Less than a month after the EPA announced a stay on the excessive and burdensome Boiler MACT rule, the EPA confirmed though a spokesman that there will be another delay on a proposed rule placing restrictions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants.

Coverage of the delay:

• NY Times: E.P.A. Plans Delay of Rule on Emissions
• National Journal: EPA to Delay Climate Rules

Manufacturers are pleased to see that various rules containing unrealistic regulations are being delayed and that industry voices are receiving more attention. The announcement of the Boiler MACT stay and the delay of the draft power plant rules show that the EPA is listening to the concerns of job creators on the impact of the regulations they seek to implement.

Although the EPA announced that the final rule is still on schedule to be published in May of 2012, this delay signals a step in the right direction. Rushed and unattainable proposals are unacceptable to the business community and the American people. Additionally, they are counterintuitive to job creation and economic growth.

Here’s the vote that ended the Congressional career of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), a 14-term House member from the southwestern corner of Virginia.

It’s the 219-212 vote by which the House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, aka Waxman-Markey.

Not to diminish the efforts of the winning candidate, Morgan Griffiths, the majority leader of the Virginia House of Delegates, who represents the city of Salem and portions of Roanoke County.

At The Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel comments: “If Mr. Boucher goes down, he likely won’t be the only coal-state Democrat to get ‘BTUed’ in this election.”

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) abandoned plans for Senate action on a major “climate bill” that would restrict the emissions of greenhouse gases. Then, this week he decided against bringing a scaled-back (but still huge) “energy bill” to the floor before the August recess.

For all the accusations about base political motives killing the bills, the reality is that grand and not-so-grand schemes to remake the U.S. economy by raising energy costs are unpopular. Policymakers proved incapable of making all political calculations and compromises needed to pass the legislation.

The Washington Post today considers what’s next in a story, “EPA left to pick up climate change where Congress dropped the debate“:

The Environmental Protection Agency will soon begin regulating greenhouse gases factory by factory, power plant by power plant. That could be unwieldy, expensive and unpopular — even President Obama has said it’s not his preferred solution.

But for now, it’s his only option.

His only option? That’s obviously not true.

The President is in charge of the Executive Branch, and the EPA is part of the Executive Branch. His many options include telling Administrator Lisa Jackson to back off and start over on greenhouse gas regulation. Or, to belatedly recognize that the Executive Branch does not make policy and to defer to the constitutional authority of Congress. The President could decide to redouble his persuading and politicking in an effort to win passage of a good “climate bill” he could sign into law.

But for now, the Administration is relying on the EPA to rewrite the law to apply greenhouse gas regulations only to larger industrial emitters — a discretion that the law, the Clean Air Act, does not allow. The regulatory approach is a disaster, imposing costs, uncertainty and unprecedented federal control over economic activity in this country.
(continue reading…)

From page three of the final rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” the section, “Does this action apply to me?”

Entities affected by this action include sources in all sectors of the economy, including commercial and residential sources. Entities potentially affected by this action also include states, local permitting authorities, and tribal authorities. The majority of categories and entities potentially affected by this action are expected to be in the following groups:

• Agriculture, fishing, and hunting
• Mining
• Utilities (electric, natural gas, other systems)
• Manufacturing (food, beverages, tobacco, textiles, leather)
• Wood product, paper, manufacturing products
• Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing
• Primary and fabricated metal manufacturing
• Machinery manufacturing
• Computer and electronic products manufacturing
• Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing
• Transportation equipment manufacturing
• Furniture and related product manufacturing
• Miscellaneous manufacturing
• Waste management and remediation
• Hospitals/Nursing and residential care facilities
• Personal and laundry services
• Residential/private households
• Non-Residential (Commercial)

The final reg helpfully includes the NAISC codes.

You see the list as it appears in the reg, pp 3-5, here.

We took note Thursday of this line from the EPA’s “Fact Sheet” on its new greenhouse gas tailoring rule:

Emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time.

Boil it down: The EPA will not regulate emissions from small farms AT THIS TIME.

Soon enough, though.

So what did Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack have to say the implied promise of future regulation of small farms for greenhouse gas emissions? After all, methane is produced by all sorts of farming operations (cows, manure), and it is a potent greenhouse gas.

Secretary Vilsack did issue a statement, but it’s about biomass fuels.

I want to thank the Administrator for agreeing to seek further comment on how to address the greenhouse gas benefits of bioenergy under the Clean Air Act. Energy derived from woody biomass, switch-grass and other sources has potentially enormous benefits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing clean, home-grown energy, and providing economic opportunities for rural America. Markets for woody biomass can also bolster forest restoration activities on both public and private lands that improve the ecological health of our forests

OK. Important issue, but expanding biomass energy conversion is not uppermost on the minds of most farmers. Operating costs and the impact of federal regulations rank higher.

And the EPA’s rule certainly promises a lot of both.

From pages 415-416 of the final rule:

Although the proposal for the Tailoring Rule generally addressed how the statutory requirements for major source applicability (100/250 tpy thresholds) could be phased in in ways that would offer relief to traditional and non-traditional sources, such as residences, farms, small business, and semiconductor manufacturers, it did so by establishing relatively high CO2 thresholds during the early implementation period and lowering the thresholds over time as streamlining mechanisms become available to reduce administrative burdens. We did not propose any permanent exemptions of any kind or temporary exemptions based on source category.

The Environmental Protection Agency has now posted its latest version of greenhouse gas emission regulations on its website, with background and supplementary materials.

Final GHG Tailoring Rule
May 13, 2010 – EPA sets greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thresholds to define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

• Fact Sheet (PDF) (6pp, 33k)
• Final Rule (PDF) (515pp, 688k)
• Timeline Outlining Permitting Steps under the Tailoring Rule (PDF) (1pg, 79k)
• Summary of Clean Air Act Permitting Burdens With and Without the Tailoring Rule (PDF) (2pp, 445k)

“Tailoring” in this case means the setting of specific emission limits to stationary sites, primarily industrial and energy facilities, thus requiring their adherance to the permitting process. The EPA claims it has the authority to set its own limits under the Clean Air Act, a dubious assertion.

According to the EPA’s fact sheet:

• This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to limit which
  facilities will be required to obtain PSD and title V permits. Facilities responsible for nearly
  70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to
  permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters-
  power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
• Emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities
  will not be covered by these programs at this time. 

You have to love that “at this time.” They’ll get to you soon enough.

From Henry Payne, the Detroit News editorialist and cartoonist, writing at National Review Online’s Planet Gore blog, “Environmental Progress: The Parked Mustang Test“:

Detroit — As Greg noted yesterday, activist Bill McKibben took to the pages of the Washington Post’s Earth Day edition to moan, “Forty years in, we’re losing.”

It is a sentiment echoed by his green allies in the media and public office. To admit progress would strip them of the power of perpetual and proliferating regulation that, incredibly, now encompasses CO2 — the very air we breathe. And yet McKibben’s comment is demonstrably false.

Take a simple benchmark: the iconic American muscle car, the Ford Mustang.

The Mustang’s evolution is a marvel of the relentless advance of engineering in a demanding, competitive consumer market. As Autoweek magazine explains, “the 1970 Ford Mustang pollutes more parked in a driveway than a 2010 Mustang does traveling down the road.”

A further excerpt follows.

Payne, by the way, is always a good read, sharp with the writer’s pen as well as the cartoonist’s. We especially liked the comparison of greenhouse gas emissions, Michigan versus Eyjafjallajökull. What that volcano needs is a good, long recession.

Would it be hyperbole to say that the last two weeks have witnessed the greatest expansion in history of the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over U.S. economic activity and the day-to-day lives of American citizens? If so, we’ll just encourage readers to ponder the substance — and costs — behind the anodyne headlines.

• 4/01/2010 — “EPA Issues Comprehensive Guidance to Protect Appalachian Communities From Harmful Environmental Impacts of Mountaintop Mining“
• 4/01/2010 — “DOT, EPA Set Aggressive National Standards for Fuel Economy and First Ever Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels For Passenger Cars and Light Trucks“
• 3/31/2010 — “EPA Disapproves Air Permitting Exemption Program in Texas“
• 3/30/2010 — “EPA Proposes to Revoke New Source Review Final Rule“
• 3/29/2010 — “EPA Formally Announces Phase-in of Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse Gases/Agency reiterates no stationary source requirements until 2011“
• 3/29/2010 — “EPA to Scrutinize Environmental Impact of Bisphenol A“
• 3/26/2010 — “EPA Proposes Veto of Mine Permit Under the Clean Water Act“
• 3/23/2010 — “EPA Proposes to Add Sources to Greenhouse Gas Reporting System/Requirements target potent and persistent greenhouse gases“
• 3/22/2010 — “EPA Administrator Jackson Outlines New Vision for Clean, Safe Drinking Water“

There’s at least a little flexibility on the margins. Thankfully, “Limited Use of Modified Grenade Simulators Approved for Use at Camp Edwards.”

Roll Call, “ Kerry Sparks Fight on Climate“:

In an already challenging election year for the majority, Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) rush to pass a climate change bill has many Democrats scratching their heads and charging that their 2004 presidential nominee could further imperil vulnerable Members this fall.

Climate change had been considered all but dead this year, and Senate Democrats have little appetite to take up the controversial issue after the beating that they have endured over their as-yet-unfinished health care reform efforts.

The Hill, “Sen. Kerry lobbies for climate compromise; actual bill to come“:

The three senators writing compromise climate legislation are lobbying business groups in hopes of winning their support for the effort. One obstacle: the absence of an actual bill…[snip]

As he tries to sell the legislation, Kerry is de-emphasizing its relation to climate change.

“What we are talking about is a jobs bill. It is not a climate bill. It is a jobs bill, and it is a clean air bill. It is a national security, energy independence bill,” he told reporters in the Capitol this week.

A national security, energy independence bill? Really?

From The Anchorage Daily News, “Lieberman to Murkowski: Forget ANWR drilling“:

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Wednesday that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling might be the price of her swing vote in favor of energy and climate legislation. But The Hill reports today that Sen. Joe Lieberman — a longtime opponent of ANWR drilling — says ANWR drilling would be a “deal breaker” in his attempt to craft a bipartisan climate bill.

From a news release, office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), “Rockefeller Introduces Legislation to Suspend EPA Action and Protect Clean Coal State Economies.” The Senator said:

Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology. This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. Administrator Jackson responded quickly and showed some willingness to move the agency’s timetable for regulation to the end of 2010. This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time. We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need. At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency.

House legislation is being introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV).

The National Association of Manufacturers opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and the NAM contends that the agency’s attempt to hit only large, stationary emitters lacks any statutory basis. Sen. Rockefeller’s legislation is a move in the right direction.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has sponsored a Congressional resolution of regulatory disapproval (S.J.Res. 26), issued a statement on Sen. Rockefeller’s bill:

Senator Rockefeller’s legislation is further evidence of the growing, bipartisan, and bicameral resistance to EPA’s back-door climate regulations. Given the overwhelming opposition to these actions, I’m hopeful that this bill will draw additional support and advance quickly.

If that does not occur, the disapproval resolution is guaranteed consideration in the Senate. It’s imperative that senators have an opportunity to vote on whether or not they support EPA’s costly, unilateral and unprecedented attempt to impose these command-and-control regulations.

• New York Times, “Coal-State Dems Unveil Bills Stalling EPA Emission Curbs“
• Bloomberg, “Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Delay EPA Carbon Rules“
• Politico, “Rockefeller aims to block EPA rules“