In a move that many believe to be an effort to accomplish what Congress didn't with the failure of the climate change bill, the Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday that though it will not force coal plants and manufacturers to adopt specific technologies to cut greenhouse gas output, it will push them to become more energy efficient to comply with looming Clean Air Act climate rules. The move by the EPA has helped relieve some fears in the industries that the agency would require emitters to quickly invest in expensive, possibly unproven technologies to cut output of gases blamed for global warming. But industry groups did complain that the rules are confusing and they will not enough time to comply with them.
Under the Clean Air Act, large-scale emitters of greenhouse gases, such as refineries and power plants, will be required to obtain permits that allow them to emit greenhouse gases. In order to keep their permits, companies building new facilities or retrofitting existing plant will be required to use the best available control technologies (BACT) to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. These rules are slated to go into effect on Jan. 2, 2011.
“We believe this approach will in most cases lead to improvements in energy efficiency,” said Gina McCarthy, an EPA assistant administrator on air and radiation.
On Wednesday, the EPA released guidelines on BACT technologies that companies should be using to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases. In addition to having to adhere to the guidelines when expanding or building new plants or factories, companies must also work with state and local air authorities to decide which technology works best for them. The EPA will not require or define a specific technology for any emitter. Companies that own coal-fired power plants had feared they would be required to invest in expensive technologies to capture carbon dioxide before it comes out of smokestacks and bury it underground.
Power plants and manufacturers would likely become more efficient by upgrading their boilers or squeezing more energy from coal through established technologies, according to the EPA. McCarthy said efficiency improvements are less costly than other controls, offer emitters fuel cost savings and cut emissions of pollution like particulates that cause health problems.
Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator under the Bush administration who now works for the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, said he expected the EPA guidance could lead to a moratorium for a few years on new construction of big plants.
McCarthy denied that suggestion. “Make no mistake about it: this does not represent an opportunity for any construction moratorium,” she said. “There will be no stoppage as a result of this BACT process.”
Air regulation experts believe the EPA move would not put heavy costs on polluters, and in most cases will save companies money in the long run. “EPA's guidance will provide industry greater certainty, quicker permitting decisions and a smoother path toward greenhouse gas implementation,” said William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. “This should put to rest the exaggerated claims of some stakeholders that greenhouse gas permitting will have disastrous economic consequences,” Becker said.
Many industry groups have complained the new rules are too confusing. The EPA already faces legal challenges from lawmakers such as Sen. John Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia who wants to stop the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions for two years. However, even if the measure passed in Congress, President Barack Obama would almost certainly veto it.
Tracey Schelmetic is a contributing editor for TMCnet. To read more of Tracey's articles, please visit her columnist page.Edited by
Tammy Wolf
