Greenwire obtained a leaked copy of a U.S. EPA powerpoint presentation that discussed the likely elements of the "endangerment finding" and a timeline for action. The presentation includes a slide showing a timeline for action. According to the slide, the Agency will miss the April 2nd anniversary of the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision, but is projected to sign the rule on April 16.
In Massachusetts v. EPA decided in April of 2007, the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants that may be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But the Court did not go far enough to say EPA must regulate GHGs. At issue in this case was Section 202 of the Clean Air Act which covers regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. For a pollutant to be regulated under Section 202 it must be “reasonably be anticipated” to “endanger public health or welfare.” Therefore, EPA must conclude GHGs from motor vehicles endanger public health before regulation commences The Court remanded the Section 202 determination to EPA to make the necessary "endangerment finding."
As expected and detailed in the EPA powerpoint, the Agency is poised to make a positive endangerment finding. The presentation also contains additional insights as to what to expect in the April 16the finding:
- EPA will expand the definition of "pollutants" to include the six GHGs traditionally regulated (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6). It will leave out other possible pollutants such as black carbon
- EPA will make a positive finding that GHGs impact both "public welfare" and "public health." An earlier proposed finding did not make a finding that "public health" was impacted. EPA will cite to rising temperatures, worse air quality and extreme storm events as impacts on public health
- EPA notes that the Administrator has discretion to determine some sources of GHGs are de minimis or insignificant. I assume this is meant to address the concern expressed by the U.S. Chamber that everything down to churches and retail stores will be regulated as source of GHG emissions
- EPA will propose two options for listing GHGs as "air pollutants." Option 1: group the six GHGs together as CO2e (C02 equivalents). Option 2: list each GHG individually. EPA prefers the first option as CO2e have developed into the common currency in other regulatory and trading mechanisms
- EPA discusses the impact of the two options discussed above on different regulatory sections of the Clean Air Act. Notably, PSD and NSPS are included on the list. This seems to recognize that the endangerment finding could have an immediate effect of requiring permits for new sources of GHGs.
The "endangerment finding" is the first major domino to fall leading to comprehensive regulation of GHGs. While President Obama’s Cap and Trade proposal is drawing more scrutiny, it presents a much better option than regulation under the Clean Air Act. Let’s hope that legislation can pass before too many of the dominoes fall.