EPA proposes settlement agreements to address GHG emissions from power plants and petroleum refineries; issues final rules on GHG permitting framework
23 December 2010
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into two proposed settlement agreements to issue rules that will address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from certain fossil fuel-fired powerplants—electric generating units (EGUs)—and refineries.
EPA also issued a series of rules that put the necessary regulatory framework in place to ensure that 1) industrial facilities can get Clean Air Act permits covering their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when needed and 2) facilities emitting GHGs at levels below those established in the Tailoring Rule do not need to obtain federal Clean Air Act permits.
Settlement agreements for power plants and refineries. Several states, local governments and environmental organizations had sued EPA over the agency’s failure to update the pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, two of the largest source categories of GHG pollution in the United States. Under the new agreements, EPA will propose standards for power plants by 26 July 2011 and for refineries by 15 December 2011 and will issue final standards in 26 May 2012 and 15 November 2012, respectively.
For EGUs, the proposed rules would establish new source performance standards (NSPS) for new and modified EGUs and emission guidelines for existing EGUs. EPA is coordinating this action on GHGs with a number of other required regulatory actions for traditional pollutants including the Utility MACT rule, the Transport Rule and New Source Performance Standards for criteria pollutants.
This will allow EGUs to develop strategies to reduce all pollutants in a more efficient and cost-effective way than addressing these pollutants separately, EPA said.
EPA entered into a separate agreement that establishes a different schedule for the Agency to issue regulations. This settlement agreement establishes a comprehensive approach of simultaneously addressing different types of air pollution (GHG, toxics and “criteria” pollutants) from different points at the refinery at the same time and in accord with EPA’s Clean Air Act obligations to control emissions from this sector.
In addition to an NSPS for new and modified refineries, and emission guidelines for existing refineries, EPA commits to conduct a risk and technology review of current air toxic standards for refineries.
As part of this settlement agreement, EPA also commits to resolve the issues raised in an August 2008 petition for reconsideration of the refinery NSPS. Before proposing these new regulations, EPA will conduct additional data collection from refineries.
The agency said that this schedule will allow it to host listening sessions with the business community, states and other stakeholders in early 2011, well before the rulemaking process begins, as well as to solicit additional feedback during the routine notice and comment period.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set industry-specific standards for new sources that emit significant quantities of harmful pollutants. These standards, called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), set the level of pollution new facilities may emit and address air pollution from existing facilities. The Act allows flexible and innovative approaches that take into account cost, health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. EPA must also periodically update these standards to reflect improvements in control technologies.
Final rules for permitting. On 2 January 2011, EPA’s GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles take effect. On that date, permits issued under the Clean Air Act permitting programs for large stationary sources—the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and the Title V Operating Permit Programs—must begin to address GHGs.
Last April, EPA issued the “tailoring rule” to ensure that only the largest sources of GHGs would require Since then, EPA has been working with state local agencies ensure that all permitting agencies have the authority to permit GHGs or are on the path to have such authority, with EPA serving as the permitting authority in the interim; and that only those sources identified in the tailoring rule are required to obtain permits.
The new rules address these critical permitting program components and ensure that new and expanding facilities in all states can seek permits for greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA signed two sets of rules. The first set of four gives EPA authority to permit GHG emissions in the PSD program in seven states (Ariz., Ark., Fla., Idaho, Kan., Ore., and Wyo.) until the state or local agencies can revise their permitting regulations to cover these emissions. EPA is taking additional steps to disapprove part of Texas’ Clean Air Act permitting program and the agency will also issue GHG permits to facilities in the state. These actions will ensure that large industrial facilities will be able to receive permits for greenhouse gas emissions regardless of where they are located.
In the second set of actions, EPA has issued final rules that will ensure that there are no federal laws in place that require any state to issue a permit for GHG emissions below levels outlined in the tailoring rule.
Resources
EPA Air Quality Planning & Standards, Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As for the past decades, interested lobbies and Flower Parties will block all meaningful changes. Pay back time will come into play and supportive politicians will delay all changes.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 December 2010 at 12:20 PM
i said last week to push this co2 into green algae fuel farming and also do all kind of things with these greasy green algae farming mud like soap, plastics, food for animals and evidently bio-diesel, ethanol, butanol, asphalt, tar, grease, engine oil, kerosene, bunker fuel, propane, n,gas, lpg, farts of any kinds.All the usual stuff that we bought at high price while poluting and destroying the biosphere while this green algae farming is cleaning the biosphere for next to nothing cost and replace these costly petroleum ( trade mark) products. Only a couple of triardairs make money with petrol with hundreds of associated billionnairs and tousand and tousands of associated millionnairs and millions of paid workers. All that can be replaced by a couple of tousand competitive low wages green algae farmers and millions of green aficionados growing green algae at home, office and trailer-parks. any welfare persons can give you all king of green algae products to help paying his bills while giving him the chance to be useful, think about nigeria, haiti, u.s.a, canada, swiss, england, japan and green car congress journalist and owners for exemple of poverty and uneducation.
Posted by: Gorr | 23 December 2010 at 03:07 PM
EPA should stick to regulating real pollutants - of which CO2 is not one.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 25 December 2010 at 04:05 PM
"We can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or we can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth."
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/12/1037
Posted by: Reel$$ | 25 December 2010 at 04:19 PM