The EPA Proposed Power Plant Regulations

December 1, 2014 deadline for comments!


After 5 years of ridiculous attacks on the EPA, we are very close to the Power Plant Rule under the Clean Air Act. Add your voice to the nearly 1,250,000 comments on the EPA Proposed Power Plant Regulations, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. If it just seems like too much to grasp, you can sign on to a comment form petition!

The EPA Power Plant Regulations
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards

Click on PROPOSED POWER PLANT REGULATIONS
That takes you to here:
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/regulatory-actions

First you see The Clean Power Plan - Supplemental Proposal – comments due 12/19/2014.

On October 28, 2014, the EPA issued a supplemental proposal to the Clean Power Plan to address carbon pollution from affected power plants in Indian Country and U.S. Territories
Learn more about the supplemental proposal: Comments due by Dec. 19, 2014
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-supplemental-proposal

Next is the Clean Power Plan - Proposed Rule – comments due 12/01/2014
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001

CLICK THE Clean Power Plan - Proposed Rule link: “On June 2, 2014, the EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants.”
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule

At the new page, there is a single paragraph:

“On June 2, 2014, EPA proposed a commonsense plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants. States, cities and businesses across the country are already taking action to address the risks of climate change. EPA's proposal builds on those actions and is flexible - reflecting that different states have a different mix of sources and opportunities, and reflecting the important role of states as full partners with the federal government in cutting pollution. This proposal will maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment now and for future generations.”

Now, click on the first link - Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule - June 2, 2014

That link will take you direct to the Federal Register, and the actual Proposed Rule. And while there is a clickable index, to access the Public Comment portal you have to scroll down.

Title and URL
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 06/18/2014.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating

Regulations.gov Docket Info

Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

Docket Name
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

Now, if you were to scroll down until you see in the right side pane, just above “Related/Supporting Materials” the following 4 lines:

Docket RIN
2060-AR33

and

Public Comments
20969 comments

This all really means absolutely nothing at this time. You must first type the correct Docket ID in the SEARCH box at the top of the page.

But click on that highlighted number. On the next page -

Here you'll have to type into the SEARCH bar at the middle left of the page the EPA Document Number, in this case: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

Below, under Document Type, be sure to select the PROPOSED RULE filter.

Then, to the right, there is a sorting filter with a drop down text box, and a dozen selections, choose: Document Type (A-Z). The page tables will reload automatically.

One highlighted document Title will appear, and the option to Comment Now!

The url at the top of the page will be:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001

I suggest reading the whole document pretty much. Look for parts you can understand.
Start with what you know. Make your comments in a word document. Copy and paste to the text box.

90 percent of the other links at the EPA site related to the Power Plant Rule will serve up documents that just repeat over and again the projected economic benefits, including jobs and health care costs. My favorite is the projection that “The proposal will put Americans to work making the U.S. electricity system less polluting and our homes and businesses more efficient, shrinking electricity bills by roughly 8 percent in 2030.”

Let's cut to the chase. The Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule - June 2, 2014 - EPA

“Nationwide, the Clean Power Plan will help cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels. Power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions.”

“The proposal will also cut pollution that leads to soot and smog by over 25 percent in 2030.
Americans will see billions of dollars in public health and climate benefits, now and for future generations.”

“The Clean Power Plan will lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.”

“States and businesses have already charted the path toward cleaner, more efficient power.”

“States, cities and businesses are already taking action. The Clean Power Plan puts states in the driver’s seat to a cleaner, more efficient power fleet of the future by giving them the flexibility to choose how to meet their goals.”

“With EPA’s flexible proposal, we can cut wasted energy, improve efficiency, and reduce pollution, while still having all the power we need to grow our economy and maintain our competitive edge.”

“The agency’s proposal is flexible, reflecting the different needs of different states.”

“The proposal will put Americans to work making the U.S. electricity system less polluting and our homes and businesses more efficient, shrinking electricity bills by roughly 8 percent in 2030. It will keep the United States, and more importantly our businesses, at the forefront of a global movement to produce and consume energy in a better, more sustainable way.”

And none of it has to actually occur before 2025 and supposedly the intent of the law will be in full force by 2030. THEN, everyone can breathe a little easier.

How did we get to this point in time?

In 2006, twelve states and several cities sued the EPA, seeking a court order to force them to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, on which the Bush administration was dragging its feet. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate “any air pollutant” that can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to begin determining whether or not greenhouse gases, namely carbon dioxide, were harmful to public health.

By April 2009: EPA Declared Greenhouse Gases A Threat To Public Health And Welfare

On April 17, 2009 the EPA issued a “proposed endangerment finding” and a related proposed “cause or contribute finding” regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (section dealing with “Emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines”). The EPA held a 60-day public comment period for these proposed findings, and received over 380,000 public comments.

“On December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two final findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: Endangerment Finding – The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Cause or Contribute Finding – The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenhouse_gas

The Endangerment Finding Full Tilt

“The endangerment finding released by the Environmental Protection Agency, which states that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are a threat to public health and welfare, sure seemed to rub some politicians the wrong way. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), a U.S. Senate hopeful, made an attempt to keep any funding allocated in an omnibus spending bill to the EPA from being spent on regulations based on the endangerment finding.”
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2009-december/epa-wins-first-round-over-endangerment-finding

Tiahrt's amendment to the $446.8 billion dollar spending bill was rejected in mid-December in a 5-9 vote. A similar unsuccessful assault on EPA regulation of global warming pollution was mounted in September by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Her amendment, which would have prevented the EPA for one year from spending any money allocated to them through an appropriations bill on regulating stationary sources of carbon pollution like power plants, didn't even get a vote.

These attempts to block funding for regulations, compared to the enthusiasm expressed by many at the announcement of the endangerment finding, illustrate a central issue: Using the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming pollution from cars, trucks, power plants, factories and other sources is a divisive issue. Moving forward, if and when EPA rolls out proposed regulations for these sources, it'll be interesting to see who lines up on which side of the argument.

It's already been 10 years, 2005 to June 2015, which is when the rule will take effect. And in another 10 or fifteen years the skies may clear somewhere. It won't be in the US, or China, or India, Indonesia... nope, Australia no, Malaysia or Thailand, nope, and certainly not Mozambique, Tanzania, or Chad, Nigeria, Angola, or the Middle East.

The first seven countries and respective registered private corporations or State owned corporations (and the inverse is also true – corporate owned states) are drilling, mining, damming, paving, laying rails, dredging inlets and building new ports or new export infrastructure at existing ports, investing in fishing fleets (30 new vessels from France recently), irrigation and plantations (for export of charcoal and carbon credits), coal coking facilities, aluminum mines and many rare metals, aluminum smelting plants, coal rail cars, coal fired plants, LNG facilities, and pipelines... offshore and onshore, continent to continent direct.

Oh, and while this is going on around the poor people who live in the countryside, in the news are Climate Investment Funds and Global Climate Fund investments which are bringing heating and electricity to Government offices and residential areas in the Capital cities of these developing countries. The goal is to create a greener marketplace. In some places, the goal is to create a new market. There's no sustainable self-sufficiency at the individual level. Everyone must pay, and keep paying.

The biggest numerical advantage to the climate funds in-country are the promised job numbers.

Sound familiar. Well, over there it goes something like this...

GIVES US YOUR LAND, AND GET A JOB

What happens in the US regarding real climate change legislation and Clean Air Act Rules Implementation has a major impact around the world. And we must protect our United States Of America, the values in our Constitution. Transnational green slime dictatorships and corporate states operate without borders. Malaysia, and China State owned companies own drilling rights from Alberta down through the Midwest, across Texas and out in the Gulf Of Mexico. They are partnered with the heavies in Canada and the US to bury pipelines and build export facilities.

Make comments, and vote.

Add your voice to the nearly 1,250,000 comments on the EPA Proposed Power Plant Regulations, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.

If it just seems like too much to grasp, you can sign on to a comments form petition!

Environmental Action
http://bit.ly/Un-FrackIt

Center for Biological Diversity
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2167/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16490


STEAM INJECTION IS LITERALLY GLOBAL WARMING
constant comments, and informative research links;
http://banslickwaterfracking.blogspot.com/

Tomas DiFiore