SEN. INHOFE ASKS EPA CHIEF TO WITHDRAW EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
08/24/12

One of the Senate’s preeminent climate change skeptics has asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the agency’s greenhouse gas emissions performance standards for new fossil fuel-fired plants, arguing that the rulemaking relies on an “unprecedented and flawed” interpretation of the Clean Air Act. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote in a letter to Jackson dated Aug. 2 that the Clean Air Act (CAA) was never meant to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He argued that the standards would “force” the elimination of coal and “transform the American economy,” and for those reasons should be withdrawn immediately. “It would set precedents affecting industries far beyond electric generating units and extend EPA’s regulatory reach into manufacturing and other regulated entities,” Inhofe wrote in the letter. “This type of regulatory action—with its consequences, opaque and hidden from the vast majority of our citizens—only reinforces the public perception that EPA uses clandestine means to achieve its political objectives while ignoring the effects on consumers, particularly the poor and the elderly.”

The rulemaking in question sets an emissions performance standard of 1,000 lbs of CO2 per MWh for all new fossil fuel-fired units above 25 MW, roughly on par with a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) unit. The regulation would essentially require developers interested in building a coal unit to install carbon capture technology or switch to NGCC, but critics have warned that it will lead to a ‘dash for gas’ because CCS has not been demonstrated on the full value chain. EPA said the rulemaking would provide a pathway forward for coal via CCS, and that the agency would be more flexible for developers that choose to install CCS technology via a multi-decade averaging pathway, allowing the technology to fully commercialize over the next decade. Coal companies have said this would disincentivize CCS in their eyes. In his letter, Inhofe criticized EPA for misstating the rule’s potential effects on coal-fired generation. “Certainly, eliminating coal—our most abundant energy resource—is not a small step or one that should be made by Agency fiat,” Inhofe said. He added that the rule embraces a “reckless energy and economic agenda” that could hurt an already weak economy. An EPA spokesperson said the agency has not yet responded to Inhofe’s letter.

Other Republicans Call to Strip EPA of GHG Regulatory Authority

Inhofe’s plea to Jackson marks the most recent—and perhaps most direct—approach that many Congressional Republicans have taken to try and stall or ban EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Early last year, the House easily passed a bill that would amend the Clean Air Act’s definition of ‘air pollutant’ to exclude greenhouse gases, leaving EPA unable to regulate chemicals like CO2 in order to protect against climate change. A similar measure failed in the Senate, but did receive some Democratic support.  Last month, West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley introduced legislation that would bar EPA from finalizing the standards until CCS is deemed economically and technically feasible by at least three government agencies. A series of hearings on the performance standards on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have also highlighted widespread Republican opposition to the performance standards.

However, despite opposition in the Republican-controlled House, the Democratic majority in the Senate and White House virtually ensure that any legislation aiming to undermine EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases has no chance of being passed. Opponents of the performance standard will likely have their best shot to challenge the rule in federal court, where a large legal battle is likely, given the trajectories of most of EPA’s other major air quality rulemakings. In recent months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled both in favor and against EPA—handing the agency a large victory in June by upholding its so-called greenhouse gas endangerment finding, but also delivering it a blow earlier this week by striking down its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.