US Senate Democrats kept Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alas.) amendment to restrict US Environmental Protection Agency use of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to greenhouse gases for a year out of the agency's budget on Sept. 24.
Murkowski, who is the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's ranking minority member, said when she introduced the measure on Sept. 23 that it would give Congress time to develop a responsible response to global climate change.
The measure would bar EPA from spending money to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA for a year, she said. It would not apply to preparatory work for any carbon dioxide regulations or any other GHG emissions control activities at the agency, Murkowski emphasized.
EPA proposed an endangerment finding that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution which may threaten public health or welfare on Apr. 17. "Even if we do make a final positive endangerment finding, that does not necessarily trigger any regulations," an EPA spokesman told OGJ on Sept. 24.
But federal lawmakers and groups pushing for legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions said the proposed endangerment finding, which followed a scientific review that the US Supreme Court ordered in 2007, could set the stage for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA.
'Thinly veiled threat'
In floor remarks on Sept. 24 following a vote to refer proposed US Department of the Interior and EPA budgets, which did not include her amendment to the full Senate, Murkowski described regulating GHG emissions under the CAA as a "thinly veiled threat" against the Senate to force climate legislation action "regardless of where we are in what remains an ongoing and incredibly important debate."
She disputed charges by some environmental and other groups that she was trying to keep EPA from fully using its authority to regulate GHG emissions. "Anyone who reads my amendment will see that I went to great lengths to ensure it does not lead to any unintended or adverse consequences," she said. "It has been drafted and redrafted to limit one action by EPA, for one year, and nothing else. I've been responsive to bipartisan requests, even from members who I knew wouldn't support this amendment, because I am committed to avoiding an overreach."
But Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, responded that the proposal would have created serious problems. "Many of us viewed her amendment with substantial alarm," she said, adding that EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson sent her a letter the night before indicating that it would keep the agency from promulgated light-duty vehicle emission standards if adopted.
"We can't bury our heads in the sand when it comes to climate change," Feinstein continued. "It makes no sense to put an amendment on the floor which would devastate EPA's authority to regulate [GHG] emissions while the Environment and Public Works Committee is working on its own cap-and-trade bill."
Murkowski said she offered her amendment because a finding of significant deterioration under one CAA section could be applied to others. Extending GHG emissions limits from motor vehicle to stationary sources could be applied to any source emitting 250 tons/year or more of carbon dioxide under the CAA, she warned. "Realistically, we are talking about any facility heated by conventional fuels that's more than 65,000 sq ft in size," she said.
'At full speed'
EPA apparently has recognized this and proposed moving the exemption limit to 25,000 tons/year, she continued. But CAA does not give the agency this flexibility, making a legal challenge likely and increase the possibility of unsuitably broader regulation, according to Murkowski. "This regulation is a train that could wreck our fragile economy, and it's barreling toward us at full speed," she maintained.
Feinstein said the proposal was not included because it would have exempted refineries, electric power plants, and other large carbon dioxide-emitters from GHG emissions regulation. If the amendment had been considered, she said she would have offered one of her own, which would have exempted small businesses and farms.
Until Congress enacts cap-and-trade legislation, EPA is obligated to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA, she continued. Jackson has notified the White House's Office of Management and Budget that the agency would exempt sources below 25,000 tons/year and concentrate only on the 13,000 largest carbon emitters, which already are regulated under CAA for soot, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants, Feinstein said.
Murkowski said she agreed that Congress must act. "I must think that moving climate regulation through EPA is not the most effective way to do this. We need to be driving forward good, thoughtful consideration about ways to respond to climate change," she said.
The National Association of Manufacturers endorsed Murkowski's amendment on Sept. 23. "Supporting the amendment does not convey opposition to climate change policy; it merely allows Congress to do its job," said Jay Timmons, NAM's executive vice-president, in a letter to Senate members.
More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
