EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testifies before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about her agency's budget this morning, and she’s given the committee plenty to talk about.
In a letter on Monday responding to questions from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and seven other coal-state Democrats, Jackson spelled out her plans for the endangerment finding — the EPA determination in December that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. That finding laid the foundation for future greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act and stirred up fierce opposition from major emitters.
In the letter, Jackson set a timeline for phasing in greenhouse gas regulations starting in 2011 with only the largest emitters, and she suggested that federal officials will be looking for fast development of carbon capture and storage technologies, or CCS.
First, power plants and industries are off the hook for this year. Jackson said she expects the EPA to begin phasing in permit requirements and greenhouse gas regulations in 2011, and only those companies already applying for Clean Air Act permits for other reasons will have to address greenhouse gas emissions in their permits during the first half of 2011. That would be fewer than 400 plants, she said.
Once the EPA does start phasing in greenhouse gas regulations, between 2011 and 2013, Jackson said she expects the threshold for emitters who are subject to the regulations to be “substantially higher” than the 25,000-ton limit she proposed in her soon-to-be-finalized tailoring rule.
“In any event, EPA does not intend to subject the smallest sources to Clean Air Act permitting for greenhouse-gas emissions any sooner than 2016,” Jackson wrote. She didn’t specify a lower limit for “smallest sources,” though she has said repeatedly that small businesses won’t be adversely affected.
The EPA will be using that extra time before regulations begin to determine what the “best available control technology” — required for new pollution sources and major modifications to old facilities — might be, particularly for coal and natural gas power plants. Jackson said the agency was closely watching development of carbon capture and storage from coal-fired power plants and that it would consider the state of that development when it determines the BACT options.
“EPA’s goal will be to identify practical, achievable and cost-effective strategies for minimizing emissions increases from new facilities and major modifications, recognizing the importance of those projects to the economy and job creation,” Jackson wrote.
The industries affected would bear “only modest impacts on production costs,” she said.
The Supreme Court and the Murkowski Challenge
The endangerment finding puts the U.S. government in line with a nearly three-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the high court found in early 2007 that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and ordered the EPA to make a determination based on science: If the agency found greenhouse gases posed a danger to public health and welfare, the EPA would have to begin setting standards to regulate greenhouse gases emissions from motor vehicles. The EPA drafted a finding then, but the Bush White House never acted on it.
Despite the legal basis for the endangerment finding, the EPA is now under attack from fossil fuel industries and their supporters, and it is facing legislative challenges in Congress.
Carbon dioxide is essential to all life on earth whereas the EPA is not. Let's abolish the EPA.
While we are at it, what about abolishing the Department of Education?
Probably you can think of some other government departments that do more harm than good.
That would make it easier, wouldn't it. Let every industry go back to taking the cheapest route to making money: the smog builds up again, making cities unbearable and the air so unhealthy it kills the old people off and kids develop breathing problems; mercury from power plants poisons more freshwater fish, passing the effects on to people who eat them; the hospitals will do well, of course. Some states will see just how expensive this will be for them and pick up the baton, but a lot of them will just sit back and watch it happen, and since we'll be keeping their populations stupid by doing away with the pressure to improve schools, well, that'll be ok.
Sen. Inhofe must have had his head banged upside the fridge when he was a kid. Thank god, politics, science and religion have different rules of engagement. It's just too bad the politicians see email discourse between scientists; a natural way to bounce theoretic thoughts between each other, as a logical argument against solid science. I wish we could view some of the personal emails sent between senators and congressional members to judge whether or not they should be re-elected.
There has been excessive talk, excessive literature, excessive production changes that claim to reduce the effects on the earths life blood and improve our sustainability on the planet. Yet there does not appear to be one body of an international standing that is trusted and entrusted to represent that whole of humanity in a balanced yet futuristic manner. I am one who is increasingly concerned that we are working again in silos for the personal self interest rather than the whole of world approach.