Come Sunday, curbs on greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act begin. But not without a fight. Expect to hear the name Fred Upton a lot as this heats up. He's the new head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who has said Environmental Protection Administrator Lisa Jackson will be testifying so often that he'll set aside a special parking place for her at the Rayburn House Office Building. He wrote recently that the EPA's planned curtailment of greenhouse gases is an "unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs—unless Congress steps in."
Meanwhile, some environmental advocates are unhappy with what they consider an unnecessary EPA delay in imposing greenhouse gas emissions controls on smog and boilers until July 2011 and April 2012, respectively. They see it as unnecessary weakness since the Supreme Court ruled that EPA could regulate GHG in 2007. And some worry the administration will back off.
If a climate-change bill had managed to get through Congress during the past two years, the coming confrontation would be behind us now. But, of course, that possibility was poleaxed by the dysfunctional Senate, an administration distracted by an overflowing agenda, full-bore industry lobbying, the billionaire Koch Brothers-funded propaganda campaign and continuing attacks by denier shills - like The Wall Street Journal's John Fund - who greet each big snowstorm with another see-we-told-you-global-warming-was-a-hoax screed.
The new EPA regulations are twofold. Cars and light trucks must now follow tougher new CAFE fuel-efficiency rules. Not everybody likes these regs, but the wrestling match over them ended last May. The continuing battle is over the regulations EPA seeks to impose over stationary sources of emissions, that is, large manufacturing facilities, refineries, and, most important, power plants. Any new facility that expects to emit more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide (or other greenhouse gases such as methane) will need a permit. Existing plants are required to get their permits by July. Expansions of existing plants of more than 75,000 tons are also covered. Final rules will be phased in. For example, those for oil refineries will not come until November 2012.
As described in some detail by Eli Kintisch at Science Insider, much of the opposition is in the form of lawsuits:
EPA's efforts rest on three pillars. Last year the agency finalized an official "endangerment finding" declaring that greenhouse gasses endanger public health or welfare. Then they set up rules to regulate those emissions from cars. Following that they proposed rules to define which sizes of existing or new industrial facilities required regulation, and when.
All three elements are at issue in one mega-case being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That case, called Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc. et al. v. EPA, combines 16 lawsuits which have all been appealed from federal district courts. Two weeks ago, EPA fended off an effort by the litigants to receive a legal "injunction" which would have temporarily blocked EPA from moving forward on the whole program. Sixteen states have weighed in on the side of EPA,, 14 oppose it; enviros are mostly allied with the Obama Administration while a wide variety of pro-business or right-leaning groups side with industry. Briefs on the case, which the judges will hear in parts corresponding to the three pillars, are due some time this spring.
There are other lawsuits as well.
The states will enforce the rules under an EPA guidance document. Curbing emissions is slated to be accomplished with new technology, fuel substitutions or carbon capture and storage. It's expected that at least some older coal-fueled operations will be shuttered because upgrades or conversions will not be economically feasible. And that's the ostensible motivation for much of the opposition to EPA's efforts to control emissions. But while there was considerable opposition in some states to the EPA guidance, Texas is now the only hold-out.
While much of industry fiercely opposes EPA's efforts to curtail GHG emissions, eight companies replied to a Wall Street Journal editorial earlier this month, saying they had no problem with EPA's regulations. Moreover, the group American Businesses for Clean Energy, representing 60,000 companies, sent a letter urging Congress to support EPA's regs.
At The New York Times, John M. Broder writes:
While only the first phase of regulation takes effect on Sunday, the administration is on notice that if it moves too far and too fast in trying to curtail the ubiquitous gases that are heating the planet it risks a Congressional backlash that could set back the effort for years.
But the newly muscular Republicans in Congress could also stumble by moving too aggressively to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency, provoking a popular outcry that they are endangering public health in the service of their well-heeled patrons in industry. ...
“If the administration gets it wrong, we’re looking at years of litigation, legislation and public and business outcry,” said a senior administration official who asked not to be identified so as not to provide an easy target for the incoming Republicans. “If we get it right, we’re facing the same thing.”
“Can we get it right?” this official continued. “Or is this just too big a challenge, too complex a legal, scientific, political and regulatory puzzle?”
Given that the 112th Congress will see scores of new climate-change deniers take their seats among veterans with the same point of view, the obstacles to EPA action can be expected to be substantial. It's hard to know for sure how many of the deniers actually believe the planet's atmosphere and oceans are not being changed by greenhouse gas emissions and how many don't care whether they are or not but stand with the coal companies and American Petroleum Institute against doing anything about it. Whether they are motivated by scientific illiteracy, pure idiocy or simple greed, however, their dangerous stance will not put off our day of climate-change reckoning, merely make it worse.