Regulatory: The EPA’s regulatory crescendo
New rules will significantly impact public health, manufacturing, product prices and consumer choices.
August 17, 2011 at 08:12 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The last month witnessed an extraordinary level of regulatory activity by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. These rules will have a significant impact on public health, manufacturing, product prices and consumer choices.
On July 29, the Obama administration announced that it had reached agreement with 13 auto manufacturers to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to double fuel economy standards for cars to 54.5 mpg by 2025 and for pickup trucks to 35.5 mpg. To meet these demanding goals, manufacturers will not be able to rely on incremental improvements in existing technologies but will have to develop disruptive technologies, especially batteries that will allow the fleet to transition to electric-powered vehicles. The agreement reflects manufacturers' understanding that major changes in their products are inevitable due to projected increases in fuel costs, and that future growth opportunities are located in developing countries that demand smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
On August 9, the White House released a final, first-ever EPA rule, supported by the industry, that requires tractor-trailers and buses manufactured between 2014 and 2018 to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions by 20 percent. This rule also reflects the consequences of future fuel costs. With a 20 percent fuel savings from a tractor that currently gets 6 mpg and travels 200,000 per year, the new vehicle will repay the additional capital cost in relatively short order.
EPA soon will issue a new regulation to limit ground-level ozone emissions that cause smog. The draft submitted to the White House would save 12,000 deaths annually and cost $20 to $90 billion. If the Obama administration adopts the draft rule, a majority of the counties whose air quality EPA monitors would become “non-attainment” areas, and states would be required to modify their implementation plans to impose new pollution controls and reduce emissions over the next 20 years. Areas in the manufacturing states of Florida, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania will fall into non-compliance.
On July 7, EPA issued a final rule that requires coal-fired electric power plants in 27 eastern and midwestern states to reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. This Clean Air Transport Rule is both more stringent than the proposed rule and broader in scope, as it imposed first-time SO2 emission standards on Texas generating plants.
While EPA was active, the House of Representatives adopted multiple riders to strip the agency of funds to enforce air pollution rules, provisions that would have died in the Senate. The situation may have changed, however, with the debt ceiling compromise. In late fall, Congress will consider an omnibus appropriations bill for all agencies and the spending reductions proposed by the Joint Special Committee on Deficit Reduction. The combination of these massive, must-pass bills may give holdouts in Congress substantial leverage in negotiations. Opponents of EPA's rules may try to use this opportunity to block its initiatives.
The last month witnessed an extraordinary level of regulatory activity by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. These rules will have a significant impact on public health, manufacturing, product prices and consumer choices.
On July 29, the Obama administration announced that it had reached agreement with 13 auto manufacturers to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to double fuel economy standards for cars to 54.5 mpg by 2025 and for pickup trucks to 35.5 mpg. To meet these demanding goals, manufacturers will not be able to rely on incremental improvements in existing technologies but will have to develop disruptive technologies, especially batteries that will allow the fleet to transition to electric-powered vehicles. The agreement reflects manufacturers' understanding that major changes in their products are inevitable due to projected increases in fuel costs, and that future growth opportunities are located in developing countries that demand smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
On August 9, the White House released a final, first-ever EPA rule, supported by the industry, that requires tractor-trailers and buses manufactured between 2014 and 2018 to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions by 20 percent. This rule also reflects the consequences of future fuel costs. With a 20 percent fuel savings from a tractor that currently gets 6 mpg and travels 200,000 per year, the new vehicle will repay the additional capital cost in relatively short order.
EPA soon will issue a new regulation to limit ground-level ozone emissions that cause smog. The draft submitted to the White House would save 12,000 deaths annually and cost $20 to $90 billion. If the Obama administration adopts the draft rule, a majority of the counties whose air quality EPA monitors would become “non-attainment” areas, and states would be required to modify their implementation plans to impose new pollution controls and reduce emissions over the next 20 years. Areas in the manufacturing states of Florida, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania will fall into non-compliance.
On July 7, EPA issued a final rule that requires coal-fired electric power plants in 27 eastern and midwestern states to reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. This Clean Air Transport Rule is both more stringent than the proposed rule and broader in scope, as it imposed first-time SO2 emission standards on Texas generating plants.
While EPA was active, the House of Representatives adopted multiple riders to strip the agency of funds to enforce air pollution rules, provisions that would have died in the Senate. The situation may have changed, however, with the debt ceiling compromise. In late fall, Congress will consider an omnibus appropriations bill for all agencies and the spending reductions proposed by the Joint Special Committee on Deficit Reduction. The combination of these massive, must-pass bills may give holdouts in Congress substantial leverage in negotiations. Opponents of EPA's rules may try to use this opportunity to block its initiatives.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250