As bills to regulate greenhouse gases are debated in Congress, EPA shows it thinks it already has the authority to move forward with some types of climate-change rules.
Starting Jan. 1, 2010, some companies will have to track greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and report them to EPA.
This reporting will cover 85% of the GHG emissions in the U.S.
About 10,000 industrial facilities and suppliers of petroleum products will have to submit the data starting in 2011.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said having this data will help the U.S. decide how to reduce GHG emissions.
Bills introduced in Congress would use a cap-and-trade system to regulate GHGs. Facilities would either need to reduce their GHG emissions or buy excess credits from other companies that have reduced theirs.
While that’s the regulatory method preferred by the Obama administration, the EPA has signaled it’s willing to use another option that, it says, would not require legislation, if Congress fails to act.
This spring, EPA formally declared GHGs a danger to public health and welfare. Now that it’s made the declaration, the current administration believes it can use the Clean Air Act to create a series of emission control rules.
Industry groups opposed EPA’s declaration on the grounds that the Clean Air Act was never intended to control GHGs.
If the agency uses this regulatory process, expect a court fight. That’s why, for now, more emphasis is being placed on legislative action.
EPA is already flexing its GHG regulatory muscles in another area. It’s proposed regulating GHGs when facilities apply to expand existing or build new facilities, using prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits. The proposal recently went to the Office of Management and Budget, which is expected to give EPA the green light to move ahead.
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: cap and trade, EPA regulations, greenhouse gases
February 24th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I would challenge the notion that inceases in GHG by themselves in the amounts that we are talking about could have any effect whatsoever on public health. The EPA is obviously trying to extrapolate an indirect effect in the environment from increased levels of GHG.
Health is directly affected by pollution. Health is not directly affected by increases in C02 at these small levels.
How can they regulate C02 based on that statement?
May 29th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The “Green” movement is absolutely all about green as in money. Remove the “money” aspect from the green movement and peope like Al Gore would look eslsewhere to get rich at the cost of the people.