Energy and Environment

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.

November 23, 2015[edit]

1. EPA proposes stronger downwind air quality standards for states[edit]

Click to read more about the Cross State Air Pollution Rule and Ballotpedia's coverage of Environmental Policy.

In November 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed stronger downwind air quality standards for power plants in 23 states. Meanwhile, two states, Florida and South Carolina, were exempted from the standards because of their minimal impact on downwind air pollution. Downwind air pollution is the pollution that drifts from one state to another, which can burden the latter state's ability to meet federal air quality standards. The stricter standards, collectively known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, are aimed at a 30 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions in 2017 compared to 2014. Nitrogen oxide is a major contributor to smog formation.^[1]

According to the EPA, the stricter standards will help reduce the negative health effects of smog and ozone. "This update will help protect the health and lives of millions of Americans by reducing exposure to ozone pollution, which is linked to serious public health effects including reduced lung function, asthma ... and early death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement. The EPA has estimated that the new standards will cost states $23 million collectively each year beginning in 2017. If states do not develop their own air quality plans, the EPA will enact a federal plan for those states.^[1][2]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the standards in 2014. In July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the EPA to make corrections to the standards, although the court did not wholly invalidate the standards; the EPA's updates are meant in part to address the federal appeals court's concerns.^[1]

The 23 states that would face stricter regulations on their downwind air pollution are Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.^[1]

2. U.S. Senate votes to repeal Obama climate rules[edit]

Click to read more about the Clean Power Plan.

In November 2015, the United States Senate approved a resolution that would repeal the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, a federal rule mandating a 32 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from power plants by 2030. The climate rule is a major part of the administration's plan to address climate change. The Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 52 to 46. A second resolution to repeal greenhouse gas standards for newly built power plants also passed by the same vote margin.^[3][4]

The resolution's supporters have argued that the climate rule will increase energy prices and reduce jobs by targeting coal-fired power plants. "If the administration’s proposed Clean Power Plan moves forward, hardship will be felt all across the country. Fewer job opportunities, higher power bills, and less reliable electricity will result," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). Capito, who sponsored the climate rule's repeal, represents West Virginia, where 93 percent of electricity was generated by coal as of December 2014. Coal-dependent states will face higher emission reductions under the Clean Power Plan than states with fewer coal-fired plants.^[4][5]

The Obama administration has said it would veto the two resolutions. "Most importantly, the resolution would impede efforts to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants — the largest source of carbon pollution in the country — when the need to act, and to act quickly, to mitigate climate change impacts on American communities has never been more clear," the White House said in a statement on the resolution to repeal emission reductions from existing power plants.^[4]

Three Democratic senators—Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.)—joined the majority of Republicans to repeal the climate rules. Three Republican senators—Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mark Kirk (Ill.)—voted with the majority of Democrats against repealing the climate rules.^[4]

Since September 2014, all but five state governments have taken a stance on the climate rule. As of November 11, 2015, 27 states had stated their opposition to the plan, and 18 states had shown their support for the plan. Click here to see where your state stands on the Clean Power Plan.^[6][7]

3. Wildlife scientists propose removal of federal protection from gray wolf[edit]

Click to read more about Ballotpedia's coverage of Endangered Species Policy and the delisting of species.

In November 2015, 26 wildlife scientists signed a letter to the federal government in support of removing the gray wolf from the federal list of endangered species in the western Great Lakes region, which includes Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Removing an animal or plant species from the federal list of endangered species, an act known as "delisting," removes federal protection from that species under the Endangered Species Act.^[8][9]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "delists" a species if it is recovered or extinct, or if it was listed in error. A "recovered" species is able to survive without federal protection because threats and negative impacts to the species are largely gone. As of September 2015, 59 species had been delisted since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973.^[10][11]

The letter's scientists have argued that gray wolf populations near the Great Lakes have met federal recovery goals. "We believe that failure to delist wolves in these states is counterproductive to wolf conservation there and elsewhere where suitable habitat may exist. The integrity and effectiveness of the ESA [Endangered Species Act] is undercut if delisting does not happen once science-based recovery has been achieved," according to the letter.^[9][12]

The gray wolf has been removed from and re-added to the federal list since full federal protection was first granted to the species in 1974. When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered removing its protection from the wolf in 2013, environmental and science advocacy groups claimed the government had relied upon flawed science to support the delisting decision. In December 2014, a federal appeals court reinstated federal protection for the wolf in the western Great Lakes region.^[9][13][14]

The letter's signatories have estimated that 3,700 gray wolves inhabit the three western Great Lakes states. According to one scientist who signed the letter, a wolf biologist who managed gray wolves for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources between 1990 and 2013, "now it's time to recognize that success and take the next logical step: removing them from the list of endangered species so that state wildlife professionals can manager [sic] wolves locally."^[9][12]

November 16, 2015[edit]

1. Hillary Clinton releases $30 billion coal plan[edit]

Click to read more about the 2016 presidential candidates and their positions on energy and the environment.

In November 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released a $30 billion plan for new technology for coal-fired power plants, the expansion of renewable energy resources, and the protection of health and retirement benefits for coal miners and power plant workers. There were more than 560 coal-fired plants in the United States that generated 39 percent of the nation's electricity in 2013, but cheaper natural gas and stronger environmental regulations have made coal a less competitive energy resource.^{[15][16][17][18]}

"The 20th century energy system is not coming back -- because of the shale boom, because of low-cost renewable energy, and because of the growing imperative to combat climate change. ... But I believe that we can forge a 21st century energy future for the United States that provides a clean and secure engine for economic growth -- without leaving out or leaving behind our coal communities," Clinton wrote in an op-ed for the Charleston Gazette-Mail, a West Virginia newspaper.^[19]

Clinton's plan would expand renewable energy projects such as wind energy and solar energy on federal land and install carbon dioxide capture technology in power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would also block power plants and coal companies from cutting or eliminating the health and retirement benefits promised to retirees, even if the plants and companies declare bankruptcy. A similar proposal, called the Miners Protection Act, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Joe Manchin, (D-W.Va.), Shelley Moore Capito, (R-W.Va.), Bob Casey, (D-Pa.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in 2015. West Virginia and Pennsylvania were two of the five states that produced 70 percent of U.S. coal in 2013. Clinton's plan would also expand the federal black lung benefit program and fund projects for "re-purposing" mine lands and power plant sites.^{[15][16][17][18]}

The Republican National Committee criticized the plan as ineffective at helping the coal industry because Clinton endorses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plan requiring coal power plants to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. "Hillary Clinton is Public Enemy No. 1 for coal miners and their communities because she wholeheartedly supports President Obama’s EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] agenda that is crippling their way of life," a Republican National Committee spokesman said in a statement. The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, said Clinton's plan assures that coal workers "aren't unfairly burdened" by changes in energy policy.^[16][17][18]

2. Sage grouse policies show debate between Western states and federal government[edit]

Click to read more about Ballotpedia's coverage of Endangered Species Policy.

Federal regulations to protect the greater sage grouse (commonly known as the "sage grouse"), a ground-dwelling bird found in 11 states, have produced disagreements between state and federal officials about sage grouse areas near energy production sites and the proposed construction site of a Nevada school. Although the sage grouse is not an endangered or threatened species, it is still the recipient of some federal protection. Approximately 105.6 million acres (about 64 percent) of sage grouse rangeland are owned by the federal government, which limits economic activities like energy production and cattle grazing on the land.^[20][21]

In 2015, a Utah mining company proposed expanding its operations onto 3,600 federally owned acres with nearby sage grouse habitat, although regulations will limit the amount of energy production on federal land. Federal officials have said the expansion could harm a small sage grouse population nearby. In contrast, Utah state officials have said the expansion would create jobs in an economically struggling area, while the sage grouse can easily relocate to another nearby habitat. According to The Associated Press, "not only do officials differ sharply on how to reduce human effects in the bird's habitat, they don’t agree on whether state or federal agencies should lead it." In October 2015, the Utah public lands director criticized the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which owns the 3,600 acres, for saying the state government agreed with the federal government that the mine expansion was inappropriate due to the sage grouse's presence. A federal decision on the mine's proposed expansion is expected by the end of November 2015.^[20][21]

In Reno, Nevada, a 2008 plan to acquire federal land for a middle school remained pending as of November 2015 because the federal government has called the land sage grouse habitat. “At this point we appear to be stopped by the sage grouse designation,” said one school district planner. The state's Department of Wildlife has said that there are no sage grouse near the proposed school's site. Meanwhile, eight Nevada counties and two mining companies have sued the federal government as well, alleging that federal land use restrictions will block a $500 million proposed wind project and cause economic losses. U.S. District Judge Miranda Du heard their arguments on November 17, 2015.^[20][21]

In September 2015, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) sued the federal government for its land restrictions, stating, "in many ways, these administrative rules are worse" than a rule protecting the bird as an endangered species.^[20][21]

Environmental groups have argued that the benefits of current policies include the prevention of species extinction and the protection of ecosystems, which outweigh other costs. Meanwhile, critics of existing policies have argued that the current regulation of species is inefficient and that the cost to private landowners has negative consequences on land use. As of July 2015, there were 2,457 federally listed species in the 50 states. Nearly half of these protected species have at least 80 percent of their habitats on private land.^[20][21][22]

3. Republican governor signs state gas tax increase[edit]

Click to read more about energy policy and tax policy in Michigan.

In November 2015, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed a gas tax increase, raising the state's gas tax from 14.84 cents per gallon to 22.14 cents per gallon, a 7.3 cent increase and the first increase since 1994. The tax will finance transportation projects in the state. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, while Michigan has a state excise tax on fuel of 19 cents per gallon, bringing Michigan's combined federal and state gas tax to 59.54 cents per gallon.^[23][24][25]

"This is the largest investment in Michigan roads and bridges in more than half a century, making them safer for Michiganders long into the future," Snyder said in a statement. Under the plan, the yearly cost of Michigan's $100 vehicle registration will also be raised by $20. The tax on diesel fuel will be raised to 26.3 cents per gallon in 2017. A homestead property tax credit of up to $1,500 will be available each year for Michigan homeowners and renters, an increase from the $1,200 credit previously available.^[23][24][25]

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce supported the transportation legislation, saying that it would help improve the state's infrastructure. Meanwhile, state Democrats have called the legislation a "new birthday tax" that will benefit wealthier individuals at the expense of middle-class individuals, according to Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Brandon Dillon. Dillon announced that the party will target Republican members of the state House who voted for the bill, including Reps. Holly Hughes, Tom Barrett, John Bizon and Jason Sheppard. Following the November 2014 election, Michigan is one of 24 Republican state government trifectas, which occurs when one political party holds the governorship, a majority in the state senate and a majority in the state house. Ballotpedia covers the latest developments in the partisan control of state governments here.^[23][24][25]

November 9, 2015[edit]

1. Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline[edit]

Click to read more about the Keystone XL pipeline.

In November 2015, the Obama administration rejected TransCanada's request for a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline across the U.S.-Canadian border. The pipeline would have transported crude oil extracted from tar sands from Alberta, Canada, and shale oil from North Dakota and Montana to Nebraska. It would have then connected to existing pipelines and transported oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast. In a press conference, President Barack Obama (D) claimed that the pipeline's construction would "undercut" U.S. climate change policies. In response to the permit denial, TransCanada stated that it "will review all of its options," including filing a new permit application to build the pipeline.^[26][27][28]

The Keystone XL pipeline is debated for its economic and environmental effects, particularly its impact on jobs, energy prices and climate change. In 2014, the U.S. State Department concluded that the pipeline would have "little impact on the prices that U.S. consumers pay for refined products such as gasoline," but that the pipeline's construction would create over 16,000 jobs, around 3,900 of which would be construction jobs. The oil Keystone XL would carry is denser and harder to burn than regular petroleum, and thus emits more greenhouse gases than less dense petroleum. The pipeline would potentially carry as many as 850,000 barrels of this oil per day. Although the State Department and the Congressional Research Service agreed that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would increase if the pipeline were completed, the agencies said the impact on climate change by the pipeline's construction is difficult to measure.^[29][30]

TransCanada called the rejection "a damaging blow to jobs, the economy and the environment on both sides of the border." The company's CEO, Russ Girling, said the rejection went against the State Department's own 2014 review, where the department said the pipeline would create over 16,000 jobs. Girling also criticized the Obama administration's nuclear agreement with Iran, which could allow Iran to increase oil production and exports, while the administration rejected giving Canada access to U.S. refineries through the pipeline.^[28][31]

Environmental groups supported the pipeline's rejection. "President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate. ... That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight," said Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit environmental advocacy group that campaigned against the pipeline. The League of Conservation Voters, a 501(c)(4) environmental advocacy group whose mission is "to turn environmental values into national, state and local priorities," said the pipeline's rejection shows that "our country is committed to a clean energy future."^[27][32][33]

Industry groups criticized the pipeline's rejection. The president of the American Petroleum Institute (API), a 501(c)(6) national trade association that represents the oil and natural gas industry, issued a statement criticizing the rejection as harmful to job growth. "Unfortunately for the majority of Americans who have said they want the jobs and economic benefits Keystone XL represents, the White House has placed political calculations above sound science," according to API president Jack Gerard. The president of the Institute for Energy Research, a 501(c)(3) free market advocacy group that researches "the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets," said Obama's rejection showed that he was "rejecting the will of the American people" and "rejecting abundant and affordable energy."^[27][34][35]

Presidential candidates are divided along party lines about the pipeline, with Democrats opposing it and Republicans supporting it. Republicans Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz have said they would approve the pipeline as president. Democrats Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley have said they would reject the pipeline as president.^[36]

2. New York nuclear power plant to close in 2017[edit]

Click to read more about energy policy in New York and nuclear power.

In November 2015, Entergy Corp., a Louisiana-based energy company, announced it will close its nuclear power plant in upstate New York in early 2017, citing the plant's operating costs. The plant's closure would leave New York with five nuclear power plants. In October 2015, the company announced it was closing one of its nuclear power plants in Massachusetts. The New York plant, known as the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Generating Station, is located about 50 miles north of Syracuse, New York.^[37][38]

According to Entergy CEO Leo Denault, the low cost of natural gas and New York's utility regulators have increased the plant's operating costs in recent years. "Given the financial challenges our merchant power plants face from sustained wholesale power price declines and other unfavorable market conditions, we have been assessing each asset," Denault said in a statement. As of December 2014, more than 34 percent of New York's electricity came from nuclear power, which was higher than the United States average of 17.3 percent. The Fitzpatrick plant generates 838 megawatts of electricity, or enough electricity to power more than 800,000 households. Its closing will likely cost the jobs of the plant's more than 600 employees.^[37][38][39]

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) have said they will fight to prevent the plant's closure. In October 2015 Cuomo said Entergy Corp. should close its nuclear plant in Westchester County, though he called the two nuclear plants "very different situations." Cuomo said he would "pursue every legal and regulatory avenue" to prevent the Fitzpatrick plant's closure. Schumer said, "I will do everything I can at the federal, state and local level to prevent this closure."^[37][38][40]

According to Bill Mohl, the president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, which is part of Entergy Corp., the company had decided not to order fuel for the plant's nuclear reactor in 2016 because the plant is set to cease operations in late 2016 or early 2017. At that point, roughly half of the plant's employees—about 300 employees—would lose their employment. Some employment at the plant would continue through a five-year decommissioning process for the spent nuclear fuel, allowing it to cool enough so that it can be stored on site. The company said it would try to find job positions for the Fitzpatrick plant's workers at its other nuclear plants or someplace else at Entergy.^[41]

3. Marco Rubio proposes cutting federal gasoline tax[edit]

Click to read more about the 2016 presidential candidates and their positions on energy and the environment.

In November 2015, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) proposed cutting the federal 18.4 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax by 80 percent. Rubio also said he would veto any increase in the federal gasoline tax as president. The tax pays for the majority of federal transportation projects. It has not been increased since 1993 and brings in roughly $34 billion each year to the federal government at its current level.^[42][43]

According to a web post entitled "A Transportation Policy for the 21st Century," Rubio said that the federal gasoline tax "feeds Washington's overspending." Rubio's plan would reduce the tax rate by 80 percent, which would cut the tax from 18.4 cents per gallon to 3.68 cents per gallon. Rubio supports transferring the management and funding of transportation projects from the federal government to the states. "Transportation dollars are taken from the states and funneled through a Highway Trust Fund that is pillaged every year by Washington special interests," according to Rubio's transportation plan.^[43]

The Democratic National Committee criticized Rubio's proposal, claiming that it would reduce federal spending in areas where spending is needed. Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Christina Freundlich said in a statement that Rubio "wants to end wage protections for American construction workers, while slashing infrastructure investments where we need it most."^[42]

Rubio is the second Republican presidential candidate who has proposed lowering the federal gasoline tax. Republican candidate and Ohio Governor John Kasich has called for the elimination of the federal gasoline tax and the establishment of individual state tolls to pay for roads and bridges.^[42]

November 2, 2015[edit]

1. Four Senate Republicans form coalition on energy and environmental policy[edit]

Click to read more about environmental policy in the United States.

In October 2015, four Republican members of the United States Senate formed the "Senate Energy and Environment Working Group," which will meet regularly to develop Republican policies on climate change, renewable energy and job growth. The group is led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), who is seeking re-election to the Senate in 2016. The group also includes Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.), who is also seeking re-election in 2016; Lamar Alexander (Tenn.); and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), a Republican candidate for president in 2016.^[44]

Ayotte has said the group will work on formulating a set of policies to balance economic growth, renewable energy production and environmental protection. "The Energy and Environment Working Group will be a way for us to bring people together and start an ongoing conversation about these topics — like how we can best protect our environment and climate, pursue common sense and market-based reforms to grow our economy, and promote cleaner energy production," Ayotte said in a statement.^[44][45]

On October 29, 2015, Ayotte announced her support for President Barack Obama's (D) Clean Power Plan, a federal rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Ayotte is the first Republican senator to support the plan openly; the plan is opposed by most Republican legislators. In the same week, a bipartisan group of 49 senators—including Sens. Alexander and Graham—signed a resolution aimed at repealing the power plant rule. All four senators of the new working group agree, however, on drafting some form of climate-related federal policy. Graham has supported climate-related policies in the past. "At the end of the day, I think carbon pollution is worthy of being controlled, whether you believe in global warming or not," Graham said in 2010.^[46][47][48]

The Senate group is not the first coalition of congressional Republicans working on issues related to climate change and the environment. In September 2015, 11 Republican members of the U.S. House came together to support Republican policies to "take meaningful and responsible action now" on climate change.^[49]

2. Twenty-five coal plants to close in Michigan by 2020[edit]

Click to read more about energy policy in Michigan and the Clean Power Plan.

Twenty-five coal-fired power plants in Michigan will be retired by 2020 due to stricter federal regulations and the plants' aging technology, the state's two largest electric utilities reported last week. The plants' retirement was scheduled before the Clean Power Plan—the federal rule capping greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants—was officially released in August 2015. According to DTE Energy, the state's second-largest electric utility, the federal rule will likely leave only one of DTE Energy's coal plants in operation by 2030.^[50][51]

"There is no piece of control equipment we can put on to meet carbon rules under the Clean Power Plan," stated Skiles Boyd, DTE Energy's vice president of environmental management and resources. The company expects to purchase natural gas plants in the state to replace its coal plants over the next 15 years. The state's largest utility, Consumers Energy, said it would spend $2 billion on upgrades for its existing coal plants to comply with the federal rule. Consumers Energy said it would take seven of its oldest coal plants offline by April 2016. According to the company, the seven facilities comprise 30 percent of the utility's generating capacity. Like DTE Energy, Consumers Energy plans to buy natural gas plants to replace its lost generating capacity.^[50][51]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in December 2014, Michigan generated 49.3 percent of its electricity from coal, which was higher than its neighbor Illinois and the United States average but lower than nearby states Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.^[52]

One outside group has estimated how the plant closings will affect costs for Michigan ratepayers. According to an April 2015 study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a 501(c)(6) group representing American coal producers, utility companies and railroads, the Clean Power Plan will increase electricity prices in Michigan by at least 12 percent. "People in Michigan are already struggling to keep their heads above water in this economy. ... Taking them off reliable coal-based power is only going to make their lives more difficult," said Laura Sheehan, senior vice president for communications at ACCCE. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency responsible for the power plant rule, the plan's full implementation in 2030 will reduce the average monthly electricity bill by about $8 per month nationwide. The EPA also estimated that the rule would cost $8.4 billion each year by 2030.^[50][51][53]

3. Five states sue EPA over ozone standards[edit]

Click to read more about ground-level ozone standards.

In October 2015, five states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its limits on ground-level ozone. Led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the lawsuit was joined by Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma.^[54]

In early October 2015, the EPA lowered the federal ground-level ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion, which will go into effect in 2025. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxide combines with other organic chemicals in the atmosphere. The federal government restricts ozone as part of its air quality standards, which require states to reduce ozone levels to match federal standards. Arizona's attorney general said the new standards "will be nearly impossible for Arizona to attain." The states have alleged that the EPA did not conduct an appropriate scientific review of the standards before they were published.^[54][55] "The financial stakes for this state are enormous if we are unable to comply and I am going to do everything within my power as attorney general to protect Arizona," Brnovich said.^[54]

The states' lawsuit follows a separate lawsuit from Murray Energy Corp., the nation's largest coal company, which sued the EPA over the ozone standards in October 2015. According to the company's president and CEO, Robert Murray, the standards are "yet another illegal and destructive action aimed at killing jobs." Murray Energy Corp. has said the ozone standards pressure the company to limit and potentially close operations at its coal-fired power plants.^[56][57]

The EPA has defended the rule as flexible for each state and beneficial to public health. The agency also said the standards are legally consistent with the Clean Air Act, which allows the EPA to set federal air quality standards. "EPA has met its obligations under the [Clean Air Act] to review the science and set ground-level ozone standards requisite to protect health with an adequate margin of safety. ... The Clean Air Act provides states with time to meet the standards, and EPA works closely with states to implement the more protective standards," said EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison.^[56]

See also[edit]

• Environmental policy in the United States
• Environmental Policy
• Energy policy in the United States
• State environmental policy pages
• Energy Policy

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Environmental Policy Background Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news Energy and environmental news January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 Environmental terms Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy Endangered species terms Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species Environmental policy by state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Endangered species policy Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act Endangered species policy by state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Environmental statistics Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report Endangered species statistics Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state