Skip to main content

View Diary: IPCC report shows action on climate change is not spending, it's investing (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If carbon dioxide and CO2e remain regulated Clean (5+ / 0-)

    Air Act pollutants [surviving the most recent case before the Supreme Court which media idiots think is no big deal]....


    ...if President Obama's EPA published a rule that clearly established that payment of a per-ton emission fee constituted a non-numeric emission reduction 'work practice' as Best Available Control Technology (BACT)  and/or as a system of best emission reduction by the owner of a major stationary source under New Source Performance Standards.... would then be possible for President Obama's EPA to publish further emissions guidance in rule form requiring states to submit air pollution control plans featuring the establishment of an emissions fee of $25/ton or greater on greenhouse gas emissions with no approval required from Congress.  See the authority in this section of the Clean Air Act.

    See Section 7661a(b).  

    This authority is presently used to collect emission fees on CAA pollutants other than greenhouse gases.

    There are some potential complications to this, of course, but the underlying statutory authority for $25+ per ton emission fees for regulated CAA pollutants is there.

    The determination that paying an emissions fee is an emission control work practice as non-numeric emission limitation and thus should be rendered part of Clean Air Act control technology determinations and necessary Title V fee-based activity is the precipitating element that could make this work to get around certain provisions in Section 7661a(b).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site