American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2016 - 20

IndustryDigest
Manufacturers filed a similar petition
for review and motion to stay along
with 15 other business and industry
associations.
The states' lawsuit contends the
Clean Power Plan is illegal because it is
based on Clean Air Act Section 111(d),
and EPA already regulates coal-fired
power plants under Section 112 of the
CAA. The states contend 1990
amendments to the CAA expressly
prohibit such double regulation.
A story on the D.C. Circuit's January
ruling published by the Texas Alliance of
Energy Producers says states will have to
submit their initial compliance plans by
Sept. 6 or ask EPA for two-year
extensions. "Most states, even those
challenging the rule, are crafting plans to
reduce their emissions as an insurance
policy in case the rule survives," the
Alliance report observes. "EPA has said
it will impose its own plan on states that
refuse to come up with their own."
AG Morrisey says states signed on to
West Virginia's challenge are Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New
Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and
Wyoming. ❒

Industry Seeks A Delay
In EPA Ozone Standard
WASHINGTON- Several oil and
gas industry groups are asking a federal
court to block the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from imposing
stricter standards for ozone, saying the
government should give states more
time to implement existing benchmarks.
They warn the new regulations could be
among the costliest ever imposed on
U.S. consumers.
The coalition, which includes the
American Petroleum Institute,
Independent Petroleum Association of
America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and National Association of
Manufacturers, filed a petition with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit seeking a review of
the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone, published in the
Oct. 26 Federal Register.
The agency said it was lowering its
primary ozone standards to 70 parts per
20 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

billion from the 75 ppb level because they
didn't protect the public with an adequate
safety margin. The agency unveiled plans
to retain the average time (eight hours)
and form (annual fourth-highest daily
maximum of ozone averaged over three
years) of the primary ozone standard,
while lowering the limit to 70 ppb
(AOGR, November 2015, pg. 36).
New restrictions on business and
investment linked to the lower standards
could impact job growth in 958 counties
across the country, API says. It adds
only 217 counties are affected under
existing ozone requirements.
Tightening the ground-level ozone
standards enacted in 2008 will not
improve air quality any faster, but EPA's
regulations could hurt jobs and the
economy by imposing unachievable
emission reduction requirements on
virtually every part of the nation, warns
Stacy Linden, API vice president and
general counsel.
Through no fault of their own, many
communities have yet to meet the 2008
standard, making it impossible for them
to satisfy EPA's new requirements
unless they make painful decisions,
predicts Karen Harbert, president and
chief executive officer of the U.S.
Chamber's Institute for 21st Century
Energy. She points out many counties
with increasing populations and high
levels of background ozone have no
means of complying, and will be
unfairly punished as a result.
Adds IPAA Executive Vice President
Lee Fuller, "The EPA has set an
unattainable mandate that will slow
America's economic growth and threatens
U.S. jobs. Lowering the ozone standard is
not going to provide new health benefits,
according to the EPA's own analysis.
Those who are calling for a lower
standard are ignoring EPA's own analysis,
which concludes that the most populated
'nonattainment' areas of the country will
fail to meet the new standard." ❒

Ethanol Trade Groups
Challenge EPA Targets
For Renewable Fuels
WASHINGTON-A coalition of
ethanol-related associations is asking a
federal court to block an Obama
administration attempt to decrease how
much ethanol must be blended with
motor vehicle fuels.
The trade groups-Americans for Clean

Energy, American Coalition for Ethanol,
Biotechnology Innovation Organization,
Growth Energy, National Corn Growers
Association, National Sorghum
Producers, and the Renewable Fuels
Association-filed a petition in January in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, seeking to block the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
final Renewable Fuel Standard volumes
announced in November.
EPA's order set the volumes of
advanced biofuels and total renewable
fuels for 2014-16, as well as volumes
for biomass-based diesel for 2017. It
says the revised amounts are below the
volumes authorized under the Clean Air
Act, and are expected to spur progress
in overcoming constraints in renewable
fuel distribution infrastructure. The rule
was to become effective Feb. 12.
The EPA points out the target figures
for 2014 and 2016 are higher than its
draft figures released in May, but the
final targets are below the volumes
established when the Renewable Fuel
Standard was issued in 2007.
Brian Jennings, executive vice
president of the American Coalition for
Ethanol, says when Congress enacted
the RFS, the ethanol industry stood
ready to produce the cleaner fuels
required. "Regrettably, EPA's final RFS
rule protects the old way of doing
business by obstructing consumer
access to cleaner fuels, stifling
competition in the marketplace, and
undermining innovations," he says.
Despite the CAA's requirement for
ethanol to replace more than 10 percent
of gasoline consumption, EPA's rule
instead relies on the E-10 "blend wall"
methodology used by oil companies
who want to keep ethanol use below
that percentage, Jennings says.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers is seeking to intervene in
the lawsuit on EPA's side. AFPM
President Chet Thompson says the
agency's decision to lower volume
requirements is the only justifiable
option, given market realities.
"This lawsuit is another effort by the
ethanol industry to force increased
amounts of ethanol produced by the
petitioners' members on consumers
through an unpopular government
mandate, and ignores not only the E-10
blend wall, but also strong consumer
rejection of higher-ethanol fuels,"
Thompson says. ❒
American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2016
