EPA
More on the Bush-era greenhouse gas endangerment recommendation
The release of documents discussed in Holly’s post ends the story of one of the more ridiculous of the last Administration’s unceasing efforts to delay climate change regulation. Scientists and policymakers at EPA had concluded that greenhouse gases were a danger to the public and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. They sent an email, …
Continue reading “More on the Bush-era greenhouse gas endangerment recommendation”
CONTINUE READINGNew EPA Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Not Quite What it Seems
EPA is proposing to tailor the major source applicability thresholds for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and to set a PSD significance level for GHG emissions. This proposal is necessary because EPA expects soon to promulgate regulations …
Continue reading “New EPA Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Not Quite What it Seems”
CONTINUE READINGMountaintop removal review moves to next stage
EPA finished September with a flourish. In addition to proposing New Source Review rules for greenhouse gas emissions and pushing for TSCA reform, the agency took the next step toward a crack-down on mountaintop removal. On September 11, EPA announced preliminary plans to review all 79 pending permit applications. Today, after considering public comment, it …
Continue reading “Mountaintop removal review moves to next stage”
CONTINUE READINGThe new and improved EPA
Since I’ve suggested elsewhere on this blog that EPA might not yet have achieved full vertebrate status with respect to mountaintop removal mining, I should acknowledge some of the positive steps the agency has taken recently. Three examples: EPA and the Department of Transportation jointly proposed new fuel efficiency/greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and …
Continue reading “The new and improved EPA”
CONTINUE READINGEPA (indirectly) wins a turf war
Think the executive branch is one big happy family under the benevolent direction of (any) president? Think again. Power struggles over turf and substantive outcomes are frequent, and success in those struggles depends on a lot more than just who has the ear of the president at the moment. Sometimes it takes litigation, which has …
Continue reading “EPA (indirectly) wins a turf war”
CONTINUE READINGMountaintop removal update: EPA may grow a spine
EPA today announced that it would review 79 pending applications for Clean Water Act section 404 permits for surface coal mining projects in Appalachia (hat tip: Coal Tattoo). This review is good news, and an indication that EPA may be developing a backbone with respect to the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the region’s …
Continue reading “Mountaintop removal update: EPA may grow a spine”
CONTINUE READINGOne Step Backward, One Nano Step Forward. . . Maybe
The action on nanomaterials continued at the federal level in August, advancing forward in one area (tentatively) and faltering in another (perhaps temporarily). First, on August 4, the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) issued its 64th report. (The ITC is an independent advisory committee charged with identifying potentially toxic chemicals for which there is inadequate testing …
Continue reading “One Step Backward, One Nano Step Forward. . . Maybe”
CONTINUE READINGCan EPA kick-start climate legislation?
The San Francisco Chronicle this morning quotes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson as saying that her agency will soon finalize its greenhouse endangerment finding (notwithstanding the Chamber of Commerce’s absurd demand for an adjudicatory hearing). As the story says, “Supporters of climate change legislation are hoping the threat of EPA-mandated limits will spur congressional action.” Although …
Continue reading “Can EPA kick-start climate legislation?”
CONTINUE READINGMore on the Chamber of Commerce’s extraordinary demand for a “Scopes trial” on climate change
UPDATE: regarding the standard of judicial review of any on-the-record hearing (discussed below), see the comments: commenter Steve Taber disagrees with my initial analysis, and he may be right (though I don’t have time to look into it further today). ORIGINAL POST: Holly has written a thoughtful post discussing the meritlessness and cynicism of the …
CONTINUE READINGWould a CO2 “monkey trial” improve scientific integrity and transparency?
As reported in the L.A. Times and Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has petitioned EPA to hold a trial-type hearing before finalizing its proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. (We blogged about the proposed endangerment finding here.) The main argument in the petition is that a formal …
Continue reading “Would a CO2 “monkey trial” improve scientific integrity and transparency?”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
