Reuters reports:” California has urged U.S. environmental regulators to slow down implementation of rules on greenhouse gas emissions saying they could hurt the state’s plan to transform its energy system to run more on renewable energy like solar power.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed last year to require power plants and factories emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year to obtain operating permits. The EPA has said the rules could take effect as soon as this spring.”

Energy Commission doesn't want to have to permit these?

Now, the way we see it, California Energy Commission is urging  U.S. EPA to  relieve it from the need to file for permits for new greenhouse gas producing natural gas boilers. Filling out the needed paperwork for the permits might be ‘disruptive” to their plans.
Go figure.
We see their point. Because solar and windfarm produced energy are sporadic sources, new agile natural gas boiler plants are needed for back up. But the new natural gas boilers, if they emit greenhouse gas above the 25,000 ton threshold of the law,  really ought to be permitted.
But the irony is priceless.
Why shouldn’t these have their papers too?
If this were in my neighborhood, I'd want it to have a permit...

 Photo credit 1.
Photo credit 2.

Guest Post By Jeff Wiltsie, Vanamatic Company.
Here is a photo of manufacturing in China.

Proposed USEPA GHG regulations will actually promote this overseas.

The comment period for USEPA proposed Greenhouse Gas (GHG)  Regulations is coming to a close on 28 December 2009.  It is important to understand that GHG emissions are a global problem, and without global solutions, all that  these “US ONLY”  regulations will do is distort  and reduce even further the competititveness of US manufacturers compared to countries that are not held to the same standards.

Unilaterally regulating US GHG emissions will actually make world GHG conditions worse, by creating a vicious cycle: 
  1.  US GHG regulations increase costs for US manufacturers;
  2. Increased  manufacturing costs result in US customers shopping for cheaper goods;
  3. Cheaper goods will be produced by manufacturers in countries where GHG regulatory controls are not enacted;
  4. US manufacturing declines as production is moved overseas;
  5. Jobs are lost;
  6. Imports of High GHG produced goods replace US goods in our market;
  7. US deficit in balance of trade grows;
  8. Increase in Global GHG emissions as regulated US manufacturing is replaced with high emitting Non Regulated GHG production overseas.

GHG is a global issue, not just a local issue. US manufacturing jobs are the only thing likely to be reduced under the USEPA’s proposed regulations, and world GHG emissions will continue to rise. 
What am I missing here? Do you see unilateral rules as being in our favor? Or is the plan to eliminate manufacturing here in the US, to Export our pollution? What do you think?
To comment  :
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0517 by one of the following methods:
    • Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517.
    • E-mail: vog.ape@tekcod-r-dna-a. Attention Docket ID No.
    • Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517.
For more information on the differences between US and China Environmental performance: