Complete list of press releases

“EPA’s statement today regarding its inclusion of formaldehyde on the list of chemicals under consideration for prioritization for risk evaluation under TSCA leaves many questions unanswered.

EPA states that ‘the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process.’ Such consideration is already required by law. 

What is absolutely essential is that the IRIS program be able to complete its assessment of formaldehyde, which has been suppressed for the last year and a half by conflicted EPA political appointees.  Then EPA’s TSCA office, just like every other EPA office, can and should rely on it to make regulatory decisions.It’s time that political interference in the agency’s science stop.”

- Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund

For more information see the following EDF blog post: The Trump EPA’s actions on formaldehyde can be summed up in one word: Corrupt

Sustainability rankings that exclude climate policy advocacy give stakeholders an incomplete picture of companies’ sustainability ambitions and performance, finds a new analysis by Environmental Defense Fund. In order to improve the accuracy and utility of the rankings, the report calls for increased disclosure of corporate lobbying activities related to climate change.

The Blind Spot in Corporate Sustainability Rankings: Climate Policy Leadership is the first analysis of how corporate engagement in climate policy – including direct lobbying, financing think tanks, foundations, political action committees and more – is weighted in the development of the rankings

“It’s no longer enough to reduce, or even eliminate, the greenhouse gas emissions in one’s operations and supply chain,” noted Joel Makower, Chairman and Executive Editor, GreenBiz Group. “Today, leadership companies are those that speak up and speak out in favor of ambitious climate policies, and companies will increasingly be held accountable on that score.”

Alongside the rapid growth in corporate climate commitments and initiatives, numerous sustainability ratings and rankings, the focus of this analysis, have emerged to help stakeholders assess corporate environmental performance and identify leaders. The authors examined the most widely cited rankings and found:

• Only one of the eight rankings analyzed recognizes companies for lobbying or other activities in favor of public policies that protect the climate: InfluenceMap’s Climate Policy Engagement A-List.
• Only two rankings systems penalize or disqualify companies for lobbying or activities against public policies to protect the climate: InfuenceMap’s Climate Policy Engagement A-List and Corporate Knights Global 100.
• With the exception of InfluenceMap, none of the rankings analyzed in this report give weight to climate policy advocacy commensurate with its outsize impact on environmental outcomes.

“We created InfluenceMap to fill a clear gap in the way in which companies are assessed on climate change – that is, their impact on climate policy and narrative,” noted Dylan Tanner, executive director and co-founder of InfluenceMap. “Judging companies solely based on operational and product emissions is insufficient.”

The report recognizes the challenge of incorporating policy advocacy into sustainability rankings due to the lack of disclosure of corporate lobbying activities, and builds off previous reports examining issues such as consistency in methodology across sustainability rankings.

To address the omission of climate policy advocacy, the authors point to the U.N. Global Compact Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy, which recommends three actions companies can take to demonstrate responsible engagement in climate policy.:

1. IDENTIFY: Inventory influences, risks and opportunities with internal and external experts.
2. ALIGN: Complete internal audit to ensure consistent positions, strategies and investments.
3. REPORT: Disclose positions, actions and outcomes.

The same steps can be used by ranking entities in developing their disclosure guidelines.

“Sustainability rankings need to keep pace with what leadership looks like today,” said Victoria Mills, managing director of EDF+Business and co-author of the report. “The urgency and magnitude of the climate challenge demand a bigger response from business than reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions. Companies must also support policies that drive down emissions across the entire economy.”

(Washington, D.C. – March 19, 2019) EDF filed comments with EPA last night urging Administrator Andrew Wheeler to withdraw a proposal that would severely weaken common sense protections against pollution from new coal-fired power plants and would increase Americans’ risk from climate change.

“EPA’s proposal would place no meaningful limits on carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants, and even gestures towards the possibility of leaving carbon pollution from these plants entirely unregulated.” EDF says in its comments. “Like EPA’s proposed ‘replacement’ for the Clean Power Plan, this Proposal is deeply damaging to public health and welfare, rests on a fatally deficient record, and represents an abdication of EPA’s legal obligations under the Clean Air Act. We urge EPA to withdraw this Proposal and strengthen the current standards to better protect communities from climate and health risks.”

EDF also joined other public health and environmental organizations to file two additional comment letters: the first highlighting the proposal’s total disregard for the urgent threat of climate change, and the second describing why carbon pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Fossil fuel-fired power plants are among the nation’s largest sources of the harmful pollution that drives climate change. EPA established our first-ever nationwide limits on carbon dioxide pollution from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants in 2015. As the Clean Air Act requires, EPA set the standards at levels that reflect the best demonstrated pollution controls – which, for new coal-fired power plants, includes partial capture and storage of carbon dioxide pollution. These standards have been in full force and effect for more than three years, protecting all Americans from uncontrolled carbon dioxide pollution from new power plants.

In December, then-acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler issued a proposal to significantly weaken the existing protections. Wheeler’s proposal would allow new coal-fired power plants to be built and operated without reducing their carbon dioxide pollution to any meaningful degree. The proposal came mere weeks after EPA closed the comment period on a separate proposal that would severely weaken the Clean Power Plan, America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants. Both proposals fly in the face of mounting evidence that we must act to reduce climate pollution, including the Trump administration’s own reports showing that natural disasters are worsening because of climate change and that greenhouse gases have increased by 41 percent since 1990.

(PHOENIX, AZ – March 19, 2019) Today, the seven Colorado River Basin states sent a letter requesting Congress move forward with federal legislation supporting a series of Drought Contingency Plans. The letter comes after years of negotiations, with states pledging proactive conservation measures to safeguard the Colorado River and protect water levels in Lake Mead. Congress will now work to pass companion federal legislation authorizing the DCPs.

“Today is a major milestone for building a secure future in a more arid American West. The approval of the drought contingency plan by seven states and dozens of local stakeholders demonstrates collaboration on a massive scale is possible to address increasing water scarcity.” 

• Kevin Moran, Senior Director, Colorado River Program, Environmental Defense Fund

(Washington, D.C. – March 18, 2019) Experts with Environmental Defense Fund joined Americans from across the country today in support of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – the popular, successful, and cost-effective safeguards against some of the most dangerous types of air pollution from power plants.

Then-acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler proposed reconsidering the foundational building blocks of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in December. EPA is holding its one and only public hearing on the proposed rollback today at its Washington, D.C. headquarters.

“Let’s be clear, the EPA is taking comment on whether the agency should rescind the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – standards which annually reduce toxic air pollutants including mercury, lead, arsenic, and acid gases, and which are vital to keeping these poisons out of the air we breathe and the food we eat,” said EDF senior policy manager Mandy Warner in her testimony. “Toxic air pollutants emitted by power plants can damage the brains and nervous systems of developing fetuses, harm reproductive systems, and can cause cardiovascular harms, respiratory impacts, and cancer.”

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are already in effect and protecting Americans. The power industry is already in compliance with the standards, and since 2011 mercury pollution from power plants has dropped by more than 80 percent.

EPA’s own estimates show the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths each year, and the benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of 9-to-1.

“My oldest daughter will turn seven years old this year, the same age I was when Congress started the process to accelerate mercury and toxic air pollution protections via the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. It has literally taken generations to get these standards implemented, and yet today we are facing an action by EPA that could upend the progress we have made,” said Warner in her testimony.

EDF’s Simon Bunyan also testified today.

“It should be noted that the power industry itself opposes the revisions to the mercury standards. In a letter to the EPA, associations representing the industry urged the agency to ‘leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective,’” said Bunyan in his testimony. “The [proposed rollback] will only serve to increase the toxic pollution that threatens our air, land, water, food, and wildlife.”

EDF also joined 30 other health, business, environmental and social justice groups to submit a letter to EPA today saying:

“There is no defensible reason to continue to pursue this proposal to upend one of the most cost-effective and widely supported public health protections and we urge you to immediately withdraw it.”

You can read the entire letter here.

(SANTA FE, N.M.) By voice votes in both houses, House Bill 546 was passed today by the New Mexico State Legislature. After Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s signature, the bill will restore the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) Oil Conservation Division’s (OCD), authority to enforce the state’s oil and gas protections, while also making key clarifications and improvements to the regulation of produced water in New Mexico.

OCD lost its ability to meaningfully address oil and gas violations due to a 2009 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling, and has relied on the New Mexico Attorney General’s office to accomplish basic enforcement tasks such as assessing fines. A recent report found that oil and gas-related spills and violations increased nearly 100 percent over the last decade since the ruling, while fines assessed by the agency dropped to zero last year.

The produced water provisions in the bill will also help industry use less fresh water and improve oversight of produced water more broadly.

“This bill is New Mexico’s first major oil and gas legislative reform in over a decade and is a testament to the strong health and safety policies being championed by Gov. Lujan Grisham. Gov. Lujan Grisham and EMNRD Secretary Sarah Cottrell Propst deserve a tremendous amount of credit for getting this major reform done. Their leadership catalyzed these reforms and created a bill that all sides – industry and environmentalists, as well as Democrats and Republicans – support.”

“We would have preferred this bill followed the examples of the other agencies in New Mexico, as well as in neighboring Texas and Colorado, by not including an administrative cap on penalties — but restoring New Mexico’s ability to protect its health and resources from oil and gas pollution is a critical accomplishment.”

“Gov. Lujan Grisham, Sen. Richard Martinez, Rep. Matthew McQueen and Rep. Nathan Small have been instrumental in delivering this major reform to New Mexico’s oil and gas industry. Their constituents and communities across the state will be better off thanks to this legislation.”

• Jon Goldstein, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Energy                                       

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it has finalized a rule that bans methylene chloride in paint strippers for consumer uses but still allows use of the deadly products in workplaces. Instead of banning commercial uses, as it originally proposed to do more than two years ago, EPA is merely starting a process to gather input on what a possible future certification and training program might look like – delaying any action for years.

While EDF welcomes the long-overdue protection of consumers, it falls far short of what is needed to protect all Americans. EPA has acknowledged that these products present unreasonable risks to consumers, yet workers are even more at risk. The agency has also acknowledged that alternative products are readily available, so it is all the more distressing that EPA’s action leaves out workers.

Getting a consumer ban happened only because of the courageous efforts by families that have lost loved ones to these products, the leadership shown by major retailers that committed to pull products from their shelves, and pressure from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and advocacy organizations.

“While it is an important step to bar consumer use of methylene chloride-based paint strippers, EDF is alarmed that EPA has abandoned its earlier proposal to protect those most at risk – the many workers, including owners and employees of small businesses, who are exposed to these deadly products on the job,” said Lindsay McCormick, Chemicals and Health Project Manager at Environmental Defense Fund. “Most reported deaths from these products are of workers, and so we will continue to fight for their protection, demanding that EPA do its job and protect all Americans.”

Methylene chloride is highly neurotoxic, and acutely lethal. It is highly volatile and can kill within minutes of inhalation. There have been over 50 reported deaths from acute exposure in recent years – though many more likely have gone unreported.

For two years, EDF and others have urged this administration to finalize EPA’s 2017 proposed ban on these deadly products. This action was directly authorized under the bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016. The agency based its proposed ban on a robust risk assessment demonstrating both the lethal risks from acute exposure and a host of other acute and chronic adverse health impacts.

In the time since the ban was originally proposed, people have continued to lose their lives to these products. The family members who have lost loved ones since the ban was proposed have bravely come forward to share their stories and urge the agency to take swift action to finalize the ban. Their advocacy efforts, the support of lawmakers, and action by retailers, including Lowe’s, Walmart, and Home Depot, have been instrumental in drawing national attention to this issue and forcing EPA action. Unfortunately, those exposed on the job still will not be protected by the scaled-back ban.

“After hearing my son’s story and promising action on methylene chloride, I am deeply saddened to see this administration go back on its word,” said Wendy Hartley, who lost her son, Kevin, in April 2017 to a methylene chloride-based paint stripper he was using on the job. “Kevin wouldn’t have been protected by this ban. And the decision to weaken the originally-proposed ban means that all of the other workers who use this – for small family businesses, like Kevin, or at larger companies – will be left unprotected. I will keep fighting until this administration does its job and ensures these deadly products are out of homes, stores, and workplaces.”

“It speaks volumes that the first restriction on a chemical finalized by this administration under the newly strengthened TSCA is a watered down version of the ban as first proposed,” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “The administration found a way to take what started as a far more health-protective ban, delay any action for two years, and then strip out any protections for workers, those most at risk from these products. The Trump EPA is once again prioritizing narrow industry interests over public health and worker protection.”

Based on a pre-rule EPA also announced today, it appears the agency will relegate any actions to address commercial uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers to a lengthy, uncertain process that will take years to complete. EPA is merely inviting input on what a future worker training and certification program should look like – options EPA had specifically considered earlier and rejected as inadequate to address the high risks workers face.

Just this week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change held an oversight hearing on the Trump EPA’s failure to protect workers from toxic chemicals. Committee members highlighted EPA’s abandonment of worker protections from methylene chloride-based paint strippers as a key example of how the agency has shirked its responsibility under TSCA. 

EPA has also abandoned restrictions it previously proposed under TSCA on two other hazardous solvents – trichloroethylene (TCE) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).

In a meeting with OMB concerning the draft final rule, EDF voiced strong concerns over any narrowing of the original proposed rule and urged the office to ensure the ban protects workers as well as consumers. Additionally, since January, more than 13,000 concerned Americans sent over 39,000 messages to their Members of Congress demanding EPA and OMB finalize a ban covering both consumer and most commercial uses.

The transition to zero-carbon homes and buildings is a critical step in California’s efforts to fight climate change, but the state must urgently develop a coordinated, equitable and cost-effective plan to proactively manage the decommissioning of the legacy gas system.

That is the conclusion of a new report from Environmental Defense Fund, which lays out strategies to guide decision-makers as they grapple with the question of who will pay for the existing fossil fuel infrastructure when California homes and buildings no longer use gas.

“Replacing gas appliances with low-emitting electric options that run on clean energy is a proven way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Tim O’Connor, Senior Director of California’s Energy Program at EDF. “But we need a coordinated and equitable plan in place to manage the impact of transitioning away from gas - for customers, workers, the economy, and ultimately, the success of our climate goals.”

Generally, utilities can incorporate the costs of building gas infrastructure into the rates they charge customers, so long as the California Public Utilities Commission deems the equipment “used and useful”. When the gas system no longer meets this threshold of being “used and useful”, the remaining investment is considered “stranded”.

As California reduces gas use in buildings, the pool of customers footing the bill for the gas system will shrink, which could raise costs and unduly burden lower-income and other vulnerable communities.

The framework finds that these stranded assets could create issues for affordability, equity and future investments in a cleaner energy system. While the full value of the gas system is unknown, California investor-owned utility assets in 2017 were valued at around $6.2 billion.

“While it may not happen tomorrow, California will have to deal with these stranded assets soon, so it is prudent for this be a proactive, planned transition - to allow costs to be spread out,” said Michael Colvin, Senior Manager of California’s Energy Program at EDF. “We can start by identifying an effective forum, possibly through the CPUC or legislature, to evaluate and manage this process.”

The framework also recommends gathering data from gas companies about the overall value and age of the current gas system as a first step, to clarify the full dollar value of the infrastructure, what has yet to be paid off, and how this information interacts with the expected timeline for electrification.

To help guide policymakers, the framework lays out other key tools and steps that can reduce the risks of stranded assets. These include:

• Strategic targeting of electrification: The state should develop a methodology to support a coordinated roll out of electrification based on specific criteria, such as customer equity, age/value of gas infrastructure, cost of maintenance, risk of gas leaks, cost risk of stranded assets, and ease of deployment. Such a methodology can help maximize grid and customer benefits from electrification and minimize the risk of stranded assets compared to an ad hoc roll out of electrification.
   
• Developing pathways to pay for early retirement: Creative financing strategies for mitigating stranded value impacts are also needed to minimize and mitigate the stranded value from specific legacy gas assets, including bonds and changes to regulated investment recovery through accelerated depreciation and changes to return on equity where appropriate.
   
• Proactive planning for decommissioning: End of life expenditures (i.e.depressurization or removal) normally occur after a gas asset has reached the end of its useful life, but with a customer base shifting from gas to electric, it becomes more relevant to plan for these decommissioning costs now. A few notable options for this include new distribution system charges, creating a line-item on customers’ bills, and establishing a trust fund.
   
• Alternative uses of existing assets: In certain circumstances, there may be a role for lower carbon fuels, like biomethane and hydrogen, as an alternative to fossil gas to extend the useful life of gas assets. Due to concerns over fuel availability, cost, and safety, deployment of these fuels should be focused on applications that may have difficulty electrifying — such as heavy duty industrial facilities, and should be coupled with specific leakage abatement measures for the gas infrastructure.
   
• “Bright Line” for new investments: For future near-term gas infrastructure investments, California should establish an investment framework to provide for continued operations and safety, an effective transition, and investor confidence. A first step is developing a “bright line” for determining when investments are more at risk of being stranded and which stakeholders are responsible. Clear mandates for electrification would also provide regulatory certainty and a transition timeline for utilities.

Download the full report online here.

(SANTA FE, N.M.) By a vote of 32-6, House Bill 546 was passed today by the New Mexico State Senate. After a concurrence vote in the State House and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s signature, the bill would restore the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) Oil Conservation Division’s (OCD) authority to enforce the state’s oil and gas protections, while also making key clarifications and improvements to the regulation of produced water in New Mexico.

OCD lost its ability to meaningfully address oil and gas violations due to a 2009 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling, and has relied on the New Mexico Attorney General’s office to accomplish basic enforcement tasks such as assessing fines. A recent report found that oil and gas-related spills and violations increased nearly 100 percent over the last decade since the ruling, while fines assessed by the agency dropped to zero last year.

The produced water provisions in the bill will also help industry use less fresh water and improve oversight of produced water more broadly.

“This bill is New Mexico’s first major oil and gas legislative reform in over a decade and is a testament to the strong health and safety policies being championed by Gov. Lujan Grisham. Gov. Lujan Grisham and EMNRD Secretary Sarah Cottrell Propst deserve a tremendous amount of credit for getting this major reform done. Their leadership catalyzed these reforms and created a bill that all sides – industry and environmentalists, as well as Democrats and Republicans – support.

 “We would have preferred this bill followed the examples of the other agencies in New Mexico, as well as in neighboring Texas and Colorado, by not including an administrative cap on penalties — but restoring New Mexico’s ability to protect its health and resources from oil and gas pollution is a critical accomplishment.

“Gov. Lujan Grisham, Sen. Richard Martinez, Rep. Matthew McQueen and Rep. Nathan Small have been instrumental in delivering this major reform to New Mexico’s oil and gas industry. Their constituents and communities across the state will be better off thanks to this legislation.”
 

• Jon Goldstein, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Energy

BP and Environmental Defense Fund Collaborate to Reduce Methane Emissions

Joint effort focuses on developing technologies and management practices to accelerate reductions of methane emissions across the global oil and gas industry

(HOUSTON, Texas) BP and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) announced today a three-year strategic commitment to advance technologies and practices to reduce methane emissions from the global oil and gas supply chain.

The agreement enables joint collaboration on projects that test technologies and emerging strategies to continue to improve methane management. Working with universities and third party experts, the initiative has the potential for broad applicability to help the entire oil and gas industry significantly reduce this potent greenhouse gas.

“BP is taking a leading role in addressing methane emissions, and this collaboration with EDF is another important step forward for us and for our industry,” said Bernard Looney, BP’s upstream chief executive. “We’ve made great progress driving down emissions across our own business, including meeting our industry-leading methane intensity target of 0.2 percent, but there is much more work to do and partnering with the committed and capable team at EDF will help us develop and share best practices.”

“BP’s commitment to push the next frontier of methane technology and practice is important to prove out solutions that oil and gas companies can use to accelerate emission reductions. The scale of the methane challenge is enormous, but so is the opportunity. Whether natural gas can play a constructive role in the energy transition depends on aggressive measures to reduce emissions that include methane,” said Fred Krupp, EDF president. “BP took such a step today.”

He added, “EDF and BP don’t agree on everything, but we’re finding common ground on methane. BP has shown early ambition to lead on methane technology. We hope to see more as BP delivers on its own stringent methane goal and we work together to spread solutions industrywide.”

EDF will not receive any funding from BP, consistent with EDF’s strict policy prohibiting receipt of funds from energy companies and corporate collaborators. Rather, BP and EDF are working to identify third-party analytical and technological demonstration projects, and BP will assist with funding.

The collaboration will also facilitate industry dialogue about the best practices to monitor and reduce emissions. EDF will provide input on science, technology and policy. These areas of work build on BP’s methane reduction target; EDF’s extensive methane research, business analyses and other innovation projects; and both organizations’ participation in the Methane Guiding Principles, a multi-stakeholder initiative aimed at broad engagement to continually reduce emissions globally. 

Key initiatives for the new methane collaborative focus on three areas in 2019: 

1) Advancing Technology Breakthroughs

BP grants up to $500,000 to a multi-stakeholder research initiative led by Colorado State University (CSU) that will improve the pathways to regulatory acceptance for emerging methane detection and quantification technologies. Advances such as drone-based methane monitoring and stationary continuous monitoring offer the potential to speed detection time, enabling more emissions to be found and fixed with enhanced efficiency. But to be accepted by regulators, innovations must be rigorously demonstrated as environmentally effective compared to traditional approaches. Developing a robust analytical model in addition to protocols for rigorous, independent field-testing are key milestones for this year. BP’s financial and technical support builds on EDF’s policy and scientific contributions.

“CSU welcomes this support from BP and EDF for this critical research work, and this provides the necessary confidence and momentum for other stakeholders to contribute in a collaborative environment, in which the results and tools will benefit the wider industry,” said Dan Zimmerle, senior research associate for Colorado State University’s Energy Institute. 

 

2) Leveraging Digital Technologies

The digital revolution sweeping the oil and gas industry offers new opportunity to integrate methane management into operational excellence, as identified in EDF’s report, Fueling the Digital Methane Future, produced with Accenture Strategy. Technology solutions like machine learning, artificial intelligence and augmented reality can embed methane management into the digital transformation that companies like BP are implementing to adapt and compete in a changing landscape.

In 2019, EDF and BP will scope and announce a digitalization project for methane that will harness innovation that improves operations and reduces emissions. Results and key learnings will be publicized to maximize environmental and industry benefits.

3) Expanding Methane Management

BP and EDF will also jointly collaborate on projects aimed at increasing the understanding of joint ventures, identifying best practices and potential opportunities for reducing methane emissions in non-operated assets. A 2018 EDF report found that companies like BP can extend the impact of their methane reduction targets by supporting emissions reductions in joint venture projects with other oil and gas operators.

In 2019, BP and EDF will convene a workshop to learn about practices for emission reductions at non-operated assets and to identify potential opportunities to expand the coverage of methane efforts and commitments.

Notes to editors:

· BP is a signatory member of the Methane Guiding Principles, which were signed in November 2017 and are supported by EDF and other organizations. The Principles are aimed at continuously reducing methane emissions across the natural gas value chain.

· Methane has a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but it has a higher global warming potential — 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

BP is targeting a methane intensity of 0.2 percent and holding it below 0.3 percent.

Tomorrow, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change will hold an oversight hearing on “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers.” In advance of the hearing, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist, Dr. Richard Denison, made the following statement:

“Under the Trump Administration, every aspect of EPA’s implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — our recently reformed chemical safety law — has gone off the rails. The Trump EPA has abdicated its authority and responsibility under the law to address risks to workers. Among the ways EPA has shirked these duties are the following:

• Clearing new chemicals despite risks to workers. EPA has approved new chemicals for unfettered market access even where the agency has identified significant risks to workers or has indicated it has insufficient information to determine risks to workers.  EPA has done so for many dozens of chemicals.
• Abandoning worker protections from methylene chloride. EPA is poised to finalize a ban of methylene chloride-based paint strippers far narrower than the one it proposed over two years ago.  While consumer uses will be banned, EPA will not limit commercial uses, leaving workers, who are most at risk from these products, unprotected. 
• Ignoring worker safety in chemical risk evaluations under TSCA. In the only draft risk evaluation of a chemical issued to date, EPA relied exclusively on a single undocumented workplace air concentration value, provided through a private personal communication by a conflicted industry source, as the basis to conclude that workers across the supply chain for this chemical face no significant exposure to the chemical.

“Oversight of this EPA’s reckless approach to worker protection under existing law is long overdue.  We applaud the subcommittee for holding this hearing. This EPA is putting the public’s health – especially worker’s health — at risk by systematically weakening and undermining chemical safety: the agency must be held accountable.”

(Denver, CO – March 11, 2019) Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club hope to go to court to support the state of Colorado in its decision to adopt protective state clean car standards.

The groups filed a motion in Denver District Court today asking to intervene in defense of those standards.

“Colorado’s state clean car standards will mean healthier air, a safer climate, and more money in Coloradans’ pockets,” said EDF lead attorney Peter Zalzal. “Colorado has manifest authority to take these common sense steps, and we plan to vigorously defend Colorado’s decision in Court.”

“As Trump threatens to roll back the national vehicle emissions standards, we stand behind Colorado’s efforts to protect local communities from transportation pollution,” said Joe Halso, associate attorney for the Sierra Club. “The freedom of states to adopt clean car standards must be protected in order to build healthier communities, limit harmful emissions, and fight climate change.”

“Colorado has some of the most polluted air in the nation, but the automobile dealers want to take away key measures the state put in place to curb air pollution and address climate change,” said Noah Long, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is outrageous. We’re intervening to protect the health of state residents.”

In November, the state’s Air Quality Control Commission unanimously voted to adopt Colorado clean car standards that will reduce pollution from passenger cars and trucks and will save families money at the gas pump. Colorado joined a coalition of 13 other states that are already implementing clean car standards, at a time when the Trump administration is trying to roll back our popular and successful national clean cars program.

The Colorado state standards are known as Regulation Number 20, or the Colorado Low Emission Automobile Regulation. The standards are widely supported by Colorado businesses and local governments. They will reduce climate pollution by more than two million metric tons annually in 2030, and by more than twice that by 2040. They will significantly decrease other types of air pollution that cause serious heart and lung diseases. They will also reduce fuel consumption in new cars, which will save Coloradans money – under the state standards, the average Colorado family will see a net savings of almost $2,400 over the six years they own a new car.

The Colorado Automobile Dealers Association filed a lawsuit challenging the state clean car standards in January. EDF, NRDC and Sierra Club filed a motion today to intervene in that suit to defend the standards.

“The legal challenge filed by the car dealers is without merit, rehashing the same arguments already unanimously rejected by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. The air commission acted in a thoughtful and deliberate way in adopting these rules,” said Tom Bloomfield at Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, which is representing the groups in this case.

(SACRAMENTO, CA – MARCH 11, 2019) The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Board of Directors will vote Tuesday on whether to authorize participation in the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) to manage water in the Colorado River. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Audubon sent an open letter to California water agencies commending progress on the DCP and urging that they continue to collaborate to finalize the agreement.

“EDF and Audubon publicly acknowledge and applaud the significant efforts of Southern California water agencies in working to finalize the Colorado River Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan agreements over the past several years. The DCP is a critically important step forward to protect the communities, economy and environment across the basin. We strongly support completion of the DCP.

“As we all near the finish line, we appreciate that there are outstanding concerns about the Salton Sea. We urge the California agencies and federal partners to continue the spirit of collaboration they adopted in drafting the DCP to face this challenge as well. Working together creatively and constructively, we can overcome the obstacles that have slowed progress in implementing the Salton Sea Management Program and ensuring ample funding for projects that will make a difference for people and the environment at the Salton Sea.

The Colorado River Basin water supply faces enormous risks without the DCP, and it is everyone’s interests that this effort succeed.”

• Maurice Hall, Associate VP, Ecosystems – Water, Environmental Defense Fund

“It’s clear that the Trump administration has not learned its lesson that America’s health and environment are never to be put on the chopping block. The call for cuts of more than 30 percent to EPA’s budget—as well as harmful cuts to the budgets of other agencies vital to protecting American families from the dangers of pollution, toxics, and climate change—should be dead on arrival in Congress.

“The administration’s proposal doubles down on the radical, anti-protection stance that the White House has championed, to the detriment of the American people. The real world result of these cuts would be more asthma attacks, more heart problems, and more air pollution.

“EPA remains critically underfunded. In real dollars, its budget is even less than it was nearly 40 years ago, despite a large increase in responsibilities and major growth in our population and economy. That the agency must carry out its important responsibilities while being stretched so thin is an injustice to American communities at the front lines of pollution and global warming.

“EPA’s budget should be increased at least as much as other agencies that protect the health and safety of the American people. EPA is, after all, an agency dedicated to ensuring the safety and well-being of American children and families everywhere.”

• Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President, Political Affairs

(HARRISBURG, Pa.) Today, Rep. Tom Mehaffie and other members of the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives introduced a bill to subsidize the state’s nuclear power plants. The bill adds a third tier to the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS), which creates a mechanism that effectively requires the purchase of power from the state’s existing nuclear plants irrespective of the availability of lower cost options.

The bill fails to address the immediate need to develop a durable strategy to clean up the carbon pollution from Pennsylvania’s energy sector. Placing a binding, declining limit on power sector carbon emissions that creates the opportunity for flexible, low-cost and efficient market-based solutions to achieve the limit will ensure Pennsylvania actually cuts pollution at the lowest cost while fostering investment in, and deployment of, zero emission electricity. This is the foundation for any sustainable long-term energy strategy.

“It’s time for Pennsylvania to focus on cost-effective policies to reduce pollution and figure out what their neighbors have already: clean energy solutions can be deployed at cost savings to customers. Pennsylvania must take concrete action to reduce its carbon emissions. It’s the only state from Maine to Virginia without a limit on carbon pollution from the power sector, and today’s proposed legislation will leave Pennsylvania even further behind. This is an expensive Band-Aid that saddles consumers with the majority of risk.”

• Andrew Williams, director of regulatory and legislative affairs