On July 29, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that
- climate change is real,
- it is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and
- it threatens human health and the environment.
EPA’s decision rejected claims that climate science cannot be trusted and that collusion (dare we say, a “conspiracy”?) among members of leading research bodies to suppress conflicting data and hide errors or gaps in their own research invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Having given “months of serious consideration” to the petitions and to the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims. In fact, EPA has determined that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger!
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson blamed the petitions on “defenders of the status quo [who] will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy,” and called on petitioners “to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”
The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.
(more…)
On May 13, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final “GHG Tailoring” rule to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources. The phased-in approach will initially address large facilities like power plants and oil refineries that emit most of the greenhouse gases from stationary sources. The regulated GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
Starting in January 2011, Clean Air Act permitting requirements for GHGs will apply to large facilities that are already obtaining Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants. Those facilities will be required to include GHGs in their permit if they increase their GHG emissions by 75,000 tons per year (tpy). In July 2011, permitting requirements will expand to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy. The permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies to minimize GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified. EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year. In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their GHG emissions.
Permitting requirements for smaller sources will await the findings of a 5-year study of the effects of GHG permitting of these sources, slated for completion in 2015.
According to the EPA press release announcing the final rule, the agency received about 450,000 (!) comments within the 60-day public comment period that followed issuance of the proposed rule in October 2009.
More information on the GHG Tailoring Rule and its implementation schedule can be found at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html.
What do you think? Has EPA struck the proper balance between regulating a significant threat to health and the environment and providing relief to small businesses and farms?
Comments Off
In three four (!) separate notices published in the April 12 Federal Register, the US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to expand the information required under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The additional information to be required includes…
- reporting of emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases (GHGs) from certain sources, such as electronics manufacturing, production of fluorinated gases, and use of electrical transmission and distribution equipment, as well as manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment;
- reporting on carbon dioxide (CO2) injection and geologic sequestration;
- emissions reporting from the following industry segments: petroleum and natural gas production, natural gas processing, natural gas transmission compressor stations, underground natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage, LNG import and export terminals and distribution; and
- for reporters subject to the rule to provide: the name, address, and ownership status of their US parent company; their primary and all other applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes; and an indication of whether or not any of their reported emissions are from a cogeneration unit.
For more information on the proposed rules and how to comment, visit the EPA’s GHG reporting web page.
Comments Off
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that Clean Air Act permits for stationary sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) will not be required before January 2011 – or, to put it another way, EPA has put the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions on notice that permitting will commence in January 2011.
Clean Air Act construction and operating permit requirements for the facilities emitting the largest quantities of GHGs will begin when the first national GHG control rule takes effect. EPA’s target date for implementation of a rule regulating GHG emissions from cars and light trucks is January 2011, when model year 2012 vehicles meeting the standards can first be sold in the United States. Final greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles are pending. 
At this point, potentially regulated sources are still waiting for EPA to formally reveal the threshold quantities of GHG emissions that will trigger the requirement for permit limitations on these emissions.
What do you think – too soon? Can we expect that regulators and regulated industries will be able to identify, engineer and implement effective control technologies and procedures in timely fashion? And how will the costs affect not only the permitted industries but also chances for an economic recovery?
More information on the EPA approach and its intended timeline can be found at www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html.
Comments Off
In a February 22 letter to members of the US Senate, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has proposed a rough schedule for phasing in of regulatory control of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.
Ms. Jackson’s letter (which can be read in its entirety here) anticipates that permit requirements for control of greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources will appear in 2011, requiring first those facilities already subject to permitting as major sources of priority or hazardous air pollutants to address greenhouse gas emissions in their permit applications. Other “large” sources (i.e., those emitting more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases per year) will follow, though the Administrator expressed an expectation that the threshold for permitting through 2013 will be substantially higher than the original 25,000 ton level. Permitting for smaller sources is not anticipated prior to the year 2016, according to Administrator Jackson.
We’ll offer an interpretation of other points raised or answered in Ms. Jackson’s letter in a later post.
In the aftermath of a brutal cold wave that swept across the US (yes, even to our normally balmy South Florida), we take note of a flurry of interesting news stories concerning global climate change and the likelihood of immediate regulatory action to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a sampling…
From the Wall Street Journal, various states are pressing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delay rulemaking intended to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, fearing that their permitting and regulatory capabilities (and budgets) will be overwhelmed. See online.wsj.com/article/SB126317107565923971.html.
From the Times UK, an allegation that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used very weak science – or more precisely, mere speculation – in forecasting the imminent disappearance of major Himalayan glaciers. See www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece.
And a recent monograph published in the journal Geophysical Letters Review, www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml, questions whether any statistically significant rise in the airborne fraction of anthropogenetic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has occurred in the past 150 years.
(more…)
