Skip to comments.EPA To Require Power Plants and Refineries To Use Pollution-Reduction Technologies To Trim...
Posted on 12/27/2010 11:24:41 AM PST by jazusamo
Complete title: EPA To Require Power Plants and Refineries To Use Pollution-Reduction Technologies To Trim Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(CNSNews.com) -- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, it will decide which pollution-reduction technologies work best for power plants and refineries and will then set regulations over the next two years that require those industries to implement similar pollution-reduction technologies.
However, the EPA acknowledged that it does not yet know how much greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced through its new regulatory plan. Also, the American Petroleum Institute criticized the EPA's action as "unprecedented and coercive."
Were talking here about a sector standard for greenhouse gases, said Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, on a Dec. 23 conference call with reporters. Its essentially looking at what EPA believes to be smart, cost-effective technology solutions that will not just make new facilities come into the system cleaner, but will actually achieve overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from both the power plants as well as refineries.
Were really early stage, I cant tell you what types of reductions we hope to achieve, said McCarthy. Thats all going to be driven by the technologies that come to our attention through the public comment period, through these early listening sessions, and its about going through a normal rule-making process where we make sure that we listen closely and we establish a clear and deliberative pass forward.
"This is not a cap-and-trade program," said McCarthy. "It's not in any way trying to get into the area in which Congress will be establishing law at some point in the future, we hope."
The EPA will issue regulations for fossil fuel power plants in July 2011 and final regulations are expected to be set by May 2012. For refineries, the regulations will start in December 2011 and then final regulations are expected to be in place by November 2012.
The standards for reducing emissions will apply to new and existing power plants and refineries that, according to McCarthy, account for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. These man-made gaseous emissions allegedly contribute to global warming.
When we set these standards the agency has to take into account cost, energy requirements, health and environmental impacts, and generally the agency does not mandate any particular technology through these standard-setting processes, said McCarthy.
We set the standards and the industries themselves figure out the most cost-effective way to achieve those standards, she said.
We have a lot of experience working with utilities as well as refineries, understanding the technologies that might be available to them for reductions, said McCarthy.
The states also will play a significant role in setting the standards for the plants and the refineries.
For existing sources, the states play a key role, [and] while EPA will establish a rule for new and modified facilities, it will also establish emission guidelines that states will then take a look at, said the EPA official.
They develop their own state implementation plans that take a look at their own facilities, she said. They are always based on demonstrated controls, the type of pollution reductions that can be achieved cost-effectively and states have flexibility to establish their own timelines which can go up to three years, beyond the timeline when those states implementation plans have been approved by EPA.
McCarthy indicated that the EPAs new emission regulations will create jobs by requiring the plants and refineries to invest in the new technologies.
Both of those sectors will be regulated in the coming year to look at reductions in their toxic emissions and their criteria pollutants as part of the standard way in which the Clean Air Act tries to continue to acknowledge the introduction of new technologies and opportunities for cost-effective reductions, said McCarthy. So both of these sectors will be asked to make investments in their facilities, which we believe will not only sustain jobs in the U.S., but actually grow jobs in the U.S.
The upcoming regulations are described by the EPA as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
Let me emphasize that New Source Performance Standards are in the Clean Air Act, one of the most flexible and commonsense approaches that we can take to reduce pollution in sectors where we have determined that pollution reductions are necessary to ensure public health protection as well as protection of welfare, said McCarthy.
It allows us to look at sources that are the largest, sources that are most important and to focus on those, she said. It allows us to look at the most cost-effective pollution controls so that we can make sure -- as in utilities and refineries -- that we are focusing on where we can make the most significant reductions in the most cost-effective way.
According to the EPA, "The NSPS are developed and implemented by EPA and are delegated to the states. However, even when delegated to the states, EPA retains authority to implement and enforce the NSPS."
In a statement on Dec. 23, the American Petroleum Institute, which represents more than 450 oil and natural gas companies, said, EPA is cramming too much in too short of a time. The administrations focus should be job creation and economic recovery, not unnecessary and burdensome regulations that will threaten jobs and create a drag on business efforts to invest, expand and put people back to work"
API hopes that EPA will reconsider its costly and unworkable greenhouse gas regulations," said the institute. "The Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions, and elected members of Congress should chart U.S. climate change policy.
After its December 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases apparently harm human health and welfare, the EPA received authority to regulate those gases under the Clean Air Act.
In that finding, the EPA administrator said that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
The gases in question are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Time for some impeachments.
BTW, even though their friends in the Senate will probably let them off the hook, the way these things are conducted in the House should be sufficient to totally destroy the career and reputation of anyone targeted.
LONG OVERDUE way to use that power, and guar-an-tee someone subjected to it is NOT going to be a happy camper.
Translation: my boss wants to kill the economy as quickly as possible. Some of the people trying to stop us are people like the Koch brothers and other refinery owners. Therefore we will ignore the Clean Air Act which specifies that we have to look at all sources, and just look at refineries and power plants since those are large facilities and worst case we can send in federal troops to shut them down. We will kill anyone who gets in our way.
“Its essentially looking at what EPA believes to be smart, cost-effective technology solutions”
Uh oh....sounds expensive...
Ms. McCarthy, we care not for your BS! This is just a regulatory construct designed to confuse the he!! out of the taxpaying citizenry. It is another power grab by the commie left and I doubt that the GOP will protest no more than just a whimper.
Agreed. The new House should start ripping and tearing funding for the EPA (and other departments) as soon as they come into session.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
EPA Issues Six Greenhouse Gas Rules
Didnt the court recently shoot down the health care bill mandate because its unconstitutional to MANDATE commerce?
Now what part of the constitution is that in? I forget....
Thanks for your link and ping, EBH!
Agencies do this on purpose. First off, writing rules is harder than it seems and it pays to use younger staff people They have the energy to get'er'done, plus, they are usually new enough they can take a look at any process and see where it came from, where it's going, and what it is doing WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED BIAS.
You want open minded folks writing new stuff ~ (which is, of course, carefully reviewed by seasoned hands).
It would be very instructive to the many other young rule writers in DC to see a GS 12 busted by a committee.
I'd be happy to lend a hand in developing avenues of investigative questioning in such cases ~ you can get those people pee their pants AND rat out their bosses.
Hold on now EPA! Let’s see if the Algae Oil technology can divert some of the power plant CO2 into algae growth.
Time to defund these Parasites.
It’s time to defund the EPA!
That sounds like something right out of Orwell’s 1984. The Ministry of Truth and all the other ministries described there. Scary.
Court wont block EPA climate regulations
The Obama administration scored a legal victory Friday when a federal appeals court refused to block federal climate regulations slated to kick in next month.
State and industry challengers opposing the Environmental Protection Agencys climate regulations had asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to halt the rules while the massive court battle plays out, but the court wasnt convinced.
A host of states, industry groups and free-market groups are suing EPA over its regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases from automobiles and large industrial sources like power plants and oil refineries, as well as the so-called endangerment finding underpinning the rules.
David Doniger, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney representing environmental groups in the case, said the decision is a sign that the industry and state case against the regulations is pretty flimsy.
Well if you really want to pursue this and I think we all should...
There are rounds two and three coming up both with 30-60 day comment periods. See the link in post 12 to understand ...
they already have all this stuff waiting in the wings.
I have experience in these things. Doesn't bother me a bit to bust a GS 12 or 13 or 14 or 15. I do get queasy dealing with an SES type since every word dripping from their mouth is a self-protective lie ~just tiring to listen to.
They think they're in charge of their agencies when in reality they are simply armor plate ~ inpenetrable, dense, more likely to slow stuff down than anything else.
The people we need to get to are in the lower ranks ~ that's where they still "do stuff".
Think of it as a TEACHING MOMENT.
He doesn't have the 2 or 3 years needed to really figure out these rules so he'll do a surface take and that's where more litigation will pop up.
I think it's more advantageous to take in the mid-level specialists and analysts and bust their knee caps before a Congressional committee.
Ordinarily the Administration will take action to deliver up only top level people, mostly appointees, and your typical Democrat Congresscritter will be quite happy to meet with Mr. Big and suck on his neither extremities.
What I'm proposing is targeting mid-level people for IMPEACHMENT.
The President cannot interfere in that by refusing to let the accused go before the committee.
Sounds a bit rough I know, but that should be made standard. Think of it as "what you do when you didn't do a confirmation hearing", which, of course, doesn't happen with these folks with Civil Service protection.
Perfect for the 0 administration.
It has no clue if what it plans to do will actually work.
It just seems like the right thing to do.
A total end-run around legislative control. Who's the environment czar, now?
Jones resigned and I believe Carol Browner is energy & environmental czar.