In a much anticipated move, the Trump Administration has proposed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as a replacement for the Obama Administration Clean Power Plan (CPP). While the CPP was controversial from the start for it broad regulation of the power industry, the ACE rule will be controversial as it signifies a 180 degree
President Trump’s efforts at regulatory reform continued with the announcement on January 15, 2018 that the U.S. EPA would withdraw its “once in, always in” policy for classification of Major Sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Newly sworn in Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Air and
The Trump Administration has made rollback of environmental regulations a top priority. Through the use of Executive Orders and the Congressional Review Act(CRA), the Administration has already undone significant Obama era regulations, including the Waters of the U.S. Rule (WOTUS) and the Clean Power Plan.
The Trump Administration has also proposed significant budget cuts to
On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Improvement Act of 2015. The law required all federal agencies to increase civil penalties with inflation. While there were previous requirements to increase civil penalties, the new law provides for more dramatic increases attributable to the following changes:
.jpg)
Combating ozone pollution is really about time. When I was back at Ohio EPA, we had countless meeting discussing how Ohio could (or whether it could) accelerate progress dramatically in reducing ozone pollution. During that time we would discuss "on-the-books controls" versus new state initiatives.
"On-the-book controls" referred to a suite of federal air
When the Title V permitting program was created it was sold as a way to simplify complex air permitting. U.S. EPA said that it would allow large facilities to aggregate all their air pollution sources under one permit. EPA indicated this would make it easier for businesses to track their requirements.
What emerged from this "simplified"
The Obama Administration, after stopping the implementation of the Bush-era ozone standard, has delayed choosing a revised standard three times. These delays had given hope that EPA may wait to choose a revised standard until after the election.
In conversations with representatives for industry most impacted by the revised ozone standards, they told me they thought the Administration was positioning
.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
On February 3rd Magistrate Judge Mark Able of the U.S. District Court in Columbus ruled that Ohio EPA (and really the Ohio General Assembly) violated that federal Clean Air Act by exempting small air pollution sources from stringent air pollution requirements. At issue was one major overhaul of Ohio’s air regulation included in state legislation (Senate Bill 265) back
I am a bit behind in writing a post about EPA’s release of its endangerment finding. Earth Day seems like the perfect day to catch up and take advantage of the last few days to look at the reaction and likely consequences of EPA’s significant new action.
Background: 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 was Section 202 of the Clean Air Act which covers regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.
Under Section 202: The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant(s) from motor vehicles, “which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The Court said EPA must conclude GHGs from motor vehicles endanger public health (i.e. "endangerment finding") before any regulation of emissions (tail pipe or fuel standards) from motor vehicles can occur. The Court remanded the Section 202 determination to EPA to make a legally defensible finding as to whether motor vehicle GHG emissions endanger public health.
Key Legal Issues Discussed in EPA’s Proposed Action: On April 17th, Administrator Jackson issued a proposed finding that vehicle emissions of GHGs do endanger public health. There is now a 60 day public comment period on the proposed action.
A key legal issue analyzed in the proposed action is whether Section 202 requires "actual harm" from a pollutant before it can be regulated. EPA’s proposed rule discusses the legislative history behind the language in Section 202 and concludes no finding of actual harm is necessary:
As the Committee further explained, the phrase “may reasonably be anticipated” points the Administrator in the direction of assessing current and future risks rather than waiting for proof of actual harm.
Also, EPA’s proposed action rejects the notion a demonstration is needed that controlling GHG emissions from U.S. autos would actually make a difference in addressing climate change. The EPA cited to language in the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA :
Moreover, as the Supreme Court recognized, “[a]gencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop.”
Science and Findings in EPA’s Proposed Action: There is no new science behind the endangerment finding. Administrator Jackson relies on reports and conclusions from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She found these reports to provide more than sufficient support that GHG pose a "risk" to public health that should be addressed.
Here is how EPA has described its action on its web page and in supporting documentation:
The Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
1) The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
2) The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
This proposed action, as well as any final action in the future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act
This last statement is very interesting.
Does "Endangerment" = "Regulation": Obviously the positive endangerment finding itself has major consequences. There is no doubt it sets EPA on a path to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act unless Congress passes a cap and trade bill as substitute regulation. While the path is set, the timing is in question. Does this proposed action by itself mean all other sources that emit GHGs (beyond just motor vehicles) are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act?
The status of GHGs under the Clean Air Act is uncertain as it stands. EPA is currently taking comment on a separate action regarding regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act- Reconsideration of Former Administrator Johnson’s memo declaring GHG unregulated without further action.
Deseret Power was an appeal of a coal permit in which Sierra Club argued the permit was invalid because it didn’t include controls for GHGs. The Environmental Board of Review said it was an open question as to whether GHG are considered "regulated pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. Sierra Club pointed to existing requirements to monitor CO2 emissions as evidence of regulation. The EAB said EPA had discretion to decide whether monitoring was enough to amount to regulation.
In response to the EAB, Johnson, in one of his last acts before leaving office, tried to fill the void by issuing an interpretive memo determining CO2 was not a regulated pollutant due to the monitoring provisions. Administrator Jackson is currently reviewing the Johnson memo following the Sierra Club petition.
THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE…If GHGs are regulated pollutants, then no additional legislation, rulemaking or action is necessary. EPA could not issue permits to sources of GHGs without considering controls for those emissions.
Footnote 29 of the Endangerment Finding: So does EPA’s proposed endangerment finding amount to "regulation" of GHGs under the Clean Air Act? Buried in footnote 29 on page 106 of the Proposed Rule is to me one of the most significant consequences flowing from a positive endangerment finding- does the finding amount to regulation. Here is what footnote 29 says:
At this time, a final positive endangerment finding would not make the air pollutant found to cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers a regulated pollutant under the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. See memorandum entitled “EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered By Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program” (Dec. 18, 2008). EPA is reconsidering this memorandum and
will be seeking public comment on the issues raised in it. That proceeding, not this rulemaking, would be the appropriate venue for submitting comments on the issue of whether a final, positive endangerment finding under section 202(a) of the Act should trigger the PSD program, and the implications of the definition of air pollutant in that endangerment finding on the PSD program.
EPA’s footnote is confusing. The issue in the reconsideration on the Johnson memo really should be limited to whether monitoring is sufficient to constitute "regulation" under the Act. An endangerment finding would be a new action by EPA that will take place after Deseret Power was issued, after the Johnson Memo was written and after EPA granted the reconsideration of the Sierra Club petition.
Perhaps the final action on the review of the Johnson memo will make this debate moot. It certainly will if that action is to say GHG’s are a regulated pollutant based upon monitoring requirements alone. However, anything other than that outcome will allow the endangerment finding to be new grounds to argue GHGs are regulated under the Act. In a prior post I discussed what a horrible outcome that would be as a regulatory approach.
Final Comment: Once again, to those questioning the merits of a Cap and Trade market mechanism for controlling GHGs- consider the alternative. Like it or not EPA is on a path to regulate GHGs. Due to the Supreme Court’s holding in Massachusetts v EPA, there is no getting off that path or turning around.
(see the extended entry for discussion of the reaction to EPA’s action)Continue Reading Footnote 29 of EPA’s Endangerment Finding