subsidized and would meet the new standard with advanced pollution controls. The White House declined to comment. President Obama does not mention coal as a key component of the nation’s energy supply in speeches about his commitment to exploiting oil and gas reserves and renewable sources.
The proposal does not cover existing plants, although utility companies have announced that they plan to shut down more than 100 boilers, representing more than 40 gigawatts of capacity — nearly 13 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electricity — rather than upgrade them with pollution-control technology.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the new rule “captures the end of an era” during which coal provided most of the nation’s electricity. It currently generates about 40 percent of U.S. electricity.
The power sector accounts for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and Brune said it is “the only place where we’re making significant progress” at curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, adding “at the same time, it’s not sufficient.”
Cheap natural gas is also contributing to the closure of aging coal-fired plants, as many utilities switch over to gas plants, which have about half the carbon emissions.
“Gas is contributing to the closure of these plants,” Dominion Resources chief executive Thomas F. Farrell II said in an interview last week. But Farrell, who also chairs the Edison Electric Institute, the utility trade association, added, “It’s not all EPA. It’s a combination of low gas prices and EPA working at the same time.”
Still, National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said the proposal shows that Obama is following through on his pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through means other than legislation.
“After Congress refused to pass carbon caps, the administration insisted there were other ways to skin the cat and this is another way — by setting a standard deliberately calculated to drive affordable coal out of the electricity market,” Popovich said.
Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, said the proposed rule will ensure a cut in the nation’s carbon output even if gas prices spike. He cited four planned coal plants that would capture part of their carbon emissions and store them, largely by injecting them into depleted wells to enhance oil recovery. “We need regulatory signals and economic incentives” to make these projects economical, Schneider said.
The EPA rule, called the New Source Performance Standard, will be subject to public comment for at least a month before being finalized, but its backers said they were confident that the White House will usher it into law before Obama’s first term ends.
“The Obama administration is committed to moving forward with this,” said Nathan Willcox, federal global warming program director for the advocacy group Environment America. “They’re committed to doing it this, and we’re committed to helping them do it.” Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator
(o) +1 202 564 4711 (c) (b) (6)
Peter Robertson To Bob Perciasepe
Areyougoingtoreleaseittoday?Orlaterintheweek? Peter PeterD.Robertson ANGA 202Ͳ789Ͳ1301 [email protected] www.anga.us From: Bob Perciasepe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:23 PM To: Peter Robertson Subject:
Peter
Cats out of bag ------
EPA to impose first greenhouse gas limits on power plants By Juliet Eilperin, Monday, March 26, 7:24 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of new conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.
The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits between 800 and 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed onmercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a new coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.
“This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy.”
The rule provides an exception for coal plants that are already permitted and beginning construction within a year. There are about 20 coal plants now pursuing permits; two of them are federally subsidized and would meet the new standard with advanced pollution controls.
The White House declined to comment. President Obama does not mention coal as a key component of the nation’s energy supply in speeches about his commitment to exploiting oil and gas reserves and renewable sources.
The proposal does not cover existing plants, although utility companies have announced that they plan to shut down more than 100 boilers, representing more than 40 gigawatts of capacity — nearly 13 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electricity — rather than upgrade them with pollution-control technology.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the new rule “captures the end of an era” during which coal provided most of the nation’s electricity. It currently generates about 40 percent of U.S. electricity.
The power sector accounts for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and Brune said it is “the only place where we’re making significant progress” at curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, adding “at the same time, it’s not sufficient.”
Cheap natural gas is also contributing to the closure of aging coal-fired plants, as many utilities switch over to gas plants, which have about half the carbon emissions.
“Gas is contributing to the closure of these plants,” Dominion Resources chief executive Thomas F. Farrell II said in an interview last week. But Farrell, who also chairs the Edison Electric Institute, the utility trade association, added, “It’s not all EPA. It’s a combination of low gas prices and EPA working at the same time.”
Still, National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said the proposal shows that Obama is following through on his pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through means other than legislation.
“After Congress refused to pass carbon caps, the administration insisted there were other ways to skin the cat and this is another way — by setting a standard deliberately calculated to drive affordable coal out of the electricity market,” Popovich said.
Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, said the proposed rule will ensure a cut in the nation’s carbon output even if gas prices spike. He cited four planned coal plants that would capture part of their carbon emissions and store them, largely by injecting them into depleted wells to enhance oil recovery. “We need regulatory signals and economic incentives” to make these projects economical, Schneider said.
The EPA rule, called the New Source Performance Standard, will be subject to public comment for at least a month before being finalized, but its backers said they were confident that the White House will usher it into law before Obama’s first term ends.
“The Obama administration is committed to moving forward with this,” said Nathan Willcox, federal global warming program director for the advocacy group Environment America. “They’re committed to doing it this, and we’re committed to helping them do it.”
Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator
(o) +1 202 564 4711 (c) +(b) (6) Peter Robertson To Bob Perciasepe
Ignoremypreviousinquirytoyou.Iassumethismeansyouguysaregoingoutwithitthisafternoon. Peter PeterD.Robertson ANGA 202Ͳ789Ͳ1301 [email protected] www.anga.us From: Bob Perciasepe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:26 PM To: Peter Robertson Subject: RE: Re:
Rolling tomorrow pm.
Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (o) 202 564 4711 (c) 202 368 8193
------Original Message ------
From : Peter Robertson
Got it.
Peter D. Robertson ANGA 202-789-1301 Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "Bob Perciasepe"
Peter
Cats out of bag ------
EPA to impose first greenhouse gas limits on power plants By Juliet Eilperin, Monday, March 26, 7:24 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of new conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.
The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits between 800 and 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed onmercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a new coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.
“This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy.”
The rule provides an exception for coal plants that are already permitted and beginning construction within a year. There are about 20 coal plants now pursuing permits; two of them are federally subsidized and would meet the new standard with advanced pollution controls.
The White House declined to comment. President Obama does not mention coal as a key component of the nation’s energy supply in speeches about his commitment to exploiting oil and gas reserves and renewable sources.
The proposal does not cover existing plants, although utility companies have announced that they plan to shut down more than 100 boilers, representing more than 40 gigawatts of capacity — nearly 13 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electricity — rather than upgrade them with pollution-control technology.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the new rule “captures the end of an era” during which coal provided most of the nation’s electricity. It currently generates about 40 percent of U.S. electricity.
The power sector accounts for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and Brune said it is “the only place where we’re making significant progress” at curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, adding “at the same time, it’s not sufficient.”
Cheap natural gas is also contributing to the closure of aging coal-fired plants, as many utilities switch over to gas plants, which have about half the carbon emissions.
“Gas is contributing to the closure of these plants,” Dominion Resources chief executive Thomas F. Farrell II said in an interview last week. But Farrell, who also chairs the Edison Electric Institute, the utility trade association, added, “It’s not all EPA. It’s a combination of low gas prices and EPA working at the same time.”
Still, National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said the proposal shows that Obama is following through on his pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through means other than legislation.
“After Congress refused to pass carbon caps, the administration insisted there were other ways to skin the cat and this is another way — by setting a standard deliberately calculated to drive affordable coal out of the electricity market,” Popovich said.
Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, said the proposed rule will ensure a cut in the nation’s carbon output even if gas prices spike. He cited four planned coal plants that would capture part of their carbon emissions and store them, largely by injecting them into depleted wells to enhance oil recovery. “We need regulatory signals and economic incentives” to make these projects economical, Schneider said.
The EPA rule, called the New Source Performance Standard, will be subject to public comment for at least a month before being finalized, but its backers said they were confident that the White House will usher it into law before Obama’s first term ends.
“The Obama administration is committed to moving forward with this,” said Nathan Willcox, federal global warming program director for the advocacy group Environment America. “They’re committed to doing it this, and we’re committed to helping them do it.”
Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator
(o) +1 202 564 4711 (c) +1 (b) (6) Rebecca To Janet McCabe Weber/R7/USEPA/US cc 03/02/2011 07:39 AM bcc Subject Fw: Sierra Club letter to EPA re: Sunflower permit
----- Forwarded by Rebecca Weber/R7/USEPA/US on 03/02/2011 06:38 AM -----
From: "Stephanie Cole"
FYI - the attached letter was sent to Karl Brooks.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Stephanie Cole Sierra Club, KS
402.984.1122
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 2
KDHE has repeatedly ignored EPA’s guidance, comments, and correspondence and has proceeded to issue a final permit that does not meet the minimum requirements of federal law. Accordingly, EPA is obligated to take action to prevent the construction of the plant until such time as an adequate permit is issued. See 42 U.S.C. § 7477 (“The Administrator shall . . . take such measures . . . as necessary to prevent the construction or modification of a major emitting facility which does not conform to the requirements of this part”) (emphasis added); see also Alaska v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004). Per EPA’s own guidance, EPA should act without delay to address these deficiencies. See Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Procedures for EPA to Address Deficient New Source Permits Under the Clean Air Act (Jul. 15, 1988). Federal air quality standards are critical to protecting human heath across the nation, and EPA may not stand by when states openly and knowingly disregard established standards.
ONE-HOUR NO2 AND SO2 NAAQS
The final permit fails to include emissions limits that ensure compliance with the applicable 1-hour NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. The 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) NAAQS was announced in the Federal Register on January 22, 2010. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2010, and the standard became effective on April 12, 2010. The 1-hour sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) NAAQS was published on June 22, 2010; that standard became effective on August 23, 2010. Despite the fact that both of these standards were in effect at the time the permit was issued, and despite the fact that EPA and others repeatedly advised KDHE during the permitting process of the need to comply with these standards, the final permit fails to include enforceable emissions limits to ensure that the Holcomb Expansion will not cause or contribute to violations of these standards. Instead, it contains provisions requiring Sunflower to notify KDHE if the total nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) and sulfur oxide (“SOx”) emissions from Holcomb Station exceed the levels modeled in the permit application, averaged over any 1-hour period.
These notification provisions or action levels are not a lawful substitute for enforceable emissions limits. An emissions limit is defined as “a requirement . . . which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k) (emphasis added). An action level, such as that in the current permit for 1-hour NO2 and SO2, does not limit the “quantity, rate, or concentration” of emissions of air pollutants, and accordingly is not an enforceable emissions limit. Indeed, EPA explicitly advised KDHE Secretary Robert Moser by letter dated February 3, 2011 that “action levels” do not constitute enforceable emissions limits and accordingly are not adequate to ensure that the Holcomb Expansion will not cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. See K.A.R. § 28-19-350(b) (incorporating by reference 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(k)). Despite these explicit warnings, KDHE issued the final permit without enforceable emissions limits and without any assurance that the new source will not lead to exceedences of the NAAQS.
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 3
Moreover, even if these “notification” provisions adequately limited emissions from the Holcomb Expansion (which they do not), the modeling on which Sunflower relied to demonstrate that the Holcomb Expansion will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS for NO2 or SO2 is fatally flawed because it relies on unenforceable and unsubstantiated assumptions, including unenforceable assumptions regarding emissions from the existing unit at Holcomb Station (“Holcomb 1”). For example, KDHE used an emission rate of 1626.72 lb/hr. for SO2 for Holcomb 1 and a NOx emission rate of 1,814.5 lb/hr. for Holcomb 1 in its modeling, but as EPA noted in its letter of February 3, 2011, and as Sierra Club noted in its comments on the draft permit, nothing restricts Holcomb 1 to those emissions levels and actual emissions of SO2 and NOx have exceeded those levels in recent years. If Holcomb 1 emits levels of SO2 and NOx above the levels assumed in the modeling, then it is likely that the additional emissions from Holcomb 2 will cause or contribute to violations of the 1-hour NAAQS.
In response to comments on this point, KDHE asserted that “there is no regulatory provision that requires permit limitations on existing sources at Holcomb Station” and otherwise ignored the issue. See KDHE Responsiveness Summary at 49 (Responding to Comment 42). While it is true that KDHE is not required to impose enforceable emissions limits on Holcomb 1, if KDHE does not impose such limits, then the modeling for the Holcomb Expansion must assume maximum hourly emissions from Holcomb 1 based on the maximum operational capacity and maximum hourly emissions rate under the existing Holcomb 1 permit (which does not limit hourly emissions). See NSR Manual at C.47. What KDHE may not do is assume lower than maximum values of hourly NOx and SO2 emissions from Holcomb 1 without imposing enforceable limits to ensure that those lower values are not exceeded, and then rely on those unenforceable lower values to show that the Holcomb Expansion’s contribution to existing emissions will not lead to exceedences of the NAAQS. Because emissions from Holcomb 1 can and likely will exceed the levels assumed in the modeling, the modeling fails to demonstrate that emissions from the Holcomb Expansion, when combined with emissions from Holcomb 1 and other existing sources, will not cause or contribute to exceedences of the NAAQS even if the Holcomb Expansion does not exceed the “action levels” in the permit.
Under the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”), no person may construct a “major stationary source” of regulated air pollutants unless they demonstrate that the source will not cause or contribute to air pollution in excess of any national ambient air quality control standard (“NAAQS”), any maximum allowable increase or maximum allowable concentration for any pollutant, or any other applicable emission standard or standard of performance. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3). As EPA has made clear in multiple guidance memoranda, a new source must demonstrate compliance with NAAQS that are effective at the time a new PSD permit is issued.1
1 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Applicability of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Requirements to New and Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Apr. 1, 2010); Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program (June 29,
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 4
Not only did EPA make this clear in general guidance, EPA explicitly advised KDHE on multiple occasions that compliance with these new standards would be required and that emissions limits would have to be supported by adequate modeling. See Letter from Becky Weber to John Mitchell (Apr. 2, 2010); EPA comments on the draft permit (Aug. 12, 2010); EPA comments on the draft permit (Oct. 22, 2010). Most recently, on February 3, 2011, EPA advised KDHE by letter that the final permit must be amended to include emissions limits that comply with these NAAQS.
Sunflower did not complete its permit application until August 23, 2010, due to errors in its modeling identified by EPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.166(b)(22) (“Complete means, in reference to an application for a permit, that the application contains all the information necessary for processing the application.”); see also id. § 52.21(m)(1) (incorporated by reference in K.A.R. § 28-19-350); id. § 51.166(m)(4). Both of the new 1-hour NAAQS had long since been announced by this date – indeed, both standards were already in effect on that date. Moreover, by that date, EPA had twice advised KDHE in writing that compliance with these new standards was necessary.
KDHE’s response to comments that these standards do not apply to the permit because Kansas has not yet amended its state implementation plan (“SIP”) to include them is without merit. Section 110 of the CAA allows three years for Kansas to adopt a comprehensive plan, via the SIP revision process, providing for “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410. Section 165 of the Act, however, requires new stationary sources to demonstrate that they “will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any . . . national ambient air quality standard.” Id. § 7475(a)(3) (emphasis added). Moreover, under the existing, approved Kansas SIP, a proposed new source must demonstrate that its emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. See K.A.R. § 28-19-350(b) (incorporating by reference 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(k) (emphasis added)). Accordingly, new sources must comply with all NAAQS that are effective at the time a PSD permit is issued. Contrary to KDHE’s arguments, nothing in section 110 or in the Kansas SIP exempts Sunflower from compliance with the NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
KDHE has simply ignored its own SIP and repeated statements from EPA and others that the final permit must comply with the 1-hour NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. If KDHE does not immediately withdraw and amend the permit to include enforceable emissions limits to ensure compliances with these NAAQS, based on revised and appropriate modeling on which the public has an opportunity to comment, EPA must object to the permit under section 167 because the permit fails to ensure compliance with the applicable standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7477; id. § 7475(a)(3).
2010); Memorandum from Anna Marie Wood, General Guidance for Implementing the 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits, Including and Interim 1-hour SO2 Significant Impact Level (Aug. 23, 2010).
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 5
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
The permit also fails to include adequate emissions limits for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”), which are regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7412. KDHE did not include MACT emissions limits for HAPs in the permit on the grounds that the Holcomb Expansion is not a “major” source because the permit purportedly limits HAPs emissions to less than 10 tons per year of any single HAP and less than 25 tons per year of all HAPs combined. KDHE’s analysis and explanation to support this conclusion do not follow EPA guidance, do not address the factors identified as relevant by this guidance, rely on information that is not relevant to a proper analysis, and consequently reach an unsupportable and legally inadequate result. EPA identified these shortcomings explicitly in its August 12, 2010, comment letter on the draft permit: The general description on page 3 [of the draft] permit states that “there is no potential” that Unit 2 could exceed the major source HAPs limit. The permit record should include an explanation as to why the major source limit for HAPs is not exceeded and explain how the monitoring and testing requirements included in the permit demonstrate this.
As EPA rules and guidance make clear, a determination of whether a source of toxic air pollution is a major or a minor source begins with an analysis of the source’s “potential to emit.” See 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.2, 63.41; see also Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) at 1 (Jan. 25, 1995) (hereinafter “Seitz Memorandum”); NSR Manual at A.19. There is, however, no analysis of the Holcomb Expansion’s “potential to emit” HAPs.
Even if a source has the potential to emit HAPs in quantities that would make it a major source, it may still qualify for treatment as a minor source if the permit contains emissions limits that are “enforceable as a practical matter” and will therefore ensure that the minor source emission thresholds are not exceeded. See id. at 2-3; see also Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351, 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Again, neither the final permit nor KDHE’s response to EPA’s comments attempt to explain how, why, or whether the terms of the final permit meet the requirements of enforceability as a practical matter and thus may properly be relied on to conclude that the Holcomb Expansion will not be a major source of HAPs. This missing analysis is fatal to the permit and EPA must object unless KDHE immediately withdraws and amends the permit to include an appropriate HAPs analysis and/or fully justified MACT limits.
KDHE’s failure to include any analysis of potential emissions and any discussion of practical enforceability is particularly troublesome because it is likely that the Holcomb Expansion has the potential to emit HAPs at levels well above the10/25 tons per year minor source threshold. Indeed, the permit application shows as much: using the EPA preferred AP-42 emissions factors, Sunflower calculated that Holcomb Expansion HAPs emissions would exceed
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 6
the minor source threshold by about 100%. See Sunflower Construction Permit Application, Appendix L – HAPS Threshold Estimate (Jan. 21, 2010), available at http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/sunflower/Appendix_H-M.pdf (estimating total annual HAPs emissions from Holcomb 2 as 49.93 tons per year, using AP-42 emissions factors).
Rather than calculate the Holcomb Expansion’s total potential to emit HAPs, the permit estimates Holcomb 2’s actual HAPs emissions based on stack testing at Holcomb 1.2 Actual emissions cannot be used as a lawful surrogate for analyzing potential emissions – indeed, EPA guidance explicitly recognizes that sources with actual emissions that are lower than the major source threshold still are subject to major source requirements if their potential to emit is above the major source threshold. See Seitz Memorandum at 1. Nor has KDHE explained how the limitations and restrictions in the final permit, based on its analysis of actual emissions or any other evidence, are of sufficient quality and quantity to ensure accountability as required by EPA guidance. See Seitz Memorandum at 5-6. EPA’s comments on the draft permit specifically called this lack of explanation and documentation to KDHE’s attention, EPA Letter of Aug. 22, 2010, at 3, but KDHE failed to respond to the substance of the issues EPA raised. See KDHE Responsiveness Summary at 21-22 (Responding to Comment 14) (restating that the permit limits are based on actual emissions at Holcomb 1 scaled up for Holcomb 2 and otherwise ignoring EPA’s comment). KDHE must properly calculate the potential to emit for Holcomb 2 based on appropriate emissions factors and operation at maximum capacity for the design of the plant. It may then consider whether there will be lower emission levels based on permit limits so long as it shows that any such limits are practically enforceable. What it may not do is simply rely on limited data regarding actual emissions from another source, and permit terms that are unenforceable as a practical matter and have not been evaluated for compliance with EPA guidance (and that do not comply with it) to assert without the proper analysis that the Holcomb Expansion has “no potential” to emit HAPs above the major source threshold.3
KDHE also improperly relied on emissions factors from the Electric Power Research Institute (“EPRI”) to estimate the HAPs emissions from the Holcomb 2 boiler. The EPRI emissions factors are substantially lower than the AP-42 emissions factors identified by EPA as
2 Moreover, the permit does not even attempt to calculate the emissions from any components of the Holcomb Expansion other than the boiler at Holcomb 2 – however, other components can and will emit HAPs and must be included in the potential to emit calculation and emissions limits. 3 As Sierra Club pointed out in its comments, these so-called permit limits are not enforceable as a practical matter because the permit fails to require appropriate continuous monitoring of HAPs emissions or appropriate parametric surrogates. Instead KDHE relies on infrequent and unrepresentative stack tests and other measures, without documentation that these are of a quality and quantity to ensure accountability, as a basis for the permit. Without adequate limitations and monitoring, there is no way to determine whether the minor source threshold for HAPs emissions is being exceeded and no way to enforce compliance with this threshold.
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 7
the preferred factors. The basis for and data underlying the federal AP-42 factors is public information. The EPRI, however, is a membership-based group that only discloses the data and basis for its emissions factors at a substantial price. KDHE did not disclose the basis for the EPRI emissions factors on which it relied to estimate that Holcomb Expansion will not be a major source (because it very likely did not have them); nor did it explain why it chose not to use the preferred, fully-public and well-established AP-42 emissions factors, leaving the implication that Sunflower and KDHE simply preferred the EPRI factors because they would support a minor source conclusion. KDHE’s reliance on the EPRI emission factors prevented the public – and presumably even EPA (since the EPRI information is private) – from commenting on whether these emissions factors are accurate and appropriate.
The Settlement Agreement between Sunflower and the Kansas Governor includes emissions estimates from Sunflower that the Holcomb Expansion will emit less than 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant and less than 25 tons per year of all hazardous air pollutants, and provides that KDHE must accept the accuracy of this data. To the extent it relied on these findings, KDHE may not lawfully allow Sunflower to escape MACT limits on the basis of these unsupported estimates. Indeed, EPA advised KDHE repeatedly that the permit must include adequate HAPs emissions limits, and even explicitly advised KDHE as early as July 1, 2009, that the Settlement Agreement emissions estimates could not be used to escape compliance with section 112 of the Act. See Letter from William W. Rice to Roderick L. Bremby (July 1, 2009); see also Letter from Becky Weber to John Mitchell (Apr. 2, 2010); EPA comments on the draft permit (Aug. 12, 2010).
Despite being repeatedly advised that this political agreement could not lawfully exempt the permit from compliance with section 112 of the Act, and despite being fully aware of the relevant EPA guidance for assessing potential HAPs emissions, KDHE failed to adequately calculate the Holcomb Expansion’s potential to emit HAPs, and failed to include practically enforceable emissions limits in the final permit. Consequently, there is no basis for KDHE’s conclusion that the Holcomb Expansion will be a minor source of HAPs. EPA must object to the permit because it fails to ensure compliance with these standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7477; id. § 7412.
INADEQUATE BACT ANALYSIS
The final permit also fails to include sufficiently stringent emissions limitations for numerous pollutants due to inadequate Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) determinations. Under the CAA, no person may construct a major stationary source of regulated air pollutants unless they demonstrate that the source will be subject to the “best available control technology” (“BACT”) for each regulated pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). The definition of BACT in the Clean Air Act explicitly includes “innovative fuel combustion techniques” among the available methods of emissions reductions that must be considered as part of the BACT determination. 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3). In the BACT analysis for the permit, KDHE failed to even include (let alone analyze) innovative fuel combustion techniques that would
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 8
substantially reduce the emission of numerous regulated pollutants from the Holcomb Expansion.
Specifically, KDHE failed to include ultra-supercritical pulverized coal combustion techniques (“USPC”) and integrated gasification combined cycle technology (“IGCC”) in the BACT analysis. As both EPA and the Sierra Club repeatedly advised KDHE, USPC and IGCC are available and inherently less polluting combustion techniques that must be considered. See, e.g., Letter from Becky Weber to John Mitchell (Apr. 2, 2010); EPA comments on the draft permit (Aug. 12, 2010). While the “Settlement Agreement” between Sunflower and then- Governor Parkinson specifies that Sunflower will receive a permit for a supercritical boiler, this political agreement cannot lawfully exempt Sunflower and KDHE from complying with BACT requirements.
KDHE has not offered any defensible reason for its failure to include USPC in the BACT analysis. KDHE allegedly refused to consider USPC because there are currently no existing USPC facilities in the United States – even though KDHE acknowledged that there is a permitted USPC facility currently under construction in Arkansas that is scheduled to begin operation in 2012. See KDHE Responsiveness Summary at 14-15, 114-15 (Response to Comments 1 & 100) (noting that the lack of operating USPC facilities in the U.S. is a “key factor”). EPA guidance makes clear, however, that technologies outside the United States must be included in the BACT analysis. See NSR Manual at B.5 (“This includes technologies employed outside of the United States.”). Moreover, even if the absence of an operating U.S. facility comparable to the Holcomb Expansion were an appropriate reason to ultimately reject USPC – which it is not – it certainly is not an appropriate reason to fail to even include USPC in the BACT analysis. Nor may KDHE allow Sunflower to escape the use of BACT on the grounds that “small” companies should not be required to invest in cutting-edge technology. See KDHE Responsiveness Summary at 115. KDHE’s concerns with the “reliability and maintainability of the facility to be constructed,” KDHE Responsiveness Summary at 15, 115, may only be considered within the framework of a proper BACT analysis; it cannot justify KDHE’s failure to include USPC in the analysis in the first instance. See NSR Manual at B.5-B.7 (“at the outset, applicants should initially identify all control options with potential application to the emissions unit under review”). Indeed, given that Sunflower’s own consultant, Black and Veatch, included USPC in a contemporaneous BACT analysis for a plant very similar to the Holcomb Expansion and concluded that USPC constituted BACT for that facility, its marked absence here leaves the implication that it was intentionally excluded simply because political agreements purport to allow Sunflower to construct a less efficient and higher-polluting plant.
KDHE’s failure to include IGCC in the BACT analysis also is impermissible. See KDHE Responsiveness Summary at 38-44 (Response to Comment 39) (IGCC and natural gas). Even if KDHE’s concerns with reliability and fuel compatibility were justified – which they are not – such concerns must be addressed within the context of a BACT analysis. They cannot
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 9
justify excluding available, inherently cleaner technologies from the BACT analysis in the first instance.
Similarly, KDHE chose to ignore repeated statements from EPA and others that the BACT determinations and compliance modeling for multiple pollutants including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter were legally inadequate. See Letter from Becky Weber to John Mitchell (Apr. 2, 2010); EPA comments on the draft permit (Aug. 12, 2010); EPA comments on the draft permit (Oct. 22, 2010). Indeed, the public comments on the draft permit emphasized that there are many existing and operating plants that are actually achieving lower emissions of numerous criteria pollutants than the permitted levels for Holcomb 2—in particular, the NOx, SO2, and particulate matter emissions limits in the final permit are substantially higher than the levels in other comparable permits and the levels actually achieved by existing facilities. Yet here, as with the 1-hour NAAQS and HAPs emissions limits, KDHE chose to ignore these explicit comments and issue a final permit without adequate BACT determinations and compliance modeling. As a result, the emissions limits for numerous pollutants are unjustifiably high, and the permit fails to demonstrate that the Holcomb Expansion will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS for these pollutants. EPA must object to the permit because it fails to ensure compliance with these requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 7477; id. § 7475(a)(4); id. § 7475(a)(3).
In sum, the final permit issued by KDHE fails to meet the minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act. These failings are not accidental or the result of an unintentional oversight – EPA and others repeatedly advised KDHE of the need to meet each of these requirements. Nor are these failings insignificant – the Holcomb Expansion will emit greater volumes of pollutants than necessary, including the most toxic Hazardous Air Pollutants, and will likely contribute to violations of a number of NAAQS. Unless these shortcomings are corrected, the permit will not protect public health and welfare. EPA is obligated to take action to prevent the construction of the plant until such time as an adequate permit is issued. See 42 U.S.C. § 7477. EPA must either require KDHE to issue an amended permit, including new emissions limitations following a new public comment period, or EPA must take action to prevent the construction of this unlawful facility.
Sincerely,
/s/
Amanda W. Goodin Todd D. True Counsel for Sierra Club
Karl Brooks March 1, 2011 Page 10
cc: Yvonne Anderson, Legal Services Director Kansas Department of Health and Environment Curtis State Office Building 1000 Southwest Jackson Topeka, KS 66612
Mr. Robert Moser, Secretary Kansas Department of Health and Environment Curtis State Office Building 1000 Southwest Jackson Topeka, KS 66612
Rhea Jones/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 06/30/2011 04:04 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Rhea Jones/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 07/01/2011 02:57 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Sara To Janet McCabe Schneeberg/DC/USEPA/US cc 06/30/2011 03:38 PM bcc Subject Declined: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Scott Fraser/DC/USEPA/US To Jim Jones 06/25/2012 12:57 PM cc bcc Subject Sierra Club event Wed, June 27
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your call. I'm really glad you will be able to bring your daughter to this event. Here's more info including the Run of Show:
AGOevent6.27.12 final.docx
ScottW.Fraser
DeputyDirector,OfficeofPublicEngagement OfficeoftheAdministrator|U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency|Tel202Ͳ566Ͳ2126| [email protected] Youth and Outdoors with Administrator Jackson and Sierra Club DRAFT Plan Revised Date: 6.20.12
Administrator/Senior Official Participation Administrator Jackson & AA Michelle DePass Affinity/Commemorative Activity American Great Outdoors month Stakeholder Briefing Stakeholder Roundtable Stakeholder Communication Vehicle Yes; Sierra Club
WHEN: Wednesday, June 27, 2012
TIME: 10:00 am – 12:30 pm
WHERE: Green Room and Ariel Rios South Courtyard
Overview: Introduce urban youth to environmental issues, encourage youth to connect with the outdoors and pursue careers working with the environment with STEM focus. Attending students will hear remarks from the Administrator, present an award, and pose for a photograph. AA Michelle DePass, and staff from Environmental Justice and Climate Change programs will brief the group. Students will also participate in a Q&A session with EPA staff serving in STEM related careers. The visit will conclude with a tour of EPA’s sustainable garden located in the ARS courtyard.
Agenda/ROS: 9:00-9:30am Students Arrive 9:30-10:00 Security Screening (students enter through ARN & ARS lobbies) 10:00-10:05 Welcome Remarks and ROS (Dru Ealons) 10:05-10:20 Environment and You (AA Michelle DePass) 10:20-10:35 Environmental Justice (Mustafa Ali) 10:35-10:50 Climate Change (Marcus Sarofim) 10:50-11:00 Set-Up for Photo w/Administrator 11:00 Administrator Arrives 11:00-11:10 Students Present Award and Photo w/ Administrator 11:10-11:15 School Program Overview (Nicole Veltre-Luton) 11:15-11:30 Administrator Remarks and Q&A with Students 11:30 Administrator Departs 11:30-12:00 STEM Careers and Q&A (5 min each and 10 min Q&A) 12:00-12:30 Ariel Rios South Sustainable Garden Tour (depart Green Room) 12:30 pm Adjourn (depart ARS courtyard)
OPE is working with the following points of contact: Jackie Ostfeld, Sierra Club’s Mission Outdoors program
Key Stakeholder Audience: Youth/AFAM
EPA Staff topical leads: Environmental Justice: Sherri White , Theodore Coopwood and Tai Lung Climate Change: Andrea Denny , Marcus Sarofim Youth and Outdoors with Administrator Jackson and Sierra Club DRAFT Plan Revised Date: 6.20.12
STEM Q&A: Teneille Walker, Nora Savage, KevinJ Bailey, Chrystal Beasley (speakers/Q&A) Garden Tour: OEAEE Summer Interns (support staff)
Communication Strategy: A. Social Media - Principles from Sierra Club and EPA will FaceTweet B. Press/Media - Sierra Club puts out press release and media advisory on event
Budget: n/a
Background Information:
Information on Students:
STEM connection: The students attend Baltimore City Public Schools and the program they're participating in is called AP Summer Academy. Some of the students have STEM schools/programs with approximately 20 taking AP Biology and 20 taking AP Calculus classes.
Baltimore Inner City Outings (BICO) is a Sierra Club group http://ico.sierraclub.org/baltimore/
The BICO Co-chair is also a teacher at Baltimore's Digital Harbor High School http://www.digitalharbor.org/
Jackie Ostfeld Sierra Club, Mission Outdoors Policy and Operations Manager Outdoors Alliance for Kids (OAK), Chair 202-548-6584 Cell: 202-821-8877 (day of event) [email protected] Twitter: @JackieOstfeld
Nicole Veltre-Luton BICO, Co-chair [email protected]
Office of Public Engagement Contact:
Wadi Muhammad Public Engagement Specialist Tel 202-564-8876 [email protected]
Information on Award for Administrator:
The Great Outdoor Champion's Awards are really designed for us to say thank you to our leaders for their work and encourage them to continue working to protect and reconnect American's to the Great Outdoors. These awards and Great Outdoors America Week as a whole is sponsored by a broad Youth and Outdoors with Administrator Jackson and Sierra Club DRAFT Plan Revised Date: 6.20.12 coalition of groups including conservation organizations, recreation groups, youth organizations, sportsmen, conservation corps and outdoors industry groups.
Great Outdoors Champion Awards
For years America’s Great Outdoors have been promoted, protected and championed by leaders in all branches of government. This work has been a critical part of ensuring our special places and reconnecting American’s with the Great Outdoors. As part of the annual Great Outdoors America Week (June 25th-28th) we will be honoring and celebrating the work of those champions with our Great Outdoors Champion Awards. This year we will be honoring over 40 members of the House and Senate as well as officials with the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and The White House.
Topics Administrator & AA can cover
Introduce urban youth to environmental issues, encourage youth to connect with the outdoors and pursue careers working with the environment with STEM focus.
x Why the environment matters – why should these kids care? x Importance of urban parks for reconnecting youth with the outdoors x Importance of clean air for getting outdoors x Importance of environmental education programs to ensure all youth have access to the outdoors and information about the environment x Climate change – why it matters and what youth can to help reduce their carbon footprint
Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To Adam Kushner, Bill Harnett, Carol Kemker, Cheryl Newton, David Painter, Dick Schutt, Edward Messina, Elliott Zenick, Sent by: Shela Poke-Williams Gregg Worley, Michael Ling, Pam Mazakas, Pamela Blakley, Raj Rao, Richard Ossias, Scott Jordan, Scott Mathias, Steve 07/23/2009 11:08 AM Page cc Beth Craig, Don Zinger, Jean Walker, Johnetta Heilig, Kevin McLean, Luddie Murray, Maria Sanders, Mollie Lemon, Patricia Embrey, Teri Porterfield bcc Subject Information Update - Location has changed: Petition fro Reconsideration of Wisconsin NSR Reform SIP & Pending Ohio NSR Reform SIP Approval
POC Jean Walker
Purpose: decisional need to determine EPA response to Sierra Club/NRDC petition for reconsideration/review of Wisconsin's NSR Reform SIP we approved on December 17, 2008. Our approval of Ohio's similarly structured SIP is pending our decision on the Wisconsin petition. Shela To Megan Cryan Poke-Williams/DC/USEPA/US cc Beth Craig 03/17/2009 03:26 PM bcc Subject Fw: The Scheduling Office request your input on mtg wtih American Lung Assoc
OAR recommends the Administrator accept this invitation for a meeting.
Shela Poke-Williams Staff Assistant Office of Air & Radiation 202-564-1850 ----- Forwarded by Shela Poke-Williams/DC/USEPA/US on 03/17/2009 03:26 PM -----
From: Megan Cryan/DC/USEPA/US To: David McIntosh/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Beth Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Catherine McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat Hirsch/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Justina Fugh/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Georgia Bednar/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Shela Poke-Williams/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Linda Huffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Spriggs/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/16/2009 02:57 PM Subject: The Scheduling Office request your input on mtg wtih American Lung Assoc
RE: Meeting with American Lung Assoc national policy & Advocacy Director
Please see the attached invitation request for the Administrator and give your recommendation within 24 hours.
Thank you,
Dan Gerasimowicz Office of the Administrator (202) 564-7314
------Please include this link in your response NOTES://DCOGCLN1/MHANSON\AO\IO\InvitationRequests .nsf/Processing/B2F133B7AABBAC6D8525757B00677F26 ------Description/Purpose Meeting request for LPJ to meet with Janice Nolan, to discuss Protect the Air we breathe: An Agenda for Clean Air Report
Tentative Date from to EPA Org: 04/22/2009 09:15 AM 05:00 PM
Original Request (use Notes Viewer and set magnification (View, Magnification) to Fit Width)
Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To cc Sent by: Shela Poke-Williams bcc 08/12/2009 12:45 PM Subject EarthJustice
Meeting Date 09/09/2009 Time 03:00:00 PM to 04:00:00 PM Chair Gina McCarthy Invitees Required Bob Sussman; David McIntosh Optional Don Zinger; Drew McConville; Georgia Bednar; Rhonda Robinson; Ross Natoli FYI Location 5415 ARN POC Sarah Saylor 202-667-4500xxx216.
Sarah Saylor, Earthjustice Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice Joe Mendelson, National Wildlife Federation Eric Schaeffer, Environmental Integrity Project Emily Figdor, Environment America Betsy Loyless, Audubon Dave Hamilton, Sierra Club David Hawkins, Natural Resources Defense Council "[email protected]" To Joseph Goffman
A message from [email protected]. fyi
Please visit Sierra Club today!
If the text above does not appear as a clickable link, you can visit the web address: http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=223281.0&s_oo=sfs7XdonYcDZ_CIyr4 N-vA
If you no longer wish to receive email messages sent from your friends on behalf of this organization, please click here or paste this URL into your browser: http://action.sierraclub.org/site/TellFriendOpt?action=optout&toe=cb1c2666f2e3e296e17d6eeff 46cdd3d01dbea6a1ebe46d9 Steven Miller To Bob Perciasepe, Mathy Stanislaus, Natalie Loney,
July 2, 2012
Robert Perciasepe
Deputy Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N
Washington, DC 20004
Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Deputy Administrator Perciasepe and Assistant Administrator Stanislaus,
The Gowanus Canal Superfund Site Community Advisory Group (CAG) consists of 54 representatives from civic, environmental, business and community organizations, as well as individual “at-large” citizen-members who live or work in the Gowanus watershed. These individuals and organizations are concerned and active stakeholders with a vested interest in the success and permanence of the cleanup of the Gowanus Canal.
As you know, our community has been plagued by the pollution in the canal caused by combined sewer overflows whose toxic compounds and hazardous regulated materials present adverse health risks to people, animals and plant life. In several resolutions to date, the CAG has expressed its overwhelming support for addressing CSOs as part of the Superfund clean-up.
We understand that you have granted Caswell Holloway, New York City Deputy Mayor for Operations and Carter Strickland, Commissioner of NYC's Department of Environmental Protection, an opportunity to discuss with you both, the city's role in the clean-up of the canal.
As key stakeholders we often have a very different point of view from our City Administration and we respectfully ask that you make no decision regarding this project without the benefit of providing our community an equal opportunity to meet with you to discuss our concerns. Therefore we formally invite you both to meet with the CAG Water Quality and Technical Committee as soon as possible.
The Water Quality and Technical Committee of the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site Community Advisory Group greatly appreciates the support the EPA has provided to our community as we begin the process of cleaning up the Gowanus Canal and we look forward to meeting with you at your earliest possible convenience.
Sincerely,
Gowanus Canal Superfund Site Community Advisory Group Water Quality and Technical Committee,
Steven Miller
Jerry Armer
Alex Lechich
Bryan Quinn
Emily Guyer
Ludger Balan
Eric McClure
Eymund Diegel
Hans Hesselein
Joshua Verleun
Linda LaViolette
Louis Kleinman
Katia Kelly
Rita Miller
Marlene Donnelly
Richard Kampf
Jennevive Kenlon
CC Congresswoman, Nydia Velazquez
The Gowanus CAG is proud to include the following Organizational Members:
Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce
Carroll Gardens Coalition for Respectful Development (CORD)
Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association
Center for Urban Pedagogy
Citizens of Pozzallo
Cobble Hill Association
Community Board 6
Fifth Avenue Committee
Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus (FROGG)
Friends of Douglass/Greene Park, Inc.
Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation
Gowanus Canal Conservancy
Gowanus Dredgers Canoe Club
Gowanus Houses Tenants Association Gowanus Neighborhood Association/Gowanus-4-Life
Metropolitan Waterfront Association
Our Lady of Loretto Council #585, Knights of Columbus
Park Slope Civic Council
Park Slope Neighbors
Pratt Center for Community Development
Proteus Gowanus
Red Hook Civic Association
Red Hook East Tenants Association
Red Hook West Tenants Association
Riverkeeper
Sierra Club
South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation
Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation
Urban Divers Estuary Conservancy
Wyckoff Gardens Tenants Association/Public Housing Communities, Inc.
Steven To John Millett Silverman/DC/USEPA/US cc 11/30/2012 11:31 AM bcc Subject Fw: Activity in Case 1:12-cv-00243-RLW AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al Consent Decree
September 4 ----- Forwarded by Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US on 11/30/2012 11:30 AM -----
From: "Lynk, Brian (ENRD)"
Steve and John,
Judge Wilkins has signed the PM NAAQS CD and also added a minute order to the docket approving our motion for entry. I can download a copy of the CD with his signature and forward it to you tomorrow.
Regards, Brian
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Activity in Case 1:12-cv-00243-RLW AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al Consent Decree
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 9/4/2012 at 2:31 PM and filed on 9/4/2012 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO Case Name: et al Case Number: 1:12-cv-00243-RLW Filer: Document 48 Number:
Docket Text: CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Robert L. Wilkins on 9/4/2012. (tcb)
1:12-cv-00243-RLW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
David S. Baron [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Brian Hamilton Lynk [email protected], efile [email protected]
Valerie M Satterfield [email protected]
Paul Robert Cort [email protected], [email protected]
Michael Myers [email protected]
Gregory Stage Schultz [email protected], [email protected]
Paul S. Logan [email protected]
Leslie R. Seffern [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Susan L. Durbin [email protected]
Thea Schwartz [email protected]
I. Andrew Goldberg [email protected]
Mary E. Raivel [email protected]
1:12-cv-00243-RLW Notice will be delivered by other means to::
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:suppressed Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=973800458 [Date=9/4/2012] [FileNumber=3400468-0] [6afe70a9798f55f7a2dbb2125a507d23fdce2342c9f55bdae61fb4cf26139c0f5bd 1a 322d073010482527c6b293a6ed2733978ea7ae8d5d7731967dc88e35fdd]]
Steven To Karen Martin, Lydia Wegman, Scott Fulton, Avi Garbow, Gina Silverman/DC/USEPA/US McCarthy, Janet McCabe, Joseph Goffman 06/05/2012 05:00 PM cc John Hannon bcc Subject Fw: ALA Opposition to Motion for One-Week Extension
fyi ----- Forwarded by Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US on 06/05/2012 04:59 PM -----
From: Paul Cort
Courtesycopiesattached. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Activity in Case 1:12-cv-00243-RLW AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al Memorandum in Opposition
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Cort, Paul on 6/5/2012 at 4:53 PM and filed on 6/5/2012 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO Case Name: et al Case Number: 1:12-cv-00243-RLW Filer: AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION Document 42 Number:
Docket Text: Memorandum in opposition to re [38] MOTION for Extension of Time to Sign Proposed Rule and For Expedited Briefing and Consdieration, and Incorporated Memorandum in Support filed by AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Cort, Paul)
1:12-cv-00243-RLW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Brian Hamilton Lynk [email protected], [email protected]
David S. Baron [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Gregory Stage Schultz [email protected], [email protected]
I. Andrew Goldberg [email protected]
Leslie R. Seffern [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Mary E. Raivel [email protected]
Michael Myers [email protected]
Paul Robert Cort [email protected], [email protected]
Paul S. Logan [email protected]
Susan L. Durbin [email protected]
Thea Schwartz [email protected]
Valerie M Satterfield [email protected]
1:12-cv-00243-RLW Notice will be delivered by other means to::
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:suppressed Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=973800458 [Date=6/5/2012] [FileNumber=3312871-0] [006e95c38f7a51a009cc27c9330c61c4b555adc84a5a21f10658c9488ce0bfdebaa1 f cee2e22ede22d0b4b51b237def4849c16f6d7862d677030251ca8e348bd]] Document description:Text of Proposed Order Original filename:suppressed Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=973800458 [Date=6/5/2012] [FileNumber=3312871-1] [8757db3ddf472d9afef2577c19785532766a9489268e72f9402c4a6a50f98d3a4d81 d 9947a3aab13b9df9a3f7f2845c5d164808e4cc868a495599f97f8783675]]
FINAL Opp to Motion to Modify PI Order 6-5-12.pdf
FINAL Proposed Order Denying Motion to Extend Proposal Signature Deadline 6-5-12.pdf Steven To Lydia Wegman, Janet McCabe, Gina McCarthy, Avi Garbow, Silverman/DC/USEPA/US Joseph Goffman, Scott Fulton 06/05/2012 04:59 PM cc John Hannon, Karen Martin bcc Subject Fw: As-filed proposed order granting temporary stay fyi ----- Forwarded by Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US on 06/05/2012 04:58 PM -----
From: "Michael J. Myers"
Here’s our response in opposition to the proposed rule extension.
From: Lynk, Brian (ENRD) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:17 PM To: '[email protected]'; Michael J. Myers Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: As-filed proposed order granting temporary stay
P.S. – With my previous email, I advertently sent two copies of the proposed order granting the one-week extension. Here is the other proposed order granting the temporary stay.
Thanks, Brian
From: Lynk, Brian (ENRD) Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:23 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Michael J. Myers' Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Available to call chambers now? Importance: High
Paul and Mike,
The unilateral, expedited motion was filed at 1:14PM, and the joint motion was just filed a minute ago. I’ve attached courtesy copies of each motion and accompanying proposed order. Now I would like to call the clerk to let them know about the filing of the motions – would you like to join?
Thanks, Brian
Brian H. Lynk Trial Attorney Environmental Defense Section U.S. Department of Justice (202) 514-6187
From: DCD [email protected] [mailto:DCD [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:15 PM To: DCD [email protected] Subject: Activity in Case 1:12-cv-00243-RLW AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al Motion for Extension of Time to
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Lynk, Brian on 6/5/2012 at 1:14 PM and filed on 6/5/2012 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO Case Name: et al Case Number: 1:12-cv-00243-RLW Filer: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY LISA P. JACKSON Document 38 Number:
Docket Text: MOTION for Extension of Time to Sign Proposed Rule and For Expedited Briefing and Consdieration, and Incorporated Memorandum in Support by LISA P. JACKSON, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Lynk, Brian)
1:12-cv-00243-RLW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Brian Hamilton Lynk [email protected], [email protected]
David S. Baron [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Gregory Stage Schultz [email protected], [email protected]
I. Andrew Goldberg [email protected]
Leslie R. Seffern [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Mary E. Raivel [email protected]
Michael Myers [email protected]
Paul Robert Cort [email protected], [email protected]
Paul S. Logan [email protected]
Susan L. Durbin [email protected]
Thea Schwartz [email protected]
Valerie M Satterfield [email protected]
1:12-cv-00243-RLW Notice will be delivered by other means to::
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:suppressed Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=973800458 [Date=6/5/2012] [FileNumber=3312325-0] [647f0d456a1f726220f314ec7de698654e1d88bcf9a061de0b2d5ff1363c42b9d9640 acbc4835c9fe338b6c5566594b8ffa3b58d5d07384b9619f4c9c55e2481]] Document description:Text of Proposed Order Original filename:suppressed Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=973800458 [Date=6/5/2012] [FileNumber=3312325-1] [98024b8965506d6395118abda6f86361d659ac3e72ec1124620fd2b6c384e5bb59cd 3 5b89245230e810168faa7bb68ab1d93274ce11d6ab02de78cafebd4d05a]]
Response to EPA Motion for Extension for Proposed Rule.pdf Suma Peesapati To David Gray, Ron Curry
All: OnbehalfofDinéCitizensAgainstRuiningOurEnvironment,NationalParksConservationAssociation,NewEnergy Economy,SanJuanCitizensAllianceandSierraClub,pleasefindtheattachedlettertoRegionalAdministration CurryregardingSanJuanGeneratingStation. Thankyou, SumaPeesapati ______ Suma Peesapati Staff Attorney Earthjustice 50 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: 415-217-2000 F: 415-217-2040 www.earthjustice.org Please note new address The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly proh bited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. *please consider the environment before printing ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID-PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON, DC INTERNATIONAL
ȱ ȱ VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL and U.S. MAIL
September 28, 2012
Ron Curry, Regional Administrator EPA Region 6 Main Office 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202 [email protected]
Re: Request for Meeting on Best Available Retrofit Technology for San Juan Generating Station
Dear Mr. Curry:
The Environmental Intervenors1 in the current Tenth Circuit litigation involving Region 6’s best available retrofit technology (“BART”) determination for the San Juan Generating Station (“San Juan”) are deeply invested in preserving the environmental gains required by your agency’s August 2011 federal implementation plan (“FIP”) for the plant. As you may know, Region 6’s FIP for San Juan mirrors New Mexico’s 2010 BART determination for the plant. And it is encouraging that New Mexico’s 2010 well-supported BART determination resulted from your own leadership during your tenure at the New Mexico Environment Department. In light of our shared commitment to faithfully implement the Clean Air Act’s regional haze requirements, we respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss the Intervenors’ position on any proposed alternative to the current FIP, which we are vigorously defending in court.
Despite the ongoing litigation, in July, Region 6 granted New Mexico Environment Department’s (“NMED”) request for a ninety day stay of the FIP to work with various stakeholders in developing an alternative to EPA’s FIP. During that short-lived process, Intervenors made clear that any alternative must not only avoid illegal “backsliding” from the
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1 Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, National Parks Conservation Association, New Energy Economy, San Juan Citizens Alliance and Sierra Club
1
FIP, but must also meet the Clean Air Act’s “better than BART” standard.2 In evaluating NMED’s alternatives, Intervenors’ were also informed by EPA’s unambiguous finding that New Mexico’s belated SNCR proposal for each unit at plant would “achieve[] far less reduction in pollution and less visibility improvement, and does not fully meet the requirement of the Act for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).”3 Ultimately, any alternative must achieve greater visibility improvement than the existing FIP. Because visibility at Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde and Bandelier National Monument —some of our nation’s most treasured national parks—hangs in the balance, strict adherence to these basic requirements is critically important.
The FIP, when fully implemented in 2016, will improve the maximum 24-hour average visibility across the 16 Class I areas that are within 300 km of the plant by 21.7 deciviews (33.184-11.48=21.70 dv). This is estimated as the difference of the sum of the maximum 3-year, 24-hour average visibility at the 16 Class I areas that are within 300 km of San Juan.4 In determining whether an alternative program with a substantially different emissions distribution is “better than BART,” dispersion modeling must show that: (1) “visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and that (2) [t]here is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.”5
Under these governing principles, any proposed alternative must improve visibility beyond the improvement required by the FIP. New Mexico’s current plan, which proposes to retire two units and to install the inferior SNCR technology on the remaining two units, offers nothing near the improvement currently required by the FIP. The attached modeling results show that the New Mexico alternative would achieve a 3-year, 24-hour average visibility improvement of only 14.42 dv for the same 16 Class I areas (33.184-18.76 = 14.42 dv). In other words, New Mexico's proposal would be approximately half as effective as the FIP at improving visibility in the subject area.
After conducting our own internal analyses, we have identified feasible, cost-effective alternatives to the FIP that similarly involve unit shutdowns and SNCR, but achieve greater visibility improvements than the FIP. For example, PNM could take the following actions by 2016 to achieve a superior outcome to the FIP:
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2 Clean Air Act § 110(l); 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)(iv) (requiring BART alternatives to provide emission reductions surplus to those resulting from programs implemented to meet other requirements of the Clean Air Act).
3 76 Fed. Reg. 52388.
4 We note that there are 14 additional important Class I areas located between 300-500 km of the plant that will also benefit from the pollution reductions required by the FIP.
5 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(3).
2
1. Shutdown Units 1 – 3: and,
2. Control NOx from Unit 4 with SNCR technology that is designed to meet a limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu and commit to retire this unit by 2024.
This alternative would result in a 3-year, maximum 24-hour visibility improvement of 23.2 dv at the subject 16 Class I area (33.184-10.02=23.16 dv). Our engineering analysis shows that replacement power for these shutdown units could be easily procured through a combination of energy efficiency, development of renewables, currently underutilized natural gas-based generation capacity and the spot market. NMED estimated SNCR costs for Unit 4 to be approximately $13 million,6 making this option cost-effective.
Another combination of actions that, if implemented by 2016, would outperform the FIP are:
1. Shutdown Units 1 and 2;
2. Replace Unit 3 generation with a natural gas option that meets a NOx limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu (achievable by gas turbines equipped with dry low-NOx combustors designed to meet 9 ppmvd at 3% oxygen)7; and
3. Control NOx from Unit 4 using SNCR technology that is designed to meet a NOx limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu and commit to retire this unit by 2024.
These actions would result in a 3-year, maximum 24-hour visibility improvement of 22.3 dv (33.184-10.88=22.3 dv) at the subject 16 Class I areas. The cost of installing SNCR at Unit 4 would be the same as in the first option. There would be no additional capital cost to purchase power from an existing gas turbine plant equipped with dry low NOx combustors.
These examples show that there are multiple paths that lead to a “better than BART” outcome. These examples also make economic sense given that the plant is nearing the end of its useful life and PNM’s power portfolio is excessively weighted toward coal-based generation. Because the plant’s pollution has been linked to seven deaths and more than two thousand cases of exacerbated asthma symptoms every year and because of the plant’s proximity to the Navajo Nation, an alternative scenario that moves toward a clean energy future also serves critical public health and environmental justice interests.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 6 New Mexico Environment Department, Appendix A: BART Determination, Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station, Units 1-4, June 21, 2010, Table 10.
7 This condition could be met by shutting down Unit 3 and replacing it with a new combined cycle natural gas plant or by procuring the power from existing natural gas turbines.
3
Unfortunately, NMED terminated the stakeholder process before the expiration of EPA’s stay without resolving these important issues. NMED is presumably moving forward with a unilateral proposal to Region 6. To the extent that any such proposal seeks a reprieve from the visibility improvements required by EPA’s BART FIP, it would be illegal. The only permissible exemption from BART is expressly set forth in § 169A(c).8 Under § 169A(c), a source can be exempt from BART only if EPA, by rule promulgated with sufficient notice and opportunity for public comment, determines that the source does not either by itself or in combination with other sources “emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to a significant impairment of visibility in any mandatory class I federal area.”9 Further, EPA cannot exempt a fossil-fuel fired power plant with a design capacity of 750 megawatts or more, unless the owner or operator of the plant can demonstrate that the power plant is located far enough away from the Class I areas and “does not or will not” by itself or in conjunction with other facilities cause or contribute to visibility impairment.10 Finally, the appropriate Federal Land Manager or Managers must agree with the exemption before it can go into effect.11 Thus, EPA‘s authority to exempt sources from BART is very narrowly limited to circumstances that are not applicable here.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 8 See CAA § 169A(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c).
9 CAA § 169A(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c)(1).
10 CAA § 169A(c)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c)(2).
11 CAA § 169A(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7491(c)(3).ȱ
4
The Intervenors look forward to continued collaboration with EPA, PNM and NMED to explore viable, cost-effective alternatives that meet the basic requirements of law, thereby protecting public health and the environment. To that end, please contact me at [email protected] or at 415-217-2000 to coordinate a time to meet in Dallas, or in New Mexico, to further discuss these important issues.
Sincerely,
Suma Peesapati, Staff Attorney
Cc: Bob Perciasepe, EPA Headquarters Janet McCabe, EPA Headquarters Suzanne Murray, EPA Region 6 Ryan Flynn, New Mexico Environment Department
5
Peter To Gina McCarthy Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US cc Sent by: Tanya Johnson bcc 02/17/2010 12:55 PM Subject Accepted: Pre-Brief - Sierra Club re. RTR deadline suit Peter To Janet McCabe Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US cc Sent by: Tanya Johnson bcc 01/20/2010 06:25 PM Subject Accepted: Schedule for Residual Risk Rulemaking in the Sierra Club/Earth justice Litigation Tanya To Joseph Goffman Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US cc 09/30/2012 06:45 PM bcc Subject AUTO: Tanya Johnson is out of the office (returning 10/01/2012)
I am out of the office until 10/01/2012.
For assistance, please contact Joanne Tammaro at 919-541-4115.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: Invitation: Meeting with American Lung Association Re: CSAPR/CAIR (Oct 5 11:00 AM EDT in ARN-OAR-Room-5415/DC-ARN-OAR@EPA)" sent on 09/30/2012 06:45:00 PM.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away. Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To Cindy Huang, Don Zinger cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc 03/15/2010 12:26 PM Subject Fw: Requesting a meeting to discuss CAIR
----- Forwarded by Teri Porterfield/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/15/2010 12:26 PM -----
From: Janice Nolen
Hello, Gina, We and our colleagues in the environmental community appreciate the willingness you and your staff have shown to talk with us on many issues. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the CAIR replacement rule under development. We understand you are hoping to announce something next month.
Thank you, Janice Nolen
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805
Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US To Don Zinger, John Millett Sent by: Teri Porterfield cc Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe 05/21/2010 11:39 AM bcc Subject Fw: Any written information on this morning's White House truck announcement?
See email below that was sent to Janet and Gina.
----- Forwarded by Teri Porterfield/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/21/2010 11:39 AM -----
From: Janice Nolen
Hi ladies, Paul Billings attended the Rose Garden statement from the President on the new actions on medium & heavy duty trucks. But we havent seen anything in print on this. Do you have a statement or more information coming out? I dont find anything on either the White Houses, EPAs, DOTs websites.
Thanks!
Janice
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805
Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US To Don Zinger, John Millett Sent by: Teri Porterfield cc Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe 05/21/2010 11:39 AM bcc Subject Fw: Any written information on this morning's White House truck announcement?
See email below that was sent to Janet and Gina.
----- Forwarded by Teri Porterfield/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/21/2010 11:39 AM -----
From: Janice Nolen
Hi ladies, Paul Billings attended the Rose Garden statement from the President on the new actions on medium & heavy duty trucks. But we havent seen anything in print on this. Do you have a statement or more information coming out? I dont find anything on either the White Houses, EPAs, DOTs websites.
Thanks!
Janice
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805
Teri To Gina McCarthy Porterfield/RTP/USEPA/US cc 05/20/2010 12:46 PM bcc Subject ALA - Meeting with Administrator
Teri Porterfield 202-564-7683 ----- Forwarded by Teri Porterfield/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/20/2010 12:44 PM -----
From: Janice Nolen
Hi Dan, We understand the change and welcome the opportunity to meet with Gina McCarthy and the others to discuss our concerns. We will try to seek another meeting with the administrator in early June. Thanks for letting me know. I'll inform my colleagues who will be joining us.
Thanks, Janice
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:12 PM To: Janice Nolen Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Meeting with Administrator
Hi Ms. Nolen,
I apologize for this late update, but Administrator Jackson has now been asked by the White House to participate in a series of interviews this afternoon, which means that she will no longer be able to attend the 4 PM ALA Meeting.
AA Gina McCarthy, OAQPS and staff would be happy to continue this meeting as is with them leading it, or if you would prefer, we can reschedule this meeting to another date in early June with Administrator Jackson.
Again, we apologize for this change, but do hope to proceed in the manner that ALA would prefer.
I also left you a phone message on this.
Sincerely, Dan
Dan Gerasimowicz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [email protected]
|------> | From: | |------>
>------| |Janice Nolen
>------| |------> | To: | |------>
>------| |Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |
>------| |------> | Date: | |------>
>------| |05/19/2010 07:44 AM |
>------| |------> | Subject: | |------>
>------| |Re: Meeting with Administrator |
>------|
Thanks!
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Received: 5/19/10 6:05 AM To: Janice Nolen [[email protected]] Subject: Re: Meeting with Administrator
Hi Janice -
Yes, OAQPS will be on the phone for this meeting
Thanks!
----- Original Message ----- From: Janice Nolen [[email protected]] Sent: 05/18/2010 11:47 PM AST To: Daniel Gerasimowicz Cc: Paul Billings
Dan, We're delighted that Gina McCarthy will be able to join our meeting with the Administrator on Thursday. We're wondering if the Administrator is planning to have the folks from OAQPS participate by phone on our conversation as well. If it is possible, we would welcome having them there in case there are questions that arise.
I'm traveling back to DC from New Orleans tomorrow, so I won't be available by email or phone till late afternoon. If something arises tomorrow and you need to reach our team, please contact Paul Billings at [email protected].
Thanks, Janice
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 202-785-3355 ______From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:53 AM To: Janice Nolen Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator
Thank you very much!
Dan Gerasimowicz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [email protected]
|------> | From: | |------>
>------|
|Janice Nolen
>------|
|------> | To: | |------>
>------|
|Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |
>------|
|------> | Date: | |------>
>------|
|05/17/2010 06:59 PM |
>------|
|------> | Subject: | |------>
>------|
|RE: Meeting with Administrator |
>------|
Hi Dan, The current list is attached. If there are changes, I'll let you know.
Thanks, Janice
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 202-785-3355 ______From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:16 PM To: Janice Nolen Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator
Hi Janice -
I was hoping to see if you might have the list of attendees for this Thursday's 4 PM Meeting -
Thank you!
Dan Gerasimowicz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [email protected]
|------> | From: | |------>
>------|
|Janice Nolen
>------|
|------> | To: | |------>
>------|
|Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |
>------|
|------> | Date: | |------>
>------|
|05/10/2010 02:18 PM |
>------|
|------> | Subject: | |------>
>------|
|RE: Meeting with Administrator |
>------|
Hi Daniel, Let's book the May 20th at 4 PM with the Administrator. Will Asst. Administrator McCarthy be able to join us at that time? I will send you a list of attendees shortly.
Thank you, Janice
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:59 AM To: Janice Nolen Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator
Hi Janice,
It looks like 4 PM would work on the 20th - would that time be ok?
Thank you -
Dan Gerasimowicz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [email protected]
|------> | From: | |------>
>------|
|Janice Nolen
>------|
|------> | To: | |------>
>------|
|Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |
>------| |------> | Date: | |------>
>------|
|05/07/2010 10:27 AM |
>------|
|------> | Subject: | |------>
>------|
|RE: Meeting with Administrator |
>------|
Dan, Hi, sorry to be late returning this email and especially sorry for the confusion about the date. We meant the after 3 on the 20th, not the 21st. Is that possible? If it is not, let me know. We can still have folks on the 21st, but the 20th was better. My sincere apologies for the confusion.
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:01 AM To: Janice Nolen Subject: Re: Meeting with Administrator
Thank you Janice -
3 - 3:45 PM on May 21st is great - I will check to see if Gina might be able to attend -
We will hold this time on the Administrator's calendar -
Thank you
Dan Gerasimowicz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [email protected]
|------> | From: | |------>
>------|
|Janice Nolen
>------|
|------> | To: | |------>
>------|
|Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |
>------|
|------> | Cc: | |------>
>------|
|Paul Billings
>------|
|------> | Date: | |------>
>------|
|05/05/2010 09:36 PM |
>------|
|------> | Subject: | |------>
>------|
|Meeting with Administrator |
>------| Hi Dan, Right now, it is looking like the 3 PM time will be best for us. I will confirm on Friday, but please hold that time on the Administrator’s schedule. I’m sorry to miss AA McCarthy. We may have to shift in the after 3 timeslot, but I will let you know.
Thank you, Janice Nolen
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805
(Embedded image moved to file: pic25990.jpg)email_rev2
[attachment "Meeting with Jackson on May 20 2010 ATTENDEES.doc" deleted by Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US] Bob To Gina McCarthy Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc 02/10/2011 02:30 PM Subject Gina/Bob P.
Meeting Date 02/10/2011 Time 03:35:00 PM to 04:00:00 PM Chair Bob Perciasepe Invitees Required Gina McCarthy Optional FYI Location 3412 ARN Discuss Sierra Club
Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield Cindy Huang, Marjean Gleaton bcc 05/05/2010 11:01 AM Subject Holding for American Lung Assoc Meeting (LBJ to attend)
POC: Don Zinger
NOTE: Dan G "holding" this time on the Administrator's Calendar - Dan will get back to us with the time. Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To Sabrina Hamilton cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc 05/20/2010 10:33 AM Subject Fw: Promulgation of Regional Haze Rulemakings
----- Forwarded by Teri Porterfield/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/20/2010 10:33 AM -----
From: Stephanie Kodish
Dear Assistant Administrator McCarthy,
Please find attached a letter regarding the promulgation of Regional Haze rulemakings submitted on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, Plains Justice, Western Resource Advocates, Sierra Club, Citizens for Dixie's Future, Dakota Resource Council, GreenLaw, the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, Our Children's Earth Foundation, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Voyageurs National Park Association, WildEarth Guardians, the Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, and the Wyoming Outdoor Council. We thank you for your prompt consideration of this important matter and would appreciate an opportunity to speak with you about these issues. Please let me know if that can be arranged or if we can otherwise help you or your staff by providing any additional information relating to these issues. Sincerely, StephanieKodish CleanAirCounsel NationalParksConservationAssociation 706WalnutStreet,Suite200 Knoxville,TN37902 865.329.2424(w) 865.964.1774(c) 865.329.2422(f) PRIVILEGEANDCONFIDENTIALITYNOTICE Thismessageisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualorentitytowhichitisaddressedandmay containinformationthatisprivileged,confidential,andexemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw.If
youarenottheintendedrecipientofthismessage, youareherebynotifiedthatdisseminating, distributing,orcopyingitoranyattachmenttoitisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthismessage inerror,pleasenotifymeimmediatelybyemailanddeletetheoriginalmessage.
Bob To Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc Subject Call Paul Billings
Meeting Date 02/06/2013 Time 08:15:00 AM to 08:30:00 AM Chair Bob Perciasepe Invitees Required Optional FYI Location Call my cell 240-472-8372 HiBob Iwaswonderingifyouhadsometimethisweekforabriefchat.Iaminby7:30/7:45mostdayswecan calendarsomethingoryoucancallmycell240Ͳ472Ͳ8372whenyouhaveafewfreeminutes. thanks NOTEnewemail[email protected] PaulG.Billings SeniorVicePresident,Advocacy&Education AmericanLungAssociation 1301PennsylvaniaAveNWSuite800 Washington,DC20004Ͳ1725 Phone:202Ͳ785Ͳ3355x3988 Fax:202Ͳ452Ͳ1805 Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc 04/22/2010 03:39 PM Subject Discussion with Enviros
To discuss MACT and public health
Hi Ellen, Here's a list of participants in the meeting with Gina McCarthy at 10:30 on April 23:
Paul Billings, American Lung Association [email protected] Janice Nolen, American Lung Association [email protected] David Baron, Earthjustice [email protected] John Walke, NRDC [email protected] Ann Weeks, Clean Air Task Force [email protected] Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club [email protected] Joining by phone: Vickie Patton, Environmental Defense Fund [email protected] (possibly by phone) Conrad Schneider, CATF [email protected]
Unable to attend: Jim Pew, Earthjustice Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch
I've sent them all appointments for their calendars, so if you want to send me the phone in number, I'll share it with them. Thanks!
Janice E. Nolen Assistant Vice President National Policy and Advocacy American Lung Association [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004-1725 P 202-785-3355 C 202-486-0285 F 202-452-1805 Bob To Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc 12/06/2012 09:39 AM Subject Meet/Greet w/Mike Brune, John Coequyt
Meeting Date 12/14/2012 Time 10:30:00 AM to 11:30:00 AM Chair Bob Perciasepe Invitees Required john.coequyt Optional Bob Sussman; Michael Goo FYI Denise Anderson; Jacqueline Poole; Linda Chappell; Nena Shaw; Robin Kime Location 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW - Room 3412 Ariel Rios North John Coequyt - 202 669 7060
From: John Coequyt [[email protected]] Sent: 12/05/2012 10:27 AM EST To: Michael Goo Subject: Meeting with Bob Perciasepe
Michael:
I am trying to set up a meeting between Mike Brune (Sierra Club ED) and Bob Perciasepe Friday the 14th between 9 and 11:30. I know it's a short window and if it doesn't work we will just try next time. Can you help get this request to the right person. -- John Coequyt Sierra Club C: (202) 669-7060 O: (202) 675-7916 Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US To cc Sent by: Teri Porterfield bcc 02/17/2010 07:15 PM Subject Pre-Brief - Sierra Club re. RTR deadline suit
Meeting Date 02/19/2010 Time 03:00:00 PM to 03:30:00 PM Chair Gina McCarthy Invitees Required Amy Branning; Eric Ginsburg; Janet McCabe; Ken Hustvedt; Patricia Embrey; Penny Lassiter; Peter Tsirigotis; Steve Page; Wendy Blake Optional Joseph Goffman FYI Cindy Huang; Don Zinger; Drew McConville; Jean Walker; Lala Alston; Maddox.donald; Ross Natoli; Teri Porterfield Location ARN 5400 Call in: 202-564-7412 POC:
Amy Huang Branning EPA Office of General Counsel phone: (202) 564-1744 fax: (202) 564-5603 or (202) 564-0070
As I mentioned in my voice mail this morning, OGC/OAQPS need to have a little time with Gina and Janet (or at least with Janet) before the above mentioned meeting with Sierra Club. Specifically, we need to inform them the topics Sierra Club wishes to cover and to answer whatever questions Gina and/or Janet may have in helping them prepare for the Tuesday meeting. Timothy Wirth To Gina McCarthy
We are following up on the below invitation. Please let us know if you are able to attend.
Dear Gina:
On the evening of June 9 we are hosting a small dinner with one of the rising stars of the environmental community – Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. Michael took over as the Club’s Executive Director from Carl Pope a year ago, as Carl stayed on as Chairman. We want to take this opportunity to introduce him to senior people in the Administration and around town who may not yet have had a chance to meet this vibrant new leader.
Previously, Michael was Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network for seven years and worked as an organizer for Greenpeace. He grew up in Chadwick Beach, on the New Jersey shore, but most of his life and experience has been on the West Coast. His critically acclaimed 2008 book, Coming Clean – Breaking America's Addiction to Oil and Coal, details a plan for a new green economy that will create well-paying jobs, promote environmental justice and bolster national security. He is particularly interested in promoting programs that link the Club's traditional protection of wild places, including national parks, to urgently needed climate change solutions. Just 39, he holds degrees in economics and finance from West Chester University in Pennsylvania.
We hope you are able to join us for an engaging evening of conversation with Michael. The dinner will be held at the Metropolitan Club (1700 H Street, NW, Washington, DC) with a brief reception at 7:00 p.m., followed by dinner at 7:30 p.m. Please R.S.V.P. to Nicole Karl Ernst at [email protected] or 202-419-3225. We look forward to seeing you on Thursday, June 9.
With best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Timothy E. Wirth
Timothy Wirth To Gina McCarthy
Dear Gina:
On the evening of June 9 we are hosting a small dinner with one of the rising stars of the environmental community – Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. Michael took over as the Club’s Executive Director from Carl Pope a year ago, as Carl stayed on as Chairman. We want to take this opportunity to introduce him to senior people in the Administration and around town who may not yet have had a chance to meet this vibrant new leader.
Previously, Michael was Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network for seven years and worked as an organizer for Greenpeace. He grew up in Chadwick Beach, on the New Jersey shore, but most of his life and experience has been on the West Coast. His critically acclaimed 2008 book, Coming Clean – Breaking America's Addiction to Oil and Coal, details a plan for a new green economy that will create well-paying jobs, promote environmental justice and bolster national security. He is particularly interested in promoting programs that link the Club's traditional protection of wild places, including national parks, to urgently needed climate change solutions. Just 39, he holds degrees in economics and finance from West Chester University in Pennsylvania.
We hope you are able to join us for an engaging evening of conversation with Michael. The dinner will be held at the Metropolitan Club (1700 H Street, NW, Washington, DC) with a brief reception at 7:00 p.m., followed by dinner at 7:30 p.m. Please R.S.V.P. to Nicole Karl Ernst at [email protected] or 202-419-3225. We look forward to seeing you on Thursday, June 9.
With best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Timothy E. Wirth
Sarah Dunham/DC/USEPA/US To Gina McCarthy cc Sent by: Tina Murphy bcc 10/09/2012 12:50 PM Subject Accepted: Meeting on PM NAAQS with American Lung Association Sarah Dunham/DC/USEPA/US To Gina McCarthy cc Sent by: Tina Murphy bcc 10/10/2012 10:03 AM Subject Declined: Meeting on PM NAAQS with American Lung Association Travis Ritchie To Gina McCarthy, stephanie.talbert, Brian Doster, Julie Walters
Please find the attached correspondence from the Sierra Club regarding the Avenal Power Plant in California. Travis Ritchie Associate Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected]
Tel: 415-977-5727 Sierra Club Avenal Letter.pdf
February 25, 2011
Via Email
Gina A. McCarthy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460 E-mail: [email protected]
RE: Avenal Power Plant
Dear Ms. McCarthy:
Sierra Club writes to express strong concerns about EPA’s recent proposal to exempt the Avenal Natural Gas Power Plant (the “Project”) from applicable air quality standards. Such an action would have significant and detrimental impacts on air quality in the San Joaquin Valley and set dangerous precedent nationwide. Allowing the Project to operate as currently proposed would violate the federal hourly NO2 standard, and expose local residents to ambient air quality levels that EPA has determined are unsafe.
Sierra Club strongly recommends that EPA abandon its proposal to initiate rulemaking to exempt the Avenal Project from applicable air standards. EPA should instead deny the PSD permit because the permit is not necessary: Avenal has already submitted a revised proposal and received a local air district determination of compliance to operate as a minor source. Avenal need only obtain an amendment to its existing California Energy Commission license that incorporates the revised minor source permit in order to proceed with construction. Requiring the Project to move forward as a minor source with reduced emissions of NOx and CO is a far superior option compared to
1 setting the disturbing precedent of exempting facilities from applicable ambient air quality standards, which would increase health risks and cause litigation against this project and others for violations of federal and state air quality laws.
I. BACKGROUND
Avenal Power Center, LLC (“Avenal”) proposed to build a 600 megawatt combined cycle natural gas-fired power plant within the City of Avenal in Kings County. Avenal filed an Application for Certification on February 21, 2008 with the California Energy Commission (“Energy Commission”). The Energy Commission approved the Project on December 16, 2009 (the “Final Decision”). To ensure compliance with federal and state air quality laws, the Final Decision relied on a Final Determination of Compliance (“2008 FDOC”) issued by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) on November 4, 2008. In the 2008 FDOC, the SJVAPCD evaluated the project as a major source for both NO2 and CO. The Avenal Project therefore triggered prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) requirements of the Clean Air Act and the need for a PSD permit. 42 U.S.C. § 7476. Avenal has not commenced construction of the Project because it has not received a PSD permit from EPA.
A PSD permit must ensure that the Project does not contribute to the deterioration of ambient air quality in the San Joaquin Air District. On February 9, 2010, EPA issued a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for hourly concentrations of NO2 that is more stringent than the previously applicable California standard, and any PSD permit must meet this standard. The Energy Commission did not consider Avenal’s emissions of NO2 with respect to the new NAAQS because it relied on EPA to assume this burden through the issuance of a PSD permit. (Final Decision at p. 129.) However, EPA recently indicated that it would not enforce the legally applicable NO2 standard for this Project by adopting a type of “grandfathering” policy. We urge EPA to abandon this course of action. As discussed below, Avenal has applied for and received a permit to operate as a minor source with lower NO2 emissions. EPA can simply deny Avenal’s permit if it does not meet the requirements for NO2, and the Project can proceed as a minor source.
Avenal has used litigation to force EPA to ignore the currently applicable hourly NAAQS for NO2 and exempt the Project from the mandatory PSD requirement to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of the hourly NO2 standard. Were EPA to abdicate its regulatory authority for the facility, the Project will likely violate both federal and California laws and regulations. Avenal’s violation of the NO2 standard would present a significant health risk to the residents of the City of Avenal and other California residents in the San Joaquin Air District because the Project would result in concentrations of NO2 that the federal government has deemed unsafe.
Simultaneous with its pending application for a PSD permit from EPA, Avenal submitted a revised request for a minor source permit from the SJVAPCD. This revised
2 permit request was identical to the previous request, except that Avenal proposed to reduce NOx emissions from 288,618 lb/yr to 198,840 lb/yr and to reduce CO emissions from 1,205,418 lb/yr to 197,928 lb/yr, which would bring the Avenal Plant under the 100 tons/year trigger for PSD permitting. 42 U.S.C. § 7479. The only apparent reason for this revised permit request was to avoid PSD permitting requirements. The SJVAPCD issued a revised FDOC on December 17, 2010 (the “2010 FDOC”).
Avenal appears to be hedging its bets by pursuing two strategies: (1) proceeding with the Avenal Project as a major source if EPA exempts the facility from the legally applicable NAAQS; or (2) limiting emissions of NOx and CO to less than 100 tons per year to avoid a PSD permit. This latter option would require Avenal to request an amendment to its license from the Energy Commission, replacing the 2008 FDOC requirements with the 2010 FDOC requirements.
Option 1 above violates federal and state law. The Final Decision issued by the Energy Commission reasonably presumed that EPA would fulfill its statutory mandate to ensure that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable ambient air quality standards. (Final Decision, p. 129.) EPA’s proposal to exempt the Project from the applicable NAAQS would undermine the basis on which the Energy Commission made its decision approving the Project. EPA’s action would also have significant health impacts for the residents in the San Joaquin Air District. Accordingly, the Project and the Energy Commission would face litigation risks for violating air quality laws.
As stated in the Final Decision, the Project is a stationary source that is subject to all SJVAPCD rules and regulations. (Final Decision, pp. 118, 127.) The Project is a new stationary source that, according to analyses in the Final Decision and the 2010 FDOC will likely result in total emissions of NO2 that violate the federal NAAQS. (Final Decision, Air Quality Table 5, p. 123; 2010 FDOC, Attachment G.) The Project will therefore violate SJVAPCD Rule 2201-4.14.1 because it is a stationary source that will likely cause a violation of ambient air quality standards. Typically, compliance regarding a criteria pollutant for which the air district is in attainment would be met by relying on EPA to issue a PSD permit. However, in this case, EPA’s decision to abdicate its authority on this issue leaves a regulatory void that will cause a violation of SJVAPCD Rule 2201 and, by extension, will violate both federal and state law.
II. PROJECT IMPACTS
In undertaking its analysis of the Project’s impacts on air quality, the Energy Commission staff worked with SJVAPCD and relied on the 2008 FDOC to conclude that the Avenal Plant would not violate the then-applicable California Ambient Air Quality Standards (“CAAQS”) for 1-hour NO2. The hourly NO2 limit under the then-applicable 3 CAAQS was 0.18 ppm, or 339 !g/m . There was no federal hourly NO2 standard when the Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment was prepared and released. (Final Staff Assessment, Air Quality Table 2, p. 4.1-7.) The Final Decision concluded that the Avenal Project would just barely avoid a violation of the NO2 hourly emission standards because the modeled Project impact and the background emissions combined for a total
3 impact of 327.2 !g/m3, which was 97 percent of the 339 !g/m3 threshold CAAQS. (Final Decision, Air Quality Table 5, p. 123.) The modeled impact of the Project therefore did not appear to violate ambient air quality standards for NO2 in the San Joaquin Air District. The Energy Commission did not include specific conditions of certification for the Project to reduce or offset its NO2 emissions with respect to ambient air quality standards because an EPA issued PSD permit would ensure that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the hourly NO2 standard in the San Joaquin Valley Air District. (Final Decision, p. 129.)
Two months after the Energy Commission issued the Final Decision approving the Project, EPA issued a NAAQS for hourly NO2 that was more stringent than the California standard. 75 Fed. Reg. 6474. The new NAAQS set a limit of 100 ppb (.10 3 ppm), or 188 !g/m for hourly NO2. Under this new standard, it is likely that the total impact of the Project would greatly exceed air quality standards. (Final Decision, Air Quality Table 5, p. 123.) The SJVAPCD analysis conducted with respect to the revised 2010 minor source permit confirmed the likelihood of a violation because the Project, operating as a minor source with significantly reduced NOx emissions, would barely meet the hourly NO2 NAAQS standard. (2010 FDOC, Attachment G.)
III. A SOLUTION THAT PROTECTS AIR QUALITY AND COMPLIES WITH THE LAW
Avenal has filed litigation against EPA seeking to force EPA to make a final decision on its PSD permit. In its motion for summary judgment in that litigation, Avenal asserted that it should not be subject to the federal NAAQS for hourly NO2 and that EPA should grant the PSD permit without requiring the Project to demonstrate that it meets the standard. EPA should have simply denied that request and issued a PSD permit that required Avenal to show that it would meet the applicable NO2 standard through operational changes or control technologies. However, in its response to Avenal’s motion for summary judgment, EPA inexplicably indicated its intention to exempt the Avenal Project from PSD requirements related to NO2.
The Project’s free pass does not, however, extend to the San Joaquin Valley or its residents. The Avenal Project will cause violations of NAAQS that California and the San Joaquin Air District must address, and “exempting” a violation of NAAQS will result in substantial health costs to the local population.
Fortunately, Avenal has already provided a ready-made path allowing the Project to move forward without violating the NAAQS. The Project can proceed as a minor source for NO2 that would not require a PSD permit and would not violate NAAQS because of its limited NOx emissions. (See FDOC Attachment G.) In order to finalize its permits and begin construction, Avenal need only petition the Energy Commission to amend its Final Decision to incorporate the 2010 FDOC in place of the 2008 FDOC.
IV. CONCLUSION
Rather than forcing itself, the Energy Commission, and the San Joaquin Air District to violate federal and state air quality laws and expose residents to harmful
4 pollutants, EPA should deny the PSD permit for the Project. Avenal then has the simple task of requesting an amendment to the Energy Commission’s Final Decision that incorporates the provisions of the 2010 FDOC. This solution would allow Avenal to proceed with construction and avoid a host of serious problems.
Sincerely,
/s/ Travis Ritchie______
Travis Ritchie Associate Attorney Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected]
cc: Stephanie J. Talbert Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington, D.C. 20026-3986 E-mail: [email protected]
Brian Doster United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of General Counsel Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington. D.C. 20460 E-mail: [email protected]
Julie Walters United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne St., Mail Code ORC-2 San Francisco, CA 94105 E-mail: [email protected]
5 Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 06/30/2011 03:59 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US To Janet McCabe 07/01/2011 02:51 PM cc bcc Subject Accepted: Sierra Club SO 2 modelnig Veronica To David Gray, Brenda Mallory, Jessica Gordon, David Cohen, Burley/DC/USEPA/US Nena Shaw, Ann Campbell, Beth Zelenski, Susan Hazen, 03/09/2010 05:17 PM Michael Moats, KevinJ Bailey, Mike Shapiro, Barry Breen, Lek Kadeli, James Jones, Maryann Froehlich, Linda Travers, Catherine McCabe, Beth Craig, Marta Montoro, Colleen Flaherty, Juan Reyes, Joyce Frank, Louise Wise, Emil Knutti cc bcc Subject 03/10/2010 thru 03/23/2010 Schedule for Lisa P. Jackson
*** Do not copy or forward this information *** EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson GENERAL SCHEDULE 03/09/2010 05:16:34 PM Wednesday, 3/10/2010 09:00 AM-01:00 PM Green Cabinet Retreat ------01:15 PM-02:15 PM No Meetings ------02:30 PM-03:30 PM Cabinet Meeting with Chief of Staff ------03:30 PM-04:30 PM FYI-Senior Policy Meeting ------05:30 PM-06:30 PM Johns Hopkins University Foreign Affairs Symposium ------06:45 PM-07:45 PM Meeting with Rev. O'Rouke and Mary Vitale ------
Thursday, 3/11/2010 08:15 AM-08:45 AM 1 on 1 with Gina McCarthy ------08:45 AM-09:15 AM Daily Meeting ------10:00 AM-10:30 AM 1 on 1 with Mathy Stanislaus ------10:50 AM-11:05 AM Call with Senator Menendez re : retrofitting trucks to run on natural gas ------11:15 AM-12:00 PM Discussion on NJ Event ------12:30 PM-01:00 PM 1 on 1 with Michelle DePass ------04:40 PM-09:30 PM Travel to Vancouver ------
Friday, 3/12/2010 05:00 AM-08:00 PM Paralympics ------Saturday, 3/13/2010 05:00 AM-08:00 PM Paralympics ------
Sunday, 3/14/2010 05:00 AM-08:00 PM Paralympics ------10:00 AM-02:00 PM Personal ------
Monday, 3/15/2010 06:47 AM-04:51 PM En Route to DC ------01:00 PM-02:00 PM FYI - Senior Staff Meeting ------
Tuesday, 3/16/2010 05:00 AM-08:00 PM HOLD - National Conference of Black Mayors ------08:15 AM-08:45 AM 1 on 1 with Gina McCarthy ------08:45 AM-09:15 AM FYI - Daily Meeting ------09:00 AM-09:45 AM Remarks at the American Lung Association Board Meeting ------10:00 AM-11:15 AM AO Awards Ceremony ------11:30 AM-12:00 PM 1 on 1 with Cynthia Giles ------12:00 PM-01:00 PM No Meetings ------01:15 PM-01:45 PM Meeting with Representative Lois Capps ------02:00 PM-02:30 PM Meeting with Senator Gillibrand ------03:20 PM-03:30 PM 1 on 1 with Matt Bogoshian ------04:00 PM-05:00 PM OHS Briefing ------
Wednesday, 3/17/2010 08:30 AM-09:00 AM Remarks at EPA's Strengthening Environmental Justice Research and Decisionmaking : A Symposium on the Science of Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts ------09:30 AM-10:00 AM Office Time ------10:00 AM-10:45 AM Meeting with Connie Hedegaard , European Commissioner for Climate Action and Teresa Ribera, State Secretary for Climate Change of Spain ------11:00 AM-11:45 AM Briefing on Wet Weather Issues Associated with Municipal Sewage Treatment ------12:00 PM-01:00 PM Lunch ------01:15 PM-01:45 PM Meeting with Representative James Moran ------02:00 PM-03:00 PM Options Selection - Review of Primary NAAQS for SO 2 ------03:00 PM-04:00 PM Meeting with Greenpeace ------04:15 PM-05:15 PM Senior Policy Meeting ------06:00 PM-07:00 PM Dinner ------
Thursday, 3/18/2010 08:15 AM-08:45 AM 1 on 1 with Steve Owens ------08:45 AM-09:15 AM Daily Meeting ------10:00 AM-10:30 AM 1 on 1 with Mathy Stanislaus ------11:00 AM-11:45 AM Remarks at the American Petroleum Institute 's Board of Directors Meeting ------12:03 PM-01:03 PM HOLD- Morocco Press Event ------01:15 PM-02:00 PM No Meetings ------02:00 PM-02:30 PM Meet & Greet with WWPHSS Students ------02:45 PM-03:00 PM Meeting with Aurelia Hepburn -Brisco ------03:15 PM-03:30 PM HOLD Call with Governor Granholm ------04:00 PM-05:00 PM HOLD- Hoyer ------05:45 PM-07:00 PM Remarks at the Energy Star Awards Ceremony ------
------
Friday, 3/19/2010 08:00 AM-05:00 PM No Meetings ------
Saturday, 3/20/2010 03:00 PM-08:00 PM HOLD- Gridiron Club Dinner ------Sunday, 3/21/2010
Monday, 3/22/2010 08:45 AM-09:15 AM Daily Meeting ------10:00 AM-10:30 AM Remarks at the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) 2010 Water Policy Conference ------12:00 PM-01:00 PM No Meetings ------01:00 PM-02:00 PM Senior Staff Meeting ------03:30 PM-04:00 PM Meeting with Chariman Waxman ------
Tuesday, 3/23/2010 08:15 AM-08:45 AM 1 on 1 with Gina McCarthy ------08:45 AM-09:15 AM Daily Meeting ------10:45 AM-11:15 AM Remarks at OCR Women's History Month Event "Writing Women Back Into History " ------12:00 PM-01:00 PM No Meetings ------
*** END *** Vickie Patton To Joe Bryson, Joseph Goffman
Hi Joe Bryson,
I have attached the draft resolution, the American Lung Ass'n et al opposition, and EDF's opposition. A draft compromise resolution is also circulating.
EDF will not be attending but we are reaching out now to local allies. Also, I am cc'g here Lisa Schwartz and David Farnsworth of the Regulatory Assistance Project who are involved here and apologize if this is redundant.
I will be in DC on July 26th and would immensely value the opportunity to meet you in person, if you are available.
Best wishes, Vickie
----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Bryson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 12:54 PM To: Joseph Goffman
I don't believe I've seen the EDF piece addressing the fraft resolution. Can one of you fwd to me? Thx. And, if Vicki will be in LA @ NARUC mtg, I hope I can meet you in person. Joe
----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Goffman Sent: 07/16/2011 10:23 AM EDT To: [email protected]; Joe Bryson Subject: NARUC Hi, Vickie and Joe. Want to introduce you two if you haven't met before. Joe is one of OAR's PUC experts and will be attending the upcoming NARUC meeting. We've observed EDF's piece on the NARUC draft resolution concerning EPA's rules. Sue Tierney of the Analysis Group also pointed American Lung Association American Public Health Association Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America Physicians for Social Responsibility Trust for America’s Health
July 14, 2011
VIA FACSIMILE
Chuck Gray, Executive Director National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Gray:
On behalf of the undersigned public health and medical organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to Resolution EL-3: Promoting Congressional Action for Increased Flexibility for the Implementation of EPA Rulemakings. Without question, this resolution will delay improvements in public health and hinder the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ability to implement the Clean Air Act.
During your deliberations next week, we ask that you take into account the tremendous public health costs associated with fossil-fuel power plants. The regulations that the EPA has recently finalized and proposed are years overdue. In the case of the Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics proposal, the standards for these plants are nearly 20-years past due. The updated standards that EPA is implementing are designed to protect public health and reduce health care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, including: cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, emergency department visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths.
The recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will improve air quality for more than half of the states. This rule will save up to 34,000 lives each year and prevent over 400,000 asthma attacks, 19,000 admissions to the hospital or emergency department and 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks. Implementation of and compliance with the proposed Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics Rule will result in the annual prevention of approximately: 17,000 premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms; 12,000 hospitalizations and emergency room visits; and 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children.
1
Congress first required EPA to clean up toxic air pollution from industries in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Coal-using electric utilities have successfully delayed having to comply since then. It is time for these plants to get clean and for public health gains to be realized. We ask you to support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward the continued implementation of this vital law. We urge you to reject EL 3 and stand up for public health.
Thank you for considering our position. Should you want to discuss our position in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact Peter Iwanowicz of the American Lung Association at (202) 785-3355.
Sincerely,
American Lung Association American Public Health Association Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America Physicians for Social Responsibility Trust for America’s Health
cc: Garry Brown, Chair of the Electricity Committee Jeanne M. Fox, Chair of the Energy Resource and the Environment Committee Timothy A. Simon, Chair Natural Gas Committee
2
NARUC Should Not Delay Health Protections: Most Utilities Well Prepared
A proposed NARUC resolution would put NARUC on record as supporting significant harm to public health. As noted by the American Lung Association and other prominent health groups, delaying just two of the targeted EPA air pollution rules would result in up to 51,000 premature deaths and 520,000 more asthma attacks each year, many in our most vulnerable populations – children and the elderly.1 The fact is that most U.S. utilities are well prepared to meet EPA’s rules. These rules have been under development for years, and those utilities that took pragmatic, responsible, reasonable steps to prepare for the rules are now ready to comply. Here is what many of them had to say:
o Gale Klappa, Chairman, CEO of Wisconsin Energy said: "We really see very little impact on customer electric rates or our capital plan between now and 2015 as a result of all the new EPA regulations that have been proposed… So that gives you an example of how well we are positioned from the environmental standpoint in terms of complying with even the new proposed rule.” Wisconsin Energy 5/3/2011 Investor Meeting.
o John Rowe, CEO of Exelon said: “There has been a lot of noise about these rules and there will continue to be noise as people fight them. I don’t think the noise will go away, but I don’t expect Congress to do anything to change the rules. The EPA is simply enforcing the requirements of the existing Clean Air Act as the Act has been interpreted by the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. The last major amendments to that Act are now over 20-years old. Neither the rules nor their implementation should be a surprise to anyone. My confidence is bolstered by the fact that the Senate failed to pass legislation that would stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. That legislation only got 50 votes, so it seems highly unlikely that the Senate could find the required 60 votes it would need to block EPA’s health rules on mercury, arsenic, or other toxins. If the Senate didn’t choose to block carbon regulation, it is not going to pass legislation that most people believe will negatively impact the health of babies, children and pregnant women.” Exelon 4/27/2011 Investor Meeting.
o The Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA"), which owns 17,000 megawatts ("MW") of coal-fired generating capacity, announced plans in April 2011 to retire 18 older coal-fired generation units at three power plants as part of the utility's vision of being one of the nation's leading providers of low-cost and cleaner energy by 2020. The utility will replace "older and less-economical generation with cleaner sources." Tom Kilgore, TVA's CEO said ”a variety of electricity sources, rather than heavy reliance on any single source, reduces long-term risks and helps keep costs steady and predictable...In the longer term, these actions reinforce our vision to keep bills low, keep our service reliability high and further improve air quality as we modernize the TVA power system." TVA Press Release, April 14, 2011.
o James Lash, CNO of FirstEnergy said: “I know that all of you are aware of these pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. I would draw your attention to two that probably present the largest challenge to our industry. And they are the transport rule and the maximum achievable control technology regulation. They are both due to become final this year and expected to be implemented in January – to start to be implemented in January 2012 for transport and January 2015 for MACT. We will continue to study these new regulations, and as they evolve, we are confident that we are well positioned to handle the final requirements that will come from them.” FirstEnergy 5/3/2011 Investor Meeting.
1 American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Trust for America’s Health. Letter to Chuck Gray, Executive Director, NARUC (July 14, 2011). o William Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy said: “We believe the new company [created by the Duke-Progress merger] will be well positioned to meet the new EPA MACT regulations expected later this year and in to 2012. We still have much work to do to comply with these new rules, which could require significant additional capital investment and additional announced plant closures. However, we are further down the road on compliance than many other companies with large coal fleets.” Progress Energy 1/10/2011 Investor Meeting.
o Benjamin Fowke, COO of Xcel Energy said: "Like many of our peers, we are in the process of evaluating what if any impact [EPA's Utility Toxics Rule] may have on our operations. Based on our preliminary review we do not anticipate that the rule will require extensive changes to our plans at [Northern States Power] and [Public Service Company of Colorado]…Our proactive steps to reduce emissions through the MERP project in Minnesota and our plans for the Clean Air Clean Jobs Act in Colorado put us in good position to comply with these rules." Xcel 4/28/2011 Investor Meeting.
o Theodore Craver, CEO of Edison International, in reacting to EPA’s proposed Toxics Rule said: "We installed the necessary equipment back in 2009 and are already achieving these [mercury] limits. U.S. EPA's rule contained other draft provisions covering acid gases and non-mercury metals, which we can meet by installing the pollution
control equipment we have been planning to use at Midwest Gen to meet our SO2 emissions commitments to the Illinois EPA." Edison International 5/2/3011 Investor Meeting.
o William Spence, CEO of PPL Generation said: "Our proactive approach to environmental compliance positions the PPL fleet favorably for future EPA regulation. Ninety-six percent of the competitive coal generation is
scrubbed, 88 percent has NOx controls already installed." PPL 4/4/2011 Investor Meeting.
o Mauricio Gutierrez, COO of NRG said: "The proposed [Toxics Rule] provides flexibility in that compliance can be achieved through facility averaging and company selected control technology. It also recognizes the inherent differences in mercury emissions from lignite coal…[t]he key takeaway is that we do not expect at this time any additional environmental CapEx beyond what we have previously announced." NRG 5/5/2011 Investor Meeting.
Note: Companies quoted above are heavily coal dependent Quoted Utility Headquarters % Generation by Coal (2010 MWh) Edison International Rosemead, CA 44% Exelon Chicago, IL 14% FirstEnergy Akron, OH 42% NRG Princeton, NJ 58% Progress Energy Raleigh, NC 44% PPL Allentown, PA 70% Tennessee Valley Knoxville, TN 50% Authority (TVA) Wisconsin Energy Milwaukee, WI 83% Xcel Minneapolis, MN 67% Source: SNL Financial (as of 6/14/2011)
In addition to these individual utility voices, on March 16, 2011, a group of six leading energy companies - Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation, PG&E Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group and Seattle City Light – joined together to applaud EPA’s release of one of the proposed rules. At that time, the companies said: “We know from experience that constructing this technology can be done within a reasonable timeframe, especially with good advance planning …The industry has had more than enough time to study and prepare for these requirements. We support
EL-3 Resolution on Promoting Congressional Action for Increased Flexibility for the Implementation of EPA Rulemakings
WHEREAS, The Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) adopted a resolution on the Role of State Regulatory Policies in the Development of Federal Environmental Regulations on February 16, 2011; including the following statements
! WHEREAS, NARUC at this time takes no position regarding the merits of these EPA rulemakings; and
! WHEREAS, Such regulations under consideration by EPA could pose significant challenges for the electric power sector and the State Regulatory Commissions with respect to the economic burden, the feasibility of implementation by the contemplated deadlines and the maintenance of system reliability; and
! WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that a reliable energy supply is vital to support the nation’s future economic growth, security, and quality of life; and WHEREAS, NARUC wishes to continue to advance the policies set forth in the resolution as it relates to the proposed EPA rulemakings concerning the interstate transport of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, cooling water intake, emissions of hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases, release of toxic and thermal pollution into waterways, and management of coal combustion solids; and
WHEREAS, The EPA may not have the flexibility to modify timelines, due to court set deadlines, to allow cost-effective phase-in of rulemakings; and
WHEREAS, Typically, a retrofit timeline for multimillion dollar projects is 6+ years, considering that the retrofit projects will need to be designed to address compliance with multiple regulatory requirements at the same time and requiring six distinct steps: Certificate of Convenience & Necessity, front end engineering, environmental permitting, detailed engineering, construction and startup; and
WHEREAS, Timelines will also lengthened by the large number of multimillion dollar projects that will be in competition for the same skilled labor and resources; and
WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that greater flexibility with the implementation of EPA regulations can lessen generation cost increases because of improved planning, selection of correct design for the resolution of multiple requirements, and orderly decision making; and
WHEREAS, Many current generators that will be shutdown or repowered due to the new EPA rulemakings are located in constrained areas or supply constrained areas and will need time to allow for transmission or new generation studies to resolve reliability issues; and
WHEREAS, NERC and regional RTO’s will need time to study reliability issues associated with shutdown or repowering of generation; and 18
WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that greater flexibility will allow time for these needed studies, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, convened at its 2011 Summer Committee Meetings in Los Angeles, California, supports efforts to promote State and federal environmental and energy policies that will enhance the reliability of the nation’s energy supply and minimize cost impacts to consumers by:
! Allowing utilities to coordinate the closure and/or retrofitting of existing electric generating units in an orderly manner that will ensure the continued supply of electricity and that will allow power generators to upgrade their facilities in the most cost effective way, while at the same time achieving attainable efficiency gains and environmental compliance; and ! Allowing off-ramp for units that commit to retire or repower through 2020; and ! Allowing a phasing-in of the EPA regulation requirements between 2015-2020; and ! Establishing benchmarks, beginning in 2012, that ensure an orderly, cost effective compliance with the EPA regulation requirements, and thereby, continuing emission reduction progress, but reducing capital costs, rate shock and other economic impacts while still providing that coal-fired units are “well controlled” by 2020; and be it further RESOLVED, That the United States Congress, which represents the interests of the States individually and collectively, should enact legislation requiring the EPA to promulgate regulations reflecting the timeline and efficiencies embodied in this resolution to ensure the reliability of the nation’s energy supply and balance economic growth, energy security, and environmental protection.
______Sponsored by the Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Sequestration and the Committee on Electricity Adopted by the NARUC Board of Directors July xx, 2011
19 out the same draft resolution. Will anybody from EDF be attending the NARUC meeting? Thanks.
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other
than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. NARUC Harmful Resolution 7-15-2011 (2).pdf
Health groups to NARUC.pdf
Proposed NARUC Resolution on EPA Rules 2011 Summer Meeting.pdf Vickie Patton To Vickie Patton
http://www.lung.org/pressͲroom/pressͲreleases/newͲpollͲshowsͲtheͲpublic.html New Poll Shows the Public Wants EPA to Do More to Reduce Air Pollution Voters Support Setting Stronger Carbon Pollution Standards to Protect Public Health Washington, D.C. (March 21, 2012) As big polluters and their allies in Congress continue attacks on the Clean Air Act, the American Lung Association released a new bipartisan survey examining public views of the Clean Air Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) efforts to update and enforce lifesaving clean air standards, including carbon and mercury emissions from power plants. The bipartisan survey, conducted by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican firm Perception Insight, finds that nearly three-quarters of likely voters (73 percent) nationwide support the view that it is possible to protect public health through stronger air quality standards while achieving a healthy economy, over the notion that we must choose between public health or a strong economy. This overwhelming support includes 78 percent of independents, 60 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of conservatives, as well as significant support in Maine, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Obama Administration will soon release updated clean air standards for carbon pollution emitted by power plants, and a substantial majority of voters support the EPA implementing these standards, even after hearing opposing arguments that stricter standards will damage the economic recovery. Initially, 72 percent of voters nationwide support the new protections on carbon emissions from power plants, including overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and independents and a majority of Republicans. After listening to a balanced debate with messages both for and against setting new carbon standards, support still remained robust with a near 2-to-1 margin (63 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed). Support remained especially robust in Maine and Pennsylvania (64 percent in each state). The majority of Ohio voters (52 percent) also favored new carbon standards, which is notable since the poll was conducted during a period of heavy media attention concerning statewide electricity rate increases and potential power plant shutdowns. This bipartisan poll affirms that clean air protections have broad support across the political spectrum, said Peter Iwanowicz, Assistant Vice President, National Policy and Advocacy with the American Lung Association. Big polluters and their allies in Congress cannot ignore the facts; more air pollution means more childhood asthma attacks, more illness and more people dying prematurely. Its time polluters and their Congressional allies drop their attempts to weaken, block or delay clean air protections and listen to the public who overwhelmingly wants the EPA to do more to protect the air we breathe. Voters also voiced strong support for stricter standards to control industrial and power sector mercury and toxic air pollution. When asked about setting stricter limits on the amount of mercury that power plants and other facilities emit, 78 percent of likely voters were in favor of the EPA updating these standards. Strong support was also seen for stricter standards on industrial boilers. Initially, 69 percent of voters supported the EPA implementing stricter standards on boiler emissions. After hearing messaging from both sides of the issue, voters continued to support these standards by nearly a 20-point margin (56 percent favor, 37 percent oppose). Key poll findings include: x Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of voters, say that we do not have to choose between air quality and a strong economy we can achieve both; x A 2-to-1 majority (60 to 31 percent) believe that strengthening safeguards against pollution will create, rather than destroy, jobs by encouraging innovation; x About two-thirds of voters (66 percent) favor EPA updating air pollution standards by setting stricter limits; x 72 percent of voters support new standards for carbon pollution from power plants and support is strong (63 percent) after hearing arguments from both sides of the issue; x 60 percent of voters support stricter standards for gasoline and limits on the amount of tailpipe emissions from cars and SUVs (particularly strong given all the recent attention to high gasoline prices). Despite more than a years worth of continued attacks on clean air protections from big corporate polluters and their allies in Congress, voters across the political spectrum view the Clean Air Act very positively; with a 2-to-1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. At the same time, feelings toward Congress continue to drop, especially among Democrats and independents. Just 18 percent of voters nationally give Congress a favorable rating, while 56 percent rate Congress unfavorable. The unfavorable rating of Congress is up 9 percent since the American Lung Associations last survey released in June 2011. The survey clearly indicates that voters reject the notion that we have to choose between strong safeguards against air pollution and economic growth, said Andrew Bauman, Vice President at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. In fact, voters overwhelmingly believe that stronger safeguards against air pollution will create jobs in America. The poll does show there is broad support across partisan lines for new carbon regulations on power plants, said Marc DelSignore, President of Perception Insight. However, there is a significant difference in the views regarding the impact regulations may have on the economy, with Republicans expressing higher concern for possible job loss and rising energy prices than Democrats or independents. ### About the American Lung Association Now in its second century, the American Lung Association is the leading organization working to save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease. With your generous support, the American Lung Association is Fighting for Air through research, education and advocacy. For more information about the American Lung Association, a Charity Navigator Four Star Charity and holder of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Guide Seal, or to support the work it does, call 1-800-LUNG-USA ( 1-800-586-4872) or visit www.lung.org. About Perception Insight Perception Insight provides opinion research and consulting for campaigns, corporations, trade associations, and others seeking an accurate assessment of the opinions and attitudes of voters, consumers, and others. Perception Insight has broad experience in conducting polls and focus groups on behalf of clients seeking to better understand, and ultimately, influence public opinion. About Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Greenberg Quinlan Rosner is a global leader in public opinion research and strategic consulting. GQR helps elect progressive candidates in the U.S. and around the world, helps NGOs advance their issues, and helps companies understand their reputations and key audiences. PeterIwanowicz AmericanLungAssociation (202)715Ͳ3446 Pleasemakenoteofmynewemailaddressandupdateyourcontactsfile([email protected])
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Victoria To Richard Windsor, Bob Sussman, Bob Perciasepe, Lisa Rivas-Vazquez/DC/USEPA/US Garcia, Diane Thompson, Arvin Ganesan, Laura Vaught, Sarah Pallone, Barbara Bennett, Michael Goo, Avi Garbow, 12/14/2012 06:24 PM Glenn Paulson, Janet Woodka, Eric Wachter, Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe cc James O'Hara bcc Subject PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards Announcement - Summary
PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards Announcement 12/14/12 Summary of National News Coverage National Press Call - 165 participants Top Stories include: x Associated Press, “EPA to tighten standards for soot pollution” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/epa-soot-standards-pm_n_2301150.html?utm_hp_ref=green x Reuters , “U.S. to finalize stricter soot standards on Friday” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/us-usa-soot-idUSBRE8BD0WS20121214 x The New York Times, “E.P.A. Proposes Tighter Soot Rule” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/science/earth/epa-proposes-tighter-soot-rule.html?_r=0 x Bloomberg, “EPA Said to Tighten Soot Standards Industry Sought to Weaken”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-14/epa-said-to-tighten-soot-rules-that-industry- sought-to-weaken x The Washington Post , “EPA tightens soot rules by 20 percent”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-to-tighten-soot-standards-by-20-percent-in-first- major-regulation-since-election/2012/12/14/5a96f9b6-4607-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story_1. html x The Los Angeles Times , “EPA tightens standards for soot pollution” http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-epa-soot-regulation-20120615,0,5672913.story x Politico, “EPA Dropped Secondary Standard from Soot Rule” http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/1212/morningenergy9668.html z USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/epa-soot-pollution-rules/1767381/ x The Hill, “EPA orders tougher limits on soot” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/273003-epa-rejecting-industry-pleas-toughens-soot-standards- x Greenwire, “EPA toughens soot standards” http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/12/14/1 x Feedstuffs , “EPA leaves farm dust standards alone”
http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=F4D1A9DFCD974EAD8CD5205E15C1CB4 2&nm=Breaking+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129C B433&tier=3&nid=ED0A0ABED4D942CCAFD9749CDFABBCFC
Summary of LPJ Taped Message x As of 4:15pm, views of the recorded video message included the major television networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), CNN en Espanol, National Public Radio, Voice of America; various local tv stations (HI, OR, WA, MD, MT, NY, TX and Washington, DC), as well as several newspapers (Houston Chronicle , LA Times , and Philadelphia Inquirer ).
Summary of Validator Statements on PM 2.5 Stakeholders x American Lung Association x Environmental Defense Fund x League of Conservation Voters x National Resources Defense Council x Environment America x Earthjustice x Center for American Progress Action Fund x Sierra Club x MomsRising x Small Business Majority x American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) x Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) x Ceres x Greenpeace x National Farmers Union x Evangelical Environmental Network x Consumers Union x American Public Health Association x National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
PMAnnouncement.StakeholdersStatements.121412.docx
U.S. Congressional Members x Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) x Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) x Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) x Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Summary of Opposition Statements on PM 2.5
Stakeholders x National Association of Manufacturers x American Petroleum Institute
U.S. Congressional Members x Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) x Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) x Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) x Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) x Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) x Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
PMAnnoucement.Congressional.12142012.docx PM Announcement Stakeholder Statements - Highlights 12/14/12
Health and Medical Groups Respond to New Soot Standard Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America “On behalf of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, I commend the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s adoption of air quality standards for particulate matter that fully protect the public’s health. This new standard assures that the 20 million Americans with asthma, including 6.7 million children, are breathing healthy air that does not damage their lungs and cause asthma attacks. Today the EPA took a stand against soot to protect the health of those most at risk and saved thousands of lives.” -Bill McLin, President and CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA)
American Heart Association "EPA's actions today will help to ensure that Americans are not risking their heart health by simply taking a breath," said Barry A. Franklin, Ph.D., past American Heart Association Board of Trustees member and author of the Association's original scientific statement on fine particulate matter. "We know that exposure to fine particulate matter can trigger cardiovascular problems and reduce life expectancy. With cardiovascular disease being the No. 1 killer in the United States, we applaud the EPA for its commitment to protecting public health by reducing air pollution."
American Lung Association “We know clearly that particle pollution is harmful at levels well below those previously deemed to be safe. Particle pollution causes premature deaths and illness, threatening the millions of Americans who breathe high levels of it. By setting a more protective standard, the EPA is stating that we as a nation must protect the health of the public by cleaning up even more of this lethal pollutant. Reducing particle pollution will prevent heart attacks and asthma attacks, and will keep children out of the emergency room and hospitals. It will save lives.” - Norman H. Edelman, MD, Chief Medical Officer for the American Lung Association
American Public Health Association “The American Public Health Association hails EPA’s strengthening of limits for fine particulate matter, or soot, from power plants and other sources that contributes to a range of serious health challenges, including heart attack, stroke and asthma, and even leads to death. This rule, which protects communities across the country from dirty, harmful air, is a public health victory for everyone, but particularly for the most vulnerable among us such as children, the elderly and those suffering from chronic health conditions.” – Georges C. Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E), executive director of American Public Health Association
March of Dimes "Cleaner air will mean healthier mothers and babies," stated Jennifer L. Howse, President of the March of Dimes. "Soot is implicated in health risks for pregnant women, including preterm birth, as well as for their infants. The majority of lung development occurs after birth, so clean air is important for all babies but especially for preemies, who are more likely to suffer from respiratory issues. Given that 1 in 8 infants is born premature in our nation, this rule will have a significant impact on maternal and child health."
National Association of County and City Health Officials “On behalf of America’s 2,800 local health departments, NACCHO applauds the Environmental Protection Agency’s updated, evidence-based standard on particulate matter. The updated standard prevents illness and helps reduce health care costs. Local health departments lay the groundwork in a community for the kinds of choices that keep people healthy and safe, such as implementing smoke-free air laws, and partner with state and federal agencies to ensure people have clean air to breathe.” - Robert M. Pestronk, MPH, Executive Director, National Association of County and City Health Officials
Trust for America’s Health “Today’s finalized soot standard is an important step in guaranteeing the promise of the Clean Air Act. Full implementation of the Act will ensure our nation’s environment will be safer, people will be healthier, and the country will save billions.” – Jeff Levi, PhD, executive director of Trust for America’s Health
Evangelical Environmental Network EEN Praises New Soot Standard by Mitch Hescox The health of our children took an important step forward today when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its new standard for soot pollution that provides a 20% reduction in fine particulates. To get technical for a second, it reduces fine particular 3 3 matter (PM2.5) to 12 micrograms per m from the existing 15 microgram per m .
While our children’s health will always push us towards the ultimate goal of eliminating pollution that harms them and limits their future, we believe the new standard strikes an acceptable balance between public health and current economic conditions.
Simply put, this new soot standard represents important progress in creating a brighter future for our kids.
We at EEN are grateful for the strong leadership provided by Administrator Jackson and for all the hard work that her team at EPA has put forward on this vital new soot standard. The Rev. Mitch Hescox is President and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network.
Small Business Majority
Today’s Finalized Clean Air Rule Supported by Nation’s Job Creators
Statement by John Arensmeyer, Founder & CEO of Small Business Majority, about the Environmental Protection Agency’s finalization of a new clean air standard
The Environmental Protection Agency’s finalization today of a national clean air standard for fine particle pollution is good news for small business owners who have voiced support for the Clean Air Act and a rule that would significantly reduce this type of pollution.
Small Business Majority’s opinion polling found 82 percent of small business owners support EPA rules to reduce the emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases from new and existing power plants, which contribute to fine particle pollution. Nearly half strongly support this rule—that’s five times those who strongly oppose it (10 percent).
Small business owners know they have to innovate to survive in this tough economy, and they realize the burgeoning clean energy economy can provide opportunities to do just that. Our opinion polling found 76 percent of small business owners support the EPA regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act and another 87 percent believe improving innovation and energy efficiency are good ways to increase prosperity for small businesses.
We’re glad to see small businesses’ voices are being heard on these important issues.
About Small Business Majority Small Business Majority is a national small business advocacy organization, founded and run by small business owners, to support America’s 28 million small businesses. We conduct extensive opinion and economic research and work with our rapidly growing network of small business owners across the country to ensure their voices are an integral part of the public policy debate. Learn more about us on Wikipedia and follow us onTwitter and Facebook.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND EPA MOVE FORWARD WITH LIFESAVING PROTECTIONS AGAINST SOOT POLLUTION
National Groups Support Action That Will Save Thousands of Americans’ Lives Annually
Washington, DC - Today, a coalition of national environmental, health and progressive groups seeking federal clean air safeguards announced their support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) just-finalized EPA Soot Pollution Standard, an updated federal clean air standard that will protect Americans against the deadly health impacts of soot pollution.
The groups issued the following joint statement:
“Today, the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put public health ahead of the polluter agenda by finalizing a new clean air standard that will protect Americans from dangerous soot pollution from power plants, motor vehicles and other industrial polluters. This action will ensure cleaner air and save thousands of lives annually.
Soot is one of the deadliest forms of air pollution, causing a wide variety of serious diseases including heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks and acute bronchitis. The undeniable benefits of the Soot Pollution Standard have created broad and deep support for limiting soot pollution from dirty power plants, diesel trucks and other significant sources of soot pollution. A recent national survey by the American Lung Association finds that a strong majority of Americans support stricter limits on the amount of soot released from industrial facilities by a better than 2-1 margin.
The health of more than a third of all Americans – particularly children and the elderly -- is at continuing risk from soot pollution. We applaud the EPA for protecting public health and ignoring polluters’ well-funded scare tactics and attacks on clean air and public health protection.”
The following groups have signed onto the statement: Natural Resources Defense Council Environment America Earthjustice Center for American Progress Action Fund Sierra Club League of Conservation Voters Environmental Defense Fund MomsRising
Organizations Representing over 150,000 U.S. Businesses Issue Joint Statement on EPA’s Final Clean Air Standards for Fine Particle Pollution
Washington, DC – Today, a group of business organizations representing over 150,000 businesses across the country announced their support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finalized national standard for fine particle pollution. The statement, signed by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) and Ceres, reads as follows:
“On behalf of American business leaders, entrepreneurs, and investors who believe in the Clean Air Act’s ability to spur innovation and promote market certainty, today we commend the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for issuing stronger national air quality standards for fine particle pollution. We represent a diverse set of business interests ranging in size from Fortune 500 companies to small businesses that support timely implementation of EPA’s clean air rules, and strongly believe EPA’s revised fine particle standards will lead to a healthier and more productive American workforce. Reductions in fine particle pollution will result in decreased mortality rates and fewer incidents of heart attacks, strokes, and asthma, consequently avoiding lost work days and pollution-related health care costs for businesses across the economy. The revised standards reflect EPA’s understanding that American businesses cannot afford the rising health care costs and lost work days imposed by air pollution.”
Sen. Carper Statement on EPA Announcement of Revised Clean Air Standards to Reduce Harmful Soot Pollution
WASHINGTON - Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety subcommittee, issued the following statement reacting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final update to its national air quality standards for harmful fine particle pollution (PM 2.5), including soot, setting the annual health standard at 12 micrograms per cubic meter:
"Every year, scientists and medical professionals learn more about the unintended consequences of air pollution on our health and our environment. We've known for decades that particle pollution from sources like old coal plants and old diesel engines contaminate the air we breathe and cause damage to our lungs, causing significant health problems --including death -- for millions of Americans annually. In recent years, we've realized that even small amounts of harmful particle pollution can make us sick. Fortunately, today the Environmental Protection Agency announced a new, revised national public health standard for fine particles in our air. By setting a new health standard for our states to meet, this revised rule makes public health protections for Delawareans and all Americans even stronger. At the same time, this rule does not regulate coarse particles - known to many as farm dust. I commend the Environmental Protection Agency for following the direction of Congress by using the best medical and environmental science available to set health standards that protect all Americans from dangerous air pollution."
Rep. Markey, “Reduction in Soot Pollution an Early Holiday Gift for America's Health. Santa's OK with soot in a chimney, but no reason for more of it in kids' lungs”
WASHINGTON (December 14, 2012) - Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, applauded the Environmental Protection Agency's expected clean air standards that will reduce particle pollution known as soot. Particulate matter pollution is linked to health problems such as respiratory disease, asthma and even premature death.
"These strong standards to reduce soot are an early holiday gift from the EPA for America's public health. Santa may be okay with some soot in the chimney, but there's no reason for more of it to be in the lungs of America's kids. This action will keep our air cleaner and skies clearer, and proves that government can still work in the interest of all Americans."
Rep. Waxman Statement on EPA Announcement of Refined Particulate Matter Standards
WASHINGTON, DC - Rep. Henry A. Waxman today released the following statement commending EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for signing regulations strengthening the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) annual standard by lowering it from 15 to 12 micrograms/cubic meter:
"I commend EPA for taking action, based on compelling science, to protect Americans from the devastating health effects of soot pollution, which include heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks and death. Today's action also puts to rest the unfounded claims we've heard over the past two years that EPA had a secret agenda to regulate so-called 'farm dust.'"
Sen. Patrick Leahy on the EPA’s Next Round of Clean Air Standards to Reduce Harmful Soot Pollution.
Friday, Dec. 14, 2012 “I applaud the EPA and Administrator Jackson for this new standard that will save thousands of lives each year, giving Vermonters and all of the American people the priceless benefit of being able to breathe cleaner air. At last we have an air pollution standard that is based on the best available science and an extensive body of scientific evidence as the law requires. The courts have rightfully determined that the old standard is too weak to adequately protect Americans’ health. We do not have to choose between a healthy economy and healthy air and lungs. We can and we should have both, and this will help.”
Greenpeace Applauds Tighter Soot Standards. New EPA standards are key part to cleaning air, but groups hope for continued action
Today the EPA announced long overdue standards restricting fine particle matter, or soot, emissions from industrial activity. The new standards would decrease the level of soot 20 percent from current levels, from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to15 micrograms per cubic meter. The updated standard would put a cap on particulate matter at a daily level of 35 micrograms.
According to the EPA’s projections, the benefits of this rule far outweigh the costs. EPA estimates this benefit to be in the range of 4 billion to 9.1 billion dollars and the costs to be a fraction of those benefits.
“Without a doubt this updated standard will save lives,” said Greenpeace Climate Campaigner Robert Gardner. “For the millions of Americans dealing with the devastating health impacts from particle pollution, this rule will begin the cleanup process. Oil, gas, and coal industry front groups like the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council should remind themselves of that fact before trying to further derail clean air regulations from occurring.”
After implementation, 66 out of 3,033 counties nationally will be in violation of the new standard. However, by 2020, only seven counties will be out of compliance as a result of pollution controls and other compliance measures.
Gardner added, “We are seeing the Polluter Pays Doctrine become more and more of a reality. However, the job is not done. Rules are still outstanding on coal ash and existing sources of carbon pollution. The EPA should use its authority during a second Obama administration to challenge the notion that American industry can’t both generate jobs and operate in the cleanest, most efficient manner possible.”
National Farmers Union: EPA Announcement Puts Farm Dust Regulation Issue to Rest
WASHINGTON (Dec. 14, 2012) – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized an update to its national air quality standards for harmful fine particle pollution (PM2.5), including soot, setting the annual health standard at 12 micrograms per cubic meter, in response to a court order.
According to EPA, today’s announcement has no effect on the existing daily standard for fine particles or the existing daily standard for coarse particles (PM10), which includes dust from farms and other sources, both of which remain unchanged.
“National Farmers Union (NFU) commends the EPA on continuing its position to leave PM10 standards unchanged,” said NFU Vice President of Government Relations Chandler Goule. “We can finally put this issue to rest. There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about supposed regulatory overreach so this final rule will hopefully put to rest any remaining anxiety regarding ‘farm dust’ regulation by EPA.”
Evangelical Environmental Network Praises New Soot Standard From the Rev. Mitch Hescox, President and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network.
“The health of our children took an important step forward today when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its new standard for soot pollution that provides a 20% reduction in fine particulates. To get technical for a second, it reduces fine particular matter (PM2.5) to 12 micrograms per m3from the existing 15 microgram per m3.
While our children’s health will always push us towards the ultimate goal of eliminating pollution that harms them and limits their future, we believe the new standard strikes an acceptable balance between public health and current economic conditions.
Simply put, this new soot standard represents important progress in creating a brighter future for our kids.
We at EEN are grateful for the strong leadership provided by Administrator Jackson and for all the hard work that her team at EPA has put forward on this vital new soot standard.”
Consumers Union praises new EPA standards for soot pollution
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Consumers Union and other clean-air advocates today praised the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s tighter standards for soot pollution. The new rules unveiled today seek to reduce the emission of fine particles linked to strokes, heart attacks, acute asthma attacks, lung disease, and premature deaths. Shannon Baker-Branstetter, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said,
“This is a good move that will save lives and prevent thousands of illnesses a year. There’s been an urgent need for tougher soot standards in order to curb disease and early deaths. This is good news not only for public health. It could also lead to big cost savings in health-care spending and fewer lost-work days.”
Thousands of Consumers Union activists wrote the federal government to call for an improved soot standard to protect public health. Victoria To Ron Slotkin, Jeffrey Levy, David Bloomgren, David Cohen, Rivas-Vazquez/DC/USEPA/US Roxanne Smith, Dru Ealons, Scott Fraser, Stephanie Owens, Stephanie Epner, Cathy Milbourn, Molly Hooven, Enesta 12/14/2012 06:26 PM Jones, Alisha Johnson, John Millett, Jessica Orquina, Jini Ryan cc James O'Hara bcc Subject Today's PM Announcement - Summary
Here is a brief summary of the coverage/reax to today's announcement. Thank you all for your efforts!
Vicki
PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards Announcement 12/14/12 Summary of National News Coverage National Press Call - 165 participants Top Stories include: x Associated Press, “EPA to tighten standards for soot pollution” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/epa-soot-standards-pm_n_2301150.html?utm_hp_ref=green x Reuters , “U.S. to finalize stricter soot standards on Friday” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/us-usa-soot-idUSBRE8BD0WS20121214 x The New York Times, “E.P.A. Proposes Tighter Soot Rule” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/science/earth/epa-proposes-tighter-soot-rule.html?_r=0 x Bloomberg, “EPA Said to Tighten Soot Standards Industry Sought to Weaken”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-14/epa-said-to-tighten-soot-rules-that-industry- sought-to-weaken x The Washington Post , “EPA tightens soot rules by 20 percent”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-to-tighten-soot-standards-by-20-percent-in-first- major-regulation-since-election/2012/12/14/5a96f9b6-4607-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story_1. html x The Los Angeles Times , “EPA tightens standards for soot pollution” http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-epa-soot-regulation-20120615,0,5672913.story x Politico, “EPA Dropped Secondary Standard from Soot Rule” http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/1212/morningenergy9668.html z USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/epa-soot-pollution-rules/1767381/ x The Hill, “EPA orders tougher limits on soot” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/273003-epa-rejecting-industry-pleas-toughens-soot-standards- x Greenwire, “EPA toughens soot standards” http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/12/14/1 x Feedstuffs , “EPA leaves farm dust standards alone”
http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=F4D1A9DFCD974EAD8CD5205E15C1CB4 2&nm=Breaking+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129C B433&tier=3&nid=ED0A0ABED4D942CCAFD9749CDFABBCFC Summary of LPJ Taped Message x As of 4:15pm, views of the recorded video message included the major television networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), CNN en Espanol, National Public Radio, Voice of America; various local tv stations (HI, OR, WA, MD, MT, NY, TX and Washington, DC), as well as several newspapers (Houston Chronicle , LA Times , and Philadelphia Inquirer ).
Summary of Validator Statements on PM 2.5 Stakeholders x American Lung Association x Environmental Defense Fund x League of Conservation Voters x National Resources Defense Council x Environment America x Earthjustice x Center for American Progress Action Fund x Sierra Club x MomsRising x Small Business Majority x American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) x Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) x Ceres x Greenpeace x National Farmers Union x Evangelical Environmental Network x Consumers Union x American Public Health Association x National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
PMAnnouncement.StakeholdersStatements.121412.docx
U.S. Congressional Members x Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) x Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) x Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) x Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Summary of Opposition Statements on PM 2.5
Stakeholders x National Association of Manufacturers x American Petroleum Institute
U.S. Congressional Members x Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) x Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) x Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) x Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) x Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) x Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) PMAnnoucement.Congressional.12142012.docx
"Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan" To Bob Sussman, Gina McCarthy, Matt Bogoshian, Cynthia
DearAll, Today,NRDCandSierraClubsubmittedacommentletterastowhytheStateDepartmentshoulddoa supplementalenvironmentalimpactstatement(SEIS)asthenextstepintheprocessfortheproposed KeystoneXLtarsandspipeline.Ourcommentletterisattachedandbelowisthelinktoablogdescribing thecomments. Pleaseletusknowifyouhaveanyquestionsorcommentswearehappytocomeinanddiscussthis issuewithyouinmoredetail.OurcolleaguefromtheSierraClubhasbeenincontactwithMatt Bogoshianaboutapossiblemeetingtimeinthenewyear. WeappreciateallthetimeandeffortthatEPAisputtingintothisissue.Averyhappyholidaystoyouall. Regards, Susan NRDCBlog:Publicdeservesachancetoreviewnewanalysisoftarsandspipelineenvironmental impacts Today,NRDCandtheSierraClubsubmitteddetailedcommentstotheStateDepartmentonwhythey arelegallyrequiredtoprepareasupplementalenvironmentalimpactstatementthatprovides informationeithernotincludedinorinadequatelyincludedintheproposedKeystoneXLtarsands pipelinedraftenvironmentalimpactassessmentreleasedlastsummer.TheEnvironmentalProtection Agency(EPA),theDepartmentofEnergy(DOE),Congressionalleaders,theenvironmentalcommunity, andothershavebeenurgingtheStateDepartmenttoprovidetheanalysisneededtomakea wellͲinformeddecisionontheproposedKeystoneXLpipeline.Thepipelinewouldbringtarsandsoil corrosivebitumenthatmustbepumpedunderhighpressureandtemperaturefromCanadatoTexas. Yet,monthslater,theStateDepartmentisstillnotsayingpublicallyiftheywillprovidethenew informationandprovideitinaformthatincludesameaningfulpublicreviewperiod.Readmore: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/public deserves a chance to re.html Susan Casey-Lefkowitz Director International Program Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Ave, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: 1-202-289-2366, Cell: 1-646-287-6225 Fax: 1-202-289-1060 Email: [email protected] www.nrdc.org www.stopdirtyfuels.org www.welovebirds.org http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL (19,5210(17$/,03$&767$7(0(17««««««««««««««««
II. DOS MUST PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SUBS7$17,$/&+$1*(6,17+(352326('$&7,21«««««««««« A. Significant New Circumstances Have Arisen Regarding TransCanada¶s Status as a Common Carrier in Montana and the State-Mandated Bakken Marketlink Interconnection Constitutes a Substantial Change to the Project«««««««««««««««««««
B. TransCanada¶s Withdrawal of its PHMSA Special Permit Application Constitutes a Significant New Circumstance and a Change in the Project««««««««««««««««
III. DOS MUST PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT NEW ,1)250$7,21$1'&,5&8067$1&(6«««««««««««««««
A. The Kalamazoo River Spill and Other Recent Pipeline Spills Constitute Significant New Information and Circumstances Regarding the Inadequacies of the DEIS Spill and Response $QDO\VLV«««««««««««««««««««««««
B. There Is New Information Showing Possible Use of Defective Steel for the Keystone 3LSHOLQH««««««««««««««««««
C. Significant New Information Shows that the Project Will Likely Adversely Affect the American Burying Beetle, a Federally Listed (QGDQJHUHG6SHFLHV«««««««««««««««««1
D. There Is 1HZ,QIRUPDWLRQ5HJDUGLQJWKH3URMHFW¶V,PSDFWVRQ Species $IIHFWHGE\WKH'HHSZDWHU+RUL]RQ6SLOO««««««««««««12
IV. A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THE INADEQUACIES OF THE DEIS IN FUR7+(5$1&(2)7+(385326(62)1(3$«««««««
V. THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EIS WITH A COMMENT PERIOD IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSE OF NEPA««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««
VI. CONCLUSION««««««««««««««««««««««««««««8
2
Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club
December 16, 2010
Via electronic and U.S. mail
Re: Comments to the Department of State Regarding the Need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the T ransCanada Keystone X L Pipeline
Dear Mr. Hormats, Mr.Koh, and Ms. Jones;
On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club we submit the following comments regarding the need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 6(,6 IRUWKHSURSRVHG7UDQV&DQDGD.H\VWRQH;/3LSHOLQH3URMHFW KHUHLQDIWHU³.H\VWRQH;/´ WKH³3LSHOLQH´RUWKH³3URMHFW´ ,QWKHFRPPHQWVEHORZZHRXWOLQHVLJQLILFDQWQHZLQIRUPDWLRQ and changed circumstances associated with the Project as well as substantial changes in the project, all of which occurred after the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) closed in July 2010. We also identify substantial defects in the DEIS that should be corrected in an SEIS, which would further the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Since publication of the DEIS, the scope of the project has changed considerably. TransCanada was granted common carrier status in Montana, which led to the addition of the Bakken Marketlink Interconnection that will require huge amounts of additional infrastructure and allow domestic oil producers to upload their product to market. TransCanada also withdrew its Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) special permit application that would have allowed Keystone XL to operate at a higher-than-normal operating pressure. Without a special permit, the capacity of the pipeline will change drastically. These changes in the project must be analyzed in an SEIS.
In addition, significant new information and circumstances have recently arisen that require analysis in an SEIS. A series of disasters over the summer, including a tar sands crude oil pipeline spill of over one million gallons of diluted bitumen (DilBit) into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan has exposed the challenges of transporting highly corrosive, acidic and potentially unstable DilBit through pipelines. Safety concerns have been confirmed and heightened by that and other recent pipeline spills, and an ongoing investigation by PHMSA UHJDUGLQJ7UDQV&DQDGD¶VSRWHQWLDOXVHRIGHIHFWLYHVWHHOLQWKH.H\stone I pipeline.
New circumstances and information have also arisen regarding impacts to protected and YXOQHUDEOHVSHFLHV)RUH[DPSOHWKH'(,6¶s cumulative analysis of impacts to species such as the Brown Pelican are outdated in light of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, which has adversely affected many species and rendered them more susceptible to impacts from this project. In addition, TransCanada recently announced that the Project is likely to adversely
3 affect the American burying beetle, a species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An SEIS is necessary to evaluaWHWKH3URMHFW¶VLPSDFWVRQWKHVH species and consider alternatives which would mitigate impacts on these and other sensitive species.
We also identify a number of insufficiencies in the DEIS for which an SEIS should be issued to further the purposes of NEPA, including the failure to DGGUHVV'2(¶VFRQFHUQV regarding the needs analysis for the Project; the failure to DGHTXDWHO\DQDO\]HWKH3URMHFW¶V greenhouse gas impacts; the failure to analyze the unique risks associated with the transportation of DilBit through pipelines; alternatives that would avoid important aquifers; the failure to adequately address the environmental justice impacts of air and water pollution on communities; the failure to adequately address impacts on migratory birds; the failure to adequately identify and analyze mitigation measures; the failure to adequately analyze refinery emissions; the failure to adequately analyze wetland impacts; and the failure to evaluate transboundary impacts.
In light of major changes made to the project since the close of the comment period on the DEIS as well as new information and circumstances, we urge DOS to issue an SEIS for Keystone XL and provide sufficient opportunity for public comment. In addition, DOS should use this SEIS as an opportunity to correct the substantial deficiencies in the DEIS, which would further the purposes of NEPA.
I. L E G A L R E Q UIR E M E N TS F O R A SUPPL E M E N T A L E N V IR O N M E N T A L I MPA C T ST A T E M E N T
NEPA requires a supplement to an EIS when significant new information or changes in a project implicate significant changes in the environmental analysis. The NEPA regulations require that: $JHQFLHV«>V@KDOOSUHSDUHsupplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.1 (2) [Agencies] may also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.2 The use of the word µshall¶ is mandatory: it creates a duty on the part of the agency to prepare a supplemental EIS if substantial changes from any of the proposed alternatives are made and the changes are relevant to environmental concerns.3 In determining whether new
1 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 (1978). 2 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 (1978). 3 Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 372 (1989) (recognizing the duty where there are significant new circumstances or information); see also 'XERLVY86'HS¶WRI$JULF, 102 F.3d 1273, 1292 (1st Cir. 1996).
4 information is significant, a coXUWVKRXOGORRNWRWKH1(3$³VLJQLILFDQFHIDFWRUV´IRXQGLQ C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) (1978).4 When determining if new circumstances or new information require an agency to issue a supplemental EIS, a court should consider the following factors: (a) the environmental significance of the new information; (b) its probable accuracy; (c) the degree to which the agency considered the new information and considered its impact; and (d) the degree to which the agency supported its decision not to supplement its decision not to supplement its impact statement with explanation or additional data.5 II. D OS M UST PR EPA R E A SUPPL E M E N T A L E N V IR O N M E N T A L I MPA C T ST A T E M E N T B E C A USE T H E R E H A V E B E E N SUBST A N T I A L C H A N G ES IN T H E PR OPOSE D A C T I O N DOS must prepare an SEIS for the Project to address substantial changes in the proposed action. Subsequent to the close of the DEIS comment period in July 2010, the scale and design of the proposed project have changed significantly because of the addition of the Bakken Marketlink interconnection in Montana DQGEHFDXVHRIWKHZLWKGUDZDORI7UDQV&DQDGD¶V application for a special permit from PHMSA.
A. Significant New Circumstances Have A risen Regarding T ransCanada¶s Status as a Common Carrier in Montana and the State-Mandated Bakken Marketlink Interconnection Constitutes a Substantial Change to the Project The DEIS notes the possibility that a Montana interconnection pipeline system might allow Bakken oil to be uploaded in Eastern Montana, and describes the facilities that an interconnection would require.6 ,QFXUVRU\IDVKLRQWKH'(,6GHVFULEHVWKDWWKLV³VSHFXODWLYH´ interconnection would require an on-ramp pipeline, significant new aboveground infrastructure, and the modification of a Keystone XL pump station.7 The DEIS briefly lists the potential impacts that could result from an interconnection.8 +RZHYHULWDYRLGV1(3$¶VUHTXLUHG³KDUG
4 Natural Res. Def. Council v. Lujan, 768 F. Supp. 870, 886 (D.D.C. 1991) (a new report that contained a substantially different estimate of the amount of oil expected to be found in Alaska required the preparation of an SEIS). 5 Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 1980); Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F.2d 946 (1st Cir. 1983). 6 .H\VWRQH;/'UDIW(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW ³'(,6´ 3.14-6 (available at http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). 7 DEIS, 3.14-6. $QLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJ³RQ-UDPS´SLSHOLQHZRXOGLQFOXGHSXPSVWDWLRQVZLWKDUHFHLYHWUDS and a pressure control valve/skid located at the receipt facility; a receipt/injection facility of at least 8 to 9 acres, including a complex custody transfer station; 7 acres of storage tanks capable of holding at least 300,000-600,000 barrels of oil; a booster pump system; an electronic substation and electrical building with additional controls and instrumentation; Modification of a Keystone XL pump station, including a connection to the pump station, two block valves, and two check valves. Id. 8 DEIS, 3.14- ³.H\LVVXHVZRXOGLQFOXGHYLVXDOUHVRXUFHVLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHVWRUDJHWDQNVDQGSXPS stations, cultural resources, changes in land use, increased tax revenues, increased employment, and SRWHQWLDOO\DFFHOHUDWLQJWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIFUXGHRLOUHVRXUFHV´
5
ORRN´DWWKHLPSDFWVRUSRVVLEOHDOWHUQDWLYHFRQILJXUDWLRQVRID%DNNHQLQWHUFRQQHFWLRQE\ GLVPLVVLQJLWDV³FXUUHQWO\VSHFXODWLYH´DQGLmplying that it is not economically feasible.9
In August 2010, the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) awarded common carrier status to TransCanada.10 As a result, Montana oil producers now have the legal right to upload oil onto the Pipeline at interconnection sites. The substantial new pipeline infrastructure UHTXLUHGWROLQN0RQWDQDRLOVKLSSHUVWRWKH.H\VWRQH;/KDVEHFRPHNQRZQDVWKH³%DNNHQ MaUNHWOLQN3URMHFW´,Q6HSWHPEHU*RYHUQRU%ULDQ6FKZHLW]HUDQG7UDQV&DQDGDDQQRXQFHGD ³ELnding Open SHDVRQ´WRREWDLQILUPFRPPLWPHQWVIRUWKH%DNNHQ0DUNHWOLQN3URMHFW11 This will allow Montana oil producers to transport their oil to Cushing, Oklahoma, and on to the Gulf Coast via the Project. TransCanada completed an Open Season on November 19 and is now evaluating bids for the Marketlink Project.12
The Bakken Marketlink Project is now ZHOOEH\RQGWKH³VSHFXODWLYH´VWDJH5HJDUGOHVV RIWKHRQJRLQJFRQWUDFWELGGLQJSURFHVVWKLVFRQQHFWHGSLSHOLQHSURMHFWLVD³UHDVRQDEO\ IRUHVHHDEOH´IXWXUHDFWLRQWKDWUHTXLUHV1(3$DQDO\VLV13
This foreseeable new pipeline infrastructure has the potential for significant environmental impacts, could significantly alter the size and character of the Project, and comprises an alternative configuration of the Project that was not considered in the DEIS. A change in configuration of the Project that the public has not had a chance to comment on requires the preparation of a supplemental EIS.14
1(3$UHTXLUHV³FRQQHFWHGDFWLRQV´³WREHFRQVLGHUHGWRJHWKHULQDVLQJOH(,6´15 The NEPA regulations provide direction on when projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline and the Bakken pipeline should be considered together in a single EIS. These regulations define ³FRQQHFWHGDFWLRQV´DVDFWLRQVWKDWDUH³FORVHO\UHODWHGDQGWKHUHIRUHVKRXOGEHGLVFXVVHGLQWKH VDPHLPSDFWVWDWHPHQW´16
9 DEIS, 3.14-7. 10 Energy Pipeline News, Montana PSC grants Keystone XL qualified eminent domain powers, August 18, 2010, http://energypipelinenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/montana-psc-grants-keystone-xl.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 11 The Billings Outpost, State, TransCanada launch Open Season for oil, Sept. 23, 2010, http://www.billingsnews.com/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=1952:state-transcanada- launch-open-season-for-oil&catid=64:business-news&Itemid=113 (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 12 The Bakken Marketlink Project is expected to commence providing service in the first quarter of 2013. See http://www.transcanada.com/bakken.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 13 See Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998). In DGGLWLRQWR7UDQV&DQDGD¶VRZQOLWHUDWXUHFLWHGDERYHWKHFRPSDQ\DOVRVWDWHVWKDWWKH3URMHFWLVQRZ PRUHGHILQLWH³IROORZ>LQJ@DVXFFHVVIXOH[SUHVVLRQRILQWHUHVWSKDVHZKLFKZDVFRQGXFWHGHDUOLHULQ ´ http://www.transcanada.com/bakken.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). 14 Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1293 (1st Cir. 1996). 15 Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1985). 16 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)( ³&RQQHFWHGDFWLRQV´DUHWKRVHWKDWL DXWRPDWLFDOO\WULJJHURWKHU actions which may require environmental impact statements; ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; and iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger actions for their justification. Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Bureau of Land
6
The Keystone XL pipeline prRMHFWDQGWKH%DNNHQ0DUNHWOLQN3LSHOLQHDUH³FRQQHFWHG DFWLRQV´ The Bakken Marketlink Project is a pipeline interconnection that will be physically connected to the Project. Its utility absolutely depends on Keystone XL: if Keystone XL were not built, the Bakken Marketlink Project would serve no purpose (there would be no larger pipeline on which to upload Bakken oil). Furthermore, the Keystone XL pipeline could not take place without the Bakken MarketOLQN3URMHFWEHFDXVH0RQWDQD¶Vcommon carrier law now requires TransCanada to allow domestic producers to upload oil.
7KH%DNNHQ0DUNHWOLQN3URMHFWVDWLVILHVWKH³FRQQHFWHGDFWLRQ´HOHPHQWVRI&)5 1508.25(a)(1) and therefore must be considered in a single EIS.17 An SEIS must examine the environmental impacts of the interconnection facilities, and provide an analysis of several alternatives for these facilities, including analyses of their respective water crossings and proximity to sensitive areas.
An SEIS must also analyze and inform the public as to how the additional sources of conventional crude oil will interact with the tar sands crude oil being transported from Alberta, and whether any operational or design changes will be necessary. For example, an SEIS should examine whether the currently-planned pumping stations will be sufficient to accommodate the additional sources and additional capacity; whether the different chemical composition of oil from the Bakken project shippers will present different threats and impacts in the event of a leak or rupture; whether the amount of diluent or heating that is required to move the crude through the pipeline will change; what additional facilities, operational plans, or emergency response plans will be necessary. In addition, because it is now required to offer oil transportation services to oil shippers in Montana and North Dakota, the Project will likely increase the amount of oil development in this region. This increase in domestic oil development is an indirect, connected, and cumulative action. As such, its environmental impacts must be evaluated, including but not limited to an increase in the use of hydraulic fracturing, increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and its displacement of alternative fuels and renewable energy development and sales.
B. 7UDQV&DQDGD¶V:LWKGUDZDORILWV3+06$6SHFLDO3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQ Constitutes a Significant New Circumstance and a Change in the Project
In August 2010, TransCanada withdrew its application for a special permit from PHMSA and substantially changed the design parameters of the Project. At the time the DEIS was published, PHMSA was considering granting a special permit that would allow TransCanada to operate the Pipeline DWDKLJKHUPD[LPXPRSHUDWLQJFDSDFLW\RU³GHVLJQIDFWRU´IRUWKHVWHHO
Management)G WK&LU ³3URSRVDOVRUSDUWVRISURSRVDOVZKLFKDUHUHODWHGWR each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact VWDWHPHQW´ Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 222 F.3d 1105, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (the requirement to analyze connected action prevents an ageQF\IURP³GLYLGLQJDSURMHFWLQWR multiple actions, each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which FROOHFWLYHO\KDYHDVXEVWDQWLDOLPSDFW´ 17 See Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding a road reconstruction, WLPEHUKDUYHVWDQGIHHGHUURDGVWRDOOEH³FRQQHFWHGDFWLRQV´
7 employed. TransCanada withdrew its application but announced that it would still use the same pipe in the construction of the Project and reserved the right to apply for the permit at a future date.
7UDQV&DQDGD¶VZLWKGUDZDORIWKH6SHFLDO3HUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQPHDQVWKDWWKHSLSHOLQHZLOO operate at the lower, federally approved pressure, meaning the daily operating capacity of the Pipeline will be significantly reduced. The DEIS analyzes an initial capacity of 700,000 bpd and an ultimate capacity of 900,000 bpd.18 Without the special permit, the maximum capacity is now dramatically reduced. This reduction in capacity constitutes a substantial change in the Project requiring a supplemental EIS.19
III. D OS M UST PR EPA R E A SUPPL E M E N T A L E N V IR O N M E N T A L I MPA C T ST A T E M E N T B E C A USE T H E R E IS SI G NI F I C A N T N E W IN F O R M A T I O N A ND C IR C U MST A N C ES DOS must prepare an SEIS for the Project to address significant new information and circumstances. Significant new information has arisen and changed circumstances have occurred concerning DilBit pipeline accident risks; D)HGHUDOLQYHVWLJDWLRQLQWR7UDQV&DQDGD¶V procurement of defective steel for the Keystone Pipeline; WKH3URMHFW¶VLPSact on the endangered American burying beetle; and new information on increased susceptibility to wildlife affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
A. The K alamazoo River Spill and Other Recent Pipeline Spills Constitute Significant New Information and Circumstances Regarding the Inadequacies of the D E IS Spill and Response Analysis
A pipeline spill of over one million gallons of diluted bitumen (DilBit) into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan on July 27, 2010 has exposed the challenges of transporting highly corrosive, acidic and potentially unstable DilBit through pipelines. The Kalamazoo spill DQGDVWULQJRIRWKHUSLSHOLQHDFFLGHQWVKDYHDOVRKLJKOLJKWHGPDMRUHUURUVLQWKH'(,6¶s oil spill and emergency response analysis, and displayed a need for further analysis in an SEIS.
The Kalamazoo River spill provides new information that casts strong doubt on assumptions the DEIS made regarding spill detection and response. DilBit flowing through SLSHOLQHVFDQSURGXFHDSKHQRPHQRQFDOOHG³FROXPQVHSDUDWLRQ´ZKLFKRFFXUVDVLWVQDWXUDOJDV condensate component evaporates within the pipeline, forming a bubble that impedes the flow of oil.20 Column separation and pipeline leaks present similar signals to pipeline Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) computer monitoring systems.21 During the Kalamazoo
18 DEIS, ES-2. 19 See Commonwealth of Mass. v. Watt, 716 F.2d at 951, (finding a substantial change in the potential environmental impacts of an offshore lease when the agency reduced the amount of oil expected to be discovered). 20 Matthew McClearn, Enbridge: Under Pressure ± 7KHXQWROGVWRU\RI(QEULGJH¶VZRUVWVSLOODQGWKH unsettling truth about pipeline safety, Canadian Business, Dec. 6, 2010, http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/commodities/article.jsp?content=20101206 10023 10023 (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 21 Id.
8 spill, the Enbridge pipeline gushed for over twelve hours as control room operators inaccurately LQWHUSUHWHGWKHSLSHOLQH¶VPRQLWRULQJGDWDWRLQGLFDWHFROXPQVHSDUDWLRQ22 This lengthy detection and response time constitutes new information regarding vulnerabilities in monitoring and spill response systems in DilBit pipelines and requires the preparation of an SEIS.
The DEIS assumes that the Project¶VSCADA monitoring system will alert operators to abnormal operating conditions, including spills or leaks.23 The DEIS does not account for the tendency of DilBit pipelines to give false positives,24 making interpretation of SCADA data and discovery of leaks difficult. The DEIS does not contain sufficient information regarding the Project¶VOHDNGHWHFWLRQV\VWHPWRLQVWLOOFRQILGHQFHWKDW6&$'$FDQUHOLDEO\LGHQWLI\SLSHOLQH ruptures like the one which occurred in Michigan.
The DEIS pipeline incident frequency assessment for the Project is based on data which significantly underestimates the risk of spills from the Project. The DEIS bases its baseline spill risk assessment on historical data from the U.S. hazardous liquid pipeline system.25 However, the majority of the U.S. hazardous liquid pipeline system transports conventional crude. Pipelines that transport highly corrosive DilBit have a higher risk of internal corrosion and over- SUHVVXUH)RUH[DPSOH$OEHUWD¶VKD]DUGRXVOLTXLGV\VWHPZKLFKFDUULHVDKLJKSURSRUWLRQRI diluted bitumen, had over four times as many reportable incidents per mile as the U.S. pipeline system between 1990 and 2005.26 By basing the risk of spills on the existing U.S. conventional
22 Id.; Richard KuprewiczTXRWHGLQWKH0LFKLJDQ0HVVHQJHU³3LSHOLQHVSLOOXQGHUOLHVIHDUVRIQHZWDU VDQGVGHYHORSPHQW´$XJhttp://michiganmessenger.com/40744/pipeline-spill-underlines- fears-of-new-tar-sands-development (last visited Dec. 15, 2010) (stating that the viscosity of tar sands and the use of diluents create frequent pressure warnings in pipeline monitoring systems, false positives that can make it more difficult to detect a real pressure problem in the pipe which can indicate a leak). 23 DEIS, 3.13-27. 24 Matthew McClearn, Enbridge: Under Pressure ± 7KHXQWROGVWRU\RI(QEULGJH¶VZRUVWVSLOODQGWKH unsettling truth about pipeline safety, Canadian Business, Dec. 6, 2010, http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/commodities/article.jsp?content=20101206 10023 10023 (last visited Dec. 15, 2010), (DilBit causes false positives when the pressure inside the pipeline drops EHORZWKHSUHVVXUHDWZKLFKWKHQDWXUDOJDVFRQGHQVDWHHYDSRUDWHV&DOOHG³FROXPQVHSDUDWLRQ´RU³VODFN OLQH´E\WKHLQGXVWU\WKHUHVXOWLQJEXEEOHFDQLPSHGHWKHIORZRIRLO&ROXPn separation and a pipeline leak generate similar signals to a SCADA system.). 25 DEIS, 3.13-7 - 3.13-14. 26 Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Pipeline Performance in Alberta, 1990-2005, April 2007, http://www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/reports/r2007-a.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010), (Hazardous liquid pipelines include multiphase, crude oil and other product pipelines and exclude natural gas, sour gas and ZDWHUSLSHOLQHV $OEHUWD¶VKD]DUGRXVOLTXLGSLSHOLQHV\VWHPLQFOXGHG NPRIRSHUDWLQJSLSHOLQHVDV of December 31, 2005 (38,536 km multiphase, 28,479 km other products and 14,902 km crude oil, pg. 9). During the time between 1990 and 2005 there were 5333 reported hazardous liquid incidents (multiphase pipelines had 4726, (pg. 28), crude oil pipelines had 411 (pg. 30), other product had 196 (pg. 38)). This was 356 incidents per year in a 81,917 km system, which is a rate of 699 incidents per 100,000 miles of pipeline. It should be noted that this analysis understates the case, as the Alberta pipeline system was smaller than 81,917 km during most of this time. The United States onshore hazardous liquid system had 3,763 reported incidents during that period (PHMSA Pipeline Mileage and Incidents Reports, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSI.html?nocache=5046# liquid (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). This is a rate of 139 incidents per year per 100,000 miles in a 180,000 mile system (Congressional Research Service, Pipeline Security: Overview of Federal Activities and Current Policy
9 crude oil pipeline system, the DEIS significantly underestimates the Project¶VSRWHQWLDOVSLOO frequency.
The DEIS also reduces the baseline spill frequency for the Project and assumes fewer VSLOOVWKDQ3+06$¶V86SLSHOLQHDYHUDJHUHDVRQLQJWKDWFXUUHQWSLSHOLQHFRQVWUXFWLRQDQG operational technologies reduce the frequency.27 While pipeline age is an important parameter of spill risk in the U.S., pipeline incident data from Alberta suggests that the chemical properties of the petroleum product are a more important indicator. Despite being at least twenty years younger on average, the largely-DilBit Alberta pipeline system has four times as many pipeline incidents per mile as WKH86V\VWHP7KH'(,6VKRXOGKDYHLQFUHDVHGWKH3URMHFW¶VEDVHOLQH VSLOOIUHTXHQF\WRDFFRXQWIRUWKHJUHDWHUIUHTXHQF\RIVSLOOVLQ$OEHUWD¶VQewer system.
For example, the DEIS estimates that there will be 2.2 spills in the Keystone XL pipeline over 10 years.28 However, TransCanada¶s Keystone I pipeline has already spilled at least four times29 in the six months it has been in operation30 and the EIS for that project predicted between 1.4 and 1.9 spills over 10 years.31 Several of the Keystone I spills have occurred since the Keystone XL DEIS was published in April. This constitutes new information about spill frequency and exposes the flawed spill frequency projections in the DEIS.
The DEIS uses hazardous liquid pipeline data from PHMSA to estimate risk of corrosion.32 It then attributes a disproportionate frequency of corrosion-related incidents to pre- 1950 pipelines. Because the rate of internal corrosion in the Alberta system is twenty-five times greater than the older U.S. system, the DEIS significantly underreports the risk of pipeline corrosion related failure for the Project.33 While the cause of this disparity has not been studied,
Issues, 2004, CRS-2, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31990.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). At a rate of 699 incidents per 100,000 mileV$OEHUWD¶VV\VWHPKDGDQLQFLGHQWUDWHJUHDWHUWKDQIRXUWLPHVWKDWRIWKH United States at 139 incidents per 100,000 miles. 27 DEIS, 3.13-13. 28 DEIS, 3.13-15. 29 Plains Justice, Another Keystone Pipeline Leak in Nebraska, Dec. 7, 2010 (http://tarsandspipelines.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/another-keystone-pipeline-leak-in-nebraska/ (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). 30 Ken Newton, St. Joseph News-Press, MO, Oil Flows Through Keystone, June 9, 2010, (http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a id=22938&AspxAutoDetecCookieSupport=1 (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)) (the Keystone pipeline began operation on June 9, 2010). 31 Keystone FEIS, 3.13-10. 32 DEIS, 3.13-11. 33 ,QWHUQDOFRUURVLRQFDXVHGRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWLQFLGHQWVRQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV¶RQVKRUHKD]DUGRXV liquid pipeline system between 1990 and 2010. (PHMSA, Significant Pipeline Incidents by Cause, National Hazardous Liquid Onshore: Significant Incident Details: 1990-2009, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSIDet 1990 2009 US.html?nocache=973# liquid on (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). Internal corrosion caused 2633 of the 5333 reported incidents on the Alberta hazardous pipeline system, including 2521 incidents for multiphase (pg, 28), 102 incidents for crude oil pipelines (pg. 30), and 8 other products (pg. 38) (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Pipeline Performance in Alberta, 1990-2005, April 2007, pg. 19, http://www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/reports/r2007-a.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). Of 699 incidents per 100,000 miles of Alberta pipelines, 49%, or 343 incidents per 100,000 miles, were caused by internal
10 these pipeline systems may be distinguished by the product they transport. Highly corrosive DilBit derived from unconventional tar sands comprises as much as 70% of the product produced and transported in Alberta.34 By comparison, DilBit currently comprises less than 3% of liquid fuels consumed in the United States.35
DOS should prepare an SEIS that considers the specific risks of a DilBit pipeline and allow for public review and full incorporation of these critical issues in the deliberations about whether to permit the Project.
B. There Is New Information Showing Possible Use of Defective Steel for the Keystone Pipeline
PHMSA is currently investigating the possible use of defective steel in the construction of Keystone I pipeline. Reports indicate that the Keystone I pipeline may have stretched, potentially thinning the pipeline below the regulatory limits set by the United States36 in at least 47 places; PHMSA has ordered more extensive testing and has ordered TransCanada to dig up 10 sections of the pipeline.37 In response to this new information, an SEIS is necessary to HYDOXDWH7UDQV&DQDGD¶VTXDOLW\FRQWUROV\VWHPIRUPDWHUial acquisitions.
C. Significant New Information Shows that the Project Will Likely Adversely Affect the American Burying Beetle, a Federally Listed Endangered Species %RWK7UDQV&DQDGD¶VDSSOLFDWLRQPDWHULDOVDQGWKH DEIS conclude that the Project LV³QRW likely to DGYHUVHO\DIIHFW´WKH$PHULFDQEurying beetle, which is a listed species under the
corrosion. This can be compared to the United States system, where 8.5% of 139 incidents per 100,000 PLOHVRULQFLGHQWVZHUHFDXVHGE\LQWHUQDOFRUURVLRQ$OEHUWD¶VLQFLGHQWVLVWLPHVWKH incident rate of internal corrosion failure in the US system. 34 In 2009, over 70% of AlbeUWD¶VFUXGHRLOSURGXFWLRQZDVGHULYHGIURPXQFRQYHQWLRQDOWDUVDQGV 6WDWH RI$OEHUWD$OEHUWD¶V(QHUJ\,QGXVWU\2YHUYLHZ http://www.energy.alberta.ca/org/pdfs/Alberta Energy Overview.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)), ESGZDVWUDQVSRUWHGDV'LO%LWWREHXSJUDGHGLQWR6\QFUXGHLQ&DQDGD (5&%$OEHUWD¶V(QHUJ\ Reserves 2009, 2-24, http://www.ercb.ca/docs/products/STs/st98 current.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)) and 550,000 bpd was exported to the United States as un-upgraded DilBit (National Energy Board, Estimated Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Type and Destination, 2010 Q1, http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf- nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/2010/stmtdcndncrdlxprttpdstnt2010 q1.xls (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). 35The United States system handled 19.1 million bpd in 2010 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, Oct. 7, 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)), of which 550,000 bpd, or less than 3%, was DilBit (National Energy Board, Estimated Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Type and Destination, 2010 Q1, http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf- nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/2010/stmtdcndncrdlxprttpdstnt2010 q1.xls (last visited Dec. 15, 2010)). 36 49 CFR § 195.106. 37 3KLOOLS2¶&RQQRU)DXOW\SLSHFKHFNHGIRULQ7UDQV&DQDGDOLQHto U.S., The Province, Dec. 10, 2010, http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Faulty+pipe+checked+TransCanada+line/3955809/story.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010).
11
Endangered Species Act (ESA).38 The DEIS based this conclusion on a survey of the affected habitat and mitigation measures proposed by TransCanada.39
Subsequent to the release of the DEIS, TransCanada released a Biological Assessment where it announced for the first time that the Project ³PD\DIIHFWDQGLVOLNHO\WRDGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW´WKHEHHWOH40 As a result, formal consultation has been initiated with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding potential impacts to the beetle.41
The presence of this new information indicating adverse effects on an endangered species triggers the need for an SEIS.42 DOS should prepare the SEIS only after it concludes its consultation with FWS so that any resulting changes to the project as a result of the consultation are evaluated in the SEIS and the public is given a full opportunity to comment on those changes.
D. There Is New Information Regarding the Project¶s Impacts on Species Affected by the Deepwater Horizon Spill
An SEIS is necessary to analyze changed status of resources affected by the Deepwater Horizon Spill when those same resources would be affected by the Project. For example, the '(,6¶Vdiscussion of the status of Brown Pelicans references 1995 US Fish and Wildlife Service data and concludes that the proposed project would have no effect on the Brown Pelican.43 The analysis has become outdated after the Deepwater Horizon spill, which significantly affected the population and habitat of this species.44
I V. A SUPPL E M E N T A L E N V IR O N M E N T A L I MPA C T ST A T E M E N T SH O U L D B E PR EPA R E D T O A DDR ESS T H E IN A D E Q U A C I ES O F T H E D E IS IN FUR T H E R A N C E O F T H E PURPOSES O F N EPA
Following the close of the public comment period in July 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the environmental community
38 Keystone XL Environmental Report p. 3-24 (Nov. 2008); DEIS, 3.8-35, Table 3.8.1-1. 39 Id. 40 Keystone XL Project Applicant ± Prepared Biological Assessment, pp. 1-6, 3-24, Table 1.3-1. 41 Keystone XL Project Applicant ± Prepared Biological Assessment, pp. 1-3. 42 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) (1978); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Lujan, 768 F. Supp. 870, 886 (D.D.C. ,PSDFWVWRHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVDUHRQHRIWKHLQGLFDWRUVRI³VLJQLILFDQFH´GHILQHGLQWKHVH regulations. Accordingly, several courts have held that where new information comes to light regarding endangered or sensitive species, an SEIS must be prepared. Portland Audubon Society v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1993) (SEIS was required where there was a substantial change in the scientific literature regarding survival of the northern spotted owl); Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 465 F. Supp. 2d 931, 1'&DO ILQGLQJWKDW)RUHVW6HUYLFHKDVIDLOHGWRFRQGXFWDSURSHU³KDUGORRN´DWWKH significant new information regarding the impacts of the timber projects on the Pacific fisher); Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 558 (9th Cir. 2000) (Forest Service violated NEPA requirements because it failed timely to prepare an SEIS in light of seven new sensitive species designations). 43 DEIS, p. 3.8-8. 44 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Deepwater Horizon Spill Response, http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/collectionreports.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010).
12 identified significant deficiencies in the DEIS. Correcting these deficiencies will require significant new analysis and the incorporation of high quality and accurate information regarding the Project¶VLPSDFWV,WZRXOGIXUWKHUWKHSXUSRVHVRI1(3$WRDOORZSXEOLFVFUXWLQ\RIWKHVH substantial changes ± outlined in this document ± in an SEIS. Public scrutiny of environmental decision making, informed by high quality and accurate information, is essential to the purposes of NEPA.45
DOE and EPA noted significant defects in the needs assessment for the Project.46 An SEIS is necessary to conduct a further analysis of the purported need for this pipeline in consultation with the DOE, which is a coordinating agency in the NEPA process. In July of 2010, DOE strongly criticized the DEIS. Its comments described major flaws in the demand assessment for the Pipeline, such as: (a) the DEIS based its assessment of worldwide oil demand on a misinterpretation of EIA reports; (b) provided inaccurate and conflicting estimates of current pipeline capacity available to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) FUXGHLQWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV F ODFNHGDQDVVHVVPHQWRIWKH3LSHOLQH¶VSURMHFWHGLPSDFWRQFUXGH VXSSO\EHWZHHQ3$''V DQG G SURYLGHGDQLQFRPSOHWHDQDO\VLVRIWKH3LSHOLQH¶VSURMHFWHG effect on price stability in the U.S. crude oil market.
DOS should work closely with DOE in the preparation of the SEIS. In addition to being a cooperating agency in the NEPA process, DOE is an agency with vast experience in matters of domestic energy policy and is uniquely suited to HYDOXDWHWKH3URMHFW¶VH[SHFWHGUROHLQWKH energy market. DOE can assist DOS in evaluating whether the Pipeline would open up an international market for tar sands oil and compete with other pipelines for supply. The DOE analysis should be incorporated by reference or provided in an appendix to the SEIS analysis.
EPA and the environmental community submitted comments noting numerous defects in the DEIS.47 Based on the analysis outlined in their comment letters, an SEIS should correct the following deficiencies:
The D E IS does not consider the unique risks associated with DilBit pipelines.48 The DEIS uses measures that substantially underestimate the risk of spills from the project, the volume of potential DilBit spills, the potential impacts of DilBit to the environment and water quality, and the unique challenges posed in cleaning up these spills. DilBit may be distinguished from conventional crude by its greater corrosivity, acidity,
45 40 CFR § 1500.1(b) 46Department of Energy, Comments to the Keystone XL DEIS, July 2, 2010, http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/tarsands/pipeline-keystone-xl/state-dept-permit- process/DOE%20Comments%20on%20DEIS%2010-7-2.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010); Environmental Protection Agency, Comments to the Keystone XL DEIS, July 16, 2010, http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/tarsands/pipeline-keystone-xl/state-dept-permit- process/EPA%20Comments%20on%20DEIS%2010-7-16.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 47 EPA, Comments to the Keystone XL DEIS; Sierra Club, et. al., Public Comments on the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement, July 2, 2010, http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/tarsands/pipeline-keystone-xl/state-dept-permit- process/KXL%20DEIS%20Comments%207-2-10.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 48 Keystone XL DEIS, http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov (last visited Dec. 15, 2010).
13
viscosity, volatility, instability and toxicity. These factors present the risk of substantial environmental impacts that are not considered in the DEIS.
The DEIS does not assess the environmental impacts of a DilBit crude oil spill. While the DEIS notes the importance of specific gravity, viscosity, pour point, volatility, toxicity, solubility and persistence in the environment in determining the impacts of crude oil spills,49 it avoids analyzing these attributes for DilBit by considering it similar enough to be treated as a conventional crude oil.50 DilBit differs significantly from conventional crude in these attributes. It is significantly more corrosive and twenty to thirty times more viscous than conventional crude. Its condensate components are more volatile than conventional crude while its bitumen component, with an API gravity of 7- 9, is denser. Because the Project is a dedicated DilBit pipeline, the attributes of DilBit must be specifically considered to IXOO\DVVHVVWKH3URMHFW¶VHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFW
The DEIS assumes that the water quality effects of most spills on larger lakes would be eliminated once the oil slick is removed.51 Its impact analysis is based on numerous studies of conventional crude oLOVSLOOVDQGWKHUHIRUHGRQRWDGGUHVV'LO%LW¶V distinguishing properties.52 The bitumen component of DilBit would be expected to sink into the water column and accumulate on the underwater lake bed, where cleanup would EHGLIILFXOW7KH3URMHFW¶VFRXQWHUmeasures to contain and remove DilBit released in a water resource call for sorbent booms, socks, and/or pads.53 These measures are typically used for spills of conventional crudes that are less dense than water. They do not address heavy bitumen that wouOGVLQNEHORZWKHZDWHU¶VVXUIDFH54
The DEIS underestimates the effect of a DilBit spill on freshwater fish, macro- invertebrates, and other aquatic organisms.55 By equating DilBit to conventional crude, the DEIS assumes that even a large spill would result in low concentrations of oil in the water column. This is true with conventional crude, as it is less dense than water and floats. In DilBit, the bitumen component is denser than water and would be expected to sink56 in the water column. This could have significant impacts on fish and plankton57 in the water column as well as all organisms associated with river and creek beds.58
49 DEIS, 3.13-19. 50 DEIS, 3.13-19. 51 DEIS, 3.13-41. 52 DEIS, 3.13-46. 53 DEIS, Appendix C, Section 4. Spill Control and Countermeasures. 54 Athabasca bitumen has an API gravity of 7.7-9, which makes it heavier than fresh water, with an API gravity of 10. See also Cekirge et al., 1997, Orimulsion spill modeling in marine environments, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? ob=ArticleURL& udi=B6V0V-3SNVJ0R- 18& user=10& coverDate=06%2F30%2F1997& rdoc=1& fmt=high& orig=search& origin=search& sort=d& docanchor=&view=c& searchStrId=1579287273& rerunOrigin=google& acct=C000050221& version=1& urlVersion=0& userid=10&md5=b1864e2341951676438a20bf31ea29fa&searchtype=a (last visited Dec. 15, 2010) (modeling a blend of bitumen and emulsified water in a marine environment. In fresh water, the bitumen sinks, though energy in the water can remix bitumen particles into the water column). 55 DEIS, 3.13-46. 56 Id.
14
These legitimate safety concerns associated with DilBit pipelines carry a heightened risk of environmental impacts that were not considered in the DEIS. An SEIS would further the purposes of NEPA by fully informing decision makers and the public about the risks of DilBit and allowing the opportunity to implement mitigation measures.
The D E IS does not adequately address the Project¶Vclimate change impacts. The few pages that the DEIS devotes to the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) fail to comprehensively describe or quantify the indirect emissions of GHGs and does not analyze the local, regional, or global environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the Project and related facilities. The DEIS is also flawed because it fails to consider the economic effects of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the project. DOS is required to analyze both the effects of emissions and consider potential alternatives to reduce those emissions.59
The D E IS does not adequately address the impacts of the Project on wetlands and water resources. The overall lack of information on impacts, avoidance, mitigation measures and justification for adopted alternatives in the DEIS violates both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and NEPA. The DEIS does not take into account the impacts of climate change on water resources; the potential effects of the Project on mercury levels in waters and acid rain; provides inadequate mitigation measures; fails to assess impacts to wetlands and water resources from pump stations, mainline valves, roads and other associated developments; and fails to adequately analyze the impacts of refineries. It also provides inadequate analysis of releases of drilling fluid and drilling fluid additives, and of impacts to groundwater and surface water from an oil spill or leak. The DEIS also does not properly account for the fact that many impacted wetlands and water bodies are
57 Jerry Neff, An Oil Spill in an Illinois Lake: Ecological and Human Health Assessment, 1991, pg. 7, http://www.iosc.org/papers/01477.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010) (noting the relationship between oil concentration in the water column and toxicity to marine plants and animals). 58 Id. 59 In Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007), the original EIS for a CAFE standards rulemaking did provide quantification of GHG emissions. NHTSA argued that more was not required because the standard would slightly reduce the rate of emissions. The Ninth Circuit of Appeals asserted that the agency had a duty to analyze the effects of the emissions and analyze alternative proposed by EDF that would have reduced emissions more significantly rather than simply stating emission projections. Mid States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003) involved a Surface Transportation Board decision about whether to approve the construction and upgrade of a railroad track, the sole purpose of which was to transport low sulfur coal to the Midwest. The court held that the agency had to analyze the effects, rather than just the quantity, of emissions of the transport, increased availability and utilization of Power River Basin coal. And in Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy, the Department RI(QHUJ\¶VHQYLURQPHQWDODVVHVVPHQWVXSSRUWLQJDGHFLVLRQUHJDUGLQJD3UHVLGHQWLDO3HUPLWZDV invalidated for failure to analyze the effects of GHG emissions that would come from two export turbines in one power complex and another power plant being built in Mexico for the purpose of transmitting power to the United States.
15
not being regulated under CWA by the Corps and therefore may not receive mitigation for impacts.
The D E IS fails to adequately address environmental justice impacts on communities (air and water). The DEIS makes no effort to assess the environmental justice implications of the substantial increases in pollution likely to occur in communities around refineries. The DEIS fails to analyze the refinery related impacts on the minority and low-income populations in Harris County, TX and Jefferson County, TX. It also fails to evaluate the impacts of the Project on affected minority and low-income communities living outside the pipeline corridor.
The D E IS fails to adequately address impacts on migratory birds. The DEIS does not support its claim that the Project ³PD\DIIHFW´EXWLV³QRWOLNHO\WRDGYHUVHO\DIIHFW´ the Whooping Crane and the Piping Plover with analysis by independent scientists or expert agencies. The DEIS also fails to analyze how the Project¶VLPSDFWVRQZDWHU supply, compounded by climate change, will affect migratory birds.
The D E IS fails to adequately analyze refinery emissions. The analysis set forth in the DEIS concerning cumulative impacts associated with petroleum refining is insufficient in four major respects. First, it impermissibly relies on the Clean Air Act (CAA) and CWA permitting process at individual refineries to address environmental issues associated with the processing of product delivered via the Project rather than presenting independent analysis, which is both required by law and central to the purpose of NEPA environmental review. Second, the DEIS fails to adequately analyze a variety of possible supply and demand scenarios of clean energy and different grades of crude oil. Third, the analysis assumes without basis a wide distribution of the product delivered by the Project to refineries throughout PADD II and PADD III, and based on this assumption declines to provide any analysis of region-specific impacts on air quality.
The D E IS fails to aVVHVVWKH3URMHFW¶Vtransboundary impacts. The DEIS states that DOS has no obligation to assess the transboundary impacts of the Project.60 The transboundary impacts of the Pipeline include transboundary greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to migratory birds.
The DEIS contains a very cursory analysis of impacts in Canada associated with the XL Pipeline, without any analysis of transboundary greenhouse gas or bird impacts.61 Several recent developments in the law indicate that the EIS should analyze transboundary impacts. DOS should remedy this error in an SEIS.
In a February 2010 memo to the heads of federal departments and agencies, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley affirmed that the requirements of NEPA are applicable to greenhouse gas
60 DEIS, 3.14-42. 61 DEIS, 3.14-42 et seq.
16
emissions and climate change impacts.62 A draft of this guidance was released by CEQ, 75 Fed. Reg. 8046 (Feb. 23, 2010)). The final CEQ GHG Guidance is expected soon.
The pending CEQ GHG Guidance must be considered in conjunction with an earlier CEQ guidance on the obligation of federal agencies to consider transboundary impacts generally.63 7KH7UDQVERXQGDU\*XLGDQFHGLUHFWVDJHQFLHVWRLQFOXGH³DQDQDO\VLVRIWKH UHDVRQDEO\IRUHVHHDEOHWUDQVERXQGDU\HIIHFWVRISURSRVHGDFWLRQVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV´64
The D E IS fails to adequately identify and analyze mitigation measures. The DEIS fails to consider practicable system alternatives which would have less impact on water resources, including the use of existing pipeline capacity. In Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens,65 the court noted that NEPA and its implementing regulations require that an EIS contain a detailed discussion of possible mitigation measures, as omitting a reasonably competent discussion of possible mitigation measures would undermine the ³DFWLRQIRUFLQJ´IXQFWLRQRI1(3$
The environmental community submitted comments noting additional deficiencies in the DEIS.66 An SEIS is necessary to address the following defects:
The D E IS fails to address the environmental consequences of abandonment and mitigation thereof. The DEIS contains no discussion of impacts, alternatives, or mitigation of pipeline abandonment. The DEIS only states that Applicant will submit abandonment plans at the time of abandonment, and that such plans would be approved at that time by regulating entities, if any. The DOS should supplement the DEIS so that citizens may
62 CEQ, Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Feb. 18, 2010, http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration of Effects of GHG Draft NEPA Guidance FINAL 02 182010.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). 63 See CEQ, Memorandum to Heads of Agencies on the Application of the National Environmental Policy Act to Proposed Federal Actions in the United States with Transboundary Effects (July 1, 1997) (CEQ Transboundary Guidance). 64 Id. In Government of the Province of Manitoba v. Salazar, 691 F.Supp.2d 37, 51 (D.D.C. 2010), the court asserted that the Bureau of Reclamation was required to assess transboundary impacts of a large ZDWHUSURMHFW7KHFRXUWQRWHGWKDWWKH*XLGDQFHZDVSHUVXDVLYHGHVSLWHWKH5HFODPDWLRQDJHQF\¶V argument that it was non-binding. Id. Q7KH&RXQFLORQ(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\³KDVGHWHUPLQHGWKDW agencies must include analysis of reasonably foreseeable transboundary effects of proposed actions in WKHLUDQDO\VLVRISURSRVHGDFWLRQVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV´&RXQcil on Environmental Quality Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts (July 1, 1997), available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/transguide.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2010). This tracks the long VWDQGLQJGLUHFWLRQRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWWKDW&(4¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI1(3$GHVHUYHV³VXEVWDQWLDO GHIHUHQFH´IURPWKHORZHUFRXUWVDepartment of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 754 (2004); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989); Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347 (1979). 65 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 US 332, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2160. 66 Sierra Club, et. al., Public Comments on the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement, July 2, 2010, http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/tarsands/pipeline-keystone- xl/state-dept-permit-process/KXL%20DEIS%20Comments%207-2-10.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2010).
17
have an opportunity to comment on these impacts. A failure to provide an opportunity for comment would violate both NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The D E IS does not analyze alternatives that would avoid important aquifers. The DEIS does not analyze alternatives that would avoid impacts to the Northern Great Plains Aquifer System, the Ogallala Aquifer, the Trinity Aquifer, the Texas Coastal Uplands Aquifer, and the Texas Coastal Lowlands Aquifer. The DEIS does not analyze the how geology, vegetation, soil composition and land use will affect spill impacts for aquifers. The DEIS also does not investigate the placement of shut-off valves or other possible mechanisms that could be used to protect aquifers from the effects of spills and leaks. This analysis is particularly important given new information suggesting higher risks of spill incidence for the project than was forecast by the DEIS.
V. T H E ISSU A N C E O F A FIN A L E IS W I T H A C O M M E N T PE RI O D IS IN C O NSIST E N T W I T H T H E R E Q UIR E M E N TS A ND PURPOSE O F N EPA
Issuance of a Final EIS (FEIS) with a comment period in lieu of an SEIS would not satisfy WKHUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGSXUSRVHRI1(3$1(3$ZDVHQDFWHGWR³LQVXUHWKDW environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made DQGEHIRUHDFWLRQVDUHWDNHQ´67 It is essential that that environmental information is high quality DQGEDVHGXSRQ³DFFXUDWHVFLHQWLILFDQDO\VLVH[SHUWDJHQF\comments and public scrutiny.´68
Expert agency comments and public scrutiny is essential to implementing NEPA. Part RIWKH1(3$SURFHVVLQFOXGHVWKHSXEOLF¶VRSSRUWXQLW\WRXQGHUVWDQGWKHDJHQF\¶VUHVSRQVHWR these comments. Even with a comment period, an FEIS will not allow informed public scrutiny RIDQGLQSXWLQWRWKHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJSURFHVVEHIRUHD³GHFLVLRQLVPDGHDQGEHIRUHDFWLRQVDUH WDNHQ´69 Preparation of an SEIS is mandatory because all factors requiring this have been triggered. The Department should also take the opportunity when directing preparation of the mandatory SEIS to correct the significant deficiencies in the DEIS that have been identified above.
V I. C O N C L USI O N For the reasons outlined above, an SEIS is required to address new information and circumstances which substantially alter the Project¶VLPSDFWDQGKDYHDULVHQVXEVHTXHQWWRWKH close of the DEIS comment period in July 2010. In such circumstances, NEPA regulations require the issuance of an SEIS.70 Furthermore, we believe that correcting the substantial deficiencies noted in the DEIS, outlined above and identified in comments during the public notice period, will substantially alter the EIS. DOS should issue an SEIS to further the intent and purposes of NEPA, which is to
67 40 CFR § 1500.1(b) 68 Id. 69 Id. 70 40 CFR § 1502.9 (1978).
18 ensure that high quality, accurate environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before actions are taken.71 Thank you for taking these concerns into consideration. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact us. Respectfully submitted,
______
Susan Casey-Lefkowitz Pat Gallagher Director of International Program Director of Environmental Law Natural Resources Defense Council Sierra Club 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 85 Second Street, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] [email protected]
71 40 CFR § 1500.1(b)
19
CC
Cheryl Mills Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary [email protected]
Arturo Valenzuela Assistant Secretary, Western Hemisphere Affairs [email protected]
David Goldwyn Coordinator, Office of International Energy Coordinator [email protected]
Daniel A. Clune Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs [email protected]
Todd Stern Special Envoy on Climate [email protected]
Alexander W. Yuan Keystone XL Project Manager [email protected], [email protected]
20
"Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan" To "Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan", Bob Sussman, Beth Craig, Brian
DearAll, Today,FOE,NRDC,NWFandSierraClubsenttheattachedlettertotheDepartmentofTransportation. EspeciallyinthewakeoftheMichiganoilpipelinespill,thisistherighttimetobepressingforstronger safetyoversightandnosafetywaiversforoilpipelines.Specifically,weaskedDOTtosaynotothe proposedKeystoneXLtarsandspipelinesafetywaiverandtosaynotothepipelineitselfinthenational interestdetermination. WehavestartedhearingtodaythatTransCanadamighthavewithdrawntheirspecialpermitrequest. Haveyouheardanythingalongthoselines?Haveyouseenanythinginwritingaboutit? Ihavealsobloggedabouttheletterhere: Increasepipelineoversightanddontgrantsafetywaivers: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/preventing oil pipeline ruptur.html OtherNRDCblogsontheMichiganmess: ArePipelinesReallytheSaferOption: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aalexander/michigan oil spill are pipelin.html MessinMichigan: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/a mess in michigan pipeline sp.html Best, Susan Susan Casey-Lefkowitz Director International Program Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Ave, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: 1-202-289-2366, Cell: 1-646-287-6225 Fax: 1-202-289-1060 Email: [email protected] www.nrdc.org www.stopdirtyfuels.org www.welovebirds.org http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/
"Charles D. Connor, To Gina McCarthy American Lung cc Association" bcc 12/01/2011 02:40 PM Subject Happy Holidays from the American Lung Association Please respond to "Charles D. Connor, American Lung Association"
On behalf of the American Lung Association, I wish you and yours a healthy and happy holiday season.
Kind regards,
Charles D. Connor President and CEO American Lung Association
GET YOUR 2011 CHRISTMAS SEALS ®
American Lung Association 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004 T: 202-785-3355 | F: 202-452-1805 | E: [email protected]
Update Your Profile • Unsubscribe
nonprofit software "Claire Barnett" To Bob Perciasepe
----- Message from "Lisa Shapiro"
From: Cara Baldari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:58 AM To: Erika Sward Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan HiErika! Justincaseyoudidntsee,Jacksentthegroupsomeeditstotheletter(attached)sofeelfreetoadd youreditstohis! Thanks, Cara From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack Rayburn Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:22 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Becky Salay Subject: RE: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan GroupIliketheletter.Attachingasuggestededittothelastparagraph. Somefoodforthoughtforthisletterandadditionaleffortswemaywishtobecognizantofthe NationalPreventionStrategyandactionplanaswemoveforwardinourefforts.Asseveralfolkspointed outatthemeeting,movingtheballforwardonasthmamayrequireustoworkwithinthecontextof somelargerpreventionandwellnessefforts.TFAHisahugeproponentoftheStrategyandwewouldbe veryinterestedinexploringwhatopportunitiestheremightbefortheLeadershipCoalitiontopromote andsupportthateffortvirtuallyallofthestrategicdirectionsandrecommendationsdovetailnicely withasthma.Mightevenbeanopportunitytohighlighthowasthmaasamodelforbroaderdisease preventionandtreatmentissues.Forexample,thefourstrategicdirectionsfortheStrategyare1) HealthyandSafeCommunityEnvironments,2)ClinicalandCommunityPrevention,3)Empowered People,and4)EliminationofHealthDisparities.Iwouldarguethatallfourarecriticaltothegoalsofthis coalition. Best, Jack Jack Rayburn Government Relations Representative Trust for America's Health From: Cara Baldari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:27 PM Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; floyd [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; julie [email protected]; Shadi Houshyar Subject: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan Hiall, ThankstoeveryonewhowasabletojoinusforTuesdaysfirstChildhoodAsthmaLeadershipCoalition meeting.Hopefullyeveryonejustreceivedaninvitationfrommetojointhenewcoalitionlistserv.The eͲmailaddressforthelistservis[email protected],sobyeͲmailingthisaddressyou willreachtheentiregroup.Letmeknowifyouwantustoaddanyofyourcolleaguestothelistservas well. Asdiscussedatthemeeting,wecomposedadraftletter(attached)tofederalgovernmentheadswhosit onthePresidentsTaskForceonEnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRiskstothankthemfortheir workontheCoordinatedFederalPlantoReduceRacialandEthnicAsthmaDisparities.Ifyouhaveany th feedbackonthisletter,includinganyadditions,pleasegetittousbyFriday,July6 . Wewillalsosendoutnotesfromthemeetingtoeveryonesoon! Best, Cara
Cara Baldari Policy Research Associate First Focus 1110 Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 657-0670 ext. 0640 Fax: (202) 657-0671 www.firstfocus.net
----- Message from "Erika Sward" From: Cara Baldari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:58 AM To: Erika Sward Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan HiErika! Justincaseyoudidntsee,Jacksentthegroupsomeeditstotheletter(attached)sofeelfreetoadd youreditstohis! Thanks, Cara From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack Rayburn Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:22 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Becky Salay Subject: RE: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan GroupIliketheletter.Attachingasuggestededittothelastparagraph. Somefoodforthoughtforthisletterandadditionaleffortswemaywishtobecognizantofthe NationalPreventionStrategyandactionplanaswemoveforwardinourefforts.Asseveralfolkspointed outatthemeeting,movingtheballforwardonasthmamayrequireustoworkwithinthecontextof somelargerpreventionandwellnessefforts.TFAHisahugeproponentoftheStrategyandwewouldbe veryinterestedinexploringwhatopportunitiestheremightbefortheLeadershipCoalitiontopromote andsupportthateffortvirtuallyallofthestrategicdirectionsandrecommendationsdovetailnicely withasthma.Mightevenbeanopportunitytohighlighthowasthmaasamodelforbroaderdisease preventionandtreatmentissues.Forexample,thefourstrategicdirectionsfortheStrategyare1) HealthyandSafeCommunityEnvironments,2)ClinicalandCommunityPrevention,3)Empowered People,and4)EliminationofHealthDisparities.Iwouldarguethatallfourarecriticaltothegoalsofthis coalition. Best, Jack Jack Rayburn Government Relations Representative Trust for America's Health From: Cara Baldari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:27 PM Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; floyd [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; julie [email protected]; Shadi Houshyar Subject: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan Hiall, ThankstoeveryonewhowasabletojoinusforTuesdaysfirstChildhoodAsthmaLeadershipCoalition meeting.Hopefullyeveryonejustreceivedaninvitationfrommetojointhenewcoalitionlistserv.The eͲmailaddressforthelistservis[email protected],sobyeͲmailingthisaddressyou willreachtheentiregroup.Letmeknowifyouwantustoaddanyofyourcolleaguestothelistservas well. Asdiscussedatthemeeting,wecomposedadraftletter(attached)tofederalgovernmentheadswhosit onthePresidentsTaskForceonEnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRiskstothankthemfortheir workontheCoordinatedFederalPlantoReduceRacialandEthnicAsthmaDisparities.Ifyouhaveany th feedbackonthisletter,includinganyadditions,pleasegetittousbyFriday,July6 . Wewillalsosendoutnotesfromthemeetingtoeveryonesoon! Best, Cara Cara Baldari Policy Research Associate First Focus 1110 Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 657-0670 ext. 0640 Fax: (202) 657-0671 www.firstfocus.net ----- Message from "Charlotte Collins" Thanks for sharing your mark-up of this letter. I have attached my comments. I look forward to seeing you soon. Charlotte From: Claire Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:02 PM To: 'Joyce Martin'; [email protected]; Charlotte Collins; 'Erika Sward' Subject: edits? FW: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan Based on advancing prevention, I think the draft letter needs a fix—here are a few starting points. I am very interested in your takes on all this and hope to follow your leads. Claire - C Claire L. Barnett, MBA, Founder and Executive Director Healthy Schools Network, Inc. - celebrating 17 years 1995-2012 (w) 518-462-0632 (m) 202-543-7555 Coordinator, National Coalition for Healthier Schools ...providing the platform and the forum for environmental health at school ... since 2001 www.HealthySchools.org www.NationalHealthySchoolsDay.org - 10th Anniversary, April 24, 2012 and all week long www.CleaningforHealthySchools.org - Find safer products for schools and homes, download free poster From: Cara Baldari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:27 PM Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shadi Houshyar Subject: Listserv and Draft Letter on the Disparities Plan Hi all, Thanks to everyone who was able to join us for Tuesday’s first Childhood Asthma Leadership Coalition meeting. Hopefully everyone just received an invitation from me to join the new coalition listserv. The e-mail address for the listserv is [email protected], so by e-mailing this address you will reach the entire group. Let me know if you want us to add any of your colleagues to the listserv as well. As discussed at the meeting, we composed a draft letter (attached) to federal government heads who sit on the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to thank them for their work on the Coordinated Federal Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Asthma Disparities. If you have any feedback on this letter, including any additions, please get it to us by Friday, July 6th. We will also send out notes from the meeting to everyone soon! Best, Cara Cara Baldari Policy Research Associate First Focus 1110 Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 657-0670 ext. 0640 Fax: (202) 657-0671 www.firstfocus.net ----- Message from "Cara Baldari" Just a quick reminder about the first Childhood Asthma Leadership Coalition meeting it will be th tomorrow, Tuesday, June 26 from 2:00-4:00pm at First Focus (1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington DC). For those that plan to call-in to the meeting, the number is 866-316-1519, Passcode: 93189184. Attached are documents for everyone to review before tomorrows meeting, and for those that plan to call-in, these are the documents we will be referring to during the meeting. We look forward to discussing these documents with you and getting your feedback when we meet. Please dont hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns! Best, Cara Baldari Cara Baldari Policy Research Associate First Focus 1110 Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 657-0670 ext. 0640 Fax: (202) 657-0671 www.firstfocus.net Childhood Asthma Leadership Coalition Meeting Agenda June 26, 2012 Welcome and Introductions (Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus) Background on MCAN’s Role in Initiating the Childhood Asthma Leadership Coalition (Floyd Malveaux, Executive Director, Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc.) Using Policy Research to Inform Debate on Childhood Asthma (Katie Horton, Research Professor, Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services) Policy Update – President’s Task Force on Children’s Environmental Risks and Safety Risks and the Coordinated Federal Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Asthma Disparities (Floyd Malveaux) Childhood Asthma Policy Options Discussion (Katie Horton) Possible Coalition Action Items (Lisa Shapiro, VP Health Policy, First Focus) Next steps for the Childhood Asthma Leadership Coalition (Lisa Shapiro) Overview of the Childhood Asthma Leadership Coalition Asthma is the single most common chronic condition among children in the United States. Currently, an estimated 14 percent of children in America have asthma, and this rate has been growing steadily over the past decade. Low income and minority children bear the greatest burden of asthma: one in three children with asthma lives in poverty, and the rate of asthma is significantly higher among African-American and Puerto Rican children. Not only is pediatric asthma widespread, it is also very costly to the healthcare system, accounting for more than $10 billion dollars in health care expenditures and an additional $10 billion in indirect costs (school absenteeism and missed work by caretakers) each year. In order to address the serious and pervasive problem of pediatric asthma in the United States, the Merck Childhood Asthma Network (MCAN) has partnered with the Department of Health Policy at the George Washington University (GWU) and First Focus to establish a new national multi-sector coalition to improve policymaking around childhood asthma. Working in partnership, the coalition will develop a new targeted strategy to address childhood asthma. Building a Childhood Asthma Coalition GWU and First Focus are building a Childhood Asthma Coalition that will consist of individuals and organizations who are leading advocates and experts in childhood asthma, public health, environmental health, poverty, housing, health care, and health care economics. This Coalition is intended to be diverse, with members who come from a variety of professional backgrounds, including clinical researchers, medical doctors, service providers, and policy analysts. Coalition Goals Coalition members will work together toward the shared goal of improving the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of childhood asthma through federal policy change and targeted state efforts. Collaboration and leadership on childhood asthma is especially important at this critical time in Washington when policymakers are making important decisions about the future of federal investments in our nation’s public health and health coverage systems. By establishing a unified and informed voice using credible experts, the Coalition will set a clear vision for policy solutions and develop a practical pathway for achieving desired outcomes. Relying on a strong foundation of evidence-based policy analysis to inform its work, the Coalition’s leading policy goals include: Ensuring the availability of stable and continuous health insurance for children with asthma; Developing high-quality clinical care, case management, and asthma education for all children; Reducing asthma triggers in homes and communities; Creating a nation-wide strategic plan for asthma research to develop new and effective treatments; and Identifying new opportunities to improve asthma care that arise from the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Coalition will achieve these goals by examining the issues surrounding childhood asthma, identifying best practices, raising awareness through public education, and issuing policy recommendations. It will build on existing stakeholder efforts to raise the visibility of this critical children’s health issue. Project Partners George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Department of Health Policy (GWU): GWU conducts wide-ranging research into emerging health policy issues. GWU research projects are conducted by an interdisciplinary faculty and staff who combine formal academic training with a variety of professional backgrounds in law, government, economics, politics, management, public health systems, and medicine. GWU conducts program and policy evaluations, produces short-term policy analyses and environmental assessments, conducts major health services research activities, provides technical assistance to federal and state government agencies, as well as their grantees, and convenes health policy colloquia and research and agenda- building conferences for public and private funders. First Focus: First Focus is a bipartisan advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions. First Focus takes a unique approach to children’s advocacy, engaging both traditional and non-traditional partners in a broad range of efforts to increase federal investments in programs that address the needs of our nation’s children. First Focus works at both the Federal and state levels to create a strong, unified and credible voice on child and family policy, engaging influential individuals, organizations and policymakers in both arenas. In all of their work, First Focus seek to raise awareness regarding public policies impacting children and families and to ensure that related programs have the resources necessary to help children grow up in a healthy and nurturing environment. "E&E Publishing, LLC" To Bob Perciasepe An E&E Publishing Service Greenwire -- Fri., February 1, 2013 -- Read the full edition 1. DOE: Chu announces resignation after tumultuous term promoting clean energy agenda Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced his resignation today, marking the end of a tumultuous tenure atop the department during which he won plaudits for a reinvigorated effort to promote clean energy and address climate change but was panned for shortfalls in that same push, notably the bankruptcy of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra. Top Stories 2. CALIFORNIA: Political insiders start firm targeting cap-and-trade cash 3. NATIONAL PARKS: Agency memo details steep cuts, possible closures under sequester 4. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wyden predicts success of small bills as report shows industry growth Natural Resources 5. WIND: FWS sends eagle conservation guidance to White House 6. ENDANGERED SPECIES: FWS proposes listing wolverines, reintroducing the species in Western states 7. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Judge skeptical of extending timeline for smelt, salmon plans 8. WILD HORSES: BLM issues new animal welfare policy 9. CHESAPEAKE BAY: Water quality still poor, but there's 'reason for hope' -- EPA 10. WILDLIFE: Feral cats to be trapped in Fla. Keys Law 11. AIR POLLUTION: Court dismisses suit challenging EPA human experiments 12. COAL: Sierra Club scores victory over potential exporting port Energy 13. ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Delays in energy-saving standards could cost $3.7B -- advocacy group report 14. URANIUM: Va. mining proponents eye regulatory process to spur approval 15. COAL: Green law firms working with industry to establish export terminals -- report 16. UTILITIES: Planned nuclear reactors enough to meet region's demand -- Ga. Power Co. Air and Water 17. WATER: Sewage treatment facilities can be green centers -- report 18. OCEANS: Shark swims north as the world watches online 19. RIVERS: Chicago waterway faces worries amid drought 20. LEAD POLLUTION: Chicago-area plant agrees to curb dangerous emissions Chemicals 21. CHEMICALS: Maker of Tide agrees to reduce levels of suspected carcinogen in its detergents 22. TOXICS: Consumer products giant will 'vigorously challenge' EPA rat poison ban International 23. MEXICO: Explosion at troubled Mexico oil company kills at least 25 24. JAPAN: New nuclear safety rules on the table 25. CHINA: Residents asked to limit New Year's fireworks on smog concerns 26. FRANCE: Countrywide 'lights out' measure aims to save energy Advertisement Get all of the stories in today's Greenwire, plus an in-depth archive with thousands of articles on your issues, detailed Special Reports and much more at http://www.greenwire.com Forgot your passcodes? Call us at 202-628-6500 now and we'll set you up instantly. To send a press release, fax 202-737-5299 or e-mail [email protected]. About Greenwire Greenwire is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. The one-stop source for those who need to stay on top of all of today's major energy and environmental action with an average of more than 20 stories a day, Greenwire covers the complete spectrum, from electricity industry restructuring to Clean Air Act litigation to public lands management. Greenwire publishes daily at Noon. Unsubscribe | Our Privacy Policy E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C St., Ste. 722, NW, Wash., D.C. 20001. Phone: 202-628-6500. Fax: 202-737-5299. www.eenews.net All content is copyrighted and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express consent of E&E Publishing, LLC. Prefer plain text? Click here "E&E Publishing, LLC" To Bob Perciasepe An E&E Publishing Service ClimateWire -- Thu., February 14, 2013 -- Read the full edition 1. POLITICS: Lawmakers, following Obama's climate lead, announce a plan to tax carbon Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will unveil a plan today to tax carbon emissions at $20 a ton, raising potentially $1.2 trillion over 10 years for rebates and investments in clean energy and efficiency. The morning announcement comes two days after President Obama pushed lawmakers to adopt a carbon price or face executive actions to regulate power plant emissions. 2. SCIENCE: Scientists describe severe and costly future impacts of climate change In a probable scenario for climate change, New Orleans will no longer exist. Neither will Atlantic City, N.J. Boston will look much like it did in the 17th century, before the city was dredged up to build a port. And Florida will no longer keep its distinct appendage shape. These geographical changes due to sea-level rise are only the beginning, scientists bluntly stated at a briefing yesterday convened by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). TODAY'S STORIES 3. CARBON CAPTURE: Researchers develop coal reactor that cheaply separates CO2 4. ADVOCACY: Sierra Club's leaders among dozens arrested at Keystone XL pipeline protest 5. GRID: With a smarter grid, more cybersecurity protection is needed 6. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Closed Mohave coal plant to generate new income and jobs for Navajo, Hopi 7. RESEARCH: Elementa vs. Anthropocene -- 2 new journals to focus on climate change 8. ARCTIC: As waters warm, scientists look into new Arctic weather 9. CITIES: N.J. mayor proposes new sea-level rise adaptation model 10. STATES: Del. holds first meeting on sea-level rise 11. AVIATION: E.U. flight emissions could drop in 2013 E&ETV's OnPoint 12. POLITICS: C2ES's Diringer discusses future of policy and regulation after Obama speech Get all of the stories in today's ClimateWire, plus an in-depth archive with thousands of articles on your issues, detailed Special Reports and much more at http://www.climatewire.net Forgot your passcodes? Call us at 202-628-6500 now and we'll set you up instantly. To send a press release, fax 202-737-5299 or e-mail [email protected]. About ClimateWire ClimateWire is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. It is designed to provide comprehensive, daily coverage of all aspects of climate change issues. From international agreements on carbon emissions to alternative energy technologies to state and federal GHG programs, ClimateWire plugs readers into the information they need to stay abreast of this sprawling, complex issue. Unsubscribe | Our Privacy Policy E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C St., Ste. 722, NW, Wash., D.C. 20001. Phone: 202-628-6500. Fax: 202-737-5299. www.eenews.net All content is copyrighted and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express consent of E&E Publishing, LLC. Prefer plain text? Click here "E&E Publishing, LLC" To Bob Perciasepe An E&E Publishing Service E&ENews PM -- Fri., January 4, 2013 -- Read the full edition 1. SUPREME COURT: Justices agree to hear Texas-Okla. water dispute The Supreme Court today decided to intervene over a Texas water district's attempt to force Oklahoma authorities to allocate additional water to communities in north Texas. The Tarrant Regional Water District wants the high court to reverse a September 2011 ruling by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. THIS AFTERNOON'S STORIES 2. CHEMICALS: EPA draft cites potential health threats from household cleaning products 3. LOBBYING: With long-term fate of PTC in balance, big utility assesses its relationship with wind industry 4. LNG: Sierra Club bid to halt Md. exports fails 5. AGRICULTURE: Top Democrat blasts Boehner for 'empty promises' on farm bill 6. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Prairie chicken conservation plan due in early 2013 7. SUPERSTORM SANDY: Senate sends flood insurance bill to Obama 8. BRISTOL BAY: Issa threatens to subpoena EPA over documents 9. PEOPLE: Former GOP lawmaker lands spot at communications firm 10. FEDERAL AGENCIES: FEMA mapping could boost tribal participation in flood program -- GAO Get all of the stories in today's E&ENews PM, plus an in-depth archive with thousands of articles on your issues, detailed Special Reports and much more at http://www.eenewspm.com Forgot your passcodes? Call us at 202-628-6500 now and we'll set you up instantly. To send a press release, fax 202-737-5299 or e-mail [email protected]. About E&ENews PM E&ENews PM is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. A late afternoon roundup providing coverage of all the breaking and developing policy news from Capitol Hill, around the country and around the world, E&ENews PM is a must-read for the key players who need to be ahead of the next day's headlines. E&ENews PM publishes daily at 4:30 p.m. Unsubscribe | Our Privacy Policy E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C St., Ste. 722, NW, Wash., D.C. 20001. Phone: 202-628-6500. Fax: 202-737-5299. www.eenews.net All content is copyrighted and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express consent of E&E Publishing, LLC. Prefer plain text? Click here "E&E Publishing, LLC" To Bob Perciasepe An E&E Publishing Service Greenwire -- Mon., January 14, 2013 -- Read the full edition 1. CLIMATE: Warming may push hurricanes from Gulf Coast to Atlantic Climate change could put some bend into the Atlantic's hurricanes. By the end of this century, fewer hurricanes are likely to barrel through the Caribbean Sea into the U.S. Gulf Coast, with the storms instead curving back into the Atlantic Ocean -- and possibly toward an East Coast newly sensitive to hurricanes, according to climate models developed by researchers in Hawaii and Miami. Top Stories 2. BIOFUELS: Clean, green options lacking as airlines seek alternatives to petroleum 3. COAL ASH: Battle lines form as sprawling dump leaks into W.Va. neighborhood 4. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Policy uncertainty spurred 2012 plunge in U.S. investments -- report Congress 5. SENATE: Top Murkowski aide to depart ENR panel for lobbying firm 6. FISHERIES: Mass. Democrats seek share of Sandy relief for New England fishermen Politics 7. CLIMATE: Sierra Club campaign targets Obama's first 100 days of new term 8. NEW YORK: LCV to promote Cuomo agenda on climate, energy 9. PEOPLE: House Republican aide joins API media team 10. TRANSPORTATION: No signs LaHood's tenure at DOT is ending soon Natural Resources 11. AGRICULTURE: Planting corn acres with biofuel crops reduces nutrient runoff -- study 12. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Federal judge nixes polar bear habitat plan in Alaska 13. INVASIVE SPECIES: Python hunters flock to Fla. for monthlong roundup 14. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Americans plead not guilty on narwhal tusk-smuggling charges Law 15. WATER POLLUTION: Court says U.S. can't appeal in dispute over Lake Tahoe landfill 16. GULF SPILL: Judge OKs BP's medical benefits settlement 17. NUCLEAR POWER: Appeals court hears arguments over Vermont Yankee regulation Energy 18. CALIFORNIA: Utility board OKs feed-in tariff 19. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: Reported UFO sightings stump Texas shale play workers Wastes & Hazardous Substances 20. CHEMICALS: Officials cite PG&E for high chromium levels in Hinkley bottled water 21. SOLID WASTE: University of Vermont bans bottled water States 22. CALIFORNIA: State agrees with Nev. on development plan for Lake Tahoe 23. TEXAS: As drought lingers, state Legislature turns to water issues 24. MINNESOTA: State Legislature mulls Asian carp action this session International 25. CHINA: Beijing air pollution prompts unusual media push-back 26. GERMANY: Wildlife concerns stymie plans for new Berlin airport 27. GREECE: Nation's mining boom divides residents E&ETV's OnPoint 28. ENERGY POLICY: ClearView Energy's Book weighs prospects for energy policy in 113th Congress Get all of the stories in today's Greenwire, plus an in-depth archive with thousands of articles on your issues, detailed Special Reports and much more at http://www.greenwire.com Forgot your passcodes? Call us at 202-628-6500 now and we'll set you up instantly. To send a press release, fax 202-737-5299 or e-mail [email protected]. About Greenwire Greenwire is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. The one-stop source for those who need to stay on top of all of today's major energy and environmental action with an average of more than 20 stories a day, Greenwire covers the complete spectrum, from electricity industry restructuring to Clean Air Act litigation to public lands management. Greenwire publishes daily at Noon. Unsubscribe | Our Privacy Policy E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C St., Ste. 722, NW, Wash., D.C. 20001. Phone: 202-628-6500. Fax: 202-737-5299. www.eenews.net All content is copyrighted and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express consent of E&E Publishing, LLC. Prefer plain text? Click here "E&E Publishing, LLC" To Bob Perciasepe An E&E Publishing Service Greenwire -- Tue., January 15, 2013 -- Read the full edition 1. SUPREME COURT: Justices weigh Fla. property rights dispute The Supreme Court today wrestled with a Florida landowner's claim that he is owed compensation by a land-use agency after it declined to issue permits for a wetlands area he wanted to develop because he wouldn't agree to certain conditions. It is not clear how the court will rule, although the decision could rest on whether a majority of justices conclude that a taking, subject to compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, even occurred. Top Stories 2. NEWSMAKER: Path-blazing researcher explores environmental links to autism 3. NEWSMAKER: Environmentalist's about-face on GM crops stuns biotech world 4. BIOFUELS: Some see make-or-break year for cellulosic industry Congress 5. APPROPRIATIONS: Mining states scramble for cleanup cash at edge of 'fiscal cliff' 6. NOAA: Reinsurers back bid to expand regional ocean grants 7. APPROPRIATIONS: House GOP announces subcommittee rosters 8. FEDERAL AGENCIES: Congressman wants government to adopt zero-based budgeting 9. BUDGET: Keep entitlement, tax reforms away from 'fiscal cliff' bill -- Rep. Levin Politics 10. INTERIOR: BLM retirees group says next director should be seasoned employee 11. ETHANOL: API's new campaign seeks repeal of biofuel mandates 12. PEOPLE: Oil industry group hires former Hill staffers to lobby Natural Resources 13. PEOPLE: Film producer joins Sierra Club's board 14. WILDLIFE: Enviros, hunters face off over wolves in Mont., Idaho, Minn. 15. WETLANDS: Calif. floodplain restoration project advances 16. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Audubon, San Diego Zoo team up to create animal preserve in La. Climate Change 17. EMISSIONS: Black carbon's climate role larger than previously thought -- study Law 18. ETHANOL: Judges deny request for full court rehearing of E15 case 19. URANIUM: Ruling clears way for decision on controversial mill 20. OIL AND GAS: Exxon knew about risk of groundwater contamination -- lawyer 21. GULF SPILL: La.'s legal bill tops $24M in BP case Energy 22. NUCLEAR: NRC assembles panel to weigh San Onofre restart 23. UTILITIES: Deregulation hurts workers, customers -- investigation 24. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Developer plans wind transmission line off N.J. coast 25. TRANSMISSION: Ore. power line won't cross Cascades in new deal 26. NUCLEAR POWER: Duck hunters startle security workers at Mass. reactor 27. HYDROPOWER: Hoover Dam must fix 58 health, safety violations -- OSHA International 28. CHINA: Amid record smog levels, nation looks to curb vehicle emissions E&ETV's OnPoint 29. CLIMATE: Clean Air Task Force's Schneider suggests road map for president on emissions, air regulations Get all of the stories in today's Greenwire, plus an in-depth archive with thousands of articles on your issues, detailed Special Reports and much more at http://www.greenwire.com Forgot your passcodes? Call us at 202-628-6500 now and we'll set you up instantly. To send a press release, fax 202-737-5299 or e-mail [email protected]. About Greenwire Greenwire is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. The one-stop source for those who need to stay on top of all of today's major energy and environmental action with an average of more than 20 stories a day, Greenwire covers the complete spectrum, from electricity industry restructuring to Clean Air Act litigation to public lands management. Greenwire publishes daily at Noon. Unsubscribe | Our Privacy Policy E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C St., Ste. 722, NW, Wash., D.C. 20001. Phone: 202-628-6500. Fax: 202-737-5299. www.eenews.net All content is copyrighted and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express consent of E&E Publishing, LLC. Prefer plain text? Click here "Hirshfield, Michael" To Bob Perciasepe Hi Bob, it’s been a long time! I hope you are doing well. I’m going to be at a meeting with you, along with a few others from the conservation community, on Friday morning. In preparation, I wanted to be sure you saw some information that my colleague, Mike Levine, sent to Janet McCabe and Dennis McLerran on Monday of this week. It states some of our concerns with the PSDpermityouragency awarded Shell. We plan to discuss this in further detail on Friday, but I wanted to be sure you received it. If you have any questions before Friday, feel free to reach out to me or Mike Levine. Thanks, and see you soon, Mike Mike Hirshfield Senior Vice President, North America, and Chief Scientist Oceana 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone 202 833-3900 direct 202 467-1915 fax 202 833-2070 [email protected] www.oceana.org HiMs.McCabeandMr.McLerran, ThankyouagainformeetingwithusonJuly25.Weappreciateyourwillingnesstodiscussimportant issuesfacingtheArcticregionandhopetocontinuetheseconversations. WeremainconcernedaboutShellsapplicationtomodifythePSDpermityouragencyawardedforthe companysplanneduseoftheNobleDiscoverer todrillexplorationwellsintheArcticOcean.Aswe discussed,oneimportantaspectofShellsapplicationistherequestforatenͲfoldincreaseinPM2.5 emissionslimitsfortheNanuq ,theoilspillresponsevesselsupportingtheDiscoverer .Wewantedto furtherexplainthereasonsthatarevisedPSDpermit,ifoneisgranted,mustrequireShellsoperations tocomplywiththeincrementlimitforfineparticulatematter(PM2.5)adoptedin2010. Incrementsaredefinedas[m]aximumallowableincreasesinconcentrationsoverbaseline concentrations.42U.S.C.§7473(b).BoththestatuteandEPAsimplementingregulationsstatethat thebaselineconcentrationismeasuredasofthedateofthefirstpermitapplicationsubmittedafter theeffectivedateofanincrement.Seeid. at§7479(4);40C.F.R.§52.21(b)(14)(ii).Shellsapplication forarevisedpermit(datedJune28,2012)triggersthatrequirementitisthefirstPSDpermit applicationaffectingtheChukchiSeabaselineareasubmittedafterimplementationofthePM2.5 increment(October20,2011).See 42U.S.C.§7479(4);40C.F.R.§§52.21(b)(13)(i),(b)(14)(ii).The applicationforarevisedpermit,therefore,establishesthebaselineconcentrationforthearea.Likeany otherPSDpermit,issuanceofarevisedPSDpermitfortheDiscoverer iscontingentuponShells demonstrationthatitsoperationswillnotcauseorcontributetopollutioninexcessofanyapplicable increment.42U.S.C.§7475(a)(3)(A).SinceShellsapplicationnotonlyfailstodemonstrate complianceinfact,itindicatestherewillbeviolationsofthePM2.5incrementEPAcannotgrantthe revisedpermit. Inourmeeting,weheardRegion10stafftosuggestthatthenewPM2.5incrementwouldnotapplyto theDiscoverer becauseShellsproposedrevisionswouldnotconstituteamajormodification.Wetake thistobeareferencetothementionofmajormodificationinEPAsregulatorydefinitionofminor sourcebaselinedate.AlthoughaPSDpermitapplicationforamajormodificationisatypeofpermit applicationthatwouldestablishabaselineconcentrationinanarea,see 40C.F.R.§52.21(b)(14)(ii),this prongoftheEPAregulationisnotrelevant.First,amodification,whethermajororminor,referstoany physicalchangein,orchangeinthemethodofoperationof,astationarysourcewhichincreases emissionsofapollutant.42U.S.C.§7411(a)(4).Shellsrequestedchangeisnotamodificationwithin themeaningofthestatuteorregulationbecauseShellismakingnophysicalchangetothesourcethat affectsitsPM2.5emissions,norisitchangingthemethodoftheNanuq soperation.Infact,Shellhas requestedachangetothepermit ,notthesourceitself.Second,majormodificationsunderthePSD programinvolvechangestoexisting sources.See,e.g. ,AlabamaPowerCo.v.Costle ,636F.2d323, 348,350Ͳ51,400,401(D.C.Cir.1979);SierraClubv.Johnson ,541F.3d1257,1261(11thCir.2008). BecausetheDiscoverer isnotanexistingsource(thepermitspecifiesthatitwillnotconstituteasource untilitisanchoredatthedrillsite),itcannotundergoamajormodification. Inanyevent,thereisnoreasonforEPAtorelyontheminorsourcebaselinedatesincetheDiscoverer is,afterall,amajorsource.ThemajorsourcebaselinedateofOctober20,2010,isthereforethe operativedateforShellsoperationsandbothEPAsregulationsandtherulemakingnoticeforthe PM2.5incrementleavenodoubtthatShellsemissionsconsumetheincrementlimitandmaynot exceedit.See 40C.F.R.§52.21(b)(13)(ii)(a)(actualemissionsfrommajorsourcesconstructedafterthe majorsourcebaselinedateconsumetheincrement,regardlessofdateofpermitissuance);75Fed.Reg. 64,864,64,899(Oct.20,2010)([S]sourcesapplyingforaPSDpermitundertheFederalPSDprogram afterthemajorsourcebaselinedateforPM2.5 ,butbeforethePM2.5incrementsbecomeeffective , willbeconsideredtoconsumePM2.5increment.). Ultimately,ShellsapplicationtorevisetheDiscoverer sPSDpermiteffectivelyreopensthepermitwith respecttothepollutantsaffectedbytherequestedchanges.EPAshouldnotallowShelltoavoid compliancewiththePM2.5increment,promulgatedin2010,whenthecompanyhasaskedtoreopen andrevisethepermitinordertoincreasePM2.5emissionsforthe2013drillingseason. InadditiontotheultimateresolutionofShellsapplication,thisexplanationisrelevanttothecompanys plansforthissummer.Indeed,forthesereasons,amongothers,EPAshouldnotissueacompliance ordertoShellpremisedontheargumentthattheDiscoverer soperationsundertherevisedpermitwill meetstandards. Thankyouagain,andwelookforwardtospeakingagainsoon, Mike Michael LeVine | Pacific Senior Counsel ______OCEANA | Protecting the World's Oceans 175 S. Franklin Street | Juneau, AK 99801 T 907-586-1593 | F 907-586-4944 E [email protected] "Janet Stanko" To Bob Perciasepe DearMr.Perciasepe, Onbehalfofthe1700membersofSierraClubinNortheastFlorida,I'mwritingto askforyourimmediatehelpwithprotectingFlorida'ssprings,lakes,streams, estuariesandcoastalwaters. RecentlyafederaljudgeruledthatEPAmustreviewFloridaDEP'simpairedwaters listwithregardtothe"effect"oftheprovisionsoftheamendedIWRatissuein CountsIthroughVoftheplaintiffscomplaintonthestateslistingdecisions accordingtothetestprescribedbytheEleventhCircuit.WeunderstandthatEPA maybeplanningtoaskforreconsiderationofthisOrderorevenappealtheOrder atthe11thCircuit. PLEASE,usewhateverinfluenceyoumayhaveontheultimatedecisionͲmakerin thismattertopreventEPAfromresistingthejudge'sOrderinany way.Florida's ImpairedWatersRulewasstrongly opposedbytheClintonadministrationunder theleadershipofCarolBrownerwhenshewasEPAAdministrator.That'sbecause itwasoriginallydevelopedbyFloridapolluterswhenJebBushwasGovernor,asa waytoavoidcompliancewiththeCleanWaterAct.UndertheG.W.Bush administration,EPAreverseditselfandbegansupportingFlorida'srogue, antiͲcleanwaterstrategies.ItistimefortheObamaadministrationtoturnEPA aroundandsupportcleanwaterinFloridaandelsewhere. ThecourtshaveruledagainstFlorida'sIWRinfourcasesoverthepast11years. PleasehelpusdefendandprotectFlorida'swaters.LettheOrderstandandtell Florida'sDEPandthepollutersthatarecontrollingitthatEPAwillnolongerbea partnerinthedestructionofFlorida'swaters. Thankyou, Janet L. Stanko Chair,SierraClub,NortheastFloridaGroup 9048801813(office) 9042081341(cell) I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 565 of my spam emails to date. Do you have a slow PC? Try free scan! "Janice Nolen" To Gina McCarthy March 1, 2010 Clean Diesel eNewsletter Inside this issue: Clean Diesel Wins Green Car of the Year…Again Clean Diesel Makes a Splash at 2010 Washington Auto Show U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars Expands Membership Welcome to Clean Diesel Delivers This is your source for the latest news and emerging trends in advanced clean diesel technology for passenger vehicles in the United States. Amid growing consumer enthusiasm for “green” cars, clean diesel has stood out as the only solution to reduce your impact on the environment and improve fuel efficiency, while still maintaining the power and torque that drivers expect in their vehicles. By receiving this newsletter, you are taking part in a larger conversation about the benefits of this exciting technology. This newsletter is provided by the U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars. To opt-out, simply click below to unsubscribe and we’ll remove you. Clean Diesel Wins Green Car of the Year…Again At the Los Angeles Auto Show in December, Ron Cogan, editor and publisher of Green Car Journal named the Audi A3 TDI the 2010 Green Car of the Year. This marks the second year in a row a clean diesel car won this prestigious honor, following in the tracks of the 2009 winner, the Volkswagen Jetta TDI. The Audi A3 impressed a diverse jury of experts – including Dr. Alan Lloyd, president of the International Council on Clean Transportation and Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, among others – for its “rakish styling, upscale appointments, and 42 mpg highway fuel efficiency.” The recognition helps underscore that clean diesel is available to consumers today, providing long term economy by offering fuel efficiency advantages, high resale value and tax incentives. You can learn more about the Audi A3 TDI by clicking here. Clean Diesel Makes a Splash at 2010 Washington Auto Show Along the “Advanced Technology Superhighway” at the Washington Auto Show last month, you’d find just about every clean automotive technology on display. But only one solution – advanced clean diesel – offers 30 percent better fuel economy and 50 percent better torque over comparable gasoline engines, with up to 25 percent lower CO2 emissions. Members of Congress, like Rep. Steny Hoyer (pictured here), stopped by the booth to learn about today's diesel technology, while journalists and bloggers participated in a series of “ride-and-drives” in clean diesel vehicles. This allowed them to experience first-hand the performance of new 2010 models, like the 2010 Volkswagen Golf TDI, 2010 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen TDI and the 2010 BMW 335d. This helped spur media and blogger coverage of diesel’s presence at the Auto Show, which only added to the buzz about alternative vehicles in Washington during the week. U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars Expands Membership As the only advocacy group exclusively dedicated to clean diesel passenger vehicles, our Coalition is actively recruiting new partners that share a common objective – more clean diesel cars on U.S. roads. To this end, the Coalition recently welcomed four new members: Tenneco Inc., Dow Automotive, Umicore and SinterCast. By working alongside founding members Robert Bosch, LLC and BorgWarner, these companies will help advocate for technology-neutral policies and regulations that reward innovation, so that all clean technologies can compete equally. This is how we’ll meet our societal and political objectives of protecting the environment and advancing energy independence, while providing solutions that consumers want. After all, according to the EPA, American drivers spend about 57% of their miles at speeds of 45 mph and above, speeds at which clean diesel offers the best efficiency and performance. We think policies and regulations should encourage development of technologies that accurately reflect real-world driving behavior, and that are best suited to meet the demands of today’s consumer. © 2010 Diesel Delivers Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions Contact Us If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscr be" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars 1341 G Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.