Chemical Processing - April 2008 - (Page 19)

COMPLIANCE ADVISOR << This issue carries big stakes California’s denied greenhouse gas waiver has ripple effect across nation The U.S. environmenTal ProTecTion agency (EPA) on Febuary 29 denied California’s waiver request for its greenhouse gas (GHG) program for new motor vehicles (California Greenhouse – Gas Waiver Request, www.epa. gov/OMS/ca-waiver.htm). That decision has broad national implications which include the chemical industry. Denial brings disappointment Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 209(b) prohibits states from adopting emissions control standards for new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. Section 209(b)(1) requires that the EPA Administrator must waive the prohibition if a state determines that the standards will protect public health and welfare at least as well as applicable federal standards. No waiver will be granted, however, if the protectiveness deCalifornia Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said the decision was an “unprecedented act [that] denies California its lawful right to adopt tougher vehicle pollution standards that protect millions.” California challenged the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals in a lawsuit joined by other states, some of which had planned to adopt the California standards. California officials aren’t alone in their disappointment. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in February, issued a subpoena for materials from an EPA staff briefing on the waiver request. Reportedly, staff urged a different result. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the decision. Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee lashed out at Johnson on March 4, claiming his decision “looks to be plainly contradicted by both the Clean Air Act and by 40 years of agency policy.” What it means National implications are arising from the decision. First, EPA’s interpretation of criteria for granting a waiver is precedent-setting and could influence other requests. Sixteen states have asked EPA for authority to implement GHG emission standards. The final rule details how EPA construes each of the three criteria for denying a waiver request. Second, unless and until the U.S. Court of Appeals decides the case, it’s unlikely other pending waiver requests will be acted upon. It’s unclear whether EPA would act on a pending request and, even if it did, whether any state would invite the cost of litigating EPA’s almost certain denial of the waiver. EPA’s decision telegraphs significant messages for the chemical industry. EPA waivers for mobile sources won’t be forthcoming any time soon. Additionally, regulatory measures for stationary sources of carbon dioxide or other GHGs are even more unlikely. Finally, industry will need to rely upon stewardship, voluntary, and other less traditional measures in the near term to address growing pressures to lessen its carbon footprints. This issue clearly has big stakes in play on both sides of the controversy. CP By Lynn Bergeson, regulatory editor. She is managing director of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., a Washington, D.C.-based law firm that concentrates on chemical industry issues. Contact her at lbergeson@putman.net. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. This column is not intended to provide, nor should be construed as, legal advice. April 2008 • 19 EPA waivers for mobile sources won’t be forthcoming any time soon. termination is “arbitrary and capricious,” the state doesn’t need its own standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary” conditions, or the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures aren’t consistent with CAA Section 202(a) (federal motor vehicle emission standards). California submitted its request in 2005 to implement its 2002 motor vehicle emissions law, aimed at reducing GHG emissions by 25% beginning in 2009 model year automobiles and light trucks, and by 18% in sport utility vehicles. In 2007, EPA said that it would consider the request after the Supreme Court ruled on Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court decided in April 2007 — over EPA’s objections — that EPA has authority to regulate GHGs from new motor vehicles. In a much-anticipated decision, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on December 19, 2007, that EPA would deny the request. The letter notes that the “current waiver request for greenhouse gases . . . presents numerous issues that are distinguishable from all prior waiver requests. Unlike other air pollutants covered by previous waivers, greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature.” EPA concluded that California lacks a “need to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” www.chemicalprocessing.com http://www.epa.gov/OMS/ca-waiver.htm http://www.epa.gov/OMS/ca-waiver.htm http://www.chemicalprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Chemical Processing - April 2008

Chemical Processing - April 2008 Contents From the Editor ChemicalProcessing.com Field Notes In Process Energy Saver Compliance Advisor Is It a Tragedy or Comedy for Engineers? Better Understanding Boosts Mixer Scale-up Don't Err With Air Compressors Control Performance Supervision Enhances Revamp Process Puzzler Plant InSites Equipment & Services Product Spotlight/Classifieds Ad Index End Point

Chemical Processing - April 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.