CO2 and the Clean Air Act

by Holly Doremus

February 19, 2009
This item is cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet, "the Environment, Law and Policy Blog."
  
New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has granted the Sierra Club’s petition to reconsider a memorandum issued by outgoing Administrator Stephen Johnson in December.
 

Almost two years after the Supreme Court declared, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that CO2 is an “air pollutant” for purposes of the Clean Air Act, this announcement, paired with the decision to reconsider California’s request for permission to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars (see Rick’s post and the Federal Register notice), shows that the Obama administration is serious about applying the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases.

 

That’s a good thing. Although it would be awkward to develop and implement a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO2, as Michael Hanemann and I have explained, the technology-based and planning provisions of the Clean Air Act are both well suited to addressing the climate change problem and needed to induce innovation. Furthermore, robust application of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases will keep the pressure on Congress, which seems to be in no hurry to pass legislation specific to greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Johnson’s memo was issued in response to an Environmental Appeals Board decision finding that EPA had not adequately explained its failure to include “Best Available Control Technology” requirements for CO2 in a permit allowing expansion of a coal-fired power plant in Utah. The Clean Air Act’s “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” program requires that permits include control measures for any pollutant “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act. Johnson’s memo argued that CO2 is not a regulated pollutant because, although EPA has required some monitoring of CO2 emissions since 1993, it has never imposed any emission limits.

 

In her letter granting the petition for reconsideration, Jackson declined to stay application of the memorandum, but did point out that states (who are responsible for the majority of permits) are free to ignore it, and that no one should “assume that the memorandum is the final word” on permitting requirements.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Holly Doremus

Holly Doremus is James H. House and Hiram H. Hurd Professor of Environmental Regulation; Faculty Co-Director, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment; and Director, Environmental Law Program at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mass. v. EPA bears fruit for environmental petitioners

Doremus | Oct 23, 2013 | Environmental Policy

What’s holding up the Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance?

Doremus | May 20, 2013 | Environmental Policy

Jane Lubchenco's Legacy at NOAA

Doremus | Dec 14, 2012 | Good Government

What to Expect in the Logging Roads Case

Doremus | Nov 30, 2012 | Environmental Policy

Should We Revive an Extinct Galapagos Tortoise?

Doremus | Nov 29, 2012 | Environmental Policy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015