June
8, 2009
Lisa Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode 6102T
RE: Comments
on Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,
Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0508
Dear Ms. Jackson:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit
comments on the proposed rule for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases
(GHGs).
The North Dakota
Stockmen’s Association (NDSA) is an 80-year-old trade association representing
NDSA members
pride themselves on caring for the environment. They take care of the land and
their animals because that is how they make a living and ensure that they can
pass down their operations to succeeding generations. At the same time, the
NDSA is opposed to the implementation of any rule that would require
agricultural producers to report GHG emissions. Specifically, beef cattle
producers would be required to report CH4 and N2O
emissions from manure management activities under this proposed rule. This
would primarily include GHG emissions from drylot pens and stormwater ponds. We
think this is unnecessary, especially since the contribution of these
activities to the total U.S. GHG emissions is negligible – only 0.127 percent
of the total U.S. GHG emissions for Year 2007, according to the 2009 U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Even better, the contribution of GHG emissions
from beef cattle manure management activities has decreased from 1990 to 2007.
Following
are a few specific comments regarding the preamble language of the proposed
rule:
Preamble,
In this section,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states, “The proposed rule would apply
to certain downstream facilities that emit GHGs (primarily large facilities
emitting 25,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions or
more)…” The NDSA contends that EPA’s
determination that the mandatory reporting threshold be set at 25,000 MT CO2e
per year was based on an inadequate analysis of the sector-by-sector emissions
estimates, and this analysis masks the significant number of beef facilities
that would be required to report under the rule. If faulty analysis applies to
sectors outside the beef industry, the 25,000 tons-per-year threshold would
bring in many smaller sources that, based on expressed concerns in the preamble
about limiting the number of entities required to report, EPA apparently does
not intend to bring under this rule. It seems unreasonable to require smaller
facilities to report their emissions.
Preamble, Section IV.C.
Rationale for Selection of Thresholds (p. 16469)
EPA is soliciting comments on how
considerations of actual and potential emissions should be incorporated into
the proposed threshold. We encourage EPA to maintain a focus on actual
emissions estimates and not require facilities to calculate and report GHG
emissions estimates based on their potential to emit. Potential emissions
calculations would be extremely time-consuming and expensive and would produce
speculative results that would provide little useful information or, even
worse, inaccurate information. Potential emissions are not relevant to climate
change. We believe that the methods outlined in the proposed rule allow
facilities to enter site-specific and actual data to make an annual estimate of
GHG emissions. We recommend EPA retain the approach outlined in the proposed
rule.
Preamble, Section IV.C. Rationale for Selection of Thresholds
(p. 16470)
EPA has proposed
a “once in, always in” provision that would never allow a facility that has
reduced emissions below the reporting threshold to be removed from the
reporting requirements. The NDSA opposes this. Not allowing a facility to be
rewarded for efforts to reduce GHG emissions would create a huge disincentive
for complying. We recommend that EPA change the expensive and time-consuming
reporting obligation to require facilities to submit an initial report. If a
facility continues to trigger the reporting threshold on an annual basis within
a range that is not more than 25 percent of the initial estimate, no further
annual actions should be required. If
changes in a facility change GHG emissions more than 25 percent above initial
estimates, then an annual report should be submitted for the year the change
was made. Again, no subsequent reports should be required unless emission
levels increase an additional 25 percent above the second report. Finally, and
probably most importantly, any facility that can document annual emissions that
are less than the reporting threshold should no longer be subject to the
reporting requirement.
Preamble, Section IV.E. Rationale for Selecting the Reporting
Year (p. 16470)
According to the
proposal, the submission of the first “annual” report would be due March 1,
2011, to represent monitored, calculated and quality assured data from Jan. 1,
2010, through Dec. 31, 2010. The NDSA
believes that this reporting timeframe is unreasonable. It does not allow
adequate time for businesses that have never submitted reports of this nature
to understand, much less comply, with the regulations. Also, given the volume
of comments that EPA is likely to receive on this proposal and the need for
serious discussion and/or reconsideration of numerous aspects of this rule, it
is unlikely that the EPA will be able to adopt a final rule early enough in
2009 to allow affected facilities time to comply with provisions by Jan. 1,
2010. We recommend that people be given two years to comply with the rule after
its final effective date.
Preamble, Section V.JJ.2. Table JJ-1 Estimated Head of Livestock To Meet Thresholds
(p. 16562)
The NDSA
strongly recommends that EPA clearly state in the final rule that any beef
cattle facility with a drylot and stormwater pond manure management system that
maintains (on an annual daily average) an inventory that is 88,923 head or less
is not subject to the provisions of this rule. This would eliminate the need
for those facilities to analyze monthly manure samples for volatile solids and
nitrogen and calculate emissions at the end of a calendar year. It would also
save them valuable time and resources, because they could avoid reverifying an
emissions threshold estimate that has already been calculated and published in
the final rule.
In summary, the livestock industry is a
very minor source of GHG emissions. This regulation would be a significant
financial and administrative burden on producers’ operations and would not
provide data that is useful in addressing EPA’s long-term goal of reducing
major sources of GHG emissions. Please consider these points as you move
forward on the proposed rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases.
Sincerely,
Julie Ellingson,
Executive Vice President
North Dakota
Stockmen’s Association