## Sen. Rockefeller Introduces Legislation to Suspend EPA Regulation of Stationary Source GHG for 2 Years

##### 05 March 2010

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) introduced legislation to suspend potential Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years. Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) is introducing the House of Representatives companion legislation, with Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) as original cosponsors.

Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology. This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. Administrator Jackson responded quickly and showed some willingness to move the agency’s timetable for regulation to the end of 2010. This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time. We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need. At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency.

—Senator Rockefeller

The legislation directs that for two years after enactment the EPA can take no regulatory action and that no stationary source shall be subject to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane, except for the motor vehicle emission standards.

THE oil robber baron's great grandson 'Introduces Legislation to Suspend EPA Regulation of Stationary Source GHG.'

Such a surprise..

I am doing my best to keep from using profanity or referencing losing my breakfast in this post. I'm not sure if I am more angered by the audacity of the suggestion of 'clean coal', or physically ill with the expectation that they will pull this off by convincing each other than those who work in the coal mines are incapable of working anywhere else. It's one of the signs of the cultural cancer that Conservatives are struck with. While the FDA is cracking down on outright lies in packaging claims of 'organic' and 'natural', we are allowing politicians to get away with a more damaging illusion of 'clean coal'. When are we going to call out the Emperor? When are we going to grow up and deal with the problems we are capable of solving, if only we had the morality to be honest with ourselves, and a little trust in our own ingenuity.

Just a reminder, Marc, all four of these politicians are Democrats - not exactly your mainstream conservative. But I agree about the coal industry - miners can work in other energy sectors.

Other politician's resolutions will strip EPA of all CO2 regulation until there is hard science to prove CAGW.

Why not recycle coal miners into Wind turbines/farms and energy storage industries? There is enough wind energy potential in USA for at least 4 times current electricity utilisation. Solar energy could do many times more.

Reluctance to change is very present and supported by financially interested groups.

It is sad about coal mining families, generations go into it, they hate it but it provides income. It would be good to start programs in West Virginia and other coal mining states to train them for wind, solar and geothermal so that they never have to go back into the mines ever again.

The sad story here is really that the transition to sustainable energy has been so badly treated. The biggest failure has been to put all apples in the AGW cart. Expecting a technologically savvy public to buy climate change as the only reason to adopt alternatives - was shortsighted.

Now we have the opportunity to correct the mistake by focusing on energy independence. Same end game, same goals, different path. Energy independence, breaking addiction to crippling payments of foreign oil, new domestic jobs, new industry, products and services. THESE are what people care about. NOT a polar bear whose population has grown a hundred fold. The Climate of Fear is o v e r.

Not sure how many times this has to be said until it's accepted. AGW campaign has failed. The big bucks for one world government from carbon trading will not materialize. So let's move on to implementing green jobs, energy security, clean air, and alternative energy resources. Figure a new progressive tax on fossils if necessary.

The fat cats pushing AGW will still be fat. Poverty and population issues will have to be confronted head on. Charitable giving not charitable taxing is the way to help emerging nations. And maintenance of national sovereignty must be respected as a part of the human social process. People like their countries and flags and jingoism - it builds self-esteem - something galactic sociologists should appreciate.

So, what are we waiting for?

The market system says coal in cheaper, so that overrides most other considerations. Any attempt to clean it up is said to increase utility bills, so the fear factor is there, just a different kind.

SJC - you are right. So now the question is how to convince the public and the coal industry to mitigate the heavy reliance on this resource.

First, from a business aspect, redirect coal use to liquid and gaseous fuels. This allows the industry revenue while converting old coal burning power plants to cleaner fuels.

Second, a non-hysterical conservation campaign demonstrating to the public the blight on nature that various forms of coal mining cause. AND the cost of habitat loss vs energy use. Target mountain top removal and strip mines.

Third, focus on the need for an international agreement to build new coal to strict clean standards. India and China are the major players here - only informed public pressure will demand emerging nations AND developed nations adhere to an international Coal Use Agreement.

Re- emphasize the use of distributed energy to replace residential grid demand. Work WITH the coal and gas industries to develop cheap, viable CHP Residential Power Units like SOFCs and or mechanical gensets (Stirling, free piston,etc.) Revenue from RPU fuel sales replaces lost direct coal sales.

The political challenge is to convince the coal industry to transition to CTL CTG alternative fuels (including jetfuel.) They must be allowed to recover their investment in mining resources - but as alternatives. Legislate an international agreement to end traditional coal mining over the next 30 years.

It's essentially the same goal as with AGW - but without all the liabilities.

The idea is to sell less coal at a higher price with a more value added product. If you can turn one ton of coal into 100 gallons of liquid fuel at $3 per gallon, you make more than$50 per ton for a power plant.

The comments to this entry are closed.