Over two years ago, on April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), directed the EPA Administrator to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. Finally, after two years and much hand-wringing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued her proposed finding that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride may endanger public health or welfare.
In actuality, the EPA proposed two findings: (1) an endangerment finding, that the six GHG endanger public health and welfare; and (2) a “cause and contribute finding” that the combined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence add to the threat of climate change.
EPA characterizes its proposed Endangerment Finding as follows:
This is not a close case in which the magnitude of the harm is small and the probability great, or the magnitude large and the probability small. In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA, however, was careful to walk a fine line between complying with the dictates of Massachusetts and actually regulating GHG. While this proposed rule does not actually regulate GHG, it does propose defining greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. EPA proposes defining the six GHG as a single pollutant, rather the defining them individually – similar to the approach the EPA took with ozone years ago. EPA explained its decision as follows:
It is the Administrator’s judgment that this collective approach for the contribution test is most consistent with the treatment of greenhouse gases by those studying climate change science and policy, where it has become common practice to evaluate greenhouse gases on a collective CO2-equivalent basis
Although the EPA usually issues emission control standards concurrently with an endangerment finding, in this case, the EPA indicated that the emission standards would be issued “several months from now.” This bifurcation of the normal process has been taken by observers to mean that these rules are meant to goad the Congress into action, rather than a serious proposal that EPA regulate GHG. Indeed, the EPA’s Press Release on the Endangerment finding specifically stated that “[n]otwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.”
And Congressional leadership seems ready to oblige. Rep. Edward Markey (D.Mass.), Chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, had this to say about the EPA’s Endangerment Ruling:
This decision is a game-changer. It is now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation. EPA will have to act if Congress does not act.
Markey and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) to set up a system for reducing emissions from all sources and creating a financial incentive for companies to stay within emission limits. See, “U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Releases Draft Climate Change Act,” posted April 2, 2009. Waxman wants to pass the bill from his Energy and Commerce Committee by the end of May, but its fate is uncertain in the Senate.
Aircraft and other aviation sources seem to have received a pass with respect to these regulations:
EPA has received a petition under the Act to consider the regulation of 64 aircraft emissions (water vapor and NOx) that lead to formation of contrails (in addition to aircraft greenhouse gas emissions), and EPA plans to evaluate this issue further. At this time, the Administrator is not proposing to include aircraft-related contrails or emissions that are not greenhouse gases within the definition of air pollution for purposes of section 202(a).
This does not mean, however, that once the emission control standards are promulgated (if they are promulgated), aviation sources will not also be regulated. Likewise, the Waxman-Markey bill may affect aviation sources as well.
A 60-day comment period will follow publication of the proposed rule in Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. There will be public hearings in Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington in May, 2009. Click on Continue Reading at the bottom of this post for details about written comments and public hearings.
Previous posts on this subject:
- “U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Releases Draft Climate Change Act,” posted April 2, 2009.
- “EPA Proposes National Reporting Rules for Greenhouse Gases,” posted March 10, 2009.
- “U.S. House Subcommittee Hears Testimony on Problems of Carbon Offsets in Climate Change Legislation,” posted March 5, 2009.
- “EPA Administrator Issues Memorandum Prohibiting Controls on Carbon Dioxide in Clean Air Act Permits,” posted December 21, 2008.
- “GAO Issues ‘Expert Opinion on the Economics of the Policy Options to Address Climate Change,’” posted June 9, 2008.
- “Senate ‘Debates’ Global Warming Bill,” posted June 9, 2008.
- “EPA Administrator States that Greenhouse Gas Regulation May Not Be Issued Until After January, 2009,” posted May 20, 2008.
- “States File Lawsuit to Enforce Ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA,” posted April 3, 2008