AISI urges support of bill to block EPA regulation of GHGs

This objection from the AISI is understandable, but does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the steel industry. It is understandable, as the problem is definitely global, but it will not be resolved globally without the full active participation of the USA. This can be either by EPA action or by the US Congress passing a cap and trade bill – from the worldwide GHG point of view – either or could be effective.

SBB 4 June 2010 The US Senate will consider legislation next week that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act.

The US manufacturing industry is against EPA regulation of GHGs, as Steel Business Briefing has reported, saying it would raise US manufacturing costs while allowing foreign competitors to increase their emissions, resulting in no environmental benefit.

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) sent out a ‘steel action alert’ this week, urging member companies and others in the steel industry to contact their senators and ask them to support the legislation when it is considered next week.

AISI acknowledges that climate change is a global problem but says it can only be addressed effectively on a global basis.

“Given the lack of international consensus on binding GHG emissions commitments, US climate change policy should be established through legislation,” not through EPA regulation, AISI contends. Through legislation, measures can be included that would help maintain the industry’s global competitiveness, AISI notes.

US Senate could be nearing compromise CO2 measure, say reports

Could be good, could be bad. Would a carbon tax be more effective than cap and trade? – It could be stepped up annually, so tightening the efficiency screws on power utilities and steel mills. It might also allow for an easier ride at the WTO on border adjustments… Has it been fully discussed in Europe, Japan or the USA?

SBB 16 March The US Senate could be close to working out compromise carbon emissions reduction legislation that would include a controversial cap-and-trade proposal – at least for utilities, Steel Business Briefing learns.

An unnamed senator tells Reuters it’s still unclear how the government would reduce carbon emissions from sectors including manufacturing and transportation, but a bill could be introduced by next week that would at least include measures to reduce emissions created by the utility industry.

The US House passed a more universal cap-and-trade plan that covers oil refineries, in addition to manufacturers and utilities. The Senate has been unable to pass a similar version, so some of its members have been working on a compromise plan that leaders in the legislative body say they hope could be voted on by June, Reuters reports.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said it has the authority to begin regulating carbon emissions itself if Congress cannot pass legislation to do so on its own, SBB notes.

EU court rejects ArcelorMittal’s challenge to emissions law

SBB 3 March 2010 The European Union’s General Court has dismissed ArcelorMittal’s application for the partial annulment of the 2003 EU directive establishing a scheme for trading greenhouse gas emission allowances. The EU Emission Trading System started operating in 2005 based on the directive.The steelmaker had appealed to the court to declare provisions of the directive inapplicable to installations for the production of pig iron or steel, but the court rejected its arguments. The company brought the legal action as Arcelor in 2004, before the merger with Mittal Steel. Among its arguments, the steelmaker claimed the legislation, which is aimed at reducing manmade carbon dioxide emissions through the “capping and trading” of emission allowances, increases the cost of production for EU pig iron and steel producers, putting them at a disadvantage compared to third country producers. ArcelorMittal tells Steel Business Briefing it is “taking note” of the court’s decision. “While some of the initial shortcomings of the EU ETS which we were criticising in our lawsuit have been corrected in the meantime, we remain concerned that the European trading system might put an excessive strain on the EU steel industry’s competitiveness and threaten steelmaking jobs,” the company comments. “This issue will need to be addressed especially with regards to the third trading period of the ETS which starts in 2012,” it adds. The first phase of the ETS spanned 2005-2007 and the second phase runs from 2008 to 2012.