 But on the same day, the agency also quietly issued what it calls “proposed
clarification of air permitting rules” – strict new policies that, if adopted,
will likely make energy production more expensive where it’s not impossible.
The EPA’s highly technical air-permitting options for what it calls
“aggregation” received little public attention, thanks to the timely release of
the methane-emission cuts.
But in the energy industry, aggregation is causing aggravation.
“Effectively, it could make it extremely difficult for new oil and gas sources
to be accessed,” said Greg Bertelsen, director of energy and resources policy at
the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade organization that fears the
proposal will lead to higher energy costs that will make the manufacturing
sector less competitive.
In a fact sheet EPA sent to Watchdog.org, the agency described the proposed
clarifications as “part of a package of proposed rules that together will help
combat climate change, reduce air pollution that harms public health, and
clarify permitting requirements to allow safe, responsible oil and gas
development to continue.”
The proposals are important because they allow EPA to determine whether it
should put together — or aggregate — multiple emission sources in the oil and
gas sector. By doing so, the agency can assign stricter standards when it comes
to permitting and enforcement of the proposed methane rules.
EPA said it will seek “broad public feedback.”
One of the crucial elements to the aggregation debate will be defining the term
“adjacent.” That’s one of three factors used to determine whether oil and gas
equipment and activity such as drilling are subject to permitting requirements
under the federal government’s Clean Air Act.
EPA used to define “adjacent” with guidance from parties such as the industry.
But in its fact sheet, the agency said it was changing direction “because of
uncertainty over the definition of the term created by recent litigation, and
because of the recent increase in domestic oil and gas.”
Industry officials complain they will face more bureaucracy.
[to top of second column] |
“There are ways you can do this reporting and make regulations that
are far more straightforward,” said Wally Drangmeister, director of
communications at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association. “They’ve
chosen a highly complex, very-difficult-to-comply-with method that
may have impacts that are far greater than what was anticipated
before this rule came out.”
RELATED: Ad blitz in Colorado targets EPA ozone rules
In the fact sheet, EPA said it would prefer to use a simple
definition of “adjacent” to include equipment and activity located
at the same site or within one quarter-mile. The proposal would not
apply to offshore oil and gas operations.
The aggregation clarification proposal is part of several recent
moves by EPA and the Obama administration, including:
-Tuesday’s announcement to reduce methane emissions from oil and
natural gas facilities, something EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
described as “common sense measures” but industry groups called
“unnecessary, duplicative and highly costly,” pointing to declining
methane emissions from natural gas since 2005.
-Based on what EPA says is “a significantly expanded body of
scientific evidence,” the agency is proposing tougher ozone
pollution standards — from 75 parts per billion to 65 or 70 parts
per billion. Bertelsen told Watchdog.org that the aggregation
proposal is tied to the ozone rule that will be finalized no later
than Oct. 1. “When you lower the ozone standards you get a situation
where if you have an aggregation standard that groups many sources
together, you threaten to limit access to those energy resources,”
Bertelsen told Watchdog.org in a telephone interview.
-Earlier this month, President Obama released details on the Clean
Power Plan that insists power plants cut greenhouse gas emissions 32
percent by 2030 and calls on states to come up with their own,
individualized, emissions reduction targets, starting in 2022. The
plan marks the first federal measure to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions from the nation’s existing power plants.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
