Category Archives: Environmental Protection Agency

EDF Goes Back To Court To Support Climate Pollution Reductions

By | Published: May 8, 2013

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Climate 411 blog.

Another high-profile clean air case played out yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A three-judge panel heard oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and some industry petitioners.

The lawsuit challenges EPA’s efforts to ensure smooth, uninterrupted permitting for large new industrial sources of climate pollution in Texas.

EDF was part of a coalition of clean air advocates that filed two briefs in the case. We filed in support of EPA, along with Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club.

At issue in the case are State Implementation Plans, or SIPs as they’re commonly known.

Here’s some background on the case

U.S. clean air laws require that large new industrial sources obtain construction permits providing for cost-effective modern solutions to mitigate climate pollution. The states are empowered to provide those permits – through their SIPs.

In 2010, EPA found that 13 states, including Texas, lacked the ability to carry out that requirement.

All those states except Texas worked with EPA to ensure permitting authority was in place. That allowed large new industrial sources in those states to obtain the needed construction permits.

In an August 2, 2010 letter to EPA, Texas wrote that it:

ha[d] neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.

That brings us to the lawsuits.

Here’s a look at what happened in court yesterday

Judges Judith Rogers, David Tatel, and Brett Kavanaugh heard oral arguments.

The judges closely questioned Texas and industry petitioners about the impact of the court’s recent decision in another case that we’ve written about.

In that challenge to the Endangerment Finding, before the same court, judges upheld EPA’s first-generation climate protections.  The decision in that case said that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was:

unambiguously correct

In light of that earlier ruling, EPA argued that its actions were necessary to ensure that sources in Texas could get permits.

That became one of the main points of discussion during oral arguments yesterday – as the judges pressed Texas and the industry petitioners to describe how EPA’s actions caused them any injury.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, GHGs | Leave a comment

Air Quality Report: Texas Has More Work To Do

By | Bio | Published: April 25, 2013

Source: American Lung Association

Texas climbed higher among the national “worst ozone” rankings list, but most of the nation continued on a long-term trend toward much healthier air, according to the Annual State of the Air Report released this week from the American Lung Association (ALA).

The report reviewed air pollution data compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for two of the most hazardous types of pollution: ozone and particle pollution.

Key National Findings:

  • More than 131 million people (42 percent of the U.S. population) live in counties that have unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution.
  • Los Angeles has cut one-third of its unhealthy ozone days since first the State of the Air report came out in 2000.
  • Eighteen cities had lower year-round levels of particle pollution, including 16 cities with their lowest levels recorded.

Key Texas Findings:

  • Unfortunately Houston-Baytown-Huntsville ranked 7th place among the most ozone-polluted cities in the country, and Dallas-Fort Worth made a huge leap to 8th place nationally from 13th place just two years ago. Harris County also failed with regard to annual particle pollution.
  • Fifteen Texas Counties received a grade of “F” for ozone pollution:
    • Harris County (67 orange level ozone days, 10 red)
    • Dallas County (34 orange level ozone days, 4 red)
    • Bexar County
    • Brazoria County
    • Collin County
    • Denton County
    • Galveston County
    • Gregg County
    • Hood County
    • Jefferson County
    • Johnson County
    • Montgomery County
    • Orange County
    • Rockwall County
    • Tarrant County
    • On a more positive note, Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville made two of the “cleanest U.S. cities” list for ozone and short-term particle pollution.
    • To find out if your Texas town is on the most polluted list, visit the ALA site.

Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Ozone, PM2.5 | Leave a comment

West Explosion: Not Enough Protections Or Not Enough Oversight?

By | Bio | Published: April 24, 2013

Source: www.thenation.com

There’s been a lot of debate following the West tragedy as to whether a lack of safety protections, lack of coordination and oversight among enforcement agencies, or some combination of both contributed to a system wide failure and 14 deaths with hundreds injured. As we have mentioned before, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with more than 400 deaths in 2011. And while not every accident can be prevented, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share.

In recent reports, some state officials have indicated that the state’s level of oversight for facilities like the one in West is adequate. It is difficult to understand how one could make such bold statements when the cause of the explosion has yet to be determined. Furthermore, some legislators have recommended this legislative session that state environmental laws be weakened. This is in addition to recent budget cuts at the state environmental agency; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) budget was recently cut by $305 million, which reduced the agency by 235 full-time employees. Perhaps what some of our officials really mean is that it is not a lack of oversight, but rather a lack of due diligence in enforcing the laws already on the books, laws designed to protect citizens from events like this one.

The Governor of Texas was quoted recently claiming that the state upholds the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But frankly that is not quite true. Acting alone, Texas recently refused to abide by laws on permitting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, the state sent an aggressive letter to EPA stating that “On behalf of the state of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”  EPA actually had to devise a federal implementation plan for greenhouse gas emissions, so that any new facilities built in the state of Texas could in fact work with a legal permit. Currently, facilities that need a greenhouse gas permit must apply to EPA rather than to TCEQ, even though it is Texas’ responsibility. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environment, Legislation, TCEQ | 1 Response

Explosion At Texas Plant Renews Concerns About State Environmental Agency

By | Bio | Published: April 18, 2013

Source: kxan.com

Unfortunately, last night’s explosion at West Fertilizer, a plant just north of Waco, Texas is just one more tragedy in a long list of facility disasters in the state of Texas. (See previous TXCAM posts here and here).

The same questions always arise – how could this accident have been prevented? Who is responsible? What are the long term health implications to those who have survived this catastrophe?

The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the lead state agency in charge of permitting facilities such as the West plant. We know that the agency investigated the facility in 2006, only after a concerned citizen called to report a strong smell of ammonia. One of the troubling items regarding this complaint is that the agency knew that the smell was ammonia and that it was coming from a fertilizer facility (a deadly omen) and still took 11 days to investigate the complaint. Once the agency did get to the facility, they recognized that the plant was storing large quantities of anhydrous ammonia without a permit.

It turns out that the facility, originally built in 1962, had been grandfathered into the permitting program – the facility was not required to have a permit until September 1, 2004, the date marking the end of the grandfathered permitting period. This means that two years went by where the facility was operating in violation of a permit and completely unnoticed by the state environmental agency.

Another troubling bit of information is that the agency gave the facility an “unclassifiable” rating for their compliance history. Compliance history, as described by the agency, entails both positive and negative factors related to the facility's environmental performance at a site over the past five years—for example, whether at this site this customer has:

  • received an enforcement order, court order, or criminal conviction; related to environmental violations in another state;
  • received a citation for a chronic excessive emissions event;
  • received a notice of violation from the TCEQ;
  • received one or more inspections from the TCEQ (and, if so, the results of those inspections)

Given that the facility had been operating without a permit for two years, one might expect that the facility would have been given an unsatisfactory rating for compliance. An unsatisfactory rating would have triggered additional scrutiny or strengthened permit requirements for the facility. But of course we know that’s not what happened.

While no one questions that accidents happen, even at facilities that do abide by the law, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share of tragedies. In fact, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with over 400 deaths in 2011. And when these tragedies happen at industrial facilities that handle large quantities of toxic and explosive materials, people die. Lives are forever changed.

The deaths in West, as well as all deaths from these kinds of tragedies, are senseless and preventable. In the name of all citizens in the state of Texas whose lives have ended in this tragic way, we implore the TCEQ to:

  • be more diligent with regard to monitoring of facilities – how many more facilities like West exist across the state?
  • hire more investigators since it is obvious that the current rate of facility inspections is woefully inadequate.
  • spend more time protecting the public than fighting against EPA and public health protections, using the saved funds instead for hiring more investigators.

Disclaimer: This video, filmed by a local citizen with his daughter, shows the plant as it explodes into a larger fire.  Not intended for sensitive audiences.

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Ozone Action Days: What Do They Really Mean

By | Published: April 8, 2013

This post was written by guest blogger Deanna Altenhoff, Executive Director of CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas.

We are all familiar with the term “Ozone Action Day” and typically associate it with a hot summer day.  But what does it really mean?  The CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas, the only non-partisan, public/private organization in Central Texas exclusively focused on air quality improvement, explains the significance of ozone pollution – and what you can do to make a difference. The CLEAN AIR Force Board of Directors consists of 32 executives from both the public and private sector, including Dr. Elena Craft of the Environmental Defense Fund, united in the common goal of finding workable solutions for improving our region’s air quality. The CLEAN AIR Force is not about waiting for the federal government to tell us what to do to clean up our air; we’re about taking early action now to keep air quality decisions at the local level.

The CLEAN AIR Force oversees a number of voluntary air quality programs that serve the public and help to reduce ozone levels in the Central Texas region. Two examples of those programs are the Clean Air Partners Program and the Clean School Bus Program.  We help implement and coordinate the air quality improvement efforts of local businesses, governments and organizations through our Clean Air Partners Program and we help retrofit and replace older polluting school buses with newer cleaner technologies and implement anti-idling policies through our Clean School Bus Program.  Educating citizens on what they can do to reduce their emissions is also a key part of our mission.

Central Texas is considered near-nonattainment for ground-level ozone under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The ozone standard is currently set at 75 parts per billion (ppb) and the Central Texas Design Value for 2012 was 74 ppb. Despite two new and lower ozone standards in the past 16 years and a doubling of the population in the last 22 years, Central Texas has been able to avoid nonattainment because of positive weather conditions and the many pro-active air quality efforts our region is making, but there are many challenges ahead.

EPA has announced they may lower the existing standard of 75 ppb to 60-70 ppb by the end of 2013. This means we must continue to work together as a region to significantly lower our ozone emissions or risk being designated as nonattainment, which would negatively impact both public health and the health of our economy.

So what’s so bad about ozone health-wise? Ozone is a form of oxygen that is formed through chemical reactions between natural and man-made emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.  Sources of VOCs and NOx include automobiles, boats, refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, solvents used in dry cleaners and paint shops, and wherever natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, and oil are combusted.

Ozone Season in Central Texas runs from April 1st to October 31st. Ozone pollution is mainly a daytime problem during summer months because warm temperatures are key to its formation. When temperatures are high, sunshine is strong, and winds are low, ozone can accumulate to unhealthy levels. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Clean school buses, Ozone | Leave a comment

New Thinking Is Critical To Better Manage Water And Electricity Resources In Texas

By | Published: March 28, 2013

Central Texas Workshop Discusses Opportunities For Resiliency During Extreme Weather Events

Last week, I attended a regional workshop that focused on adapting to extreme events, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Water Environment Research Foundation, the Water Research Foundation, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, and NOBLIS. This workshop was the sixth in a series organized around the country to determine what is needed to increase the resilience of water utilities and communities in the face of extreme weather events. While the focus was on water, time and again, electricity was brought into the conversation—the two are closely linked, and in Texas, a state facing shortages of both water and power, this will require some creative thinking on our part.

This workshop focused on Central Texas, in particular our drought. But as the two-day workshop went on, it became clear to the organizers when local water utilities and other stakeholders spoke, that drought was only one extreme event that Texas has had to deal with…and continues to deal with. We are a state of extremes—weather, politics, personalities—and we not only have drought to handle, but also hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, wildfires, and just generally scorching heat. One of the first speakers was John Nielson-Gammon, the State Climatologist based out of Texas A&M University. He confirmed that while these natural phenomena are not new to Texas, we are experiencing more intense weather events. Last year was one of the hottest in Texas since we started recording temperatures, and we are heading into the third year of a pretty gruesome drought. Not being prepared for extreme events to get worse seems pretty foolhardy.

During the workshop, we heard from a variety of speakers from around the Central Texas region, including from the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, the Lower Colorado River Authority, rice growers, the University of Texas, the high tech industry, and individuals from Austin, San Antonio, and Bastrop. These people are dealing first hand with the impacts of the extreme events we’ve had in the past few years. They are simultaneously trying to manage the current situation while planning for what the changing climate means in the coming years. It’s a difficult balancing act.

As an outsider to the planning process, I was asked to report on the proceedings of a meeting at the end and to give an overview of my impressions of the workshop. My impressions were as follows:

It is crucial to balance short-term preparedness with long-term resiliency, and neither should be sacrificed at the expense of the other. Planners in Central Texas know how to handle floods, fires, and drought, but the intensity of these natural phenomena will likely increase with the effects of climate change. It’s also essential to ensure that we are protecting our water and electricity needs for the long-term.

There is tension between urban and rural needs. This is not a new concept, and it is particularly tense with regards to water needs. Often the decisions about water and electric needs are made in cities, and city dwellers may think of rural needs only in the abstract. But protecting the quantity of water available for farmers and ranchers is how we feed our urban populations. Some cities in Central Texas are, out of necessity, dealing with this issue. In the wake of the wildfires in Bastrop, planners in that area are taking a closer look at how homes are constructed and how the urban/rural interface affects the ability to provide water for its population and prevent future wildfires. Controlled burns are one way that wildfires are prevented, but you can’t do controlled burns in a subdivision built into a forest. Thinking about developing our communities in more thoughtful ways is critical.

Adapting to our changing climate necessarily includes water, but it also goes beyond water. Emergency preparedness must include ensuring adequate water supplies and electricity. We can envision extreme events in Austin because we’ve had them in the past: fatal flooding, tornadoes, wildfires, drought, and heat waves. These extreme events will likely intensify as climate change advances, and we need to be comprehensive in our planning. We know that we’re facing potential electricity shortages within the next three years, and water supplies are already stressed. We also have to take into consideration whether our current infrastructure can maintain our growing population, especially in the face of future extreme events, and what those events mean in terms of health impacts. Many evacuees from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike were dehydrated and fell sick, and healthcare workers across the state responded heroically. We should anticipate more vulnerable populations in the wake of extreme events in the future. Read More »

Also posted in Climate change, Drought, Extreme weather, Texas Energy Crunch | Leave a comment

What More Sound Science Does The TCEQ Need?

By | Published: March 22, 2013

This blog post was written by Larry R. Soward, and it originally appeared on the Air Alliance Houston’s blog.

In our December 2012 article, “New Soot Standards Will Better Protect Public Health,” we wrote about the new, stricter national air quality standard for fine particulate matter adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Particulate matter (PM) is one of the six "criteria" pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment for which the EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards. PM that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller — called “fine particulate matter” or “PM2.5” and commonly known as “soot” — is of greatest concern because of its significant health effects on people with heart or lung diseases, children and older adults.

Because reductions in fine particle pollution have direct health benefits including decreased mortality rates, fewer incidents of heart attacks, strokes, and childhood asthma, the new PM 2.5 standard is predicted to have major economic benefits with comparatively low costs. The EPA estimates health benefits of the new standard to range from $4 billion to over $9 billion per year, while estimated costs of implementation range from $53 million to $350 million. While the EPA cannot consider costs in selecting a standard under the federal Clean Air Act, those costs are estimated as part of the careful analysis undertaken for all significant regulations.

Strongly supportive of this new, more health-protective standard is a landmark study recently announced at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and published in the American Heart Association journal. The study found a direct link between out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and levels of air pollution from PM and ozone. Conducted by Rice University researchers right here in Houston and based on 8 years of data collected from Houston's network of air quality monitors and more than 11,000 concurrent out-of-hospital cardiac arrests logged by Houston Emergency Medical Services, the study shows that the risk of cardiac arrest ratchets up significantly as the amount of air pollution increases.

Rice statisticians Katherine Ensor, a professor and chair of Rice's Department of Statistics, and Loren Raun, a research professor in the department, found that a daily average increase in fine particulate matter of 6 micrograms per day over two days raised the risk of cardiac arrest by 4.6 percent, with particular impact on those with pre-existing, but not necessarily cardiac-related, health conditions. The study also found that increases in ozone levels produced similar results, but in a compressed timeframe. Each increase of 20 parts per billion of ozone over one to three hours also increased the risk of cardiac arrest, reaching a peak of 4.4 percent. The risks were higher for men, African-Americans and people over age 65. Ensor and Raun noted that 55 percent of the cardiac arrest cases occurred during the summer months, the period of typically high ozone levels in Houston. Approximately 300,000 persons in the U.S. experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest each year, of which over 90 percent die. Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Ozone, Soot, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Good News For Clean Air: Gina McCarthy Nominated For Top EPA Post

By | Bio | Published: March 5, 2013

EDF staffers Marcia Aronoff, Mark MacLeod, and Elena Craft, join Gina McCarthy at a SmartWay press conference in South Carolina in 2011.

We were pleased to hear this week’s announcement by President Obama nominating Gina McCarthy as the next leader of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Click here to listen to the transcript of the President’s announcement of McCarthy’s nomination.

As EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, McCarthy led the development of historic national emission standards for power plant mercury and soot emissions. She also helped implement greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles.

EDF President Fred Krupp praised the nomination in Time magazine saying that McCarthy was “well known for listening and responding to the concerns of both environmental advocates and industry stakeholders, and for pursuing a regulatory approach that is flexible, reasonable and cost-effective.”

Similar sentiments were echoed in the Washington Post, which stated that McCarthy had “cultivated a strong working relationship with members of the business community, dampening much of the opposition her selection might otherwise have encountered.”

Likewise, Michael Bradley, executive director of The Clean Energy Group, said that McCarthy “has taken a measured approach to balancing energy and environmental issues while thoughtfully engaging with industry to develop sensible clean air policies.”

Gina is no stranger to Texas. She has been to the Houston region many times to share her messages supporting clean air. I have had the privilege of seeing first hand her dedication to science and to public health.

In 2009, Gina came to Houston to award the region $9 million worth of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act SmartWay Diesel Emissions Reduction Act funding to the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) to start a clean truck program in Houston. EDF, together with the Port of Houston Authority and HGAC partnered on the grant application for these SmartWay program funds. McCarthy also presented testimony regarding regulation of greenhouse gases at a field hearing in Houston held by the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in March of 2011.

In June 2011, McCarthy joined EDF, the Coalition for Responsible Transportation and the Port of Charleston in announcing support for a goods movement initiative called the EPA SmartWay Drayage Program, which builds partnerships between the retail industry, trucking, and port communities to help reduce harmful air emissions from port trucks.

I have no doubt that Texas air quality has the potential to improve under Gina McCarthy’s leadership. Her record clearly speaks for itself.  Please join us in telling your Senators that you support her nomination, clean air, and public health protection by filling out a quick form offered for your convenience.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Goods Movement, Houston | Leave a comment

A Tribute To EPA Leader Lisa Jackson

By | Bio | Published: January 29, 2013

Source: Wikipedia

Since 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has led the charge toward providing clean air protection, putting into place historic standards that will ultimately help save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma and heart attacks.

Last month, after Administrator Jackson announced that she would be leaving the Environmental Protection agency, President Barack Obama praised such actions made under her tenure:

Over the last four years, Lisa Jackson has shown an unwavering commitment to the health of our families and our children. Under her leadership, the EPA has taken sensible and important steps to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink, including implementing the first national standard for harmful mercury pollution, taking important action to combat climate change under the Clean Air Act, and playing a key role in establishing historic fuel economy standards that will save the average American family thousands of dollars at the pump, while also slashing carbon pollution.”

EDF President Fred Krupp echoed similar sentiments in a recent statement:

It has been an honor to work with Lisa Jackson. During her tenure as EPA Administrator, America has taken strides toward cleaner air, a smaller carbon footprint and a healthier environment . . . Most importantly, EPA helped set a path for us to begin to meaningfully fight climate change by completing the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, and then started us down the path towards addressing greenhouse gases by proposing carbon pollution standards for new power plants.”

Since 2010, Texas Clean Air Matters has covered many of these historic EPA successes, giving praise where genuinely due. In “Court Upholds Historic EPA Actions, Rebukes Texas' Lawsuits To Undermine Health Protections,” for example, we wrote that the ruling “underscores what we have long known — that EPA’s climate protections are firmly grounded in science and law and will help secure a healthier, more prosperous future for all Americans.” In “Court Upholds Sulfur Dioxide Standards” we hailed an appellate court decision affirming EPA’s standards, designed to protect American families from harmful, short-term sulfur dioxide (SO2) exposure.

Just last month we praised EPA in “Houston Exceeds Health Standards for Particulate Matter: More Work Ahead” for releasing new soot standards, a move that will help secure healthy air for millions of Americans, including those in Houston where existing soot levels already exceed the new limits.

As Administrator Jackson departs, we wish to thank her for the enormous strides made toward improving America’s air quality under her leadership, and to issue a call for the next administrator to earnestly continue the admirable legacy that she leaves.

We leave you with a short list of EPA’s official* clean air milestones made during Administrator Jackson’s tenure:

  • Finalizing Clean Air Standards for Industrial Boilers, Incinerators and Cement Kilns

In December 2012, EPA finalized changes in Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators, providing important public health protections. While providing flexibility to industry for implementation, the standards will avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths, prevent 5,100 heart attacks and avert 52,00 asthma attacks per year in 2015.

  • Setting New Health-Based Standards for Fine Particle Pollution

In December 2012, EPA established the annual health standard for fine particle pollution (PM2.5), including soot, at 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Fine particle pollution can penetrate deep into the lungs and has been linked to a wide range of health effects, including premature deaths, heart attacks and strokes as well as acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma among children. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, GHGs | Leave a comment

GHG Permitting Program Running Smoothly In Texas, Thanks To EPA

By | Bio | Published: January 22, 2013

This is the second of a two-part series on greenhouse gases and the part Texas plays.

(Source: NRDC)

Last month, we wrote about The Convention on Climate Change conference (COP18) and the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in Texas, a state whose GHG emissions are comparable to those from “131 railcars worth of burning coal.”

Indeed, such emissions increasingly have the potential to threaten our way of life as the climate continues to change. Just this month, a draft report from the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee says that evidence of climate change can already be seen around the world, including Texas. According to the report, there is “strong evidence to indicate that human influence on the climate has already roughly doubled the probability of extreme heat events like the record-breaking summer of 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma.”

Because it’s been well documented that Texas contributes a disproportionate share of the nation’s GHGs when compared to other states, we welcome the news that after one year, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) GHG federally implemented permit program is on its way to becoming a national model and a good starting place for Texas should the state ever regain management of the program.

Background

Under the federal Clean Air Act, states have the authority to regulate facilities that emit air pollution, including GHGs. In December 2010, after Texas refused to issue GHG permits to facilities in the state, EPA stepped in and created a federal implementation plan for GHG permits whereby facilities could apply to EPA directly for their GHG permits. Had EPA not stepped in to issue the permits, several new facilities across the state would have not been allowed to operate.

Unsurprisingly, industry leaders and even Texas officials balked at the move and filed lawsuits in retaliation. The biggest criticism was that such action would hurt business. However, since EPA began issuing GHG permits in 2011, most facilities have begun the process of reducing emissions to comply and business as usual continues.

Update

According to EPA staffers, the GHG permit program is well under way and shaping up to be a national model. The program includes agency transparency, public participation, scientific rigor and solid process. Since EPA took over the program, such elements have ensured the approval of numerous facility applications in Texas.

Another positive outcome of EPA’s management of the program has been the establishment of best emissions control technologies. EPA staffers say that a number of the approved permits could easily be considered some of the best model permits in the country. Sometimes, stronger controls are implemented than a company may have proposed on day one. Implementing this program has been a learning process and ultimately has the potential to benefit similar programs around the nation, as well as safeguarding public health through improved air quality.

The process hasn’t been perfect – the biggest issue so far has been that incomplete applications can delay the permit. EPA is working to educate applicants on the process, and delays have been reduced coming into the new year.

They said it couldn’t be done. When EPA first took over the program, critics predicted the move would shut down business. That didn’t happen. Permits are being issued. There haven’t been any closures. Facilities are up and running and bringing forward the best control technologies.

Bottom line: Companies are able to do the job they need to do while reducing harmful emissions. EPA stepped in to issue air permits when the state would not, enabling businesses to comply with federal regulations, and ultimately helping Texas to thrive economically while also doing its part to help combat climate change.

 

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, GHGs, Texas Permitting | Leave a comment