Impact of EPA Endangerment Finding on Green Building
On December 7, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and environment. The finding sets the stage to allow the EPA to regulate these emissions. What impact will this endangerment finding have on the green building industry?
In my view, the endangerment finding will not immediately impact the green building industry. Instead, greenhouse gas standards for automobiles will likely first be promulgated based on the endangerment finding:
Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency's final finding on whether cars and trucks "cause or contribute to that pollution," [EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson said.
Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement[s].
Jackson said the government is facing a "hard deadline" of next March to let automakers know of any required increases in fuel economy standards that would affect vehicles built for the 2012 model year.
Once automobile greenhouse gas emissions are regulated, then greenhouse gas emissions will be a "regulated pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, which will trigger permitting requirements for stationary sources.
As the Clean Air Act is currently written, stationary sources would include many commercial buildings and large residential homes. The EPA is hoping to avoid the regulation of buildings and homes, though, by proposing the "tailoring rule":
As the Clean Air Act is currently written, stationary sources would include many commercial buildings and large residential homes. The EPA is hoping to avoid the regulation of buildings and homes, though, by proposing the "tailoring rule":
"In late September, the agency announced a proposed “tailoring rule” that limits regulation of climate-altering gases to large stationary sources like coal-burning power plants and cement kilns that produce 25,000 tons or more a year of carbon emissions."
While the EPA continues down the path of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the Senate, at some point in 2010, likely will vote on energy legislation that includes cap-and-trade policy to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama Administration would prefer that Congress, and not the EPA, regulate emissions:
"The administration has used the finding as a prod to Congress, saying that if lawmakers do not act to control greenhouse gas pollution it will use its rule-making power to do so. At the same time, the president and his top environmental aides have said that they prefer such a major step be taken through the legislative process."
The House of Representatives' energy bill contained significant programs that would benefit the green building industry and any Senate bill is likely to include similar programs. An EPA ruling restricting greenhouse gas emissions, on the other hand, likely would not create programs for the green building industry. Instead, its effects would likely reverberate in the green building industry by increasing energy costs and making energy efficiency strategies more appealing.
Which governmental body do you think will first regulate greenhouse gas emissions?
Which governmental body do you think will first regulate greenhouse gas emissions?
Related Links
Green Building Guide to Waxman-Markey (GBLU)
Greenhouse Gases Imperil Health, E.P.A. Announces (NY Times)
Greenhouse Gases Imperil Health, E.P.A. Announces (NY Times)
Photo: Kempton
Given the indication that GHGs are ultimately going to be monitored, as will the emissions of US-based materials and component manufacturers, could this be a first step towards encouraging Life Cycle assessment
approaches, either as a legislated or recommended impact evaluation tool?
If the manufacturers of building components in the US are tasked with GHG reductions, but those requirements are not put in place for offshore suppliers, there my be a tendency to source from abroad.
Increasing transportation has some potential to increase GHG, but the biggest problem could be in lower emissions standards from products made elsewhere. If an LCA requirement were to be mandated, the total GHG from components (domestic and foreign) would have a better chance of being assessed equally. At the same time, it would signal to both domestic and foreign suppliers that GHGs are a global issue, not a domestic one, and that the WHOLE impact is a part of the purchase decision making process, not just price.
Further, if those collective inputs were to be attributed to a building, the true environmental impact of that building would be more accurately assessed (i.e. embodied impacts from the LCA and operational impacts by post construction proofing) and designers would have a better tool for their purposes.
My money is on Congress, not the White House/EPA pushing this. If this becomes an EPA issue, watch out for lawsuits and a very ugly battle based on lack of political consensus.
Great topics lately Chris, sorry I have not been able to chime in with comments as much lately but work has been calling!!
@Peter - You are on the money. The Navy is already requiring life cycle assessments for some contracts. Check out this previous article: http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/2009/11/articles/codes-and-regulations/energy-reductions-in-the-navy/
@Timothy - I am not certain what will happen. I hear April or May is the likely time period for a Senate vote.
Have a great Holidays and thanks for the comments.