EPA goes head to head with Texas over emissions

EPA goes head to head with Texas over emissions Texas is making more noise about the threat of tougher emissions standards than a trampled rodeo clown.

The Lone Star state filed a petition in federal court this week, arguing the government has no right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The message is loud and clear: Don’t mess with big business in Texas, or you’ll have a fight on your hand.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry says the regulations will sacrifice jobs and hurt the energy industry. According to the EPA, Texas and other Region 6 states are responsible for 35 percent of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources. But that doesn’t mean much in Texas.

“The unelected bureaucrats at the EPA have effectively and unilaterally ended any honest debate on this vital issue,” Gov. Perry said. “A cap and tax system would force Texans to bear more than their share of negative effects, including an average increase in annual living costs of approximately $1,200 per household and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. I’m a firm believer that Washington’s one-size-fits all approaches don’t work, whether you’re talking energy policies, health care reform or economic development."

EPA’s new Region 6 Director, Dr. Al Armendez, who is credited with standing up to the powers at be in Texas, says Texas officials should be leading the charge on emissions standards.

“Instead, Texas officials are attempting to slow progress with unnecessary litigation. EPA is confident the endangerment finding, which was issued as a result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, will withstand legal challenge,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruling Armendez refers to was a 5-4 decision against the EPA, then run by the Bush administration. The ruling said the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by not regulating emissions. Now, three years later, Bush’s home state is still fighting the same battle.

Comments

I never understood the logic that increasing costs by "$1,200 per household " would necessarily result in the loss of jobs. The money just wouldn't disappear. Those costs (if true) would generate additional economic activity and create more jobs.

If you guys only knew what really is going on.  For example refineries and gasoline bulk loading racks that emmit emissions have achoice on how they need to monitor whatthey are emitting.  Choice ) is to install a CEMS (Contineous Emissions Monitoring System) which monitors your Total Hydro carbons or what ever other gas the EPA wants them to monitor and records all data 24/7.  A cost for a turn key system with certification testing just under $100K Each, or option 2) do a couple hours worth of test on your exhaust stack once a month to see, in a calculation if you are in excess emissions.  This costs is Less than $25k for the vapor watch system.....DUH HELLOOOOO most places are going to go with the cheapest way out which leads to this conclusion if they only have to monitor a few hours a month what about all the other operating hours in which they are not monitoring!!!!!!!!!!!  That is the loop hole in the system and that is what the EPA is trying to close.  I am not for government interference but this is something which protects all of us as far as air pollution and health safety.. Think about and voice your concern about abolishing option 2!!!!!

 

As responsible citizens we obediently pay our taxes and other types of payments too because it is a law legally implemented or imposed on us so that the state machinery can run smoothly but in actual practice something else is taking place. I always thought the concerned authorities were fair in achieving their objectives but what an unpleasant thing to know that the EPA is trying to cover a loop hole instead of finding a solution.

Hawthorne Real Estate