Rand Paul Tries to Stop EPA’s Ozone Cap and Trade

September 15th, 2011 by Susan Kraemer

The Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky introduced S.J. Res 27 on September 8th, a resolution that would force EPA to scrap next January’s EPA implementation of cap and trade under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) entirely. Then on September 12th, Republican House member Stephen Fincher of Tennessee introduced H.R. 2891 in the House, that would delay implementation by a decade.

Can Republicans prevent the EPA implementation of cap and trade to cut ozone pollution?

CSAPR outlaws ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) indirectly, by making it illegal for it to drift from dirty power plants across state lines into adjoining states. Since air moves across all state lines, the CSAPR rule is an effective curb on coal plant pollution anywhere in the US.

The two states of Kentucky and Tennessee, where these two Republican congressmen hail from, are as dirty as it gets, being over 90% coal-powered. They are two of the 27 states with emission levels that threaten clean air in neighboring downwind states.

This affects the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain compliance with the fine particulate matter national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) set in 1997 and 2006.

The Obama administration recently raised the ire of environmentalists by not further tightening the current ozone NAAQ standards another 5 parts per billion. The 2006 levels are 75 ppb. But considering the amount of new EPA legislation he is asking Republicans to swallow – this is a cap and trade program, after all – that small concession may have been wise: lose the battle but win the war.

It is almost as if the blowup over the ozone rule was a smokescreen to give Republicans cover for their defeat over the CSAPR cap and trade. They could make approving noises over a few parts per billion of dirty air preserved, and enviros could get outraged, and nobody need mention the elephant in the room. Cap and trade.

By current law, in January of 2012, the EPA will begin to implement the new CSAPR cap and trade program. The EPA has for decades quietly administered a successful cap and trade program that has very effectively reduced the pollutants that caused acid rain in the ’80s. This should be no different.

So, can Republicans actually stop the EPA from implementing the new ozone reduction rule with cap and trade? In some rare good news for most of us, not a chance – at least for now.

Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions actually face a very high hurdle to becoming law. The president can (and this one would) simply veto the resolution. To override that veto would take 67 votes in the Senate, and there are fewer than 5 pro “dirty air” Democrats, and only 47 Republicans, in the Senate.

Susan Kraemer
(syndicate this article here)

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: EPA, Obama, ozone, Rand Paul

About the Author

Susan Kraemer writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times. Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.

Anonymous

The picture says it. Coal is only cheap because whole mountains are being blown up. This is a crime.
- Susan Kraemer
  
  And that the infrastructure is already built and paid for. Including the transcontinental railways (to bring the coal to the power stations across country) that we federally funded back in the 19th century when we believed in such investment.
  - Anonymous
    
    Good point–the land grants. Now all we have to do is sneak down to foxnews and reap the whirlwind!!
Anonymous

Absolutely none of this would be necesary if the EPA did not pick winners and losers at the direction of whoever the sitting President is. We, as citizens, should be able to sue these companies out of business for tresspassing on our property. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to take away my rights, nor does it allow for the Executive Branch to write legislation. I am sick and tired of the government overstepping their authority and taking away my rights. EPA bureaucrats are not subject to election so the only person that they have to answer to is the president. Since GE, a major player in the nuclear power industry worldwide, provided so much contribution to the current president’s campaign, I can just imagine who pushed this new un-Constitutional regulation through. This is un-American as we have no right to redress of grievences. We can’t vote these EPA bums out. Eliminate the EPA and get us back our rights that these crooks stole under the guise of protecting us, and we can solve all these problems ourselves.