1. Regulate GHG emissions
2. Pressure lawmakers into passing the climate bill, effectively saying "we're going forward with regulating/limiting ghg emissions with or without congress. At least the climate bill has market incentives. If you don't pass it we're just going to straight up regulate."
3. Provide some sort of substance/evidence that the U.S. is serious about reducing its carbon footprint before heading into talks in Coppenhaagen (for an understanding of what this meeting is look at an older post about the UN meetings).
Not surprisingly, the proposed regulations are being criticized from all sides- Republicans feel it is a 'back-door tax' and environmentalists feel like it is too lax, and allow for older plants to not have to regulate according to the 'best availble practices' clause.
WASHINGTON — Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama
administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on
new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power
plants and large industrial facilities.
President Obama has said that he prefers a comprehensive legislative
approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a
piecemeal application of rules, and that he is deeply committed to
passage of a climate bill this year.
But he has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to begin
moving toward regulation, which could goad lawmakers into reaching an
agreement. It could also provide evidence of the United States’
seriousness as negotiators prepare for United Nations talks in
Copenhagen in December intended to produce an international agreement
to combat global warming.
“We are not going to continue with business as usual,” Lisa P.
Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said Wednesday in a conference call
with reporters. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward
today, and we are using them.”
The proposed rules, which could take effect as early as 2011, would
place the greatest burden on 400 power plants, new ones and those
undergoing substantial renovation, by requiring them to prove that
they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or
face penalties.
Ms. Jackson described the proposal as a common-sense rule tailored to
apply to only the largest facilities — those that emit at least 25,000
tons of carbon dioxide a year — which are responsible for nearly 70
percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
The rule would not, as critics contend, cover “every cow and Dunkin’
Donuts,” Ms. Jackson said.
The move was timed to come on the same day that two Democratic
senators, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of
California, introduced global warming and energy legislation that
faces a steep climb to passage this year.
The prospect of E.P.A. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions has
generated fear and deep divisions within American industry. Some major
utilities, oil companies and other heavy emitters are working closely
with Congress to ensure that a climate bill would circumvent E.P.A.
regulation by substituting a market-based cap-and-trade system.
Others, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers, have worked against legislation and
threatened to sue if the E.P.A. tries to impose controls on emissions
of heat-trapping gases.
Ms. Jackson said the proposed rule had been written to exempt small
businesses, farms, large office buildings and other relatively small
sources of carbon dioxide emissions. But under the rule proposed
Wednesday, the E.P.A. would assume authority for the greenhouse gas
emissions of 14,000 coal-burning power plants, refineries and big
industrial complexes that produce most of the nation’s greenhouse gas
pollution.
The proposal will go through several months of drafting and public
comment and faces likely litigation from industry and perhaps from
environmentalists or citizen groups.
A typical coal-burning power plant emits several million tons of
carbon dioxide a year. The 25,000-ton limit is comparable to the
emissions from burning 131 rail cars of coal or the annual energy use
of about 2,200 homes, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and an opponent of
global warming legislation, called the proposed rule “a backdoor
energy tax” that circumvents Congress and violates the terms of the
Clean Air Act.
Scott Segal, a utility lobbyist with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani
in Washington, said the rule should not be used to rush Congress into
passing a poorly drafted bill.
But he also said that the proposal “strengthens the president’s
negotiating hand in Copenhagen.”
“Even if the Senate does not act,” Mr. Segal said, “he can
legitimately say to other nations, ‘We are taking action on a
unilateral basis. What are you doing?’ ”
The proposal, long anticipated and highly controversial, is the
government’s first step toward regulating greenhouse gases from
stationary sources. The E.P.A. has already proposed an ambitious
program to restrict such emissions from cars and trucks. The agency
published the proposed vehicle emission rule this month; it is
expected to take effect next spring.
Ms. Jackson’s proposal would require facilities emitting at least
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide and five other pollutants a year to
obtain construction and operating permits. The other gases are
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and
sulfur hexafluoride.
The threshold is 100 times higher than that required for other types
of pollutants like sulfur dioxide that have more acute health and
environmental effects.
Ms. Jackson said that while the proposed rule would affect about
14,000 large sources of carbon dioxide, most were already subject to
clean-air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants.
By raising the standard to 25,000 tons, the new rule exempts millions
of smaller sources of carbon dioxide emissions like bakeries, soft
drink bottlers, dry cleaners and hospitals.
Industry groups reacted quickly, challenging the E.P.A.’s authority to
use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases and questioning Ms.
Jackson’s power to lower the threshold for regulation.
Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners
Association, said that the emission of greenhouse gases was a global
problem and that it was pointless to regulate only some sources.
“This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry’s greenhouse gas
emissions are worse than another’s,” Mr. Drevna said. “E.P.A. lacks
the legal authority to categorically exempt sources that exceed the
Clean Air Act’s major source threshold from permitting requirements,
and this creates a troubling precedent for any agency actions in the
future.”
Supporters of the plan said that it was carefully written to affect
only the biggest emitters.
“This is a common-sense step toward a cleaner, better world,” said
Emily Figdor, federal global warming project director for Environment
America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
No comments:
Post a Comment