This article originally appeared in the May/June 2011 edition of The Environmental Forum (www.eli.org), and is reposted with permission.
In two legal challenges filed in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, a number of states and non-governmental organizations sought to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate new and existing power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
In recent months, the debate over U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of greenhouse gas emissions took on a heated tone across the country. At the federal level, the Senate voted down several amendments (detailed summaries available here) that would have restricted EPA’s ability to regulate dangerous greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. During the same week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would severely restrict EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, while taking the highly unusual step of overturning a scientific finding. Meanwhile, opponents of pollution controls continue to press for further debate and additional votes on bills that would restrict or eliminate EPA’s authority.
Throughout the debate, some of the loudest voices have argued that EPA’s actions would be harmful to industry and the economy. Looking closer, however, we find that these claims are largely inaccurate – many of them are exaggerations or, in some cases, outright misinformation. WRI analysts set the record straight.
WRI experts take closer look at some of the myths, inaccuracies, and misinformation surrounding Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases.
p>While the Senate recently defeated four bills or amendments that would restrict EPA’s authority, it r
In February 9th testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation presented on the economic implications of EPA regulation on greenhouse gases. Following the hearing, analysts from WRI and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy issued the following statement in response to Dr. Thorning’s testimony. WRI’s response highlights questionable assumptions in Dr. Thorning’s modeling and outlines the benefits of industrial sector energy efficiency improvements.
What’s Ahead for Power Plants & Industry? Using the Clean Air Act to Reduce GHGs, Building on Regional Programs
This working paper explores how states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities using the standards
of performance under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
WRI and Standard & Poor’s were unable to conduct a full assessment of credit quality per subsector under EPA regulation because of limited information on the EPA’s anticipated regulatory approach
GHG emissions compliance costs should be minimal for 10 of the 13 subsectors eligible for free emissions allowances in 2016, in WRI’s view.