Green push could destroy farms, firms, schools, warns Western

Colorado Springs Business Journal, Jun 27, 2008 by Amy Gillentine

Climate change regulations could force 750,000 farms, businesses and schools into bankruptcy.

At least that's what the Western Business Roundtable, headquartered in Lakewood, wrote in a letter sent to Stephen Johnson, administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.

As the agency considers greenhouse gas regulations based on the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the West's business leaders are urging caution -- and asking the agency not to act until Congress provides guidelines to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The organization, a coalition of engineering, construction, manufacturing, refining, mining, retail sales and oil exploration companies, said it is concerned that the EPA might choose to include carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant under the Clean Air Act because of the Supreme Court decision. That would allow the EPA to treat carbon dioxide emissions the same way it treats carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and other chemicals.

"Clearly, any federal mandate -- whether regulatory or statutory in origin -- aimed at regulating domestic CO2 emissions would have tremendous macro-economic, consumer pocketbook, environmental and national security implications for the West and the nation," said Jim Sims, CEO of the roundtable.

While the Supreme Court decision focused on emissions from cars, emissions from stationary sources -- electric power plants, schools, hospitals, farms -- also could be targeted, Sims said.

"Facilities with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of CO2 would be immediately required to obtain a pre-construction permit ... and to install 'best available control technology' to control emissions," he said.

Buildings already emitting that amount of CO2 could be forced to close -- or forced to purchase expensive equipment to control emissions.

"Hundreds of thousands of facilities in the U.S. would meet the threshold," he said. "They would immediately fall under the EPA's regulatory hammer. Enormous costs would be incurred by individual sources, states and the federal government to transact and administer the program. Thousands of determinations would be required. Permitting authorities may take up to a year to respond to inquiries."

Sims predicts "immediate chaos, lawsuits, construction cancellations and the inability of some schools and hospitals to upgrade their facilities or build additions. Trying to wedge such a large and profoundly important issue into a regulatory regime clearly not tailored to the issues or the objectives involved is dangerous. At a minimum, doing so can't help but prove to be terribly inefficient and expensive. At worst, it will drive our economy and energy prospects to ground."

But would it?

Colorado State University Professor Michelle Betsill said the organization's concern is premature and alarmist.

"There are all kinds of examples in business -- both on an individual and collective scale -- where voluntary initiatives to cut carbon dioxide emissions have actually led to tremendous cost savings," she said.

The EPA has not signaled that it plans to use existing regulations to track carbon dioxide emissions, Betsill said, and the administration has done very little to implement the 2007 Supreme Court decision.

"The effects of regulation can only be to change practices, make buildings more efficient," she said. "And to go on what they've done in the past, the regulations will be flexible, and companies will have time to figure out what controls make sense to them."

The talk of hospitals and schools being forced to close, and farmers being driven to bankruptcy, is incorrect, Betsill said.

"There is no correlation between regulation and bankruptcy," she said. "It's over the top, and this entire argument assumes a particular type of regulation that hasn't even been decided yet. The Supreme Court only said the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant -- not what those regulations have to look like."

Congress is considering placing restrictions on emissions using a carbon market. Companies that emit large amounts of greenhouse gas would be able to buy permits from companies that curb their emissions.

"It's unlikely they would do anything to hurt business," Betsill said. "It would be against the national goals. The EPA hasn't indicated that it will view carbon dioxide the same way it views other pollutants. It's far more likely that new regulations will look much the same as environmental policies created over the last 20 years."