Categories
  • June 2015
    •   Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
      supported by EncyclosphereKSF

    Energy and Environment

    Topic: The Policy Tracker

     From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 21 min

    ENVIRONMENT POLICY-Masthead.png

    June 2015

    The Environmental Policy Project produces this weekly Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment to report on major national and state environmental issues, including land ownership, energy production, air and water regulations, endangered species, pollution and much more.

    June 29, 2015[edit]

    Supreme Court invalidates EPA mercury standards for power plants[edit]

    Click to read more about mercury and air toxics standards and the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

    On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed standards on mercury and other air toxins emitted by power plants.[1][2][3]

    At issue in the case, called Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, was whether the EPA, which is responsible for regulating hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, overstepped its legal authority when it refused to consider the costs of regulating mercury from power plants. In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that the EPA unreasonably refused to consider the annual costs of its mercury standards, which the EPA estimated totaled $9.6 billion annually.[1][3]

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the EPA "strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants." Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.[1][3]

    The EPA previously stated that its rule would prevent roughly 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks nationwide, and that the standards would produce as much as $37 billion and $90 billion in "improved air quality benefits" when fully implemented. These figures were disputed by the standards' opponents, including the 21 states and industry groups who had joined the federal lawsuit. Instead, opponents argued that the health and environmental benefits would only total $4 million to $6 million per year.[1][3]

    The court agreed with the EPA's opponents that imposing billions in costs to power plants in exchange for fewer health benefits violated the Clean Air Act's "reasonable and appropriate" standard.[3]

    Writing for the dissenting justices, Justice Elena Kagan found that the EPA "took costs into account at multiple stages" and was "well within its authority in declining to consider costs at the opening bell of the regulatory process." Kagan's opinion was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.[1]

    The court required the EPA to consider costs, specifically compliance costs, more fully as it rewrites new mercury standards. The full majority and dissenting opinions can be found here.[1]

    California requires water cuts from farmers in response to historic drought[edit]

    Click to read more about environmental policy in California.

    In June 2015, California's State Water Resources Control Board imposed restrictions on the water rights of thousands of farmers in response to a historic statewide drought that has lasted four years. Nearly 80 percent of California's water goes toward agriculture; the farmers and other individuals affected hold "senior water rights," which are rights that date back over a century. It is the first time senior water rights have been restricted since the 1970s.[4][5][6]

    "We are now at the point where demand in our system is outstripping supply for even the most senior water rights holders," said Caren Trgovcich, the chief deputy director of the state board.[4]

    California Governor Jerry Brown had already ordered a mandatory 25 percent reduction in water use in California towns and cities. The use of ground water has rapidly increased since the drought began. An estimated 65 percent of the fresh water use came from underground sources in 2014, compared to under 40 percent in non-drought years.[7]

    Water use reductions in farms are reported to the state government voluntarily because of the limited technology available to monitor how much water is used. Major sources of water for farmers include the San Joaquin River watershed, which empties into San Francisco Bay. Smaller farms without senior water rights have been relying on reservoirs and wells for water.[4]

    On June 22, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board announced that only 31 percent of water right holders who had been told to restrict water use or face penalties had registered compliance after receiving a "shutoff order" from the state government. Individuals that keep using water are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 a day and $2,500 per acre-foot of water that was used illegally. Out of over 9,000 orders against water right holders in 2014, the state government received only around 2,800 responses. The board has acknowledged that smaller farmers may have simply overlooked reporting their water use to the state government.[6]

    Court orders $160 million cleanup at New Mexico power plant[edit]

    Click to read more about environmental policy in New Mexico, energy policy in New Mexico and the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

    Utilities associated with a coal-fired power plant in New Mexico, called the Four Corners Power Plan, must pay as much as $160 million to upgrade the plant's technology to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions. The result is the settlement of a 2011 federal lawsuit brought by environmental groups, who argued that the plant's operations violated air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.[8][9]

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice ordered the power plant to reduce its emissions by 2 million tons annually after installing new pollution control technology. According to the lawsuit, the power plant modified its operations without getting a federal permit or installing the appropriate technology, which is unlawful under the Clean Air Act.[9]

    The plant's owner, the Arizona Public Service Company, settled the case in order to avoid greater costs. The cleanup effort at the plant was anticipated to cost up to $160 million, including $6.7 million for environmental projects in the area and a civil penalty of $1.5 million.[8][9]

    "The agreement will require stringent pollution controls as well as public health and environmental projects that will have lasting benefits for the Navajo people," said John C. Cruden, the assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division.[8][9]

    Environmental groups such as Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment and National Parks Conservation Association were co-plaintiffs to the lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The settlement was part of the EPA's national enforcement effort to control emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act.[8][9]

    June 22, 2015[edit]

    EPA proposes stricter fuel efficiency standards for trucks[edit]

    Click to read more about implementation of the Clean Air Act, climate change and greenhouse gases.

    In June 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a plan to further reduce the carbon emissions of large trucks and vans. The proposal seeks to reduce trucks' carbon emissions by 24 percent before 2027 and to increase the fuel efficiency of these vehicles.[10][11]

    The new rule would increase fuel efficiency standards for model year trucks between 2019 and 2027 and would apply to pickup trucks, vans, semi-trucks, work trucks and buses. Similar federal regulations are already in place that require greater fuel efficiency and fewer emissions for model year vehicles between 2014 and 2018. Truck manufacturers will be required to increase fuel efficiency by about one-third of the current average of six miles per gallon.[10][11]

    According to the EPA, medium and heavy-duty trucks account for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, even though trucks and vans account for only 5 percent of vehicles on the road. The new rule is anticipated by the EPA to cut a total of 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.[10][11]

    The EPA has also argued that stricter fuel efficiency in vehicles will save consumers $50 billion in fuel costs. Meanwhile, the agency has estimated that improving fuel efficiency further will add $10,000 to $12,000 to the cost per vehicle, although the cost would be slightly less for smaller trucks. The EPA also expects the costs to be offset by fuel savings over two years.[10][11]

    Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council supported the stricter standards for truck emissions, arguing that the regulation would save money for consumers and help mitigate climate change. "Making our trucks go farther on less fuel will limit climate change and oil dependency, while saving consumers and businesses money, and spurring innovation," said Rhea Suh, the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council.[11]

    Meanwhile, truck manufacturer representatives, such as the National Automobile Dealers Association and the interest group American Truck Dealers, criticized the rule's costs, specifically the estimated average cost increase of $12,000 for manufacturing one new truck. "Recent history has shown that mandates with underestimated compliance costs result in substantially higher prices for commercial vehicles, and force fleet owners and operators to seek out less-expensive and less fuel-efficient alternatives in the marketplace," the two groups said in a joint statement.[11]

    The proposed rule is expected to be finalized in 2016.

    Senate hearing highlights debate over coal ash regulation[edit]

    Click to read more about environmental policy in the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    On June 17, 2015, the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed regulation on coal ash, a waste product from the burning of coal. The regulation was proposed by the EPA in December 2014 after a series of coal ash spills, particularly in Virginia and North Carolina.[12]

    Several groups and representatives testified at the hearing in support for and in opposition to the proposed rule. Republican and Democratic senators also commented on the EPA's proposed rule, which would require coal combustion residue to be disposed of in a specified, regulated manner.[12]

    Republican senators expressed concerns with the EPA's rule, arguing that the regulation does not take into account the specific needs of each state. "I'm concerned that this approach does not take into account the various factors involved in coal ash disposal at different facilities across the country," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune (R).[12]

    Meanwhile, Democratic senators said that the rule did not go far enough, but they ultimately supported the EPA's proposal as a good start on the issue. "I personally would have preferred the EPA issue a stronger rule. ... but I do think their rule is a first step," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer (D).[12]

    Industry groups at the hearing expressed concern that the rule creates too much uncertainty surrounding how and when coal ash must be disposed, leaving companies and businesses open to potential lawsuits for not complying. Differences in how companies self-report the disposal of coal ash could create confusion about who may be liable for potential environmental damages.[13][14]

    One environmental group, the Southern Environmental Law Center, whose attorney—Frank Holleman—testified at the hearing, argued that, while the EPA's rule set some needed requirements for coal ash disposal, clearer, stronger standards were needed. "Communities must have meaningful minimum universal criteria, essential information, and the ability to enforce this rule if it is going to be effective," Holleman said.[13][14]

    The rule is expected to go into effect in October 2015.[12]

    Georgia Supreme Court says buffers not needed for most Georgia waters[edit]

    Click to read more about environmental policy in Georgia.

    On June 15, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that 25-foot buffers around freshwater bodies of water are not required by Georgia law. The court said that the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) did not misinterpret state law when it began requiring only some bodies of water to have buffers for environmental protection.[15][16]

    In a 6-1 decision, Justice Robert Benham wrote that the state's Environmental Protection Division was within the letter of the law when it decided that 25-foot buffers were only needed when there is strong enough water flow to uproot plants and potentially pollute freshwater marshes, swamps and other bodies of water.[15][16]

    The decision was welcomed by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. "This ruling confirmed our interpretation of the statute and upheld the way we’ve been administering the program," said EPD director Jud Turner.[15][16]

    Meanwhile, environmental groups, including groups that brought the case, criticized the decision for preventing what they view as necessary protections for freshwater bodies. "A small strip of trees and plants may seem inconsequential, but that buffer provides a critical filter to prevent sediment and pollution from clogging our waters," said Bill Sapp, who works for the Southern Environmental Law Center.[15][16]

    The Georgia State Legislature passed legislation in 2015 to require buffers around saltwater bodies. The Georgia Supreme Court's decision applies only to freshwater bodies.[15][16]

    June 15, 2015[edit]

    EPA looks into regulating greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft[edit]

    Click to read more about implementation of the Clean Air Act, climate change and greenhouse gases.

    In June 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began studying whether or not to regulate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aircraft. The announcement is not a binding rule but rather the EPA's proposal to study the connection between aircraft emissions and the "pollution that causes climate change endangering the health and welfare of Americans," according to an EPA statement. An aircraft emissions rule would exempt military and recreational aircraft from regulation, according to the EPA.[17][18]

    The EPA's 194-page report looked at how aircraft emissions could contribute to global warming, a phenomenon that is said to be linked to changes in the climate as a result of burning traditional energy resources such as oil and coal. According to the EPA's report, greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry were considered a major emissions source for the transportation sector. The EPA has already begun regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of cars and trucks.[17][18]

    A federal rule limiting aircraft emissions may eventually reflect similar, international carbon standards from the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization, which is expected to adopt aircraft emission standards in February 2016.[17][18]

    Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have voiced a level of support for federal aircraft emissions standards, arguing that federal limits would help mitigate climate change. Other groups, such as the Centers for Biological Diversity, have argued that limits reflecting the United Nations' standards do not go far enough in reducing emissions. "Passing the buck to an international organization that’s virtually run by the airline industry won’t protect our planet from these rapidly growing emissions," said Vera Pardee, the group's senior counsel.[19]

    Meanwhile, critics of the EPA's proposal have argued that a federal rule would cause air travel prices to rise and negatively impact the domestic airline industry. U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) called the rule "ridiculous" while U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued, "The sky is the limit when it comes to how much of the U.S. economy the EPA wants to control."[19]

    The EPA is expected to finalize its study of the issue by 2016.

    Minnesota governor signs compromise environmental bill[edit]

    Click to read more about environmental policy in Minnesota and environmental legislation.

    In June 2015, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D) signed environmental legislation that he admitted was a "terrible" but necessary compromise between Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature. Dayton and Democratic senators in the Minnesota State Senate disagreed with the bill's elimination of a citizen oversight board at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The bill also exempted sulfide waste during mining operations from state waste rules.[20][21]

    The revised legislation was passed by the state Senate after an earlier version of the bill fell one vote short from approval and after Republican members of the state House also rejected the earlier bill.[20][21]

    During the state legislature's negotiations, Dayton and Democratic senators eliminated the citizen oversight board in order to save another part of the environmental bill, which requires farmers to implement buffers along streams, lakes and rivers to block pollutants. This compromise allowed the Democratic lawmakers to pass the legislation in the Republican-controlled state House.[20][21]

    The eliminated citizens' board had a hand in approving state regulations, and its elimination has been viewed as a way to accelerate state approval of environmental permits.[20][21]

    Despite Dayton's reluctance to sign the legislation, he said that the bill would not negatively impact the state's environment. "It’s certainly not going to set environmental progress back in Minnesota, because I won’t let it," Dayton said in a statement. Dayton signed the environmental bill—one of six budget bills that he signed—in order to avoid a partial state government shutdown.[20][21]

    Interior Department announces $10 million fund for land restoration[edit]

    Click to read more about the U.S. Department of the Interior and federal land ownership by state.

    The U.S. Department of the Interior announced a $10 million fund to restore land and prevent wildfires in 13 states. The fund is meant to keep land resistant to fire in an attempt to protect endangered and threatened species as well as fields, forests and watersheds.[22]

    Eight states in the West will receive federal funding for forest and sagebrush projects. Of the $10 million, around $7.3 million will be spent on four projects designed to benefit the sage grouse, a low-flying bird that lives across the Western United States and Canada and is dependent upon the sagebrush habitat for its survival. Wildfires in sagebrush areas could impact the decision to give federal protection to the bird, which is expected by September 2015.[22]

    Eastern states Georgia, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina will receive $770,000 to restore forests that contain an endangered red woodpecker. Around $4 million will go to a project for the Greater Sheldon-Hart Mountain, where sagebrush and native grass areas are protected from the expansion of juniper, a coniferous plant found in Nevada, Oregon and California.[22]

    The fund is part of the Interior Department's Wildland Fire Resilient Landscapes Program, which is designed to increase cooperation between federal agencies, states and other groups to prevent wildfires.[22]

    June 8, 2015[edit]

    North Carolina legislature passes revisions to the state's environmental policy law[edit]

    Click to read more about state environmental policy acts and environmental policy in North Carolina.

    On June 4, 2015, the General Assembly of North Carolina approved legislation revising the state's environmental policy act to minimize the circumstances under which state agencies must conduct an environmental review of a proposed project that uses state funds or impacts public lands.[23]

    The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, which was passed in 1971, requires state agencies to review and report the environmental impact of all state actions and expenditures as well as the private use of public land that could affect any of the state's natural resources, public health, natural beauty, or historical and cultural elements.[24]

    The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' criteria to determine which projects require an environmental impact study are based on the type of project or activity and its size. Under the revision passed by the state legislature, however, an environmental review would only be required for projects requiring more than $10 million of state funding and impacting more than 10 acres of land.[25]

    The revision also raised the minimum number of acres that could be affected before local governments could require an environmental review for projects such as housing developments.[23]

    Proponents of the revision have argued that more environmental protections exist now in North Carolina than when the original law was passed in 1971. Opponents of the revision have said that several public projects will not receive the kind of government review necessary to protect the environment.[23]

    The North Carolina House and State Senate both passed separate bills that were negotiated into a final bill. The legislation passed by a vote of 41 to 8 in the Senate and 74 to 40 in the House, which are veto-proof majorities. As of June 5, 2015, Governor Pat McCrory (R) had neither commented publicly on the bill nor signed it into law.[23]

    Federal appeals court rejects challenge to EPA's ozone standards[edit]

    Click to read more about ground-level ozone standards.

    In June 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a legal challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ground-level ozone standards, a federal proposal to reduce ozone, which is formed when nitrogen oxide combines with other organic chemicals in the atmosphere. The EPA restricts ozone as part of its air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. The case was brought by states, industries and environmental groups challenging the implementation of the proposed standards, which some considered too strict and others considered too lenient.[26]

    Ozone standards are primarily meant to maintain public health, since the pollutant has been linked to negative health effects in infants and the elderly. The 2014 rule requires each state to develop and implement ozone reduction plans that match federal standards. Ozone levels cannot exceed 65 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb in an eight-hour period, although depending on the outcome of an EPA-led study expected in late 2015, the levels could be restricted even further to 60 ppb.[27]

    Involved with the lawsuit were Mississippi, Indiana and Texas, all of which argued that the EPA's data on the states' noncompliance with the standards were incorrect. Meanwhile, Delaware and Connecticut argued in favor of punishing other eastern states for noncompliance. Because air pollution, including ozone, can drift into other states, the ability of some state governments to comply with federal law can be hampered by another state's air problems.[26]

    The court rejected the arguments from both sides, ruling in favor of the EPA that the ozone standards are constitutional and legal under the Clean Air Act.[26]

    The EPA has argued that strengthening ozone standards would produce health benefits, especially for people most at risk from ozone in the air, such as asthmatics, children and older adults. Opponents of the plan, including energy industry representatives and manufacturing groups, have argued that more restrictive ozone standards could raise energy costs and lead to job losses.[28][29]

    Federal appeals court rejects Kansas challenge to cross-state pollution law[edit]

    Click to read more about the Cross State Air Pollution Rule and environmental policy in Kansas.

    In May 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the state of Kansas' legal challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own rejection of the state's proposal to contain cross-state air pollution. States are required to reduce their air pollution to the extent that it interferes with another state's ability to comply with federal law.[30]

    In 2011, Kansas filed a lawsuit against the EPA's conclusion that the state did not reduce cross-state air pollution enough in complying with the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR requires state governments to regulate winds that may cross state boundaries and that may interfere with another state's ability to comply with federal air quality regulations. States must prohibit air emitters from contributing to another state's air pollution under the Clean Air Act.[30]

    The EPA rejected Kansas' plan to deal with cross-state air pollution, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the federal agency. The EPA "acted well within the bounds of its delegated authority when it disapproved of Kansas’s proposed [state implementation plan]," the federal court wrote.[31]

    The EPA rejected Kansas' "one-page document" ensuring compliance with the federal rule. The suit was brought by the state of Kansas and Westar Energy, Inc., an energy utility.[30]

    June 1, 2015[edit]

    EPA issues new Clean Water Rule for streams, wetlands and other bodies of water[edit]

    Click to read more about waters of the United States, the Clean Water Act and the implementation of the Clean Water Act.

    In May 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final regulation of waters of the United States, called the Clean Water Rule. The rule is an expansion of the EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, which mandated that the federal government oversee streams, wetlands, rivers and lakes nationwide in order to limit water pollution. The final regulation arrived after several years of ambiguity regarding the precise meaning of "waters of the United States" and how far the federal government's authority reached. Using his executive authority under the Clean Water Act, President Barack Obama directed the EPA to clarify the meaning of the law's key terms regarding bodies of water without legislation from the United States Congress.[32]

    Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) run a joint permit program to keep unwanted material out of wetlands and other "waters of the United States." Deciding which bodies of water are "waters of the United States" and how that definition justifies the EPA's and USACE's actions has been subject to debate. The term has been subject to multiple interpretations, which can affect how far the EPA and USACE may go in regulating private property and particular bodies of water. The uncertainty has led the EPA to clarify which bodies of water are under its jurisdiction.[33][34][35]

    The rule determines which wetlands and streams are regulated based on how they relate to "downstream water quality." The EPA is allowed to regulate waters that are next to lakes and rivers (and also their tributaries) because of their potential impact on water quality downstream. According to the EPA, only ditches constructed out of streams, or that function like streams, are regulated. If the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determine that the waters covered under the rule may be polluted or destroyed, a federal permit is required from the individuals, businesses or industries involved.[32]

    Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, have supported the rule and its broader definitions of water bodies, arguing that expanding the scope of water regulation helps better protect lakes and rivers from upstream sources of pollution. Opponents of the rule, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and other businesses, have argued that the rule could negatively impact agricultural practices and inhibit property use by private land owners.[36]

    Imperiled fish species stirs debate on water use in California[edit]

    Click to read more about environmental policy in California.

    The delta smelt, a small silver fish in California, has been the subject of debate over its imperiled status, raising concerns as to how protecting the fish's declining population has had an impact on water use during the state's historic drought.[37]

    Since 2008, the California state government has deposited 1.4 trillion gallons of water into the San Francisco Bay, which is one area where the smelt can be found, in order to protect the fish from extinction. Restrictions were placed on "delta pumps," which deliver water to Southern California and farms in the Central Valley, beginning in 2008. However, according to a yearly spring survey by California state biologists, only six smelt were found in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in March 2015, while only one smelt was found in April 2015 (the survey represents a sample of the delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, not its full population throughout the state).[37]

    California's drought has heightened the discussion over whether to use more of the state's water to protect the delta smelt, or to use those water supplies for agriculture and state residents dealing with the drought. Proponents of protecting the delta smelt have argued that more water is needed to keep the fish from going extinct, while opponents of providing more water to the fish have argued that water supplies should go toward Californians suffering from the drought.[38]

    In April 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) announced a plan to cut back on water transportation from northern California to southern California for fish and wildlife protection in response to the drought, high costs and failure to meet federal requirements; about 30,000 acres of habitat will be protected for fish and wildlife compared to the 100,000 acres originally planned. The plan is seen as a compromise between dealing with the state's water needs and protecting fish and wildlife habitats.[39]

    EPA proposes 2016 standards for renewable fuels[edit]

    Click to read more about renewable fuel standards.

    In May 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed raising the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a mandate requiring transportation fuel to contain a certain level of renewable fuel, to 17.4 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2016 compared to 15.9 billion gallons in 2014. The 2016 proposed standard falls short of standards set by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, however.[40]

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that gasoline sold in the United States must contain greater amounts of renewable fuel (e.g., ethanol or biofuels). The act established that in 2006 the nation's gasoline had to contain at least four billion gallons of renewable fuels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 further raised these standards. The 2016 proposal, although mandating greater renewable fuel production compared to 2014, is less than the 22.3 billion gallons set by Congress in 2007.[41]

    "We believe these proposed volume requirements will provide a strong incentive for continued investment and growth in biofuels," said Janet McCabe, the acting assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air.[42]

    The Renewable Fuel Standard has been debated for its impact on the renewable fuel industry and its effectiveness at promoting the use of cleaner fuel. The EPA's 2016 proposal itself has been criticized for not going far enough. Bob Dinneen, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, called the proposal "a step backward for the [Renewable Fuel Standard]."[42]

    Other groups have criticized the Renewable Fuel Standard altogether, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), a group representing over 550 companies in the oil and natural gas industries. According to API's CEO and president, Jack Gerard, the RFS itself promotes a kind of fuel that is incompatible with most motor vehicles. "We're at the point of the government trying to mandate a consumer choice that the consumer is rejecting," Gerard said.[42]

    The EPA was expected to finalize the proposed standards by November 30, 2015.[42]

    See also[edit]

    Footnotes[edit]

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency," June 29, 2015
    2. ↑ CNN.com, "Supreme Court: EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act," June 29, 2015
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Associated Press, "High court strikes down power plant regulations," June 29, 2015
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Al Jazeera America, "California orders large water cuts for farmers," June 12, 2015
    5. ↑ San Diego Mercury News, "What's next for California's historic water cuts in drought," June 23, 2015
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Los Angeles Times, "Most water rights holders facing cuts miss state compliance deadline," June 22, 2015
    7. ↑ Washington Post, "California’s water woes primed to get worse as groundwater is drained," April 2, 2015
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Summit County Voice, "Environment: $160 million cleanup ordered at coal-burning, pollution-spewing Four Corners power plant," June 26, 2015
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Cronkite News, "Feds announce $160 million settlement of Four Corners Power Plant lawsuit," June 24, 2015
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 The New York Times, "Proposed Rule for Big Trucks Aims at Cutting Fuel Emissions," June 18, 2015
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Associated Press, "EPA lays out its plan to wring more MPG from trucks," June 19, 2015
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 The Hill, "GOP senators wary of EPA coal ash rule," June 17, 2015
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Power Magazine, "Experts: Coal Ash Legislation Would Resolve EPA Final Rule Complications," June 17, 2015
    14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 The Durango Herald, "EPA coal ash rule receives criticism," June 17, 2015
    15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Ga. high court ruling a setback for environmentalists," June 15, 2015
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Florida Times-Union, "Georgia justices rule buffers not required for freshwater marshes," June 15, 2015
    17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 National Public Radio, "EPA Takes First Step In Limiting Aircraft Emissions," June 10, 2015
    18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Reuters, "U.S. EPA moves toward regulating aircraft emissions," June 10, 2015
    19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Politico, "EPA takes crucial step toward climate rules for airplanes," June 10, 2015
    20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Minnesota Star-Tribune, "Gov. Dayton signs budget bills, averting Minnesota government shutdown," June 13, 2015
    21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Minnesota Star-Tribune, "DFL state senators amend, pass environmental bill over GOP objections," June 12, 2015
    22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 Associated Press, "13 states to share $10 million to reduce wildfire risks," June 12, 2015
    23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Associated Press, "Changes to NC environmental law gets final approval," June 4, 2015
    24. ↑ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, "State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) General Information," accessed April 13, 2015
    25. ↑ The News and Observer, "Environmental law rollback heads to McCrory," June 4, 2015
    26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 The New York Times, "Appeals Court Sides With EPA on Air Pollution Limits," June 2, 2015
    27. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Overview of EPA's Proposal to Update the Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone," November 25, 2014
    28. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA's final air quality standards for ground-level ozone standards by the numbers," October 1, 2015
    29. ↑ National Association of Manufacturers, "Potential Economic Impacts of a Stricter Ozone Standard," July 1, 2014
    30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 The Hill, "Court rejects Kansas appeal in EPA air pollution case," May 26, 2015
    31. ↑ Utility Dive, "Federal appeals court rejects Kansas, utility challenge to cross-state pollution rule," May 28, 2015
    32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Water Rule Factsheet," accessed May 28, 2015
    33. ↑ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook," May 30, 2007
    34. ↑ Cornell University Law School, "33 U.S. Code, Section 1362 (Text of the Clean Water Act)," accessed September 22, 2014
    35. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "33 U.S. Code, Section 1251 (Text of the Clean Water Act)," accessed September 19, 2014
    36. ↑ Politico, "Barack Obama's water war," May 27, 2015
    37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 San Jose Mercury News, "California drought: Delta smelt survey finds a single fish, heightening debate over water supply," April 15, 2015
    38. ↑ Fox 40, "Delta Smelt — Friend or Foe?" May 6, 2015
    39. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown set to unveil scaled-back delta conservation plan," April 29, 2015
    40. ↑ Minnesota Star-Tribune, "EPA proposes more ethanol in U.S. fuel supply, but less than biofuel industry wants," May 30, 2015
    41. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions," December 21, 2007
    42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 Des Moines Register, "Ethanol groups blast EPA for lowering renewable fuel mandate," May 30, 2015
    v • e
    The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment
    StatesEnvironmental Policy Project
    Archives
    Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/The_Policy_Tracker:_Energy_and_Environment:_June_2015
    Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF