National Journal Expert Blog: EPA Threat Stalling Action on Climate

The Institute's Vice President for Climate and Technology, Steve Eule, is a contributor to National Journal's Energy and Environment Expert Blog. 

EPA Threat Stalling Action On Climate
By Stephen Eule

Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

No, the Environmental Protection Agency should not regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber’s been very clear that the CAA wasn’t designed for-- and is ill suited to address-- the complexities of reducing GHG emissions. Does anyone really believe, for example, that EPA can set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for greenhouse gases when the U.S. accounts for, on net, only about a 15% (and shrinking) share of global emissions? How can EPA set what it can’t control?

One of the major selling points of a comprehensive energy and climate change bill is that it would establish a single set of rules for controlling GHGs. It isn’t working out that way, however. The Waxman-Markey bill, for example, doesn’t bar EPA from regulating businesses that don’t fall under the rubric of the cap and trade scheme the bill would set up. The Kerry-Boxer bill goes even further and leaves the door open to EPA regulation of “capped” and “uncapped” facilities. And EPA Administrator Lis...

No, the Environmental Protection Agency should not regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber’s been very clear that the CAA wasn’t designed for-- and is ill suited to address-- the complexities of reducing GHG emissions. Does anyone really believe, for example, that EPA can set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for greenhouse gases when the U.S. accounts for, on net, only about a 15% (and shrinking) share of global emissions? How can EPA set what it can’t control?

One of the major selling points of a comprehensive energy and climate change bill is that it would establish a single set of rules for controlling GHGs. It isn’t working out that way, however. The Waxman-Markey bill, for example, doesn’t bar EPA from regulating businesses that don’t fall under the rubric of the cap and trade scheme the bill would set up. The Kerry-Boxer bill goes even further and leaves the door open to EPA regulation of “capped” and “uncapped” facilities. And EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said recently that she sees legislation complementing, not replacing, EPA regulation.

Our concerns go well beyond the threat of EPA regulation. There are many other administrative processes using other statutes and authorities as equally ill-suited to the task as the CAA—such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act—that are being stretched beyond recognition to regulate GHGs through the back door. Many states and localities have implemented or are considering programs to limit greenhouse gases. Trial lawyers and state attorneys general are using litigation to win awards against industries, primarily power generators, to reduce emissions through the courts. The findings language in both the House and Senate bills stating that greenhouse gases cause injury to persons, property, and the environment is an open invitation for trial lawyers to sue. Adding layers of complexity atop an already complex situation is hardly the way to provide business the predictability it needs.

I think one of the ironies in the whole climate change debate is that the threat of EPA regulation may actually be holding back sensible climate legislation. To say that the current bills are not as bad as the EPA alternative, which most everyone agrees is pretty bad, isn’t saying much. Who wants to make such a Hobson’s choice? Taking the regulatory threat off the table could free the discussion and lead it in a more constructive and less partisan direction. We’ve seen in the most recent Pew survey that climate change still remains dead last in the public’s consciousness, and while energy has dropped down the list, it’s still a much more important concern to the American public. There’s an opportunity here to get off the climate change merry-go-round with energy and climate legislation that focuses on efficiency, developing advanced new technologies, commercializing existing technologies, and cutting the “green tape” that stymies energy projects from going forward—all without throwing the economy into a tail-spin. That’s a much more compelling path forward.

Other blog responses are available here.