EPA Seeks to Narrow Scope of Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In case there wasn’t already enough news on the greenhouse gas regulation front today, the Environmental Protection Agency also released new proposed rules that will move the agency another step closer to regulating emissions.

Under the proposed rule, only sources emitting more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases each year would be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That would cover big emitters like coal-fired power plants, large manufacturers, and refineries. The so-called “tailoring rule” would exempt smaller sources like buildings, small farms, hospitals and schools.

The rule is significant, as it brings the EPA another step closer to regulating emissions. Following up on the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act, the EPA determined in April that greenhouse gas emissions do indeed pose a threat to public health and welfare. The agency is expected to finalize that decision any day now, which will trigger regulation under the act.

But the law was intended to govern pollutants like lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, setting limits at 100 to 250 tons per year. A threshold that low for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would be difficult to employ. Thus, the need for this tailoring rule, which will pave the way for EPA regulation of major emitters.

 “By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in a statement.

Of course, regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act still has plenty of critics. Jackson has said repeatedly that regulating under the act is not ideal, and that the administration would prefer that Congress pass a new law governing greenhouse gases specifically. Most in the energy and environmental sector would agree.

Jeff Holmstead, the EPA air administrator under George W. Bush who now heads up environmental policy at a major DC lobbying shop, called the proposed rule a “valiant effort by EPA to fit a square peg into a round hole” in an email to reporters.

“The Clean Air Act specifically says that any facility that emits more than 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant is a ‘major source’ that is covered by various regulatory requirements,” said Holmstead. “Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA’s legal justification for today’s proposal.”

There will be a 60 day comment period on the new rule. What’s important to note is that the new rule does not actually regulate greenhouse gases. It’s more of a guideline for how regulations might progress—and a reminder to Congress that the EPA is getting down to the business of regulating while they continue to dawdle on new legislation.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate