Court Denies Texas Request to Halt Greenhouse Gas Permitting

[sonias]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/environmental-problems-and-policies/court-denies-texas-request-halt-greenhouse-gas-per/">Texas Tribune 1/12/11
Court Denies Texas Request to Halt Greenhouse Gas Permitting
A federal court has denied Texas' request to halt a federal takeover of greenhouse gas regulations in the state.

Texas — which has refused to implement federal greenhouse gas rules that came into effect on Jan. 2 — had asked for a stay of Environmental Protection Agency plans to directly issue greenhouse gas permits to affected companies in the state.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's single-page decision was the third recent denial of stay to Texas on this matter, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, which applauded the move. (The court also dissolved an administrative stay that it had granted previously to allow more time for study.)

Texas still has other lawsuits pending that more broadly challenge the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

:woohoo::bounce::toast::woohoo::bounce::toast:

Praise the heavens and pass the clean air!!!

[northoftheborder]

1. Great news. but only one in many battles

[sonias]

2. True but this is the 3rd time we've won on this issue

Seems to me that Perry, Abbott et al are wasting taxpayer money fighting this one issue. They should just accept defeat on this one. The Feds will issue the permits.

Frankly I've heard that industry just wants it settled. They want certainty, and with TCEQ and Perry minions they are getting uncertainty. That costs them more money in the long run.

:shrug:

[onestepforward]

3. Yeah!!!

Great news!

:applause:

[white cloud]

4. Thanks

K&R

[sonias]

5. Court declines Texas' request to delay greenhouse gas rules

Dallas Morning News 1/13/11
Court declines Texas' request to delay greenhouse gas rules

(snip)
Federal appeals courts have previously denied two other Texas stay requests related to its lawsuits. Environmental groups cheered the latest ruling, saying it shows that Perry and Abbott have filed frivolous lawsuits that won't go anywhere.

"Texas has now struck out," David Doniger, the chief global warming lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote Wednesday on his blog.

"Maybe it's too much to ask, but perhaps now the state's leaders will focus on protecting both Texas companies, who need a way to get valid permits, and Texas citizens, who need safeguards from unchecked pollution," he said.

The ruling clears the way for the EPA to issue construction permits to major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as power plants and oil refineries. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, whose chairman is appointed by Perry, had refused to set up the program.

Three strikes you're out TCEQ!

:spank:

[sonias]

6. Texas Companies Navigate Environmental Agencies' Differences

Texas Tribune 1/13/11
Texas Companies Navigate Environmental Agencies' Differences
(snip)

Behind the scenes, however, there are signs that industry is trying to move past the stalemate. Big plants, unable to tolerate permitting limbo at the risk of some of their operations getting shut down, have been talking urgently with federal regulators about their permitting standards — and preparing to revamp their own systems in accordance with the EPA's demands. The EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have also held meetings, out of the spotlight, to discuss a way forward, although the TCEQ says that the differences remain stark.

Texas' air quality permit disputes with the EPA center on two main issues. The first, and longest-running, involves Texas' unusual system of permitting some plants for emissions of conventional air pollutants like benzene and nitrous oxides. Since the mid-1990s Texas has issued "flexible permits," which place an overall cap on a facility's pollution; the flex-permit holders include some of the state's biggest plants. The EPA has challenged the "flexible permits" as contrary to the federal Clean Air Act. The proper method, the agency says, would be to measure and cap emissions from multiple points within the plant, such as different smokestacks. This would protect neighborhoods on different sides of a large plant from suffering too much pollution. Environmental advocates also say that the "flexible permit" system allows companies to pollute more than they would under an EPA-sanctioned regime (charges the TCEQ rejects).

The second dispute involves greenhouse gas emissions. On Jan. 2, the EPA began regulating emissions of the heat-trapping gases for the first time. Big new plants around the country — or those planning a major expansion — must now seek permits for their greenhouse gas emissions and pledge to use the best technologies available to keep those emissions in check. Many states have objected to this federal policy, but Texas is the only state to have gone a step further and refuse to implement it.

:kick:

[sonias]

7. Texas agency a no-show at EPA hearing

Houston Chronicle 1/14/11
Texas agency a no-show at EPA hearing

DALLAS — For several hours Friday, it sounded as if all Texans are in favor of the EPA's plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the state.

That's because the opposition — the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, in particular — skipped the Environmental Protection Agency's hearing on the federal takeover of some permits for new power plants, refineries and other large industrial facilities.

The EPA seized control of the greenhouse gas permits last month because Texas is the only state that has refused to implement new nationwide rules for emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. Texas officials, arguing that the federal regulations will harm the state's economy, have brought a series of lawsuits to block them.

At the hearing in a hotel ballroom, Al Armendariz, the EPA's regional administrator for Texas and five adjacent states, said the federal agency prefers to let the state issue the permits, as it does for other air pollutants.

"This isn't a program that we want to implement for years," Armendariz said. "We want the state of Texas to take ownership of it, and we are ready to work with the TCEQ. However, at this time, those discussions have not begun."

:kick:

[sonias]

8. EPA says Dallas-Fort Worth a 'serious' violator of air-quality standards

Dallas Morning News 1/14/11
EPA says Dallas-Fort Worth a 'serious' violator of air-quality standards

The Dallas-Fort Worth area has long been among the most traffic-congested metro areas in America, and come Tuesday it will be recognized by the federal government as having some of the most polluted air as well.

The region will be considered under federal law a "serious" violator of air-quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a designation that will put it among the worst-offending metro areas in the country.

The only other serious nonattainment area is Ventura, Calif., though five other regions are even worse, and labeled either "severe" or "extreme." (The only such metro area not in California is Houston, considered a severe offender.)

Still, despite the bad-news moniker for North Texas, the real impact of the new label will probably be minimal.

:kick:

[sonias]

9. Greg Abbott's Hot Air

Texas Observer 1/18/11
Greg Abbott's Hot Air

Your elected officials at work...

“Congress did not authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. One of the key greenhouse gases the EPA is regulating is carbon dioxide. It is almost the height of insanity of bureaucracy to have the EPA regulating something that is emitted by all living things,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Well, maybe we should stop regulating shit too.

But in all seriousness, it's hard to believe that Abbott believes his own nonsense. The EPA is regulating carbon dioxide because the concentrations in the atmosphere are at dangerous levels. The agency is not proposing to regulate carbon dioxide from plants; it's looking to regulate CO2 from major industrial sources.

Plants are not the problem. Indeed, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. Oxygen, necessary (obviously) for human life, is a byproduct of photosynthesis. In turn, plants and animals oxidize these carbohydrates to unlock energy for growth and other life functions. A byproduct of this process, respiration, is carbon dioxide. But – and here's the key – these two fundamental cycles are in balance, at least during the stretch of time relevant to humankind.

Well, maybe we should stop regulating shit too.

:spray: :rofl: Good one Forrest Wilder!!!