As Congress failed to pass climate change legislation, U.S. EPA will begin regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) using its existing authority under the Clean Air Act. Beginning 2011, major sources of GHGs will be required to analyze methods for reducing emissions when seeking federal permits for expansion or construction of new sources.
When is a federal review of GHGs
.jpg)
Greenhouse Gas Regulation Commences January 2, 2011 without Legislation
On May 13, 2010, EPA finalized its regulatory approach for control greenhouse gases (GHGs) from large stationary sources. As discussed in prior posts, the statutory thresholds for triggering EPA’s New Source Review program (NSR) are 100/250 tons per year of a regulated Clean Air Act pollutant.
As
.jpg)
On February 19th, eight Democrat Senator’s wrote a letter to EPA regarding its plans for issuance of greenhouse gas regulations for vehicles, factories and power plants. This from the Wall Street Journal:
The lawmakers, including prominent Senators Max Baucus, (D., Mont.), Carl Levin, (D., Mich.) and John Rockefeller, (D., W.V), warned EPA chief Lisa Jackson
.jpg)
U.S. EPA has initiated the process for determining what controls it will require should it finalize its proposal to regulate large industrial sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). As discussed in a prior post, the first phase of the program would cover sources emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO2 or equivalent emissions. In subsequent phases of the program smaller sources would likely be covered.
Under EPA’s proposal GHGs would become a pollutant covered under its New Source Review (NSR) program. NSR requires new or modified sources that emit over established thresholds to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The question is…what are the "best available" controls for reducing GHG emissions?
I was interviewed for a story appearing in Climatewire that discussed the complexities involving in determining BACT for GHGs. Unlike many mainstream media newspaper articles, the Climatewire article does an excellent job of providing an analysis of the issues related to implementation of this complex regulatory program.
Two major issues:
Efficiency improvements co-firing biomass are the two most likely candidates for utility sources. But less analysis is known regarding potential methods to reduce GHGs emissions from other potentially covered sources like cement and steel production facilities.
The preamble to U.S. EPA’s proposed NSR GHG regulations makes clear the Agency believe the rules must be finalized by March 2010 because they must coincide with the rule regulating GHGs from light duty vehicles. It seems like an impossible task to determine BACT for the range of sources that will be potentially covered in less than six (6) months. Without established BACT standards, there is likely to be massive uncertainty and delays in permitting.
[A complete re-printing of the Climatewire article is available in the extended entry with their permission]
photo: everystockphoto- cjohnson7
Continue Reading EPA Begins Process of Determining BACT for CO2
Today, a Georgia Appeals Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that invalidated an air permit for a coal-fired power plant on the basis of climate change. In June 20, 2008 Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court invalidated a permit for construction of a 1200-megawatt coal-fired power plant. The Court said the Georgia Environmental Protection Division should have
As an indication the New Source Review (NSR) enforcement actions are alive and well, today an Indiana federal court has ordered the shut down of units that triggered NSR and failed to install controls. In addition, the Court required Cinergy to surrender allowances to compensate for "irreparable harm" caused by the operation of the units in violation
In a dramatic reversal from the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice and U.S. EPA are renewing their New Source Review enforcement efforts against coal-fired power plants. The NSR lawsuits originally commenced during the Clinton years have resulted in billions of dollars in new controls and hundreds of millions in civil penalties.
The industry had breathed a sigh
.jpg)
On February 18th another permit, Northern Michigan University Ripley Heating Plant, for a new coal facility was remanded by U.S. EPA’s Environmental Board of Review. The Board remanded the permit because the State (the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), in issuing the permit, failed to address whether CO2 was a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air
May you live in interesting times….Yesterday EPA Administrator Jackson issued a letter granting the Sierra Club’s petition for reconsideration of a Deseret Power memo issued by former EPA Administrator Johnson. The Petition seeks reconsideration of the Johnson memo which interpreted EPA regulations defining the pollutants covered by federal permitting under the Clean Air Act. The Johnson
There has been major developments as a result of litigation, policy, rulemaking and legislation in the last few weeks relating to climate change and coal fired power plants. Some changes are a result of outstanding litigation. However, the most significant changes are indicative of the sea change that is occurring at the federal level under