I told you that the fight was on......
Today, EPA made several statements. EPA stated that "Texas was treated no differently from any other state, claiming that Texas had the same opportunity to provide comments on the rule proposed as other (Group 2) states that must comply in 2012."
TCEQ response:
"The facts: The information provided to Texas and its regulated sources amounted to a general request for comments on Texas' possible inclusion. Every other state with the same compliance obligations was provided an emisison budget and a detailed rationale for its inclusion - Texas was not. EPA identified in these proposals the specifics of what monitor(s) were affected by these other states and by how much, as well as what quantity of emissions reductions would be necessary to comply with this regulation. Texas did not receive this information at proposal."
The TCEQ also points out that the EPA wrongly stted that Texas' SO2 emissions have been reduced by 0.1 percent, when, in fact, from 1999 to 2009, SO2 emissions in the state of Texas have decreased by 44 percent and if you only look at electric generating units covered by the CSPAR, the total decrease was 32 percent from 1999 to 2009.
The EPA's justification for including Texas in this rule, according ot the TCEQ, is a single (that is one people) linkage to a monitor in Granite City, Ill. (that was in attainment in 2009 and will aain be in attainment in 2014 without any additional reductions).
The fight is on people.
No comments:
Post a Comment