Tailoring Rule

Motion to Stay Makes Strong Case Court Should Overturn EPA Global Warming Rules

by Marlo Lewis on September 22, 2010 · 3 comments

in Global Warming, Legal

Last Thursday (September 16, 2010), three groups, each led by the Coalition for Responsible Regulation (CRR), filed motions with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to “stay” (put a hold on) the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA regulations at issue are:

  1. The Endangerment Rule, which finds that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions endanger public health and welfare, thereby obligating EPA to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
  2. The Tailpipe Rule, which, per the Endangerment Rule, establishes first-ever GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
  3. The Triggering Rule, which holds that when the Tailpipe Rule takes effect (Jan. 2, 2011), “major” GHG emitting facilities will be “subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program.
  4. The Tailoring Rule, which amends the PSD and Title V definitions of “major emitting facility” to avoid the “absurd result” of EPA and State environmental agencies having to process an estimated 41,000 PSD permits and 6.1 million Title V permits every year.

The groups filing the motions are: (1) a coalition of business associations led by the National Association of Manufacturers; (2) the State of Texas; and (3) a coalition of public policy advocates. The industry group is asking the Court to stay the Endangerment Rule, the Triggering Rule, and the Tailoring Rule, although not the Tailpipe Rule. Texas and the advocacy groups ask for a stay on all four regulations pending the Court’s review and decision to uphold or vacate the rules.

One point the motion makes is unarguable. Granting a stay can cause no harm to public health, even if one assumes global warming is a big problem. After all, EPA itself estimates that the Tailpipe Rule — the only rule for which environmental effects are estimated — would avert less than 1/100th of a degree Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100. Thus, if the Tailpipe Rule survives judicial scrutiny, delaying its implementation by six months to a year would have no discernible environmental impact. Besides, the stay would not affect the National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) recent revision of fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and the overwhelming lion’s share of emission reductions required by the Tailpipe Rule actually comes from the new fuel economy regulations.

In contrast, the motions argue, EPA’s rules are already harming the economy. The dubious legal basis of both the Tailoring Rule and EPA’s efforts to bully States into immediately amending their permit programs ”now impose a terrible uncertainty tax on our struggling economy, as no business is able to make plans or investments in reliance on a regulatory scheme so clearly at odds with the plain language of the Act.” Businesses and State permitting agencies will incur additional losses if they make investments based on EPA’s rules and the rules are subsequently overturned. Best to put the regs on hold until the Court rules on their legal bona fides.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a party to the advocacy group motion, which makes a powerful case that the regulations should be stayed and, ultimately, overturned. Lest anyone suspect that I’m tooting my own horn, I had absolutely no role in either developing or drafting the motion.

Big Picture

As can be surmised from the description above, EPA’s four rules are interdependent. The Endangerment Rule authorizes and, indeed, compels EPA to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards, promulgated via the Tailpipe Rule, make GHGs subject to regulation under PSD and Title V, according to the Triggering Rule. To avoid administrative paralysis, economic disruption, and political backlash, the Tailoring Rule exempts all but the largest GHG emitters from PSD and Title permitting requirements over the next six years, raising from 100/250 tons per year to 75,000/100,000 tons per year the cutoff for regulation as a “major” emitting facility.

This custer of regulations is a classic case of bureaucratic self-dealing. As discussed elsewhere, EPA has positioned itself to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards for the auto industry, set climate policy for the nation, and even amend provisions of the Clean Air act—powers Congress never delegated to the agency. The Endangerment Rule is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes Congress never approved. America could end up with a pile of greenhouse gas regulations more costly than any climate bill or treaty the Senate has declined to pass or ratify, yet without the people’s representatives ever voting on it. Overturning EPA’s GHG rules is a constitutional imperative.

The Arguments

The motion to stay advances new arguments — or improved versions of familiar arguments — for overturning each of the four EPA rules. The following sections summarize and excerpt some of the motion’s key insights.

EPA Outsourced Its Endangerment Judgment

Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to determine the dangerousness of air pollution from motor vehicles based on her “judgment.” Instead, the motion points out, quoting EPA’s Endangerment Rule:

“the Administrator … rel[ied] on the major assessments of USGCRP, IPCC and NRC as the primary scientific and technical basis of her endangerment decision.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,510.14
EPA specifically declined to undertake “a new and independent assessment,” id. at 66,511, preferring to “plac[e] primary and significant weight on these assessment reports in making her decision on endangerment.” Id.

Which means:

. . . the only “judgment” EPA really made is that IPCC can be trusted to have made the endangerment assessment required by the Act. But the Act does not authorize entities other than EPA to make that assessment. See, e.g., U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[F]ederal agency officials … may not subdelegate to outside entities—private or sovereign—absent affirmative evidence of authority to do so.”).

In effect, EPA asks the Court and the American people to trust that the IPCC did its job objectively, adhering to U.S. Government standards of scientific integrity. “But neither this Court nor the interested public can determine whether IPCC in fact did so, because the innumerable choices made by its many authors are not in the record.” The Climategate emails reveal instances of behavior inconsistent with U.S. information quality standards, such as Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones vowing to keep peer-reviewed research contrary to his views out of the next IPCC report “even if we have to redefine what the peer reviewed literature is.”

Bottom line: The Endangerment Rule embodies “a scientific judgment made by IPCC, and then adopted by EPA, not supported by any record that this Court can review. This is error.”

EPA Fails to Make the Judgment Required by Sec. 202

“Endangerment,” the motion observes, “is not a scientific term with defined endpoints. It is not an objective measure, like the boiling point of water, but a value judgment, like ‘bad.’ And so before EPA finds ‘endangerment,’ it first must define it.” In other words, EPA must explain its judgment in terms of climate-related metrics like temperature, precipitation, or wind speed, such that the public can understand which changes in climatic variables constitute endangerment, and which do not. “EPA has failed to do so.”

To clarify this point, the motion compares EPA’s  endangerment finding for motor vehicle GHG emissions with the agency’s 1973 endangerment finding for vehicular lead emissions. In the earlier rule, EPA provided quantitative information relating lead emissions to atmospheric concentrations, the latter to blood lead levels, and blood levels to brain function. In addition, EPA analyzed how regulation of lead in gasoline would reduce atmospheric concentrations, reduce lead levels in blood, and, thus, improve public health. Thus, “By the end of the rulemaking, EPA had fully explained all of the choices it made along the path of converting available scientific knowledge about lead toxicology and exposure into a policy-based finding of endangerment from automotive lead emissions sufficient to justify regulation, and allow—and survive—judicial review.”

In contrast, EPA “jumps from the tautology that ‘greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect’ to ‘greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare’ sufficient to warrant exactly the level of GHG reductions that happen to result from NHTSA’s imposition of the CAFE standards required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.” The motion continues:

It is as though EPA, in Ethyl [Corp. v. EPA, 541 F. 2d1, 1976], were defending a rule to ban leaded gasoline because lead is a poison at some unknown dose; cars burning leaded gasoline can emit lead, which has some unknown effect on atmospheric lead concentrations; and banning leaded gasoline would yield some unknown but trivial reduction in atmospheric lead levels, possibly mitigating by some unknown (but at best trivial) degree the unknown adverse effects that may result from atmospheric lead, although it is very, very possible that the ban would accomplish absolutely nothing at all.

“If anything,” the motion comments, “EPA should face a far greater burden to explain its policy choices here than it did in Ethyl. Lead is strictly a poison, whereas carbon dioxide is a natural component of clean air, ingested by all plants and exhaled by all animals. Life on Earth depends on the very ‘danger’ that EPA is trying to prevent.” Carbon dioxide is not only plant food, it also helps keep the Earth habitably warm.

In short, “An endangerment finding under Section 202(a) does not simply identify a health and welfare risk, as EPA contends; it also establishes the criteria that will inform whether the emission standards adopted to address that risk are rational. . . . EPA here failed to do so, first by rubber-stamping the IPCC’s findings instead of making its own assessment of the evidence, and then by disavowing any obligation to explain the various policy choices it made to reach its ultimate judgment and regulatory response.”

EPA’s Assessment of the Scientific Record Is Logically Flawed

Quoting (or parroting) the IPCC, EPA argues that it is “extremely unlikely” (less than a 5% probability) that the warmth of recent decades can be explained without “external forcing” by greenhouse gas emissions. But this conclusion is inconsistent with other IPCC statements. The IPCC acknowledges three potential drivers of climate change: (1) changes in incoming solar radiation (e.g. due to changes in the Earth’s orbit or the Sun); (2) changes in reflected solar radiation (e.g. due to changes in low-level cloud cover); and (3) changes in outgoing longwave radiation (e.g. due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations). According to the IPCC, scientific understanding of the Sun’s role in climate change is “low” and there is “significant uncertainty” with regard to cloud behavior and reflectivity. If there is significant uncertainty about two of the three main drivers, it is impossible for EPA — or the IPCC — to be 95% certain which is in the driver’s seat. In the motion’s words:

EPA cannot, and does not, explain how its 95% certainty is justified on the record. There cannot simultaneously be both “significant uncertainty” about primary climate drivers and 95% certainty that anthropogenic GHGs are causing any observed warming, yet EPA concludes there is. This fails even minimal standards of rationality.

EPA’s Administrative Record Fails to Establish Any Non-Trivial Benefits from the Tailpipe Rule

Citing Ethyl Corp. (541 F.2d at 31 n. 62), the motion argues that an administrative agency’s regulatory actions should “fruitfully” attack the problem being addressed. Yet, by EPA’s own admission, the Tailpipe Rule would produce imperceptible benefits, reducing projected global warming by 0.006-0.015°C and projected sea-level rise by 0.06-0.14 cm in 2100.

EPA’s GHG Tailpipe Limits Accomplish No Public Benefit (If Any) that NHTSA’s CAFE Standards Do Not Already Accomplish

About 95% of all GHGs emitted by motor vehicles is carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion. As EPA’s Tailpipe Rule acknowledges (p. 25327), there is a “single pool of technologies . . .  that reduce fuel consumption and thereby reduce CO2 emissions as well.” Unsurprisingly, the motion argues, “The [new] CAFE standards and EPA’s Tailpipe Rule are virtually identical, with irrelevant differences in how the two standards address air conditioning.”

The case law is not favorable to agencies duplicating the regulations of other agencies. Alas, the Tailpipe Rule is not merely redundant, it also has “profound and pernicious effects” on the economy, if, as EPA contends, it subjects  millions of small stationary sources to Clean Air Act permitting requirements. In sum:

There is no rational basis for EPA to promulgate mobile source rules that do nothing more than reiterate other, independently effective legal requirements, and that offer no added environmental benefit but impose far-reaching and unintended costs on a source population (stationary sources) not even considered in the Endangerment Finding assessment.

The Tailoring Rule Is an Illegal Solution to a Legal Problem of EPA’s Own Creation

This is the most original part of the motion’s argument. To obtain a PSD permit to build or modify a “major” stationary source, the applicant must demonstrate the facility’s compliance with “best available control technology” (BACT) standards. EPA reads Section 165(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act as requiring BACT compliance and PSD permitting for major sources of almost any regulated air pollutant.** Since the Tailpipe Rule makes GHGs regulated air pollutants, major stationary sources of GHGs are subject to PSD and BACT, EPA reasons.

To reach this conclusion, however, EPA had to ignore statutory context. Sec. 165(a)(4) states:

No major emitting facility on which construction is commenced after August 7, 1977, may be constructed in any area to which this part applies unless . . . — the proposed facility is subject to the best available control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter emitted from, or which results from, such facility [emphasis added].

In the foregoing, “this chapter” means the Clean Air Act. EPA reads the phrase “each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter” apart from the qualifying and limiting phrase, ”in any area to which this part applies.” The “part” in question is Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality), and the “area” to which it applies is an attainment area. Part C is clearly distinguished from Part D, which addresses permitting requirements in non-attainment areas.

The distinction between attainment and non-attainment areas presupposes, and has no meaning apart from, the adoption of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the pollutant of concern. Properly construed, Sec. 165(a)(4) creates BACT and PSD obligations only in attainment areas based on a prior NAAQS rulemaking. Since there are no NAAQS for GHGs, there are no GHG attainment areas, hence no areas where Part C BACT and PSD requirements apply to GHG emitting facilities.

Since the Tailpipe Rule does not trigger BACT and PSD for stationary sources, there is also no need for EPA to play lawmaker and “tailor” — that is, amend– the PSD applicability thresholds. Similarly, because “Title V is intended solely to codify otherwise applicable requirements in permits issued to stationary sources,” and stationary sources have no new obligations as a consequence of EPA’s decision to regulate mobile source GHGs, there is no necessity to amend the Title V applicability threshold.

The motion sensibly concludes:

Having applied the Act to a “pollutant” under programs never intended for that “pollutant,” EPA is confronted with the need to undo the “absurd” results that follow by outright defiance of crystal-clear provisions of the statute, those setting forth the applicability thresholds. The far better—and only legal—choice instead is to avoid manufacturing overbreadth in the first place.

(If this argument is correct, then EPA bears a greater responsibility for Massachusetts v. EPA’s “legacy of absurd results” than I previously supposed.)

The Triggering and Tailoring Rules Treat the States as Vassals, Not As the Equal Sovereigns Contemplated by the Clean Air Act

EPA assumes it can simply command States to incorporate PSD permitting for GHGs in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs), or face imposition of an EPA-crafted Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Not so, the motion argues:

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires each State’s permit program to mandate permits only for “modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D….” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C). EPA has no basis, then, to disapprove a State’s permit program for failing to govern emissions of a pollutant for which there is no NAAQS.

EPA assumes that the Tailpipe Rule and Tailoring Rules will or at least should automatically revise State permitting programs and the SIPs governing them.  In so doing, EPA erroneously views the States as vassals, because “no sovereign can delegate to another the ability to make its laws. The State must by some affirmative act ratify any changes in pollutants and applicability thresholds incorporated from federal laws before they become effective.”

EPA’s rush to incorporate GHGs into State permitting programs also runs afoul of procedural requirements. Section110 of the Clean Air Act “allows at least 18 months after proper adoption of new SIP expectations before requiring their implementation by the States.” In addition, Section 166 allows States 21 months to submit a plan revision following an EPA rulemaking calling for the addition of new pollutants in the PSD program. “EPA, of course, has undertaken no such rulemaking, nor allowed any time for each State to respond.” Indeed, one of the rules EPA recently proposed to bypass the normal SIP revision process would “give States perhaps three weeks in December to respond to a call for revisions to their SIPs, or face a construction ban on January 2, 2011.”

A Stay Would Allow for Rational Policy Development

The House passed a cap-and-trade bill in June 2009, but in 2010 cap-and-trade died in the Senate. Senators mounted an unsuccessful effort to overturn EPA’s Endangerment Rule, but all 41 Republicans and six Democrats voted for the resolution of disapproval. “The 111th Congress evidently will adjourn unable to either ratify the current state of affairs or change it, but the 112th may be rather more willing to announce an opinion on behalf of the electorate. A stay would allow for the possibility that Congress finally will state its intentions to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, or not, so that this Court will not have to speak for it.” ‘Nuff said.

** The Clean Air Act prescribes separate and tougher permitting requirements for major sources of toxic air pollutants and criteria air pollutants in areas failing to meet national ambient air quality standards.

TCEQ to EPA: Don’t Mess with Texas

by Marlo Lewis on August 6, 2010

in Global Warming, Legal

In a blistering letter published earlier in the week, the head of Texas’s environmental agency and the State’s attorney general told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): ”Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas regulations.”

The letter, by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Chairman Bryan Shaw and Attorney General Gregg Abbott, comes hard on heels of EPA’s denial of 10 petitions (including one from the State of Texas) to reconsider EPA’s endangerment rule. That rule — the agency’s response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA – is both trigger and precedent for potentially dramatic and far-reaching Clean Air Act restrictions on fossil energy production and use.

More pertinently, Shaw and Abbott sent their letter on August 2, 2010, the deadline EPA had set in its Final Tailoring Rule (p. 31582) for States to explain how they plan to apply Clean Air Act permitting programs to stationary sources of greenhouse gases. Instead, the Texas officials all but told EPA to go jump in the lake. 

Tailoring Absurdity

EPA adopted the Tailoring Rule to fix a problem of its own making. By adopting the endangerment rule, EPA obligated itself to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for new motor vehicles. The standards make carbon dioxide (CO2) a “regulated air pollutant,” which in turn makes any “major stationary source” of CO2 “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program. 

The problem is that literally millions of  hitherto unregulated entities qualify as “major” sources of CO2 under those programs. The “major” source “applicability threshold” for PSD is a potential to emit 250 tons per year (tpy) of a regulated air pollutant. The threshold for Title V is even lower — a potential to emit 100 tpy. Whereas only large industrial facilities emit bona fide air pollutants in those quantities, millions of small entities never before subject to Clean Air Act permitting requirements — big box stores, office buildings, apartment complexes, restaurants, hospitals, schools — emit CO2 in the threshold amounts.

Applying the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases thus produces what EPA itself describes as “absurd results.” For example, EPA and its State counterparts would have to process an estimated 41,000 PSD permits per year (up from 280) and 6.1 million Title V operating permits per year (up from 15,000). The ensuing “permit gridlock” would clog up environmental enforcement, stifle new construction, and force millions of firms to either operate illegally or close down. All on President Obama’s watch; all in the midst of a deep recession.

Rather than draw the reasonable conclusion that Congress did not intend to regulate greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act, EPA decided that Congress must have intended for the agency to ”tailor” — that is, amend — the Act so the agency can regulate greenhouse gases without wrecking the economy. So, while the law specifies 100/250 tpy as the applicability thresholds for the permitting programs, the Tailoring Rule sets the cutoff at 100,000 tpy over the next two years and at not less than 50,000 over the next six years.

In addition, under the Tailoring Rule, modifications to an existing source won’t be considered “significant” — that is, won’t trigger the PSD process — unless the changes increase emissions by 75,000 tpy.

The Texas environmental chairman and AG aren’t buying it:

You have declared that EPA’s decision to enact automobile tailpipe emission limits for greenhouse gases pursuant to Title II of the federal Clean Air Act renders such gases immediately ”subject to regulation” for all purposes under the Act, including Title I Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program  and the Title V operating permit program. Simultaneously, however, you recognize that permitting greenhouse gases under the Act is “absurd.” . . . We agree.

They continue:

In order to avoid the absurd results of EPA’s own creation, you have developed a “tailoring rule” in which you have substituted your own judgment for Congress’s as to how deep and wide to spread the permitting burden.

And a bit later:

Instead of acknowledging that congressionally set emission limits [applicability thresholds] preclude the regulation of greenhouse gases, you instead re-write those statutorily-established limits . . . .

Problem Unsolved

Okay, now we get to the meat of the matter. PSD and Title V are mostly administered by States, not by EPA, and most State Implementation Plans (SIPs) define “major” emitting facility exactly as the Clean Air Act does. This means that even if the Tailoring Rule shields small entities from PSD and Title V regulation by EPA, it would not shield them from regulation by State agencies. EPA discussed this problem in its Proposed Tailoring Rule (p. 33542). ”Virtually all of [the EPA-approved SIPs] establish the PSD permitting threshold at the 100/250-tpy level,” EPA noted. Indeed, ”a few States have adopted lower permitting threshold levels.” In addition, “virtually all EPA-approved SIPs establish the significance level” for modifications triggering PSD “at zero” emissions in the case of previously unregulated air pollutants — not at 10,000 tpy, as EPA initially proposed, much less at 75,000 tpy, as the Final Rule stipulates.

Initially, EPA proposed to withdraw federal approval from those portions of SIPS incorporating the older thresholds and significance levels. This would mean, however, that the lower thresholds would “remain on the books under State law, and sources therefore remain subject to them as a matter of State law” (Proposed Tailoring Rule, p. 55343). In short, the regulatory nightmare would continue. For further discussion, see Peabody Energy’s comment on the Proposed Tailoring Rule.

Of course, States have the option to revise their SIPs and amend their clean air laws. But that could take years. Thus, notwithstanding EPA’s “tailoring,” small entities would find themselves “subject to regulation” under State PSD and Title V requirements on January 1, 2011, when the agency’s greenhouse gas tailpipe emission standards go into effect. As the Final Tailoring Rule observes, “Commenters stated that States would need to undertake a regulatory and/or legislative process to change the threshold in their state laws which they could not complete before the laws would otherwise require issuance of operating permits to GHG sources” (p. 31583).

Semantics Rule?

So what is EPA’s solution? Instead of changing the definition of “major stationary source,” EPA is changing the definition of “subject to regulation.” The agency, “by interpretation,” now defines “subject to regulation” as not including a “major source” of greenhouse gases unless the source has a potential to emit 100,000 tpy on a CO2-equivalent basis. EPA crows that “we find no substantive difference” between how the initially-proposed rule and how the final rule “tailors” the permitting requirements. EPA says that States similarly, “by interpretation,” can redefine “subject to regulation,” allowing them to exempt small sources from PSD and Title V without changing their SIPs or laws: 

Whether we add [higher] GHG thresholds directly to the definition of “major source” (as we proposed), or alternatively, expressly add and define the term “subject to regulation” [so that it only applies to sources emitting at least 100,000 tpy], both approaches revise the definition of “major source” to implement the Tailoring Rule. Accordingly, we adopt the later approach to facilitate state implementation of the final rule through an interpretation of existing state part 70 programs.

If you are confused as to how redefining “subject to regulation” can produce the same substantive result as redefining “major source” yet not similarly require States to change their SIPs or laws, you are not alone. It’s this attempt to turn law into a semantic game that the Texas officials refuse to play.

They write:

In the Tailoring Rule you have asked TCEQ to report to you by August 2, 2010 whether it would “interpret” the undefined phrase “subject to regulation” in TCEQ Rule 116.12 consistent with the newly promulgated definition of EPA Rule 51.166 in all its specifics and particulars. . . .In other words, you have asked Texas to agree that when it promulgated its air quality permitting program rules for pollutants “subject to regulation” in 1993, that Texas really meant to define the term “subject to regulation” as set forth in the dozens of paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of EPA Rule 51.166, first promulgated in 2010.

TCEQ Rule 116.12 was last amended in 2006. It “adopts” the Clean Air Act “by reference” — but only as the Act existed at the time of adoption. To adopt subsequent changes made by EPA, TCEQ would have to amend Rule 116.2 through a formal rulemaking process. Adopting such changes by mere act of “interpretation” would delegate more authority to EPA than the Texas Constitution allows.  

In addition, the Texas officials argue, “TCEQ is also precluded from adopting EPA’s newly-minted definition of “subject to regulation” by the “express terms of the Texas Government Code, which requires public notice of agency rulemaking.” They explain:

When the TECQ promulgated Rule 116.12 in 1993, or even when it last amended the rule in 2006, it had no intention of enacting a permitting program for greenhouse gases. Consequently, TCEQ had no reason to (nor did it) give public notice of any such intent. Obviously, Texans concerned with greenhouse gas permitting could not have known to participate and comment on the decision to require permits for pollutants “subject to regulation” in 2006, when the EPA first discovered greenhouse gases were “subject to regulation” in 2010. It should go without saying that the nearly infinite expansion of Texas’ permitting programs to include greenhouse gases with no state-level rulemaking at all would not satisfy Texas or federal law requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Of course, one could say that the whole point of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which pushed the agency to issue an endangerment rule, and the ensuing cascade of CO2 controls was to bypass the democratic process and confront the public with regulatory fait accompli.

Another Bite at the Apple?

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. If Texas sticks to its guns, EPA may simply take over the Texas PSD program, in whole or in part, through a federally-imposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Florida, for example, told EPA it could not make the regulatory changes in time, so EPA would just have to take over the Florida program. EPA reportedly is working on a “backstop rule” authorizing the agency to take over State permitting of greenhouse gases on a temporary basis (Environmental NewsStand, August 5, 2010, subscription required).

However, what if Texas still refuses to cooperate? Would EPA sue? Such a case might work its way up to the Supremes. The Court might then have to face the core issue it ducked in Mass. v. EPA – whether Congress intended for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act as a whole, including PSD, Title V, and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program. The Court would have an opportunity to reconsider Mass. v. EPA in light of the absurd results to which it has led. A long shot — but a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Thank You CBD: Another Reason to Nix EPA Endangerment Finding

by Marlo Lewis on June 3, 2010 · 2 comments

in Global Warming

Twice during the past six months, the eco-litigators at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) have underscored the political necessity for Congress to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding.

Yes, that is very far from CBD’s intention. CBD is a fervent defender of the endangerment finding, the December 2009 rulemaking in which EPA concluded that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare.

The endangerment finding compels EPA to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for new motor vehicles, which in turn makes carbon dioxide (CO2) a “regulated air pollutant”  under the Clean Air Act, which in turn makes ”major” stationary sources of CO2 ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program. CBD must be thrilled by the endangerment finding and the regulatory cascade it has triggered.

CBD wants EPA to follow through on all the regulatory commitments logically entailed by the endangerment finding and CO2′s new status as a “regulated air pollutant.” But that’s where things get dicey for President Obama and his congressional allies. Once the regulatory genie is out of the bottle, Obama officials may not be able to control it.

Even EPA acknowledges that applying the Act’s permitting programs to CO2 leads to “absurd results.” For example, EPA and its state counterparts would have to process 41,000 PSD permit applications per year (instead of 280) and 6.1 million Title V permits per year (instead of 14,700). The resulting administrative quagmire would paralyze environmental enforcement, slam the brakes on development, and force millions of firms to operate in legal limbo. A more potent anti-stimulus package would be hard to imagine. 

To avoid this red ink nightmare, EPA has issued a Tailoring Rule that exempts small CO2 emitters from the Act’s permitting programs for six years. However, nothing in the statute authorizes EPA to suspend or modify the permitting requirements. In reality, EPA’s Tailoring Rule is an amending rule. It’s anybody’s guess whether courts will uphold this breach of the separation of powers.

Even if they do, the endangerment finding will still endanger the U.S. economy and our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability. Thank you, CBD, for bringing this peril to light!

Last December, CBD petitioned EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases set below current atmospheric levels. CBD is only acting on the obvious implication of EPA’s assertion that endangerment comes from the “elevated concentration” of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Why should Obama and congressional leaders worry? The Clean Air Act requires states to come into attainment with a primary (health-based) NAAQS within five or at most 10 years. Yet not even a global depression lasting several decades would suffice to lower CO2 concentrations from today’s level (390 parts per million) to the stabilization target (350 parts per million) demanded by CBD and its co-petitioners. Because EPA may not take compliance costs into account when establishing NAAQS, the endangerment finding sets the stage for eco-litigators to transform the Act into a de-industrialization mandate.  No elected official wants to take ownership of so crazy a policy. If CBD prevails, however, Obama and the Democrats — the Party of Endangerment — will be left holding the bag. 

Yesterday, CBD filed suit to overturn EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s reconsideration of her predecessor Stephen Johnson’s memorandum determining when a pollutant is “subject to regulation” under the PSD program. Jackson’s reconsideration held that a pollutant is subject to regulation not when EPA finalizes an emissions control rulemaking but when the rule takes effect. Since EPA’s greenhouse gas motor vehicle standards rule does not take effect until January 2011, Jackson concluded that EPA may not regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources until then. CBD says EPA should have started already to regulate large emitters via PSD.

CBD’s lawsuit makes EPA regulation of greenhouse gases a real-time issue for this Congress, not just a post-election issue for the next Congress. It increases the pressure on Democrats to get the monkey off their back. If courts strike down Jackson’s reconsideration, they will be more likely to strike down the Tailoring Rule, which undeniably flouts statutory language. Courts will also be more likely to look favorably on CBD’s NAAQS petition, which simply demands that EPA, having made an endangerment finding, follow the letter of the law.   

Democratic Senators who don’t want to bet their political futures on EPA’s ability to control the cascading effects of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act – or who simply believe that climate policy is too important to be made by non-elected bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life – will soon get their opportunity.

On June 10, the Senate will vote on a resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res.26), sponsored by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, to nullify the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding. If enacted, S.J.Res.26 will:

  1. Avert the threat of an administrative meltdown under the PSD and Title V programs.
  2. Avert the threat of sky-is-the-limit, money-is-no-object regulation of greenhouse gases via the NAAQS program.
  3. Avoid the need for EPA to play lawmaker and ’amend” a statute it is supposed merely to administer.

Most importantly, enacting Sen. Murkowski’s resolution will ensure that the big decisions about the content and direction of national policy are made by the people’s representatives, as the Constitution requires.

Another Oldie But Goodie: Mark Mills 1998 CO2 Compliance Burden Study

by Marlo Lewis on May 4, 2010

in Global Warming

In the interest of ensuring public access to climate-related documents that may be hard to find, I am posting here the original, June 1998 study by technology analyst Mark P. Mills of the sprawling compliance burdens of EPA regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The study, entitled A Stunning Regulatory Burden: EPA Designating CO2 As A Pollutant, estimated that applying CAA permitting requirements to CO2 would compel EPA to regulate over 1 million small- and mid-size businesses.

In September 2008, Mills and his daughter Portia updated the study for the Chamber of Commerce in a report entitled A Regulatory Burden: The Compliance Dimension of Regulating CO2 as a Pollutant.

Although superceded by the later report, the June 1998 report remains highly relevant to the climate policy debate.

A Stunning Regulatory Burden was a direct response to the April 1998 Memorandum by then EPA General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon asserting EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA partly relied on the Cannon memorandum to press their claim that EPA had a statutory obligation to issue an endangerment finding and regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under Sec. 202 of the Act.

Most importantly, the June 1998 Mills study reminds us that EPA had to know all along that a victory for petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA would dramatically expand its regulatory reach beyond any plausible delegation of regulatory authority from Congress.

Yet during all the years when the case was being litigated (Sep. 2004 – April 2007), EPA never pointed out the regulatory ramifications of a victory for petitioners. Only long after losing case, in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (July 2008) and Tailoring Rule (October 2009), did EPA acknowledge that the endangerment finding tees up the very sorts of regulatory excesses Mills warned about a decade earlier. 

The 5-4 majority in Mass v. EPA decided in favor of petitioners partly in the belief that an endangerment finding would not lead to ”extreme measures” (p. 531). But according to the Tailoring Rule, unless EPA “tailors” — that is, amends — the CAA, the endangerment finding will lead inexorably to a host of “absurd results” that conflict with and undermine congressional intent.  

The question arises: Why didn’t EPA explain this when it really mattered? Why did EPA pull its punches in Mass. v. EPA? Why didn’t EPA make the case that the endangerment finding sought by petitioners would lead a regulatory cascade that Congress never intended and would not approve?

I think the answer is obvious. For EPA, losing the Massachusetts case meant gaining the power to regulate fuel economy for the auto industry and, more importantly, the power to determine climate and energy policy for the nation. Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that EPA wanted to be thrown into the greenhouse briar patch all along.

What Happens If Congress Blocks EPA?

by Marlo Lewis on March 9, 2010 · 2 comments

in Global Warming

That’s the topic of this week’s National Journal energy blog. In my contribution, I argue that EPA has been playing a mischievous game that endangers democracy, and that Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s legislation to veto the agency’s endangerment finding would remove this threat. 

In a Feb. 22 letter to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson warns that enactment of the Murkowski legislation would scuttle the joint EPA/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) greenhouse gas/fuel economy rulemaking, which in turn would compel the struggling auto industry to operate under a “patchwork quilt” of state-level fuel-economy regulations.

Ms. Jackson neglects to mention that the patchwork threat exists only because she, reversing Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s decision, granted California a waiverto implement its own GHG/fuel economy program. Had Jackson reaffirmed Johnson’s denial, there would be no danger of a patchwork, hence no ostensible need for the joint EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to avert it.

As my blog post explains, EPA should not have approved the waiver in the first place. The California GHG/fuel economy program violates the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which prohibits states from adopting laws or regulations “related to” fuel economy. Worse, the waiver creates a reverse right of preemption whereby states may nullify federal law within their borders — an affront to the Supremacy Clause. 

Specifically, the waiver would allow California, and other states opting into the California program, to nullify within their boundaries the reformed national fuel economy program that Congress enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). That leads straight to a patchwork of state-by-state compliance regimes inimical to a healthy auto industry.

The game EPA is playing is a classic case of bureaucratic self-dealing.

First, EPA endangers the U.S. auto industry by authorizing states to flout federal law and the Constitution. Then, EPA proposes to avert disaster via a rulemaking that just happens to put EPA in the driver’s seat in regulating fuel economy – a power Congress never delegated to EPA when it enacted and amended the Clean Air Act.

Nor is that all. The joint GHG/fuel economy regulation will compel EPA to regulate CO2 from stationary sources – another power Congress never delegated to EPA. By expanding its control over the transport sector, EPA will then have to expand its control over manufacturing, power generation, and much of the commercial and residential sectors, too, because all emit CO2.

In addition, the motor vehicle GHG rule sets the stage for EPA to “tailor,” that is amend, the Clean Air Act so that the agency can delay imposing pre-construction and operating permit requirements on small business, which would surely ignite a political backlash.

So thanks to the endangerment finding, EPA not only gets to play in NHTSA’s fuel-economy sandbox, and extend its tentacles throughout the economy, it also gets to play lawmaker, violating the separation of powers.

In light of all the new powers EPA now expects to wield, it is hardly surprising that EPA never made the strong case against Clean Air Act regulation of CO2 in Massachusetts v. EPA. Here’s what EPA should have argued:

  • EPA cannot regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act without regulating CO2 under the Act as a whole. 
  • Aplying the Act as a whole to CO2 leads ineluctably to “absurd results” that contravene congressional intent.
  • Therefore, Congress could not have intended for EPA to regulate GHG emissions under Sec. 202.

Did EPA throw the fight in the 11th round? I dunno, but losing the Massachusetts case was surely sweet victory to those in the agency who long to regulate America into a ”clean energy future.” The Massachusetts decision laid the groundwork for EPA to deal itself into a position to bypass the people’s elected representatives, impose its will on the auto industry, and, in time, dictate national climate and energy policy.

What happens if Congress enacts Sen. Murkowski’s resolution, nixes the endangerment finding, and mothballs the GHG/fuel economy rule? The authority to make law and national policy returns to where the framers of the Constitution intended — the people’s elected representatives.

Will Cass Sunstein stick up for small business, or bless EPA’s legal hair splitting?

by Marlo Lewis on January 21, 2010 · 3 comments

in Energy, Global Warming

Today, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Sam Graves (R-MO), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) sent a letter to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein sharply critical of EPA’s December 7, 2009 finding that “air pollution” from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) endangers public health and welfare. 

“On the basis of EPA’s endangerment finding,” the legislators warn, “virtually every economic activity undertaken in America stands to come under the thumb of federal regulation.” They explain: “These actions begin with EPA’s and the Department of Transportation’s proposed new light vehicle emission standards, continue through greenhouse gas (GHG) preconstruction and operating permit requirements for stationary sources and extend as far as the mind can contemplate.” They continue: “In these ways, EPA threatens to burden our economy with vastly expanded regulation not contemplated by Congress when it passed the Clean Air Act.” 

Yes, indeed. As I discuss here and here, EPA’s endangerment finding starts a regulatory cascade that could (1) subject tens of thousands of previously unregulated small businesses to Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting regulations, (2) subject millions of small businesses to CAA Title V operating permit requirements, and (3) compel EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that would effectively require the United States to de-industrialize. The Supreme Court pushed EPA to make the endangerment finding in its April 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision.

The four Members of Congress ask OIRA chief Sunstein to make EPA convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to develop and evaluate regulatory alternatives to mimimize the endangerment finding’s impacts on small business. Until and unless EPA does this, the lawmakers say, the endangerment finding should be “withdrawn.”

The representatives acknowledge that EPA’s proposed October 2009 Tailoring Rule  “seeks to delay for a handful of years the imposition of requirements on sources emitting less than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.” However, this fix is by design temporary, and it is legally dubious, since EPA would be flouting clear statutory language. Under the CAA, entities must obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify a facility with a potential to emit 250 tons per year of a CAA-regulated air pollutant, and a Title V permit in order to operate a facility with a potential to emit 100 tons per year.

EPA estimates that if these provisions are enforced as written, the number of entities applying for PSD permits would jump from 280 to 41,000 per year, and the number applying for Title V permits would jump from 14,700 to 6.1 million per year. The flood of permit applications would overwhelm agency administrative resources, the permitting programs would implode under their own weight, construction activity would grind to a halt, and millions of firms would find themselves in legal limbo — all in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  

It will be interesting to see how Sunstein responds to the lawmakers’ letter. Will he stick up for small business and honor the spirit of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), or will he bless EPA’s evasive legal semantics? 

Under the RFA, agencies are to convene a small business review panel unless the agency head certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a “significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities.”  In a recent year, each PSD permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for sources to obtain (just the paperwork and administrative costs, exclusive of any associated technology investments). The going rate for Title V administrative fees is $43.75 per ton, implying a virtual carbon tax (exclusive of administrative expenses) of $4,375 for a small business emitting 100 tons of CO2 per year. The Tailoring Rule estimates (p. 55338) that if small sources of CO2 must comply with the law as written, rather than as doctored by EPA, they will incur an expense of more than $38 billion just for Title V compliance over the next six years.  A significant economic impact by any standard.

Note also that the $38 billion figure refers just to the direct expenses small firms would incur to comply with Title V. It does not include the reduced output and job losses due to the diversion of resources to regulatory compliance. Nor does it include the loss of investment in firms that, due to their sheer number, face years of delay and uncertainty in obtaining permits to build or operate their facilities.

The endangerment finding is what tees up all these costs and consequences, so you’d think it would be a no brainer that it has ”significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities.”

Well, EPA says otherwise. In the Endangerment Finding (p. 66545), Administrator Lisa Jackson certifies that EPA’s findings “do not in-and-of-themselves” impose new requirements on small entities. Hence, there’s no need for an RFA review panel. Similarly, EPA’s GHG motor vehicle standards proposal (p. 49628) certifies that it would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, since the standards would apply to automakers, very few of which are small businesses.

By making new cars more costly, however, the rule could adversely affect thousands of auto dealers, most of whom are small businesses. EPA says not a word about that potential impact. More importantly, the GHG motor vehicle standards are what directly trigger the PSD and Title V requirements.

EPA says the Tailoring Rule (p. 55349) won’t have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it “will relieve the regulatory burden associated the PSD and Title V operating programs for new and modified major sources that emit GHGs, including small businesses.” So EPA acknowledges there is a burden to be relieved — a PSD/Title V burden. Where does that come from?  The endangerment finding and the GHG motor vehicle emissions rule. Yet EPA claims those actions have no impact of any consequence for small business.   

Isn’t legal hair-splitting grand? Of course, the findings “in-and-0f-themselves” regulate nothing — but they compel the adoption of GHG motor vehicle standards under CAA Sec. 202, which then automatically trigger pre-construction permitting requirements under Secs. 160-160 and operating permit requirements under Secs. 501-507.

The endangerment finding also sets the stage for regulation of GHG emissions from motor fuels under CAA Sec. 211, non-road engines and vehicles under Sec. 231, the establishment of GHG new source performance standards (NSPS) for scores of industrial source categories under Sec. 111, and the establishment of economy-wide NAAQS regulation of GHGs under Secs. 107-110.  ”Yes, Your Honor, I pulled the trigger, but I am innocent; the bullet killed the man!”

And if litigation and the logic of the CAA compel EPA to establish NAAQS for CO2 and other GHGs, which could easily qualify as the most expensive rulemaking in history, you can bet your bottom dollar what EPA will say. There’s no significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses, because NAAQS “in-and-of-themselves” don’t regulate anybody. The actual regulation of businesses large and small will be done by the states, through their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). “Once the rockets are up who cares where they come down, that’s not my department,” says Wernher Von Braun.

Small business clearly needs an advocate in the room and at the table whenever EPA deliberates about any regulatory action pertaining to greenhouse gases and CO2. Congress enacted the RFA to protect small business from regulatory excess. Right now it’s not working. Cass Sunstein has an opportunity to ensure that small businesses have a say in regulatory decisions affecting their very survival. He should seize it.

Will Congress protect the economy and the Constitution from Mass. v. EPA?

by Marlo Lewis on January 8, 2010

in Global Warming, Legal

In this two-part post on MasterResource.Org, the free-market energy blog, I argue that the EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule is a temporary, legally questionable, and incomplete antidote to Massachusetts v. EPA’s legacy of “absurd results.”
 
Here is the gist of the column:
 
Congress did not intend to apply the Clean Air Act’s preconstruction permitting (PSD) and Title V operating permits programs to small entities, did not intend for those programs to implode under their own weight, did not intend for PSD to stop development, and did not intend for Title V to undermine Clean Air Act compliance.
 
However, those are the inexorable consequences of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor vehicle emission standards that the Court authorized and indeed pushed EPA to make. To avoid this mess, which would likely produce a fierce political backlash against EPA and the Obama administration, the Agency now proposes via the Tailoring Rule to amend the PSD and Title V programs.
 
This breach of the separation of powers only compounds the constitutional crisis inherent in the Court’s attempt to legislate global warming policy from the bench.

Even if the Tailoring Rule survives judicial scrutiny despite its flouting of clear statutory language, it will provide no defense against Mass. v. EPA’s most absurd result: regulation of carbon dioxide under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program.

Congress must step up to the plate and either overturn Mass. v. EPA, overturn the endangerment finding, or, at a minimum, prohibit EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from stationary sources.

EPA’s Tailoring Rule: A Temporary, Legally Dubious, and Incomplete Antidote to Massachusetts v. EPA’s Legacy of Absurd Results

by Marlo Lewis on December 28, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, Legal

Today, I submitted a comment on EPA’s proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.  The gist of my argument is as follows:

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, authorizing and indeed pushing EPA to control emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) for climate change purposes. This is a policy decision of immense economic and political magnitude that Congress never intended or approved when it enacted and amended the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

Regulating GHGs under the CAA leads inexorably to “absurd results,” including an economically-chilling administrative quagmire. To prevent GHG regulation from overwhelming agency administrative resources and stifling economic development, EPA proposes to suspend, for six years, the “major” source applicability thresholds for the CAA pre-construction and operating permits programs. That is, EPA proposes to amend the Act. This violation of the separation of powers compounds the constitutional crisis inherent in the Court’s substitution of its will for that of the people’s elected representatives.

The small-business protections proposed in the Tailoring Rule are temporary, legally dubious, and incomplete. Even if courts uphold the Tailoring Rule, despite its flouting of clear statutory language, it will not avert the most absurd result of the Court’s misreading of the CAA:  regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program.

EPA runs enormous political risks leading the charge for GHG regulations not approved by Congress. It is in the Agency’s best interest not to oppose legislative action to overturn the endangerment finding and Mass. v. EPA.

The full text of my comment is available here.

Barton Or Bust! How to Stop Mass. v. EPA from Wrecking the Economy

by Marlo Lewis on December 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, Legal

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced today that he plans to introduce a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recently finalized endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.

This is  huge. It means that Republicans are going to insist that climate and energy policy be made by the people’s elected representatives rather than by non-elected judges, litigators, and bureaucrats. It means that EPA regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) will be an issue in the 2010 elections. It means that citizens will be able to hold accountable — and punish at the ballot box — any Member of Congress who votes against Barton’s resolution of disapproval and in favor of the compliance burdens, rising energy costs, and litigation risks to the economy that EPA regulation of CO2 unavoidably entails.

In a press release issued today, Barton stated:

“I want to announce that I and others on the Republican side will ask the House of Representatives to consider and pass a resolution strongly disapproving the discreditable decision by the Obama administration to outlaw carbon dioxide and with it, millions of jobs in America.

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding plainly was intended to make the president’s policies look good in advance of his visit to the Copenhagen global warming conference, not to advance any public good in America, but it also has policy implications that threaten serious damage to the economy for generations to come.

“The EPA’s finding accurately reflects the thousands of candid, outrageous e-mails that EPA’s allies in the global warming community sent to each other by demonstrating that public relations priorities rather than straightforward science are driving U.S. policymaking on global warming, and no where did anyone demonstrate a whiff of concern for who pays the bill or how they earn their living.

“Everybody also understands that the endangerment finding is supposed to prod Congress into resuscitating cap-and-trade legislation that is dying from overexposure to public scrutiny. The social cost of this public relations effort, however, will dwarf the hundreds of billions of dollars already spent by the most profligate administration in history.

“Worst of all, the policy envisioned by the Obama administration will treat the recession by committing the country to living with fewer jobs instead of more, and to taking even more money out of the pockets of those lucky enough to have jobs so that radical environmentalists can wage a war against nature.

“Congress has the right and the responsibility to nullify the decisions of the bureaucracy when they run counter to the people’s interests, and a formal Resolution of Disapproval is fully warranted in this instance.”

Why is EPA inaugurating a regime of global warming regulations that Congress never voted for or approved?  Because the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), decided to legislate global warming policy from the bench.

In Mass. v. EPA, eco-litigation groups, led by a baker’s dozen state attorneys general, attempted to do an end run around Congress and impose Kyoto-like policies on the U.S. economy through judicial fiat. They found five willing accomplices on the Court, who essentially ruled that Congress authorized EPA to regulate GHGs for climate change purposes when it enacted the CAA in 1970 — decades before global warming became a public concern. The Court’s decision — an affront to common sense — all but ensured that EPA would issue an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. That, in turn, would compel EPA, under CAA Sec. 202, to establish first-ever GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.

However, what none of the principals in the case bothered to mention, is that once EPA adopts the GHG motor vehicle standards sought by plaintiffs, CO2 automatically becomes a pollutant “subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program. Under the CAA, firms must obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify a “major emitting facility,” and a Title V permit in order to operate such a facility. A facility is major under PSD if it is in one of 28 categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of a regulated pollutant, or 250 TPY if it is any other type of establishment. A facility is major under Title V if it has the potential to emit 100 TPY of a regulated pollutant. As it happens, millions of previously unregulated buildings and facilities — office buildings, apartment complexes, big box stores, enclosed malls, heated agricultural facilities, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens — emit enough CO2 to meet these thresholds.

EPA estimates that if PSD and Title V are applied as written to CO2 sources, the number of PSD permit applications per year would jump from 280 to 41,000, and the number of Title V permit applications would jump from 14,700 to 6.1 million! The CAA permitting programs would crash under their own weight, putting a freeze on new construction, and thrusting millions of firms into legal limbo. Thanks to Mass. v. EPA, the CAA is about to become an economic wrecking ball aimed straight at small business.

EPA’s October 2009 proposed Tailoring Rule attempts to avoid these “absurd results” by suspending the PSD and Title V requirements for any source emitting less than 25,000 tons per year (TPY) of CO2-equivalent GHGs. EPA hopes in this way to have its cake (the power to regulate CO2) and eat it (avoid an uncontrollable regulatory cascade that would provoke a backlash against the Obama administration, the eco-litigation fraternity, and the Court). But in order to pull off this trick, EPA must play lawmaker, effectively amend the Act, and violate the separation of powers.

Rep. Barton is right not to put his trust in the efficacy of this solution to the regulatory nightmare the Court conjured up in Mass. v. EPA. For one thing, it is unclear whether the Tailoring Rule will survive judicial challenge, because it flouts clear statutory language. Secondly, to preserve the fiction that EPA is not amending the Act, the Agency claims in the Tailoring Rule that its goal is to apply PSD and Title V to smaller and smaller CO2 sources over time, eventually including sources emitting 250 TPY and 100 TPY. EPA proposes to spend five years developing “streamlined” permitting procedures for smaller sources, but the legality of such contrivances is dubious as well, and at best streamlining would reduce irrational regulatory burdens on small business, not avoid them.

Finally, and most importantly, the Tailoring Rule, even if upheld by courts, would provide no protection from the most “absurd result” of the endangerment finding: Imposition of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for CO2 that essentially require the de-industrialization of the United States.

The endangerment finding that EPA has just finalized substantively satisfies the endangerment test in CAA Sec. 108 that governs the first phase of a NAAQS rulemaking. The endangerment finding asserts that current atmospheric CO2 concentrations endanger public health and welfare, so logically, a NAAQS for CO2 would have to be set below current levels. Two eco-litigation groups, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and 350.org, have already petitioned EPA to establish NAAQS for CO2 set at 350 parts per million (PPM). Their motto is “350 or Bust!”

The present atmospheric CO2 level is 390 PPM. Even if the entire world met the emissions reduction target of the Waxman-Markey bill — 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — this would only “stabilize” CO2 concentrations at 450 PPM. Not even a global depression lasting many decades would be enough to reduce CO2 concentrations to 350 PPM. Yet under established legal interpretation, EPA is prohibited from considering compliance costs when establishing NAAQS.

Clearly, the only solid protection against Mass. v EPA’s “absurd results” is to nip the regulatory mischief in the bud. Barton’s resolution of disapproval would do just that. CBD and its allies have their slogan, and now the friends of liberty have one too: Barton or Bust!

NAAQS Petition Confirms Mass v. EPA Is Bottomless Well of Absurd Results

by Marlo Lewis on December 3, 2009

in Global Warming, Legal

Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and 350.org petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon dioxide (CO2) pegged at 350 parts per million (ppm). CO2 concentrations are currently about 387 ppm. The CBD is the eco-litigation group that successfully sued the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

I’ll have more to say about the specifics of the CBD-350.org petition (available here) in a later post. For now, I just want to note that the petition is additional confirmation that Massachusetts v. EPA, the April 2007 Supreme Court global warming case, is a bottomless well of absurd results that imperil both our economy and the U.S. Constitution.

CEI has been saying from day one – in our comment on EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, our comment on EPA’s April 2009 Endangerment Proposal, our comment on EPA’s September 2009 Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Proposal, and in columns about Mass. v. EPA when the case was still pending – that an endangerment finding under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) would satisfy the endangerment test in CAA Sec. 108 and, thus, trigger a NAAQS rulemaking.

Not even a global economic depression sustained over many decades would be enough to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels at 350 ppm — the goal of the CBD-350.org petition. For example, even if the world’s governments could somehow dial back global CO2 emissions to 1957 levels, when the global economy was smaller than one-third its present size, and then hold CO2 emissions constant for the next nine decades, global concentrations would still increase to 455 ppm by 2100.

Obviously, when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, it did not authorize EPA to squash the U.S. economy. Indeed, one of the Act’s main purposes is to protect the “productive capacity” of the American people (CAA Sec. 101).

Nonetheless, by misreading the Act to include authority to regulate CO2 as an “air pollutant,” the Supreme Court set the stage for a regulatory chain reaction, including establishment of NAAQS for CO2 set below current atmospheric levels, which would effectively turn the CAA into a national economic suicide pact. 

This is not the only ”absurd result” that follows from the Court’s misreading of the Act in Mass. v. EPA. According to EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule, “literal” (i.e. lawful) application of the CAA to greenhouse gases would annually require 41,000 small firms to apply for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permits and 6.1 million firms to apply for Title V operating permits. In other words, EPA and its state counterparts would have to process 140 times as many PSD permits and 400 times as many Title V permits per year as they do now. The permitting programs would crash under their own weight, construction activity would grind to a screeching halt, and millions of firms would suddenly find themselves operating in legal limbo. A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be hard to imagine.

To avoid these problems, EPA’s Tailoring Rule proposes, over the next six years, to exempt firms emitting less than 25,000 tons per year (TPY) of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, even though the statute specifies that PSD and Title V shall apply to sources with potential to emit 250 TPY and 100 TPY of any regulated pollutant, respectively. The Tailoring Rule is actually an Amending Rule. To prevent Mass. v. EPA from turning the CAA into an economic wrecking ball, EPA proposes to play lawmaker and suspend provisions it doesn’t like, violating the separation of powers.

Even if the Tailoring Rule survives judicial challenge, which is doubtful, because it flouts clear statutory language, it would in no way lessen the threat of economy-crushing NAAQS regulation of CO2.

There is only one sensible course for policymakers to take: Overturn Mass. v. EPA. Congress should enact legislation, such as H.R. 391 introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), clarifying that CO2 is not subject to regulation under the CAA for climate change purposes.

← Previous Entries