Two big things just happened in the carbon regulation process -

(1) The EPA released a rule noting its intent to conduct a nationwide inventory of greenhouse gas emitters of over 25,000 metric tons per year, and

(2) a document was leaked to the New York Times, showing that the endangerment finding on carbon dioxide had been fast tracked.

Why the endangerment finding is a big deal: Because it is a critical step in the nationwide regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

On the new reporting requirements: FYI, the EPA already tracked GHG emissions from coal-fired power plants. This proposed new rule just broadens the field of whom must report. It does not require reporting from facilities that emit less than 25,000 metric tons per year.

Basically, this is a national greenhouse gas inventory. Kansas businesses should be pretty well prepared, given that they and many other states are carrying out (or have completed) their own GHG inventory already. You can find the proposed KS draft version at http://www.ksclimatechange.us/Inventory_Forecast_Report.cfm

From Reuters:

EPA unveils first emissions reporting plan
Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:31pm EDT

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed a comprehensive U.S. system for reporting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, a step toward regulating and reducing these emissions.

The new plan would affect fossil fuel suppliers, automakers and companies that emit at least 25,000 metric tons of climate-warming greenhouse gases a year, the EPA said in a statement.

The U.S. government already has statistics on emissions from coal-fired power plants, which also emit carbon dioxide.

Some 13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85 percent to 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, would be covered under the proposal.

"Our efforts to confront climate change must be guided by the best possible information," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "...This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment -- all without placing an onerous burden on our nation's small businesses."

President Barack Obama has been vocal in his support for a market-based plan to limit carbon emissions to try to stem global warming. Members of Congress have already begun working on legislation to make this happen.

Gathering information on U.S. emissions is the first step in this direction, said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"This is an important foundation step toward regulating greenhouse gases and reducing them," Doniger said by telephone after meeting with EPA officials. "The first thing you have to know is where they're coming from and how much is coming from different industrial facilities and other sources around the United States."

CEMENT, IRON, STEEL AND ELECTRICITY

The U.S. Clean Air Act mandates collecting data on emissions from electric power plants, but a 2007 congressional move to require big industries and the transportation sector to report on how much carbon they emit was blocked by the Bush administration.

The EPA's plan envisions the new reporting requirements going into effect by next year, with the first annual report submitted to the environment agency in 2011 for the 2010 calendar year.

The rules would apply to companies that make fossil fuels, industrial chemicals, cars and engines, the agency said, along with large so-called direct emitters that send 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide or more each year into the atmosphere.

The agency said this threshold is roughly equivalent to the annual amount of greenhouse gases emitted by about 4,500 passenger vehicles.

"The vast majority of small businesses would not be required to report their emissions because their emissions fall well below the threshold," the EPA said.

Direct emissions sources that would be required to report their emissions include energy-intensive sectors like cement production, iron and steel production and electricity generation.

Complying with this reporting rule would cost the private sector $160 million for the first year, with annualized private sector costs estimated at $127 million in subsequent years, the agency said.

On the endangerment finding, from the NYTimes:

Leaked EPA document shows greenhouse gas endangerment finding on fast track
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN, Greenwire

The Obama administration is fast-tracking its response to the Supreme Court's 2007 climate decision with plans to issue a mid-April finding that global warming threatens both public health and welfare, according to an internal U.S. EPA document (pdf) obtained by Greenwire.

EPA has been working feverishly since January to complete a scientific review of whether greenhouse gas emissions are influencing everything from crop failures to more intense heat waves and more severe coastal storms.

That study is expected to wrap up internally by March 18, prompting a three-week, inter-agency review led by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the document shows. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson then intends to sign the endangerment finding April 16, followed by a 60-day public comment period and two public hearings before the document goes final.

Importantly, Jackson does not plan to propose immediate regulations aimed at controlling heat-trapping gases from cars, power plants and other key contributors to climate change. Instead, the EPA chief will hold back on new emission rules to sync with a final endangerment finding and other fast-moving environmental policies.

EPA spokesman Allyn Brooks-LaSure declined comment on the specifics of the 34-page PowerPoint presentation. "We're considering every option available," he said.

Environmental groups welcomed the sneak peek into the Obama administration's timeline for responding to a Supreme Court decision that actually dates back to the tail end of the Clinton administration.

"They're proceeding even faster than I had thought," said David Bookbinder, an attorney at the Sierra Club. "They're making all the right decisions."

Vickie Patton, a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, added, "There's an enormous amount of lost ground to reclaim, given that we had eight years of inaction, delay and denial."

But Jeff Holmstead, the head of EPA's air office under President George W. Bush, said he would wait to pass judgment until the Obama administration begins the rulemaking process.

"It's clever politically," Holmstead, now an industry attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani, said of Jackson's plan to focus first on just the endangerment finding.

"This will be a big splash that they're proposing this," Holmstead added. "But in terms of the real impact, what the regulations will look like, those will take a little longer to figure out."

Obama's EPA inherited the global warming review following an April 2007 Supreme Court decision that ordered the Bush administration to reconsider whether greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

EPA under Bush dedicated 70 staffers and spent about $5.3 million on outside government contracts to prepare its response, but the White House resisted finalizing any actions linked to the Supreme Court opinion and ultimately punted the issue to the Obama administration (Greenwire, Aug. 7, 2008).

Focus on public health

According to the internal EPA document, Jackson's staff appears intent on issuing an endangerment finding that covers both welfare and public health. That is important because the Bush administration had just focused on welfare and the links between greenhouse gases and visibility, weather, crop damage and soil.

To expand to public health, EPA plans to make connections between climate change and everything from temperatures to air quality and expanded ranges of vector-borne and tick-borne diseases.

The EPA document said dealing with public health and welfare had "solid legal defensibility." And agency staffers explain the possible political repercussions of avoiding public health. "Excluding public health would raise perception that the Agency is ignoring health risks associated with climate change," the document said.

Elsewhere, the EPA document also suggests grouping together the six primary greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single group. Doing this would provide a "common currency" for future regulations. That strategy also would follow other scientific bodies, including the Nobel Prize winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

On the science, EPA is also pledging to take into account the threats to poor communities from global warming, as well as "other more recent significant peer reviewed studies."

Many people have been focused on EPA completing the endangerment finding by April 2 -- the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court opinion. But Jackson herself insisted last month that such a target was too ambitious (E&ENews PM, Feb. 27).

"Somehow, I think in one interview I mentioned that I'm very mindful that we're approaching two years on April 2 and suddenly that's become carved in stone," she said. "I don't think that's helpful and probably was certainly not my intention in saying that. That being said, I also want people to know that it's very much something that people are waiting for this agency to speak on, one way or another."

Holmstead said he had doubts about the timeline.

"Whether they can get it out this quickly, it'll be interesting to see," he said. "Ordinarily, something this important would not be done in less than a month. And that's what their schedule appears to call for. I wouldn't be surprised if this slipped a little."