By Tim Bradner
Alaska Journal of Commerce

No matter who wins the presidential election, if you're in business, there's new government paperwork in your future. And no matter whether you believe in global warming, if your business operates buildings or mobile equipment, you'll be measuring and filing reports on greenhouse gases, that cocktail or chemicals - carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, methane and three other gases - scientists say are causing climate change.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials gave a preview to a state climate change task force on proposed new federal rules on greenhouse gas reporting and a possible new rule that could bring greenhouse gas regulation under the federal Clean Air Act.

There's still a lot of head-scratching as to how all this will really work, said Bill Irving, the chief of EPA's Air and Radiation in Washington, D.C., but it's clear that the new emissions monitoring will start in 2010 and the first reports will be due in 2011.

Irving and Kitty Sibold, EPA's outreach coordinator for the program, briefed members of the state's Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, one of several panels of state officials and citizens formed by Gov. Sarah Palin last year to plot strategies for dealing with a warming northern environment.

The mandatory reporting rule is a result of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act passed by Congress. It aims to gather accurate data on greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S., which will then be used if and when decisions are made to control of greenhouse gases releases.

Alaskans on the task force raised a number of issues. Jane Williamson, an engineer with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, asked about the accurancy of any actual metering and whether estimates would be accepted.

Gerald Wilcox, environmental manager for Pacific Energy, questioned the wisdom of trying to meter emissions from facilties. Based on his experience with metering regulated emissions like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, Wilcox said the only accurate way to measure total emissions is to do it from all pieces of equipment, large and small, within a facility, a task of mind-numbing complexity and considerable expense.

A more practical and cost-effective approach is to make estimates of emissions based on the amount of fuel used in a facility, Wilcox told Irving and Sibolt.

The mandatory greenhouse gas emissions rule is still in draft form, and Irving said key decisions by EPA on how to administer the rule, such as setting the appropriate emission thresholds, are still pending.

“We can't talk about the detailed requirements yet, but there should be more information in a month. A variety of methods for measuring emissions as well as cost estimates, are being considered,” Irving told the state task force. “The decisions will have big implications, but remember that this is a reporting and not a regulatory rule.”

If the greenhouse gas reports are just paperwork, what comes next could have more teeth.

The second issue Irving and Sibolt discussed with the task force was the EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking to bring greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. EPA issued the notice in July and is now taking comments.

A proposed rule will be developed in a subsequent step. The action is being taken following a Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA and subsequent actions by Congress and President Bush, Irving said.

The effect of the rule could be to require federal permits for greenhouse gas emissions for facilities or mobile equipment of a certain size. So far no limits or reductions of emissions are being discussed, but what is more likely to happen is that the EPA will require “best available technology” in controlling emissions, Irving said.

This procedure could have the federal agency deciding, or at least influencing, technology systems made by firms operating facilities or equipment.

Irving said some complications have developed in the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act that may require congressional action to solve. A big one is that it could classify greenhouse gas emissions under the “new source” section of the act, which has a threshold limit of 100 tons to 150 tons of pollutants per year of emissions.

This threshold is designed for air pollutants now regulated under the Clean Air Act, like nitrogen oxide, where relatively small quantities of emissions are regulated. The volume of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide are much larger, however, and it doesn't take much to reach the 150-ton threshold, Irving said.

“A 100,000-square-foot building with a boiler that burns fuel, a grocery store or a mid-size apartment building could easily reach this threshold,” Irving said.

If it were put into effect this way, hundreds of thousands of small businesses and facility owners across the nation would have to get air quality permits, and the EPA and state agencies that help administer the program would be swamped, he said.

It's likely Congress will be sympathetic to the plight of small businesses and would take action to modify the threshold for greenhouse gases if the new rule is put into effect, Irving said.

Both the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting and possible regulation of emissions under the Clean Air Act would be part of a U.S. response to global warming that could include other elements, such as a “cap and trade” system intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Both presidential candidates have endorsed such proposals.

Tim Bradner can be reached at tim.bradner@alaskajournal.com">tim.bradner@alaskajournal.com.