Hydrocarbon Processing Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Email a friend
  • Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.



US manufacturers blast new EPA climate rules

05.13.2014  |  HP News Services

US refiners are taking aim at a proposal from the EPA to limit greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants, saying they worry the rule may then set a dangerous precedent.

Keywords:

By MARK DRAJEM
Bloomberg

Refiners, paper makers and steel producers have taken aim at a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gases from power plants, saying they worry it sets a dangerous precedent for them.

Lobbying groups told the EPA in comments released this week that the agency is going beyond what’s feasible with current tools in requiring new coal plants to capture carbon gases. Once EPA finishes rules for power plants, the top source of carbon dioxide emissions tied to climate change, it has pledged to move to other major emitters.

“EPA must fundamentally rethink and rework this proposal,” Ross Eisenberg, vice president for the National Association of Manufacturers in Washington, said on a conference call. “This rule would pose a bad precedent for other industries.”

The group, representing companies such as General Electric (GE) and Caterpillar, is spearheading a drive by 140 organizations, including those for makers of chemicals, steel, bricks and fertilizer, in lobbying against the EPA’s climate effort.

The administration of President Barack Obama is pressing ahead with efforts to limit greenhouse gases blamed by scientists for global warming. The heart of that effort are regulations from the EPA on power plants. In September the agency proposed rules for new power plants, on which NAM filed comments. EPA is set to issue the more far-reaching rules for existing power plants next month.

Global Warming

While restrictions on emissions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants have been in place for years, these will be the first for gases most blamed for climate change.

Under the EPA’s proposal, new coal-fired plants would cut emissions to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide for each megawatt hour of power they produce, a standard that can’t be met without carbon-capture technology. Most gas plants would need to meet a 1,000 pound standard, which won’t require exceptional technology.

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Earthjustice have organized the submissions of thousands of petitions in support of the EPA proposal, saying the action is needed to start addressing the risk of rising seas, stronger droughts and melting glaciers. They say the technology is already being put to use, and will help preserve a place for coal in the future.

Coal Producers

Coal producers and representatives of utilities such as Southern Co. oppose the EPA’s proposal, saying the technology to capture the carbon isn’t technically feasible and ready for the market, and the rules aren’t in place to govern the storage of the gas once its captured.

Lobbyists from other industries are offering a slightly different twist on this argument: If EPA is willing to go this far on coal plants, what will it do for those its regulates next?

“We provide these comments in part to identify the myriad errors made in the proposed rule so that EPA does not repeat those errors,” the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a Washington group that represents companies such as Tesoro and Valero, told the agency. Refiners may be next in line.

The American Farm Bureau, paper maker Domtar and Waste Management made similar arguments in their comments.

“The ultimate impacts of these regulations could extend to the rest of the industrial economy, from refining to manufacturing and potentially agriculture,” the American Farm Bureau Federation told the agency.



Have your say
  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
    All fields are compulsory.

Bob Eck
05.14.2014

People talk as if man made global warming/climate change is a fact. There are many scientists and meterologists that do not agree with this conclusion.

We need to get back to facts, not fear. The ice caps are growing, not shrinking. I have been to Florida and that State is at sea level. It is not flooding out. Let's get back to common sense, not an attempt to control with fear.

Steve Crowley
05.14.2014

The EPA should be dissolved along with the current Administration.

Chris Booth
05.14.2014

The vested interests are biting back. Let him who says a thing cannot be done, get out of the way of he who is doing that thing.

Yes of course the technology is immature, but the way to develop is to try. There is a lesson in the Manhattan Project

Terry Dan Grissom
05.14.2014

The EPA terrorists are simply out to destroy American Business, refer to the power grab in mining as an example. Like the BLM, EPA has become a collection of Brown Shirts which We The People need to be armed against. The EPA is so far past their mandate that it is clear that Congress has no control over them what so ever. We The People need to decide our fate and relegate the EPA to a suitable subservient position or eliminate it all together in its present form. At a minimum the IG needs to put about a dozen EPA Employees under the jail as they are felons.

Related articles

FEATURED EVENT



Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!

Boxscore Database

A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry

Poll

Should the US allow exports of crude oil? (At present, US companies can export refined products derived from crude but not the raw crude itself.)


69%

31%




View previous results

Popular Searches

Please read our Term and Conditions and Privacy Policy before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
© 2014 Hydrocarbon Processing. © 2014 Gulf Publishing Company.