There’s been quite of bit of interest about Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s proposed amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon dioxide from stationary sources. We’ve put together a brief fact sheet to help reporters cover the issue. Please don’t hesitate to call Anne or myself if you have questions about the amendment (most current version attached) or the appropriations process.
. Sen. Murkowski’s amendment delays EPA regulation of stationary sources of carbon dioxide for only one year in order to give Congress time to act on legislation that would address climate change responsibly with as little economic impact as possible.
. Her amendment respects the decision of the Supreme Court, as it relates to EPA regulation of mobile sources. But it calls a timeout to the attempts to regulate stationary sources, which were not the subject of the Massachusetts vs. EPA lawsuit.
. Nearly all environmental groups, members of Congress and even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have said that congressional action on climate change is preferable to EPA regulation.
. Sen. Murkowski believes climate change is one of the great challenges of our time and that it must be addressed. However, it won’t be easy. Properly addressing a problem of this magnitude requires serious intellectual analysis and consideration of a wide array of possible solutions. This true bipartisan debate isn’t going to happen with the threat of economically disastrous EPA regulations hanging over Congress’ head.
. Sen. Murkowski is genuinely concerned about climate change. As a born and raised Alaskan she sees the effects climate change is having on our state. The consequences of failing to act are serious, but the consequences of acting irresponsibly are just as serious. Poorly crafted legislation, such as the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, would have immediate negative consequences for the economy while allowing companies to make minimal emissions cuts for decades. Climate legislation must have more immediate environmental benefits.
. EPA regulation would be extremely detrimental to our economy. While Congress can create market incentives for cleaner energy and put a price on carbon, the EPA can only limit carbon emissions.
. EPA regulations of carbon dixoide would be enacted under the Clean Air Act. The main problem with this is that under the Clean Air Act all sources of pollutants, including carbon dioxide, that emit 250 tons per year or more must be regulated – this incredibly low threshold would put even small businesses, such as restaurants and dry cleaners, under direct regulation by the EPA. The Clean Air Act, written in the 1970s, was clearly not written with the intention of regulating carbon dioxide.
. The amendment only impacts attempts to “regulate or control” carbon dioxide and, therefore, not the reporting aspect of the Clean Air Act. EPA already requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources and EPA has interpreted that “reporting” does not mean “control” of an emission source, therefore greenhouse gases are not “subject to regulation.”
. The amendment deals only with carbon dioxide, and no other greenhouse gas, so it would not reverse environmental progress on ozone-depleting substances that also happen to be greenhouse gases (i.e. hydrofluorocarbons).
Sen. Murkowski will hold a conference call with reporters on Tuesday to
discuss her proposed Interior and Environment Appropriations bill
amendment as well as the current state of energy and climate policy in
the Senate. We’ll send out details of the press call later today. In the
meantime, please call Anne or myself with questions or requests for
comments.
Also, here’s some background on the EPA process that might be helpful:
The EPA CO2 regulations were prompted by a 2006 Supreme Court (5-4)
decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA that declared carbon dioxide a Clean
Air Act pollutant and held that EPA must regulate vehicle emissions if
the agency determined carbon dioxide poses a threat to public health and
welfare. The EPA already has proposed such an “Endangerment Finding” and
is expected to finalize that finding soon.
As a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision, on August 25, EPA
sent to OMB a draft rule to tighten vehicle fuel economy. The proposed
rule applies to model years 2012 through 2016, and EPA wants to finalize
the regulations by March 31st so that automakers will have time to
ensure their 2012 model year vehicles are in compliance with the
standards.
The Clean Air Act’s “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD)
provisions require that any substance found to be a pollutant under one
section will be “subject to regulation” under all other sections of the
statute. Therefore, the EPA decision to regulate vehicular carbon
dioxide requires regulation of stationary sources as well.
As a result, on September 1, EPA sent another draft rule to OMB aimed at
limiting carbon dioxide emissions from utilities and other large
stationary sources. The most significant issue on this front has been
the likelihood that EPA is seeking to increase the regulatory threshold
required by the Clean Air Act from 250 tons annually to 25,000.
This approach is an attempt by EPA to target only major sources of
carbon dioxide, such as power plants, refineries, and factories. This
so-called “tailoring rule” is fully inconsistent with clear statutory
language, however.
The PSD requires emission controls at all sources that emit 250 tons or
more of a given pollutant, a threshold that would bring thousands of
small sources under the carbon dioxide regulations, create a major
administrative burden, and almost certainly spark a political uproar.
EPA remains susceptible to what would, by all accounts, be a slam dunk
legal challenge to lower the 25,000 ton threshold to 250 tons. It is
inevitable that some group will quickly sue to force the EPA to enforce
fully its own rules and go after all carbon dioxide sources above 250
tons per year.
