| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| It's BACT: EPA to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through NSR |
| 2009-10-08 |
| If you can't get it through the front door (legislation), you get it enacted through the back door (regulation) on the installment plan. On Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009, the EPA finally released its long-awaited (and in many cases, feared) plan for controlling greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a proposal that would require large industrial facilities (excluding farms and small businesses) that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering those emissions. The plan would require facilities to implement best-available control technologies (BACT), level of requirement used by the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program. The proposed tailoring rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases, most prominently CO2, but also methane, N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. These large facilities would include power plants, refineries, and factories. Small businesses such as farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be included in these requirements, the agency said in an accompanying press release. If the proposed fuel-economy rule to regulate GHGs from cars and trucks is finalized and takes effect in the spring of 2010, Clean Air Act permits would automatically be required for stationary sources emitting GHGs. This proposed rule focuses these permitting programs on the largest facilities, responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. stationary source greenhouse gas emissions. In the release, the EPA estimated that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions, the agency said. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants. "By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," said EPA Administrator Jackson. "This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources -- those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best -- reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future -- all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy." The greenhouse gas part ain't so simple. The EPA is requesting public comment on its previous interpretation of when certain pollutants, including CO2 and other GHGs, would be covered under the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act. A different interpretation could mean that large facilities would need to obtain permits prior to the finalization of a rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Public comment is a good place to pour your heart out on a decision that has already been made. The EPA will accept comment on these proposals for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. So, for such a major undertaking such as GHG emissions, does Congress have anything to say in this, or will they abrogate their responsibilities and let unelected bureaucrats set policy? |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #5 The Hell bent race to control "greenhouse gases" is nothing more than an international movement to establish a form of neo-colonialism upon countries "willing to participate" in "saving the planet". How does it work, you the totally "uneducated, unempowered dolt" is going to be forced to submit your "money, freedom of economic choice and political rights" and to a "united nations treaty" which will mandate what type of car you can buy, food you can eat, travel options(rationing of air travel if you do not have enough 'carbon credits'). Are you going to accept this ? |
| Posted by: Spike Crusoth7697 2009-10-08 23:10 |
| #4 No problem. Just shut down all of the power plants, auto factories, oil refineries and anything else that generates CO2. This is a win-win from the viewpoint of the greenies: it cuts greenhouse gasses, much more that Kyoto would require; it throws the US into a deep economic depression; it cripples the US military since there won't be enough taxes coming in to pay for them. As I said, win-win. /sarcasm |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-10-08 22:27 |
| #3 I better fire some people just to be sure though. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-10-08 19:32 |
| #2 Small businesses such as farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be included in these requirements, |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-10-08 18:45 |
| #1 Congress have anything to say in this, or will they abrogate their responsibilities and let unelected bureaucrats set policy? SOP, that way they can try to blame someone else. They also do the same thing by allowing activist judges to do their jobs as well. In the end, people won't miss them when they're gone [other than the savings on generous retirement and healthcare plans they put in place for them and their families.] |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-08 17:37 |