By Guest Column ——Bio and Archives--October 16, 2009
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Of course NRDC says not to worry-EPA only wants to "focus on the big stuff." That is true, for now. In the tailoring preamble, EPA is clear that it will get your local pizza parlor eventually. "In addition," EPA wrote, "EPA commits to propose and promulgate a rulemaking-informed by the study-within 6 years from the effective date of a final version of this rulemaking (i.e., 1 year from the completion of the study) that would establish the second phase, which would either reaffirm the GHG permitting thresholds, promulgate alternative thresholds, adopt other streamlining techniques, and/or take other action consistent with the goal of expeditiously meeting CAA requirements in light of the administrative burden that remains at that time."
As the for the next five years, EPA explains that requirements for sources that emit less than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually-farms and schools, for example-will not be "federally enforceable." In other words, EPA will let facilities emit more than the 100 or 250 tons of per year of GHGs (limits that are clearly delineated in the Clean Air Act and which EPA is clearly traducing with the tailoring rule).
That's fine, except for the fact that states have similar laws "on the books," and EPA has no power to overturn them. As EPA says on page 279, "Even so, it should be noted that the lower thresholds remain on the books under state law, and sources therefore remain subject to them as a matter of state law." EPA suggests that "states may wish to consider revising those state law provisions."
That's nice, but in the meantime, as EPA wrote, "the fact that these provisions remain on the books under state law may create some confusion..." EPA no doubt sows confusion by outlining how states can revise their permitting programs to include thresholds lower than 25,000 tons (Dunkin Donuts?). Once the state demonstrates its revision meets the strictures of the Clean Air Act, then "permitting for this state would then cover such smaller sources."
In addition, schools, farms, hospitals, and nearly everything else would not be immune from so-called "citizen suits" under the Clean Air Act. NRDC thinks such suits are mere figments of industry's imagination. "And who is going to take [Lisa Jackson] to court? Damned if I know," wrote NRDC's Dave Doniger. The Center for Biological Diversity just might. "The EPA," according to the CBD, "has no authority to weaken the requirements of the statute simply because its political appointees don't like the law's requirements."
NRDC is convinced that EPA only wants to cover power plants and big factories. This is plainly wrong according to the rule itself. And, as EPA made clear, exempting your local mom-and-pop store from the Clean Air Act isn't so easy.
Related:
WSJ Editorial: Terms of 'Endangerment'
Free-Market Group Attacks Data Behind EPA 'Endangerment' Proposal
NEW PETITION SHOWS EPA ENDANGERMENT FINDING RELIED ON FLAWED DATA
WATCH: Inhofe on Kudlow Speaks About Obama Backdoor Energy Tax
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Items of notes and interest from the web.