Clean Air Act (CAA)
H.R. 3117, Bill Introduced
Update Type
Committee Name
Natural Resources; Energy and Commerce
Sponsor Name
Jenkins
Sponsor Party Affiliation
R-W. Va.
Issue
8
Volume
47
Update Issue
19
Update Volume
47
Congress Number
115
Congressional Record Number
163 Cong. Rec. H5374

would prohibit the Secretary of Energy, the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality from considering, in taking any action, the social cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, the social cost of nitrous oxide, or the social cost of any other greenhouse gas, unless compliant with OMB guidance. 

In re Delta Energy Center

Mr. Rob Simpson filed this petition for review on behalf of himself and Helping Hand Tools (collectively, “Petitioners”). Petitioners allege that Delta Energy Center (“Delta”), which operates a combined cycle gas-fired power plant, obtained an amendment of a license in March 2017 that effectively modified a prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) permit issued to Delta under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7475.

In re Arizona Public Services Company

Sierra Club petitions the Environmental Appeals Board to review a Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration permit that Maricopa County Air Quality Department issued to Arizona Public Service Company in March 2016. The permit authorizes Arizona Public Service to construct five new natural gas-fired combustion turbines at its Ocotillo Power Plant in Tempe, Arizona. Maricopa County issued the final permit pursuant to a delegation agreement between it and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9.

In re Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District- Navajo Generating Station

Mr. Shawn Dolan (“Petitioner”) petitions the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) to review a Minor New Source Review (“NSR”) permit that the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (“Region”), issued to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District at its Navajo Generating Station on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Coconino County, Arizona. The Region issued the permit pursuant to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country, 40 C.F.R. §§ 49.151-.161, authorizing the construction and operation of a refined coal treatment system.

In re Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development

Four individuals (“Petitioners”) jointly filed a petition seeking review of a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit (“Permit”) that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”) issued to Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development, LP (“Footprint”). The permit authorizes Footprint to construct and operate a combined cycle electric generating facility in Salem, Massachusetts.

In re ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown Olefins Plant

Sierra Club petitions the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) to review a Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) permit regulating greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”) Region 6 (“Region”) issued to ExxonMobil Chemical Company (“Exxon”) on November 25, 2013. The Final Permit authorizes Exxon to construct a new natural gas-fired ethylene production unit (“Facility”) at Exxon’s existing Baytown Olefins Plant in Harris County, Texas.

In re Sierra Pacific Industries

In her appeal, Celeste Draisner petitions the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) to review Permit Number 94-VP-18d, which she asserts is a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit that the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (“Shasta County AQMD”) issued to Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson Division, pursuant to section 165 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7475.