I saw this article from the Carbon Control News and thought that is would be of interest.... I have cut the article down a bit for ease of reading.
EPA is facing major difficulties meeting a slew of strict Clean Air Act deadlines for implementing first-time greenhouse gas (GHG) rules under the air law, including an insufficient workforce and budget limitations, which could stymie its ability to handle a mandate of issuing an estimated 22 air act GHG rules within two years.
The agency, after issuing its final finding that GHGs endanger human health and welfare, has a duty under the air act to issue a slew of rules to regulate GHG emissions from mobile and stationary sources. Pending legislation could also create a major climate control regime at EPA, and the agency also faces numerous petitions to regulate GHGs, including a request to establish a national ambient air quality standard for carbon dioxide (CO2).
But the agency has yet to meet its unions’ request for a new workforce analysis to determine whether it has the staffing and other resources to handle such a regulatory workload. EPA also faces a possible budget stagnation in fiscal year 2011 or even possible cuts, which could further hinder its ability to handle the extra work.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill passed by the House last summer would, if enacted, trigger at least 11 deadlines for EPA to issue various climate rules within one year of enactment, 11 more regulatory deadlines the next year, and other requirements.
EPA is already pursuing several climate rules under air act authority, including vehicle GHG rules and a “tailoring” rule that seeks to bar application of GHG requirements to small sources. The proposed ”tailoring” rule says that only permits for very large sources—those emitting over 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2—will need to include GHG limits. However, the air act establishes a strict 100/250 tpy permitting threshold for pollutants regulated under the air law.
By EPA’s own estimates, the rule will avoid requiring air act permits for over 6 million small sources, almost 4 million of which are single-family homes. A 250 tpy threshold would mean a 13,333 percent increase in PSD permits—40,000 against the 300 currently issued annually—and a 40,594 percent increase in Title V permits—6 million against the 15,000 emission sources in the current inventory, the agency estimates. EPA estimates the cost of issuing those permits to permitting authorities would be $16.5 billion, or over 1.5 times EPA’s entire fiscal year 2010 budget. The cost to the small sources of the permitting requirements would be more than $54 billion. “[W]ithout this tailoring rule, the administrative burdens would be immense, and they would immediately and completely overwhelm the permitting authorities,” the proposed rule states.
Another problem facing the agency is concerns that climate change rules could overwhelm EPA’s “ancient” Air Facility System (AFS) database that contains compliance and permit data for stationary sources regulated by the agency and states, requiring a massive increase in workload and resources that states say they would struggle to meet. EPA has planned to improve the system since at least 1998, when it issued a draft memorandum on “Re-Engineering AFS.” State officials say EPA has never been able to obtain the funds to replace the system. State officials say data elements within the AFS have been used for two or even three reporting purposes over the years. “There’s all kinds of junk” in the database, says a second state source.
Despite the burdens, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is resisting calls from agency unions for a major new workforce analysis to determine the staffing necessary to handle a GHG control regime. “EPA is working to address the need to assess workload to support the alignment of resources with priorities over time,” a spokeswoman said recently. The unions say EPA’s staffing levels cannot handle such a massive program and that some offices may need to be tripled in size. The concern among some EPA staff is that the agency is barely coping with its existing workload and a major new mandate—like climate controls—could all but cripple EPA’s agenda.
Alternatively, EPA could divest staffing and resources from other programs—such as the water, waste or other offices—in order to cope with a GHG regime. But that would undermine Jackson’s own priorities for the agency’s non-climate programs and would also draw industry concerns over permit backlogs and other problems in non-climate areas, though one industry source says that companies affected by GHG regulations will not push to accelerate permitting because delays also put off industry’s costs. “Take your time, EPA,” the source says.
