Public Meeting on Changes to NEPA

 

Public Comment Opportunity on Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] Proposed Rule Changes

Under the proposed National Environmental Policy Agency [NEPA] rule, agencies would have to evaluate all environmental impacts of their decisions, considering "direct," "indirect" and "cumulative" effects, meaning that climate change as well as environmental justice concerns must be weighed in those decisions.

"The basic community safeguards we are proposing to restore would help ensure that American infrastructure gets built right the first time, and delivers real benefits — not harms — to people who live nearby," CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory said in a statement.

Kevin Bogardus E&E News Greenwire  White House outlines plan to overhaul Trump NEPA rules

CEQ is accepting public comment on its proposed actions. Further, there will be two public meetings held online, the first on Oct. 19 and the second on Oct. 21. The administration also announced that the council is working on a second phase of changes to NEPA regulations. Those will be designed to involve the public more in the environmental review process as well as address climate change and environmental justice concerns.

RSVP for Public Comments: 

CEQ is holding two virtual public meetings on the Phase 1 Proposed Rule during which CEQ will provide a brief overview of the proposed rule and listen to feedback from the public. The meetings will be held on October 19 from 1:00-4:00 pm EDT and on October 21 from 5:00-8:00 pm EDT. Registration is required to attend the virtual sessions; during registration participants may indicate if they wish to be added to the list of speakers during the session.  For those unable to attend the meetings live, a recording and transcription will be made available online for viewing at www.nepa.gov.  

 
Registration Link for 10/19 from 1:00-4:00 pm EDT
Registration Link for 10/21 from 5:00-8:00pm EDT

Public Comments are due by November 22, 2021 

ALL COMMENTS SHOULD REFERENCE docket number CEQ-2021-0002 and MUST include the agency name, "Council on Environmental Quality".

Online comments can be submitted at the following link or at Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/07/2021-21867/national-environmental-policy-act-implementing-regulations-revisions#open-comment

You may also submit comments by :

Fax: 202-456-6546.

Mail: Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 20503.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, “Council on Environmental Quality,” and docket number, CEQ-2021-0002, for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be private, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov .

Summary of Changes: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is proposing to modify certain aspects of its regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to generally restore regulatory provisions that were in effect for decades before being modified in 2020. CEQ proposes these changes in order to better align the provisions with CEQ’s extensive experience implementing NEPA, in particular its perspective on how NEPA can best inform agency decision making, as well as longstanding Federal agency experience and practice, NEPA’s statutory text and purpose, including making decisions informed by science, and case law interpreting NEPA’s requirements. The proposed rule would restore provisions addressing the purpose and need of a proposed action, agency NEPA procedures for implementing CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and the definition of “effects.” CEQ invites comments on the proposed revisions.

Federal Registry: Yes. Here is link: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-21867.pdf 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/07/2021-21867/national-environmental-policy-act-implementing-regulations-revisions

For more information:   https://www.weact.org/

Industrial 'decarbonization' task force seeks federal subsidies

 

Industrial 'decarbonization' will require putting a price on carbon emissions, combined with mandatory carbon reductions

Decarbonization will require a 'man on the moon' strategy

• BY MARK SCHLEIFSTEIN | STAFF WRITER October 11, 2021 NOLA.COm 

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, up to 15% of industry's emissions could be cut through better energy management.

In 2018, Louisiana Industry was responsible for 62% of the 217 million tons of greenhouse gases released statewide. 

According to LSU Professor David Dismukes, a small number of major emitters are responsible for an outsized share of the problem, with the top 20 carbon emitters responsible for more than a quarter of the state's emissions.

For plants in the petrochemical and refining sector, the top 20 emitters include #10 Valero Refining Meraux & #15 PBF Energy Chalmette.

Valero Refining Meraux 2012 2,384,289 metric tons CO2 and 2019 2,290,120 metric tons CO2.

PBF Energy Chalmette 2012 1,573,489 metric tons CO2 and 2019 1,591,902 metric tons CO2.

After industry, transportation — including trucks and vessels used by industry — is the next biggest emitter of carbon, representing 20% of the state's 2018 emissions. That's followed by the generation of electricity, mostly by utilities, at 13%, with some of that electricity also used by industry.

"We'll need federal assistance equivalent to the effort to get a man on the moon," Flozell Daniels, president of the Foundation for Louisiana and a member of [Governor Edwards'] task force, said Friday. “It’s important to first recognize that we’re at a level of crisis that requires an extraordinary response."

Serial offender of environmental and human rights

 

… Formosa Plastics Group’s six-decade track record is “riddled with environmental, health, safety, and labor violations in multiple countries,” according to a new report  from the Center for International Environmental Law, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Earthworks. The report’s authors allege regulatory violations, accidents, human rights abuses, and disproportionate impacts on systematically exploited communities. The environmental groups say their report comes at a time when oil and gas companies are increasingly tying their future growth to the demand for plastics and the oil- and gas-based petrochemicals used to make them. Formosa Plastics Group is among the producers with major expansion plans, including proposals to extend its existing operations in several locations.

Formosa Plastics Group: A Serial Offender of Environmental and Human Rights (A Case Study) reflects two years of investigation and analysis of the conglomerate’s history by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Center for Biological Diversity, and Earthworks. 

  https://www.ciel.org/news/new-report-on-formosa-plastics-group-reveals-danger-of-plastics-production/

SOS St Bernard

 Thursday September 30 2021

Opinions The New Orleans Advocate

Port expansion will damage St. Bernard Parish

Once again, the Port of New Orleans is trying to advance its own cause to the detriment and destruction of one of southeast Louisiana's most historic communities: St. Bernard Parish.

First it was the Industrial Canal. Then, in 1927, they dynamited the Mississippi River levee, flooding lower St. Bernard. Then, it was the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), which destroyed wetlands in biblical proportion and enabled death and devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

Their proposal today: the Louisiana International Terminal, a massive container facility in the middle of St. Bernard Parish, a narrow strip of land unsuitable for this type of development. Beyond damage to the environment, including clearing and paving over hundreds of acres of woodland, the massive container terminal will add an incredible volume of 18-wheeler traffic on our already congested roads to transport the millions of containers the Port says will come.

The fact is there are viable alternative locations for such a facility in Louisiana. However, since they fall outside of the Port's control, these locations are not being given proper consideration. Decisions on consequential projects such as this should not be driven by one entity's aggressive desire for control and profit.

If this new facility is not developed in a suitable location, it will destroy any hope for a sustainable future. If mega-ships get stuck or cannot unload in a timely manner because of inadequate land transport, the container shipping industry will turn to another port and the big loser will be all of us in Louisiana.

We need our public officials at every level as well as our neighbors who treasure community life and our environment to stand with us. Let's stop the Port of New Orleans in its tracks before they once again run over all of us and add to the damage they've already caused.

SIDNEY D. TORRES III

attorney Chalmette

Public Participation also transitions

 How can local communities become empowered to drive project development and meaningfully engage in the low-carbon energy transition? 

While we have experienced numerous energy transitions in the past, the current shift to renewable energy sources (RES) is different not least because of the diversity of drivers leading it. From disambiguations around human activity and climate change to the growing awareness of a plethora of energy-related inequalities arising from our dependence on fossil fuels, this transition is about more than just technological and political change, or even resource availability. It also involves significant social and behavioural transformations that question established historical narratives and challenge accepted understandings of democracy and economics.

Past energy transitions were almost exclusively driven by the exploitation of a new energy resource with little consideration for social or environmental consequences. Also, they were marked by top-down, highly centralised energy systems controlled by a limited number of corporate actors. The current transition, in theory at least, involves numerous different cross sectorial stakeholders that are more informed by public policy and is more likely to include the social groupings directly affected than has heretofore been the case. However, given societal responses invariably require a radical reorganisation of socio-economic infrastructures in order to accommodate change, this transition will not automatically be a just one.

https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13705-019-0218-z