Climate 411

Setting the Record Straight: EPA Has Ample Authority To Protect us from Carbon Pollution

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices)

By Megan Ceronsky, Tomas Carbonell and Peter Heisler.

Source: evanbrennan/flickr

Even though they account for 40 percent of U.S. emissions of harmful carbon pollution, fossil fuel-fired power plants are currently subject to no national limits on the amount of such pollution they emit. Drawing on the same Clean Air Act tools it has previously used to regulate other pollutants, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to put in place common-sense standards for carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.

Recently, a group of state attorneys general[1] issued a White Paper challenging EPA’s authority to establish minimum emission performance standards for carbon pollution from existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, and to issue rigorous standards for new power plants that are based on advanced technologies such as carbon capture and storage. This attack on EPA’s well-established authority to administer the Clean Air Act is legally unfounded and a misguided attempt to obstruct urgently-needed and long-delayed limits on carbon pollution from our nation’s largest source.


On June 25, 2013, President Obama called on EPA to exercise well-established authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to establish common-sense limits on carbon pollution from both new and existing power plants. A proposed rule that would implement the nation’s first limits on carbon pollution for new plants under Section 111(b) is due to be released for public comment by September 20th. At the same time, EPA has been reaching out to a diverse group of stakeholders—including state policy makers and energy regulators, industry, and the environmental community—to seek input as they begin to develop proposed emission guidelines for existing power plants under Section 111(d). These emission guidelines will set out the environmental performance criteria that state plans to implement Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants must meet to satisfy the Clean Air Act.

EPA’s authority to establish environmental performance criteria for state plans under Section 111(d) is firmly grounded in the statute and no longer open to legal attack.

The argument that Section 111(d) authorizes EPA to issue only procedural requirements for state plans to implement emission standards for existing pollution sources is not new; it revives an industry interpretation of the Act that EPA considered and rejected in 1975, when the Agency first undertook a rulemaking to implement Section 111(d). There, EPA carefully analyzed the language, purpose and legislative history of Section 111(d),[2] and concluded that all of these authorities supported its responsibility to ensure that states plans meet environmental performance targets.  The Agency has consistently adhered to this interpretation for almost 40 years while putting in place Section 111(d) emission guidelines for a number of major sources of harmful air pollution including municipal solid waste landfills, municipal waste combustors, and sulfuric acid plants.[3]  EPA’s authority to issue environmental performance requirements for state plans is no longer open to question or legal attack.[4]

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of Section 111(d) as providing for EPA to establish substantive criteria for state plans is firmly anchored in the statutory language and the structure of Section 111.  The White Paper’s assertion that States select the “best system of emission reduction” misreads the plain language of section 111(a)(1) of the statute, which specifically directs the EPA Administrator to identify the most effective (“best”) system of emission reduction that has been “adequately demonstrated,” considering cost, effects on energy, and other environmental effects.  The Act further provides that the standards of performance for existing sources must “reflect[] the degree of emission limitation achievable” under that best system.[5]

Under Section 111(d), EPA is directed to review state plans to determine whether or not the plans are “satisfactory.”  EPA’s assessment during this review is based on whether the state plans meet the statutory criteria of establishing a “standard for emissions” that “reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable” under the “best system of emission reduction” that “the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”[6]  The emission guidelines issued by EPA lay out the information States will need to establish plans and standards of performance that will satisfy the statutory criteria, identifying the “best system of emission reduction” and the emission reductions achievable through application of that system. Although states have the flexibility to use other systems, they must achieve equal or greater emission reductions as the “best” system would achieve.  Section 111(d) sets up a carefully balanced framework of cooperative federalism, in which EPA establishes emission guidelines and works with states to achieve emission reductions consistent with those guidelines.  As the Supreme Court recently explained, States issue Section 111(d) standards “in compliance with [EPA] guidelines and subject to federal oversight.”[7]

Section 111(d)’s direction that EPA put in place a process like that in Section 110 for the submittal and review of state plans likewise confirms EPA’s role in setting emission reduction performance requirements.  Under Section 110, States submit state implementation plans to achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards for specified pollutants.  The safe level of ambient pollution is an expert, science-based determination made by EPA, and the efficacy of state plans in achieving that safe level of air quality is the critical basis for EPA review and approval of state implementation plans.[8]  EPA’s long-standing role under Section 111(d) in establishing the environmental performance criteria for state plans parallels the structure of Section 110, consistent with the statutory cross-reference to that provision.  And under both of these provisions, States are granted considerable flexibility to determine how best to meet those criteria.[9]

EPA has broad flexibility in assessing systems of emission reduction, including cutting-edge technologies that Section 111 was designed to stimulate.

The White Paper asserts that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not yet widely deployed and that it therefore cannot be the “best system of emission reduction” for new coal-fired power plants.  But as the Senate committee that voted on Section 111 stated, Section 111 was designed to promote “constant improvement in techniques for preventing and controlling emissions from stationary sources,[10] and an emerging technology used as the basis for standards of performance need not “be in actual routine use somewhere.”[11]  In the 1970’s, Section 111 standards for sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants played a key role in driving the development and deployment of flue gas “scrubbers” — which was a novel technology installed at only three power plants at the time those standards were established.[12]  Projects such as Southern Company’s Plant Barry, Plant Daniel, and Kemper County facilities,[13] as well as AEP’s Mountaineer plant,[14]  have shown that CCS is a viable control technology in the power sector.  Indeed, the core technologies involved in CCS have been applied in other industries for decades.

Furthermore, contrary to the assertions of the White Paper, a “best system of emission reduction” for new power plants need not be identical to that for existing power plants – and EPA has flexibility to consider a variety of “systems,” not just technological end-of-pipe solutions, in crafting emission guidelines under section 111(d).   Although EPA was at one time limited to considering “technological” systems when setting standards for new sources, Congress has consistently used broad, flexible language in describing systems of emission reduction for existing sources.  It is consistent with this flexible language for EPA to consider cost-effective systems that reflect the unified nature of the electric grid by treating all fossil fuel fired power plants as an interconnected group, averaging emissions across plants, and recognizing changes in plant utilization that reduce emissions.  These strategies are not only valid “systems of emission reduction” under Section 111, they are also “adequately demonstrated” by the tremendous success that states and companies across the country have already shown in reducing carbon pollution through investing in low-carbon generation, harvesting demand-side energy efficiency, and utilizing lower-emitting fossil fuel-fired units.


We agree with the attorneys general that the States have a vital role in achieving emissions reductions under Section 111.  So does the Environmental Protection Agency.  Indeed, the leadership of both EPA and the states will be essential in cutting carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants, EPA in establishing protective emission reduction requirements for carbon pollution and the States in deploying innovative solutions to secure these emission reductions.  EPA’s fulfillment of its long-overdue statutory responsibilities will establish the foundation for a vibrant partnership between EPA and the states, consistent with the Clean Air Act’s time-tested model of cooperative federalism, to finally place limits on the carbon pollution emitted by power plants and support the transition to cleaner, safer power for our nation, our states and our communities.

[1] The group included the Attorneys General from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin and the Commissioner from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

[2] 40 Fed. Reg. 55,340, 53,342-44 (Nov. 17, 1975).

[3] See Final Guideline Document Availability, 42 Fed. Reg.  12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977) (phosphate fertilizer plants); Emission Guideline for Sulfuric Acid Mist, 42 Fed. Reg. 55,796 (Oct. 18, 1977) (sulfuric acid plants); Kraft Pulp Mills, Final Guideline Document, Notice of Availability, 44 Fed. Reg. 29,828 (May 22, 1979) (kraft pulp mills); Primary Aluminum Plants, Availability of Final Guideline Document, 45 Fed. Reg. 26,294 (Apr. 17, 1980) (primary aluminum reduction plants); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 61 Fed. Reg. 9,905 (Mar. 12, 1996) (municipal solid waste landfills);  Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Municipal Waste Combustors, 56 Fed. Reg. 5523 (Feb. 11, 1991) (Municipal Waste Combustors); 60 Fed. Reg. 65,387 (Dec. 19, 1995) (same); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, 62 Fed. Reg. 48,348 (Sept. 15, 1997) (Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators); Emission Guidelines for Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units, 65 Fed. Reg. 76,378 (Dec. 6, 2000); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 65 Fed. Reg. 75,338 (Dec. 1, 2000); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, 70 Fed. Reg. 74,870 (Dec. 16, 2005); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,372 (Mar. 21, 2011)

[4] See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b) (barring challenges to Clean Air Act rulemakings more than 60 days after promulgation).

[5] Section 111(d) further provides that States are allowed to consider “remaining useful life” when applying performance standards to particular sources, but delegates to EPA the authority for delineating its consideration.

[6] 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411(d), 7411(a)(1).

[7] Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537 (2011).

[8] 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(3).  Section 110 requires, inter alia, State plans to provide for “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of” National Ambient Air Quality Standards, § 7410(a)(1), the use of emissions monitoring equipment as prescribed by EPA, § 7410(a)(2)(F), and any air quality monitoring requirements prescribed by EPA, § 7410(a)(2)(k).

[9] Section 116 of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits the States from adopting emission standards less stringent than those established under Section 111, further reinforces EPA’s central role in establishing substantive standards under Section 111(d).

[10] S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 17 (1970).

[11] Id. at 16.  The D.C. Circuit has confirmed the appropriate role of section 111 standards in deploying innovative technologies on multiple occasions.  In Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 364 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the court stated: “[W]e believe EPA does have authority to hold the industry to a standard of improved design and operational advances, so long as there is substantial evidence that such improvements are feasible.”  In Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the court “reject[ed] the suggestion of the cement manufacturers that the [Clean Air] Act’s requirement that emission limitations be ‘adequately demonstrated’ necessarily implies that any cement plant now in existence be able to meet the proposed standards.”   Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has explained that as EPA fulfills its innovation-forcing mandate, the Agency should be forward-looking when determining what systems of emission reduction are available: “Section 111 looks toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at present.”[11]  To this end, EPA may make a reasonable “projection based on existing technology”[11] in identifying the “best system of emission reduction.”

[12] See Larry Parker & James E. McCarthy, Cong. Research Serv., R40585, Climate Change: Potential Regulation of Stationary Greenhouse Gas Sources Under the Clean Air Act 17-19 (2009) (noting Section 111 has been used to authorize control regimes that extended beyond the merely commercially available to those technologies that have only been demonstrated, and thus are considered by many to have been “technology-forcing.”).

[13] Southern Company Q2 Earnings Call (July 27, 2011), transcript available at

[14] American Electric Power Q2 2011 Earnings Call (July 29, 2011), transcript available at (AEP’s former CEO stated in this call that “carbon capture and storage is in fact a viable technology for the United States and quite honestly for the rest of the world going forward.”).

Posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed

An update on the greenhouse gas litigation…

The urgency of climate mitigation, the Supreme Court’s mandate, and the legal attacks:

According to the insurance company Munich Re, there have been 98 natural disasters in the United States the first six months of 2011 – approximately double the average of the 1990s.  Ten of those disasters have been catastrophes causing more than a billion dollars of damage, including two major river floods in the Upper Midwest and the Mississippi River, drought and wildfires in the Southwest, a blizzard that paralyzed the Midwest and Northeast, and Hurricane Irene which threatened the coastal cities of the East Coast and led to the devastating flooding in the Northeast.  More intense storms – including hurricanes – and more frequent and severe floods and droughts, are precisely the kind of impacts expected to threaten American communities as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations rise.  Although we cannot connect any individual hurricane or wildfire to climate change, we can look around and see what the future holds if we do not act to curb climate-destabilizing emissions.

In 2007, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and that EPA had a legal duty to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare.  The Supreme Court also held that under the Clean Air Act, the endangerment inquiry must be based solely on science, and not on policy considerations irrelevant to this “scientific judgment.”

In response to the Supreme Court’s mandate, and based on the massive edifice of research showing the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in causing global temperatures to rise and related climate impacts to occur, EPA took action under the Clean Air Act.  In 2009 EPA made the science-based finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare – the “Endangerment Finding.”  Once EPA has made an endangerment finding for an air pollutant emitted by motor vehicles, the Clean Air Act obligates EPA to establish vehicle emission standards.  On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized standards for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles.  The standards are projected to avoid 962 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent, cut gasoline consumption by 77 billion gallons, and save vehicle owners a net average of $3,000 over the life of the vehicle due to enhanced fuel economy.

The Endangerment Finding is under legal attack from some of the largest polluters in America.  The legal challenges to the Endangerment Finding, vehicle standards, and the other actions EPA has taken to control greenhouse gas emissions are currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C.


The basis for the GHG Endangerment Finding:

EPA’s Endangerment Finding is based on a rigorous review of climate change research – including assessments of climate research prepared by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  The creation of these “assessment reports” involved thousands of scientists, reviewing thousands of articles from peer-reviewed research journals.  Based on this massive body of research, EPA determined the following:

  • Human activities – fossil fuels burning and land use change – have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere, adding tremendous quantities of heat-trapping gases.  The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 38% since the Industrial Revolution; concentrations of methane have risen 149%.

This chart shows CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years, based upon analyzing air bubbles trapped in an Antarctic ice core. (U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States at 13 (2009))

  • Temperature records show that average global temperatures are rising – and scientists have concluded that the warming of the past 40 years has been driven by the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, “trapping” more and more radiation from the sun in Earth’s atmosphere.

This figure shows that climate models using only natural forces cannot replicate observed warming – in fact, they would predict cooling. Only models including anthropogenic greenhouse gases can duplicate the observed warming trend. (U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States at 20 (2009).)

  • The effects of this warming are already being observed, and are expected to intensify in the future as the climate continues to warm.  The U.S. Global Change Research Program describes the following climate change impacts as “likely,” having at least a two-thirds chance of afflicting Americans:  stronger hurricanes and storm surges; more intense rainfall events; declines in precipitation and runoff in the West; increased frequency and severity of both floods and droughts; increased risk of illness and death due to extreme heat and heat waves; increased air pollution in cities that causes respiratory distress; and increases in the prevalence of diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects.
  • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the severity of these impacts. Reducing emissions will also lower the risk of pushing the dynamic climate system past a “threshold” that would lead to dramatic, abrupt climate changes with potentially catastrophic impacts for human societies and natural systems.

Based on this body of research, EPA determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare.


The legal attacks and the Supreme Court’s directive:

In attacking the Endangerment Finding, the legal challenges make a wide variety of claims – including arguing that the areas of uncertainty in climate science should prevent EPA from finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare, that EPA was wrong to rely on the scientific assessments, and that EPA needed to consider various policy considerations before making the Endangerment Finding.

A little bit of history those attacking the Endangerment Finding seem to have forgotten:  As noted above, in 2007 the Supreme Court held that EPA had a duty to make a “scientific judgment,” and that “considerations that have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change” have no place in an endangerment analysis.  The Court further held that EPA could only decline to make a scientific judgment if the uncertainty “is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.”


States and environmental groups supporting EPA:

Last Friday, September 16th, sixteen States and a coalition of environmental groups – including EDF – filed a brief supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding.  The States supporting EPA’s science-based Endangerment Finding are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.  The brief and more information about the litigation are available here.

Oral argument for the Endangerment Finding challenge and the related cases will likely be scheduled early in 2012.  We will let you know of any developments as they occur.


Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News / Comments are closed