by Daniel J. Weiss
Big oil, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and senators including Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are whipping up hysterical fears that the Environmental Protection
Agency will use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act to
immediately restrict global warming pollution for even the smallest of
emitters. For instance, NAM President John Engler makes the ridiculous claim that
“If EPA moves forward and begins regulating stationary sources, it will
open the door for them to regulate everything from industrial
facilities to farms to even American homes.”
In fact, EPA’s efforts are simply following the law of the land established by the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
To calm the hysteria, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent a letter to eight Democratic senators assuring them that EPA will
pursue a very deliberative process for establishing limits on global
warming pollution from the largest polluters first, which would leave
ample time for Congress to establish a more comprehensive pollution
reduction program before EPA standards take effect.
Administrator Jackson’s letter responded to a Feb. 19 letter from eight Democratic Senators that raised concerns about EPA’s plans to establish limits on global
warming pollution from industrial sources. The eight senators
represent coal mining, auto manufacturing, or oil and gas states. Five
are from coal states: Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob
Casey (Pa.), Max Baucus (Mont.), and Robert Byrd (W.Va.). Two come from auto
manufacturing states: Claire McCaskill (Miss.), Carl Levin (Mich.). And one
senator comes from an oil and gas state: Mark Begich (Ark.).
These senators urged that EPA provide time for Congress to adopt
comprehensive global warming legislation before using the Clean Air Act
authority to restrict pollution. They worry about the impact of EPA
setting carbon pollution limits for the utility and other large
polluting industries. They wrote Jackson:
We need a clear understanding of how you view your
agency’s responsibilities and the process by which you intent to carry
them out in order to represent the workers industries, taxpayers, and
economic interests of our states …
The President and you have been explicit in calling on
Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that would enhance our
nation’s energy and climate security. We strongly believe this is
ultimately Congress’ responsibility, and if done properly, will create
jobs, spur new clean energy industries, and greatly advance the goal of
U.S. energy independence.
These senators concerns are legitimate, but will not occur.
Administrator Jackson’s letter makes it clear that there is ample time
for Congress to pass bipartisan comprehensive clean energy and global
warming legislation before pollution limits under the Clean Air Act would begin.
No facility will be required to address greenhouse gas
emissions in Clean Air Act permitting of new construction or
modifications before 2011.
For the first half of 2011, only facilities that already must apply
for Clean Air Act permits as a result of their non-greenhouse gas
emissions will need to address their greenhouse gas emissions in their
permit applications.
EPA does not intend to subject smaller facilities to Clean Air Act permitting for greenhouse gas emissions any sooner than 2016.
Administrator Jackson also plans to increase the threshold for
setting carbon pollution limits so that it focuses on the largest
sources first.
EPA is also considering a modification to the rule
announced in September requiring large facilities emitting more than
25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year to obtain permits demonstrating
they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG
emissions. EPA is considering raising that threshold substantially to
reflect input provided during the public comment process.
Senator Begich was reassured by Administrator Jackson’s letter. He said that schedule described by in the letter “makes me feel a lot more comfortable.” Senator Rockefeller noted that “it helps,” though he still plans to
introduce a bill to delay EPA for two to five years. This delay seems
fairly unnecessary given the schedule in the EPA letter.
Administrator Jackson also makes it clear that passage of Sen.
Murkowski’s “Dirty Air Act” to block EPA from protecting people from
global warming pollution would undo the near final limits on greenhouse
gas pollution from motor vehicles that the auto industry negotiated in
2009.
You asked in your letter what the result would be if
Senator Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval of EPA’s endangerment
finding were enacted. One result would be to prevent EPA from issuing
its greenhouse gas standard for light-vehicles, because the
endangerment finding is a legal prerequisite of that standard … It would
undo an historic agreement among states, automakers, the federal
government, and other stakeholders.
Senator Levin expressed serious concerns about passage of the
Murkowski Dirty Air Act if it would undo the clean car agreement. He
wrote a Michigan constituent that it
would undercut the Obama administration’s intention to
pursue a single, national standard for vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions. I support the administration’s plan to implement a single,
national standard, rather than a patchwork of standards that vary from
state to state.
These eight Democratic senators raised legitimate questions about
the impact of EPA’s following the law and the science, as required by
the Supreme Court. The endangerment finding will establish a careful,
thorough process for establishing limits on carbon pollution from the
largest industrial sources, such as coal fired power plants. It is now
incumbent on these senators—and Senator Murkowski—to ignore big oil
and special interest flame throwing, and instead join efforts led by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to craft bipartisan, comprehensive legislation.
Related Links:
New cases of water pollution documented at U.S. coal ash dumps
Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities will put the feds’ weight behind smart growth
