Senate battles EPA in greenhouse gas showdown

Jackson surprised many by indicating that the EPA would not begin requiring any greenhouse gas permits of “large stationary sources” until 2011 – and even then, only from the largest emitters that already were applying for permits on other gases. In her letter to Senator Rockefeller, Jackson added that smaller emitters would not be subject to greenhouse emissions regulation before 2016.

The delay was interpreted by some observers as offering political cover to Democrats. Yet Rockefeller reportedly intends to go ahead with a bill, though such a measure would require at least 60 votes to pass.

Meanwhile, more drastic steps are planned on the other side of the aisle. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska plans to offer a bill that would entirely strip EPA of the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

“While the delay in implementation is a small forced step in the right direction, the Clean Air Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and the EPA's timeline continues to create significant and ongoing uncertainty for a business community,” Senator Murkowski said in a statement.

The bill reportedly has on the order of 40 co-sponsors, including a few Democrats. Though only 51 votes would be needed for passage in the Senate, the House also would have to approve the measure – and even then, President Obama could veto it.

In her letter responding to several questions by Rockefeller, Jackson noted that, should the Murkowski measure pass, it “would undo an historic agreement among states, auto makers, the federal government” to curb automobile emissions.

“A vote to vitiate the greenhouse-gas endangerment finding would be viewed as a vote to reject the scientific work of [13 US government departments]," she added. It would also be "viewed by many as a vote to move the United States to a position behind that of China on the issue of climate change, and more in line with the position of Saudi Arabia.”

Hyperbole? Not according to Kevin Book, an energy analyst and partner with ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington research and consulting company.

Such a decision by Congress would “disrupt auto makers’ plans, torpedo the administration’s delicate, multistate negotiated compromise,” he writes in a new report. It would also "force Congress to revisit the divisive and politically damaging topic" of auto fuel economy standards.

Previous

1 | 2