Skip to comments.EPA Issues Six Greenhouse Gas Rules
Posted on 12/27/2010 9:59:47 AM PST by EBH
On December 23, 2010, the EPA issued a series of rules that put the necessary regulatory framework in place to ensure that industrial facilities can get Clean Air Act (CAA) permits covering their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when needed and ensure that facilities emitting GHGs at levels below those established in the Tailoring Rule do not need to obtain CAA permits.
The agency says these actions will ensure that the largest industrial facilities can get CAA permits that cover GHG emissions beginning in January 2011. These actions are part of EPAs common sense approach to GHG permitting outlined in the spring 2010 Tailoring Rule.
The first set of actions will give EPA authority to permit GHGs in seven states (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming) until the state or local agencies can revise their permitting regulations to cover these emissions. EPA is taking additional steps to disapprove part of Texas CAA permitting program and the agency will also issue GHG permits to facilities in the state. These actions will ensure that large industrial facilities will be able to receive permits for GHG emissions regardless of where they are located.
In the second set of actions, EPA has issued final rules that will ensure that there are no federal laws in place that require any state to issue a permit for GHG emissions below levels outlined in the tailoring rule.
EPA has worked closely with the states to ensure that the transition to permitting for GHGs is smooth. States are best suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have experience working with industrial facilities. EPA will continue to work with states to help develop, submit, and obtain approval of the necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources.
Beginning in January 2011, industries that are large emitters of GHGs, and that are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones, must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHGs emissions. This includes the nations largest GHG emitters, such as power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements.
I said Texas was the tip of iceberg way back this past summer.
Press release last week claimed GHG rules went into effect in 2012/13. I tried shouting on those threads that was a falsehood. Here it it black and white for 2011.
EPA Proposes Updates to GHG Reporting Program
EPA is proposing actions ( http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/CBI.html ) under the GHG reporting program to address issues about the public availability of certain data that some businesses may consider to be confidential. The total emissions for each facility are still required to be reported to EPA and released to the public.
In July 2010, EPA proposed to determine that information included in emissions equations are emissions data and cannot be protected as confidential business information under the CAA. Under the proposed determination, EPA would have to make these data available to the public once they are submitted to the agency.
EPA is soliciting comments from stakeholders seeking more specific information about claims of business sensitivity regarding inputs to emissions equations and proposing to defer the deadline for reporting that data until March 2014. The new information and reporting deferral would allow EPA to assess the issue and make final decisions on how to treat the data elements in question. The proposals will not change the requirement that facilities retain these data so that EPA may directly follow up with facilities through on-site audits.
EPA is taking comment on the proposal to delay reporting of sensitive data for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, or 45 days if a hearing is requested, and is accepting comments in response to EPAs request for information for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
EPAs GHG reporting program, launched in October 2009, requires the reporting of GHG emissions data from large emission sources and fuel suppliers across a range of industry sectors. The data will help guide the development of programs to reduce these emissions.
EPA to Set Modest Pace for GHG Standards
EPA issued its plan for establishing GHG pollution standards under the CAA in 2011. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ghgsettlement.html The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineriestwo of the largest industrial sources, representing nearly 40% of the GHG pollution in the United States. The schedule provides a clear path forward for these sectors and is part of EPAs common-sense approach to addressing GHGs from the largest industrial pollution sources.
We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change, Administrator Lisa Jackson said. These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home.
Several states, local governments, and environmental organizations sued EPA over the agencys failure to update the pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, two of the largest source categories of GHG pollution in the United States. Under the agreement, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011, and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively.
This schedule will allow the agency to host listening sessions with the business community, states, and other stakeholders in early 2011, well before the rulemaking process begins, as well as to solicit additional feedback during the routine notice and comment period. Together this feedback will lead to smart, cost-effective, and protective standards that reflect the latest and best information.
The CAA requires EPA to set industry-specific standards for new sources that emit significant quantities of harmful pollutants. These standards, called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), set the level of pollution new facilities may emit and address air pollution from existing facilities. The Act allows flexible and innovative approaches that take into account cost, health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. EPA must also periodically update these standards to reflect improvements in control technologies.
Earlier this year, EPA issued what it described as a common-sense approach to GHG permitting for the largest industrial sources. This approach, the GHG permitting guidelines issued in November, and these standards will give power plants and refineries a clear and sensible path for addressing GHG pollution.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a statement applauding the EPA announcement, In New York, we have taken action to combat the unacceptable threat posed by climate change, with the knowledge that well-designed climate policies provide diverse societal benefits ranging from economic development and job creation to energy security and better air quality. Acting Commissioner Peter Iwanowicz said. EPA and the states can leverage these successful efforts to build a federal-state partnership that achieves maximum emission reductions in a cost-effective, efficient and non-duplicative manner.
Earthjustice represented the Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club in a 2006 lawsuit challenging EPAs most recent power plant standards and represents Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Integrity Project in a 2008 lawsuit that led to the agreement on the timetable for refinery standards. Earthjustice attorney Tim Ballo said, The EPA has a legal duty to respond to the very real dangers of global warming pollution by setting strong limits on carbon pollution from power plants and refineries. These are the nations biggest industrial sources of global warming pollution and deserve top priority.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown said, While California has been aggressive in regulating such emissions, until recently, the federal government has not. This is a tremendous achievement that will help the state reach its GHG emission goals under the states climate law, AB 32.
EPA will accept public comment on these two agreements for 30 days following publication of notice in the Federal Register.
Here goes the price of energy.......out the window. Don’t be surprised if your heating bill for your house doubles. EPA is in control now, not Congress. Congress needs to step in and defund the EPA. This should be the first thing they take up when the 112th Congress starts up.
I have only one rule: Those pushing this scam are not allowed to exhale.
the benevolent federal government moves to ensure private companies will graciously be given sufficient permits to operate until state bureaucrats can develop rules to strangle them
Ain’t fascism grand
Message to the new Republican-controlled House....
DEFUND the EPA!
Face it, it's not going to happen. This garbage is here to stay permanently until we exercise our second amendment rights, IMO.
A Great big ole pingeroo...
wash your hands...it’s over.
Unconstitutional; this is regulating commerce interstate and an executive agency instituting LAW by fiat.
Where is the lawsuit and why is our Judicial branch always silent? Is the SCOTUS covered by free speech?
Those who will vote to overturn this (the 5) should grab a microphone and/or a Facebook page.
It’s time for outside the box thinking, not traditions. SCOTUS needs to be ahead of the curve.
DEFUND the EPA!
Followed closely by the defunding of the Department of Education and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Don’t take this personally, but I’m sick and tired of listening to people on this forum whine about defunding one or another federal agency.
Face it, it’s not going to happen. This garbage is here to stay permanently until we exercise our second amendment rights, IMO.
EPA is in control now, not Congress.
Traditionally this action has been called "overthrow of the government".
are were a Constitutional Republic. Now that the Congress has been rendered to mostly a role as theater, and an Executive Department that ignores the two other branches of Government, we are officially a Dictatorship.
That was our "gift" from the Marxists this year.
Court won’t 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.
The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example.
When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because Im capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas you name it whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money they will pass that money on to the consumers.
EPA & ‘common sense’ in the same sentence!!!
What a joke.
That is exactly what has to change. The House needs to defund all of Washingtons projects until things go back to the control of the House and Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.