Suspension of regulations

I'll piggy back on this, can something be written on https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/ about the concern of suspending regulations?  At least piece of evidence of that folks (presumably more progressive) are concerned: https://twitter.com/billingspg/status/1067767610467643392

Hello James and Steven, This policy prevents additional regulations on covered CO2 emissions, as long as emission targets are being met. If emission targets are not met after 10 years, then EPA regulatory authority over these emissions would be restored. The carbon fee effectively reduces our usage of dirty fossil fuels and increases our usage of clean energy sources, while reducing emissions by 33% over the next 10 years. This policy limits regulations only on the emissions that are specifically covered by the carbon price. It would not remove regulatory authority over other emissions, where regulations are the most effective way to reduce them. The paragraph on https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/ summarizes this under the regulatory adjustment.  Thanks for your questions! Kindly, Adeline DeYoung CCL Legislative Assistant

It's worth noting that the moratorium on GHG regulations is narrow in that regulations can still be implemented for any other purpose. For example, zero-emissions vehicles can be mandated on the basis of air quality. The rollback doesn't touch CAFE standards or methane abatement rules. The moratorium only applies to Federal rules, not state or local rules, which can still be put in place With the aggressive ramp rate of the carbon fee, its effectiveness should far outstrip any regulatory approach in a few years. In fact, there are really no GHG regulations at all right now, including the Clean Power Plan, which is so weak that it looks like it will be exceeded without doing anything at all! Finally, Adeline's point about bringing back regulatory authority in 10 years if targets are not met is probably the strongest argument that this moratorium is an acceptable trade-off. My view is that it really gives up nothing of significance. 

Originally posted on old Community by: James Booth. Links may no longer be active

Noah, could you explain or elaborate on your comment that the suspension of EPA emissions from stationary sources covered by the tax are "largely irrelevant given the tax rate"? Second, the bill states that there is a moratorium on regulations

"(1) to limit the emission of any greenhouse gas because of any adverse impact on health or welfare other than its greenhouse gas effects;

“(2) in limiting emissions as described in paragraph (1), to consider the collateral benefits of limiting the emissions because of greenhouse gas effects;" Can we assume that CO2 is not affected by these paragraphs because it does not directly impact health or welfare aside from GHG effects, or are there collateral benefits as in (2) that come into play?  What are examples of the collateral benefits referred to in (2)? Third, aside from the Clean Power Plan, are there any other existing regulations that would be suspended?

Originally posted on old Community by: James Booth. Links may no longer be active

Correction to my last post: I should have said that the bill imposes NO moratorium on regulations

"(1) to limit the emission of any greenhouse gas because of any adverse impact on health or welfare other than its greenhouse gas effects;

“(2) in limiting emissions as described in paragraph (1), to consider the collateral benefits of limiting the emissions because of greenhouse gas effects;" Sorry for the error.

Originally posted on old Community. Links may no longer be active.

Hello all, the following post is from Ross Astoria who asked me to post it on his behalf: Thanks for your question – this is a reasonable concern. For all of us in the climate movement, we want to make sure it retains a robust set of tools for continuing to solve the climate crisis. Here’s some more specific feedback from my interpretation of the text to speak to your questions:             First, the language at Sec 8 of this legislation amends Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by adding a new section (Sec. 330) at the end of that title. This means that the regulatory adjustment language modifies only the Clean Air Act, so if a regulation, program, or policy is either a state program or authorized under a different federal statute, then this language does not impact it. For instance, you mentioned new construction standards (building codes) and rules restricting fossil fuel infrastructure. Building codes are an important part of mitigation and because they are passed and implemented by state legislation, they are not be affected by the Sec. 330 language. Hydrocarbon infrastructure (let’s say pipelines transporting crude) is not regulated directly by the CAA, so is not impacted by the Sec. 330 language. It depends upon the type of infrastructure, but the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Federal Power Act (and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), or other state policies might be the source of regulatory oversight of these types of projects. The regulatory adjustment language does not amend any of these statutes. (Also, the effectiveness of these statutes in achieving their environmental objective depends upon who is administering them and the statutory language of each places certain limits upon what might be achieved with them.)             Second, the prohibition on promulgating regulation which limit greenhouse emission, allows for “carve outs” – in particular, specific language added to §202, §211, §213, §231 can authorize EPA’s Clean Air Act authority to limit greenhouse gases based upon the greenhouse gas effect of those emissions. In particular, this legislation adds language to §202 allowing for such regulation, and §202 is the section which authorizes the EPA’s CAA “tailpipe” standards. The EPA promulgated those “tailpipe” standards in conjunction with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. CAFE standards are mandated by a different section of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. Chapter 329, “Automobile Fuel Economy”, to be precise) and this language does not amend that language. The Nation High Traffic Safety Administration administers CAFE standards, and retains that authority. Similarly, this legislation amends the CAA to allow the EPA Administer to regulate the greenhouse emissions from nonroad engines and nonroad vehicles (in §213) and emissions from aircraft (in §231). And the somewhat mysterious (perhaps) reference to §290(b)(1) on p. 45 preserves California’s power to issue its own fuel economy standards for vehicles.             Third, the regulatory adjustment language carefully parses out the effects of different pollutants between the “greenhouse gas effect” (defined at §9901(p), p. 8) and their “standard” impacts on health and welfare. The EPA may still regulate the “standard” impacts of a greenhouse gas. The EPA may also continue to regulate all “criteria” pollutants and toxic pollutants. This legislation only prohibits regulations which limit greenhouse gas emissions because of their greenhouse gas effects.             So, where does the regulatory adjustment language have some bite? Once a fossil fuel has been priced (a critical condition!), the Administrator is prohibited from enforcing “any rule limiting the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of that fossil.” Within the context of the Clean Air Act statutory language, this includes EPA regulations under §111(b) and §111(d). Both those sections apply to stationary sources – mostly natural gas and coal-fired power plants. Section 111(b) covers new stationary sources and §111(d) covers existing stationary sources. Under the Obama Presidency, the EPA issued New Source Performance Standards for stationary source under its §111(b) statutory authority and, subsequently, standards of performance for existing stationary sources under its §111(d) authority (called the “Clean Power Plan”). Those regulations, or any other which might be issued under §111(b) or §111(d) are prohibited under this language.             Is this okay? It would be objectionable if this legislation undermined an essential tool of greenhouse mitigation and here I think there are two things to note. First, subjecting an entity to different (and potentially redundant, or worse, conflicting policies) is poor policy design, and the guiding principle in determining which CAA regulations where redundant turned on the principle of no double jeopardy: given the objective of reducing the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, which EPA regulations subject entities to redundant requirements? The CPP’s mitigation obligations were state by state, and the EPA’s Integrating Planning Model showed that the CPP’s emission reduction schedules produced a “shadow” price on carbon of anywhere between $0 - $39. This legislation’s carbon price schedule exceeds the CPP’s “shadow” carbon price for almost all states within 1-2 years.             Second, modeling of the power sector shows that carbon pricing results in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions superior to those required by the CPP. For instance, a recent run of the Haiku model, from the good folks at Resources for the Future, predicts that a carbon price of $50 produces both substantial changes in the mix of generation on the grid by 2030 and emission reductions greater than the CPPs. Recall also, that current Administration is replacing the CPP, and the projected emission reductions from that plan negligible at best. As a result, this legislation produces a carbon price in excess of the CPP’s “shadow” price for most states very quickly and trustworthy models predict carbon pricing on par with its carbon price produce emission reductions greater than the CPP.             Also on this account, under this legislation states retain authority over power plants, so if performance standards for new or existing power plants are still needed, states can still legislate and state-level environmental protection agencies can still regulate. States may, for instance, enact renewable energy portfolios which set out a multi-year mitigation pathway for their state (in a way similar to the mitigation pathways proposed by the CPP for each state).             We don’t want to lose any policy tools and this legislation’s regulatory adjustment language keeps a full-stocked toolbox. Good luck everyone – we’re here to make sure you have everything you need to be successful, so don’t hesitate to keep directing questions to this forum. Also, if you want to learn more about the interaction of the Clean Air Act and Pigouvian pricing on carbon, you can check out a training I gave on this topic here.                                                                                     Cheers,                                                                                     Ross Ross Astoria is a Professor of Politics, Philosophy, and Law. He organizes CCL’s annual policy camp and published on carbon pricing, international law, and the utility sector.

Originally posted on old Community by: James Booth. Links may no longer be active

Thanks Ross for your detailed reply - very much appreciated.

Originally posted on old Community by: James Booth. Links may no longer be active

Yes, Ross. Thank you! This will come in very handy in reaching out to concerned parties, of which there are many in the health sector.   I don't see the link to the webinar, but I bet it was the CCU you gave earlier this year?   Thanks, again, Ross. You rock! (And Brett, yes this helps very much!)

Originally posted on old Community. Links may no longer be active.

Hi Elizabeth,  Looks like the link was accidentally left out! Here is the link Ross was referring to https://community.citizensclimatelobby.org/learn/carbon-fee-and-dividend/carbon-pricing-clean-air-act/. Happy holidays!

Thanks all, I've made sure to update the original link as well :) 

Hello to you all who have posted such thorough analyses of the suspension of regulation provisions re our bill. A) I assume this is relevant for HR763 as well?  and B)  Do the new insights we recently learned on regulations change any of this?  I'm thinking of the Ross Astoria post in particular.

Thank you.

Iona Lutey

Thanks Iona - I'll ask Ross to confirm any additional changes and in the mean time would refer you/others to Tony's recent update here: https://community.citizensclimate.org/discuss/viewtopic/1952/427?post_id=987#p987

That's super helpful.  Thanks, Brett.

It may be a little easier to argue that the suspension of regulations is very narrow if, instead of listing what would not be affected, to simply list what would be affected. In that regard, the only current regulations that appear to be subject to the suspension are (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new facilities, and (3) NSPS rules for upgraded facilities.
Translating this from Wonkish: the Clean Power Plan looks like it's dead anyway. The NSPS rules apply to things like new power plants or major industrial plants, which have to go through an extensive permitting process that currently includes GHG emissions. The suspension would only affect the GHG rules, but all of the other air and water pollution rules would remain in place. And the NSPS rules for upgraded facilities -- meaning those who are scaling up their output -- would be affected in the same way.
Also worth noting is that the Trump administration is currently trying to weaken the NSPS rules too! So the only rules that would be suspended are pretty much those that are not being enforced today anyway. 
Rick

Thanks so much for that concise answer, Rick!  

Re NSPS rules: You state  "The suspension would only affect the GHG rules, but all of the other air and water pollution rules would remain in place."  Can you give me an example of GHG rules that would now be removed from the permitting process?  And, dare I ask, is there a way to compare the net effect of pausing those rules (as they stand now) with the emissions reductions we would achieve from HR763?  Just tell me if that is an unfair question. 

Iona
 

I found the discussion in the following CCL document very helpful in understanding the impact of HR 763's suspension of the Clean Power Plan:
https://community.citizensclimate.org/resources/item/19/367
In particular, see the response to the question "I don’t like the notion of a bill that limits regulations. Why should I support this?", and, in particular, footnote 1, which states:

​The ​Clean Power Plan (CPP) goal​ was to cut power sector emissions by 32%, compared to 2005 emissions, by 2030. U.S. power sector CO2 emissions​ in 2005 totaled 2401 Gt, so 32% reduction would result in 2401 x 0.68 = 1633 Gt. Moving ahead to 2016, power sector CO2 emissions that year were 1809 Gt, so compared to 2016, the 1633 Gt CPP goal would be a reduction of 176 Gt. Total U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were 6511 Gt, so cutting 176 Gt from 2016 emissions would be a cut of 2.7% from that total. The H.R. 763 emissions schedule specifies that 2030 covered emissions should be 30% lower than 2016 emissions. H.R. 763 covers 5445 Gt CO2e (the portion from fluorinated gases and fossil fuel combustion). Cutting 30% from 5445 would be 5445 x 0.3 = 1634 Gt, which is 9.3 times as much as the 176 Gt cut that would meet the CPP goal.

Thanks for those great numbers, Robert!
Iona