It may have been the images of smog over Los Angeles that really provided the impetus to write and pass the CCA. However, recent reports from the major western oil and gas producing areas show higher levels of air pollution than LA, shocking area residents. Air quality reports from Wyoming, New Mexico, and Colorado all indicate that rural areas, once noted for air quality, now suffer from some of the worst levels of pollution in the U.S. Because of the explosion of oil and gas drilling in the Powder River Basin, the San Juan Basin, and on the Roan Plateau, the amount of gases escaping from drill sites has burgeoned into a serious problem.
Residents are waking up to this fact. Garfield County, Colorado, just recently unveiled an air quality website for its residents.
The EPA is supposed to find these areas in non-attainment, and then the state authority must step in to reduce the pollution. If the state cannot regain attainment, EPA is permitted to take control. So far there appears to be no overall improvement. However, Salazar did withdraw BLM O&G leases near some National Parks in Utah. The existence of National Parks, in fact, gives the EPA additional authority as those air sheds mandate additional protections.
Look for more discussion on this topic in the future.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
How will the EPA tackle greenhouse gas emissions?
The New York Times' Room for Debate Section has some good (and more accurate than last time) commentary on possible directions the Obama administration can head in regulating GHGs. Most commentators agree that, generally, there are two solutions: 1) regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, or 2) work with Congress to create a new law.
The first option is attractive because the framework already exists. The detractors point out however, and I agree, that the CCA was developed to deal with smog - particulates floating in the air in urban areas. GHGs create different effects and come from different sources. A greater expanse of the economy would be affected and regulated, as John D. Graham points out.
Thus, the second option makes some sense, though it make take years to formulate. The law could be crafted so the EPA would have the proper tools to regulate GHG emissions in innovative ways.
There's an option which was not mentioned, however. Perhaps while the U.S. formulates it's own policy, the Obama administration can release the states from federalism issues and allow them to create pilot programs. They are the nation's laboratory of laws, after all (as pointed out in other posts). In fact, thanks to George W. Bush's inability to pass meaningful mercury federal regulation, over 20 states have begun to tackle that problem themselves, though in the shadow of threatened federalism litigation. The states might develop more innovative ideas than the federal government could, while at the same time expose any future roadblocks.
Finally, Robert Hahn and Peter Passell bring up the inherent global problem with any program to regulate GHG emissions. Even if the U.S. does formulate a coherent policy and regulatory program to reduce our own emissions, unless growing industrial nations such as China and India do the same, our effort is eviscerated on a global scale. They are correct that whatever our effort is, we have to create incentives to transfer clean technology to those nations. But I'd like to emphasis that we still have a moral obligation, as a world leader, to reduce our disproportionately large contribution to this problem. We must accept our role as that leader, to go when others might not.
The first option is attractive because the framework already exists. The detractors point out however, and I agree, that the CCA was developed to deal with smog - particulates floating in the air in urban areas. GHGs create different effects and come from different sources. A greater expanse of the economy would be affected and regulated, as John D. Graham points out.
Thus, the second option makes some sense, though it make take years to formulate. The law could be crafted so the EPA would have the proper tools to regulate GHG emissions in innovative ways.
There's an option which was not mentioned, however. Perhaps while the U.S. formulates it's own policy, the Obama administration can release the states from federalism issues and allow them to create pilot programs. They are the nation's laboratory of laws, after all (as pointed out in other posts). In fact, thanks to George W. Bush's inability to pass meaningful mercury federal regulation, over 20 states have begun to tackle that problem themselves, though in the shadow of threatened federalism litigation. The states might develop more innovative ideas than the federal government could, while at the same time expose any future roadblocks.
Finally, Robert Hahn and Peter Passell bring up the inherent global problem with any program to regulate GHG emissions. Even if the U.S. does formulate a coherent policy and regulatory program to reduce our own emissions, unless growing industrial nations such as China and India do the same, our effort is eviscerated on a global scale. They are correct that whatever our effort is, we have to create incentives to transfer clean technology to those nations. But I'd like to emphasis that we still have a moral obligation, as a world leader, to reduce our disproportionately large contribution to this problem. We must accept our role as that leader, to go when others might not.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Indeck Lawsuit, Continued
Indeck's complaint alleges several causes of actions, including that the Governor authorized executive branch agencies to create the system by which New York would administer the RGGI CO2 credits without proper legislative consent.
Two more interesting claims are: (1) that the Governor has, in fact, created a tax, which under established law would require legislative consent; and (2) that the CO2 credits are not personal or real property, but licenses. The agencies responsible, according to the complaint, only have jurisdiction over personal or real property.
The pollution-as-property idea, which is somewhat inherent in all cap-and-trade programs, has troubled environmentalists for some time. The extreme example I remember one troubled individual gave (though I can't remember who) involved a rich person and the Grand Canyon. If you could pay to pollute, then at some point a price would exist which would permit a rich person to fill up the Grand Canyon with his empty soda cans. In other words, the problem is philosophical and economic: Is there always an optimal price to pollute? And if so, does that not discount the non-economic values we place on unpolluted, natural places?
Two last points: Public-good economics have developed rapidly, to the point we can now better calculate the external costs of pollution, thus allowing us to monetarily value clean air. Secondly, Indeck claims "the right to emit" is a license, not a property right. I wonder if Indeck truly believes that, or if it's a litigation strategy. Regardless, it will be interesting what the court finds.
Two more interesting claims are: (1) that the Governor has, in fact, created a tax, which under established law would require legislative consent; and (2) that the CO2 credits are not personal or real property, but licenses. The agencies responsible, according to the complaint, only have jurisdiction over personal or real property.
The pollution-as-property idea, which is somewhat inherent in all cap-and-trade programs, has troubled environmentalists for some time. The extreme example I remember one troubled individual gave (though I can't remember who) involved a rich person and the Grand Canyon. If you could pay to pollute, then at some point a price would exist which would permit a rich person to fill up the Grand Canyon with his empty soda cans. In other words, the problem is philosophical and economic: Is there always an optimal price to pollute? And if so, does that not discount the non-economic values we place on unpolluted, natural places?
Two last points: Public-good economics have developed rapidly, to the point we can now better calculate the external costs of pollution, thus allowing us to monetarily value clean air. Secondly, Indeck claims "the right to emit" is a license, not a property right. I wonder if Indeck truly believes that, or if it's a litigation strategy. Regardless, it will be interesting what the court finds.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Legal Challenge to RGGI
The New York Times' Green blog reports that Indeck Energy, a power generating company, has filed a lawsuit in Saratoga County claiming that New York State impermissibly joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a CO2 emissions cap and trade program. More specifically, Indeck claims New York's executive branch illegally joined the RGGI by executive fiat, without the needed approval of the legislature. Because the RGGI levies a discriminatory tax on long term price contracts, legislative consent was required. More analysis will follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
