EPA Regulations take effect

SocialFunds.com reported today that the EPA regulations on GHG emissions took effect yesterday, requiring new and upgraded power plants to install technology to reduce GHGs. Further, these plants have to obtain permits demonstrating that they’re best practices to minimize GHG emissions.

A 2007 Supreme Court decision relating to the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to establish rules requiring facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of GHGs/year to install this new technology and have a permit stating such. The EPA estimates over 400 new sources/modifications would be subject to review, and 14,000 large sources would need to obtain permits.

Despite the 2007 Supreme Court decision, the US Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging the authority of the EPA to regulate GHG emissions. In response to the lawsuit, Tim Smith, Senior Vice President of Walden Asset Management, sent letters in August 2010 to 35 companies that sit on the Chamber’s Board, noting that “the Chamber is obstructing progress as it speaks out and lobbies against positive policy solutions addressing climate change” (SocialFunds.com).

Following the November election, a coalition of 259 investors with more than $15 trillion in assets under management issued a statement calling for “clear, credible, and long-term policy frameworks that shift the risk-reward balance in favor of less carbon-intensive investment” (SocialFunds.com).

The EPA also announced last week its plan for GHG pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. These standards will be proposed in July 2011 (power plants) and December 2011 (refineries). Final standards will be issued in 2012.

To read the full article please click here.

What do you think about the regulations imposed by the EPA? Do you think they’re adequate, and do they have the authority to impose them? Do you think the investors have more power than the government on these issues? Discuss!

Senate Defeats Resolution to Regulate Emissions

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. In December 2009, the EPA announced an endangerment finding that outlined the six primary GHGs that threaten public health and welfare. In January of this year, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution that tried to prevent the EPA from regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.

On February 12 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a formal petition asking the court to review the EPA ruling, stating that it “will challenge EPA’s decision to trigger Clean Air Act regulation, based on lapses in EPA’s process in making that decision,” according to Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel at the Chamber (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2969.html).

Murkowski’s resolution finally came to a vote last week, where it was defeated by a vote of 53-47. At least eight Senators made statements saying the U.S. needs to reduce GHG emissions, according to Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. This defeats seems to pave the way for a vote on the American Power Act, which was introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman last month. They set the reduction target at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and most emissions allowances mandated in the bill will be free until 2019.

What do you think this defeat says about the mindset of Congress, in regards to climate change? Do you think the American Power Act has a chance to pass after this defeat? Tell us your thoughts!

To read the full article by Social Funds, please click here.