December 11, 2009

In an effort to give the Copenhagen conference momentum, the Obama administration has introduced its long-awaited policy declaring greenhouse gases dangerous to the environment and public health.

The move, of course, was expected. And his supporters are applauding the timing. To proponents, it's a bold measure that makes a clear statement to all concerned parties as to where the president stands on carbon reductions. To critics, however, it is an expensive endeavor that will hurt American businesses.

"Today's EPA ruling underscores the need for Congress to pass sensible climate legislation," says a statement by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. "We believe that regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the statutory authority of the Clean Air Act is not the preferred course."

A 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision has paved the way for this initiative by the Obama administration. It said that if the EPA finds that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and to public health, then it can regulate those releases under the Clean Air Act. The same act puts limits on such emissions as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.

The ruling, which came down during the Bush administration, was respected -- but no action was taken to pursue it. In April 2009, the Obama administration said that it was likely to take a very different course by first classifying carbon as a menacing release and then by regulating it under current clean air laws.

In announcing its formal rulemaking last week, the EPA said that in the short term there would be no changes. The move, it continues, marks a gradual evolution to a new day and one in which the United States formally acknowledges that it is battling global warming. Part of the tack might also be to force the hand of Congress, which is now grappling with two competing bills to limit carbon emissions.

Manufacturers, in fact, would rather bargain with their elected representatives through the legislative process than with the administration in the form of rules in which they have less sway. Likewise, the administration has said that it would prefer that Congress lead the charge by enacting a cap-and-trade bill that attempts to bring down emissions.

"The overwhelming amount of scientific studies show that the threat is real," says EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean energy reform."

Mixed Reactions

While the ruling will not have immediate implications, it will set the nation on a trajectory toward reducing its carbon footprint. Already, for example, the administration is inching up the required gas mileage from about 28 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. The aim there is to reduce carbon emission by millions of tons.

It is doing the same for power plants and other factors that emit 25,000 tons or more of carbon dioxide a year. If such facilities are modernized, or if new ones are built, they would then be required to install "best available technologies." EPA estimates that 10,000 plants would be affected -- units that produce about 85 percent of all emissions.

An earlier but similar rulemaking also requires the formation of a registry to force the same industrial concerns to not just tabulate their heat-trapping emissions but to also consider ways to reduce them. In effect, what gets measured gets managed. That, in turn, would make it more feasible to enact national policy that would require cuts in those releases and could facilitate the implementation of a cap-and-trade system.

"EPA is clinging for dear life to the notion that the global climate models are holding up," said Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says it will file suit to stop the rulemaking. "In reality, those models are about to sink under the growing weight of evidence that they are fabrications."

Manufacturing groups say that the rule will adversely affect their cost of doing business at a time when this country can hardly afford it. They fear that the rulemaking is the first step to even harsher ones. Instead, it would prefer that Congress address the issue.

Similarly, utility groups are concerned that the process appears to have bypassed the Congressional process and moved directly into the regulatory realm where they have less control. But even the large coal producing utilities such as American Electric Power say that while they would rather work with amenable lawmakers they will also cooperate with the administration.

That conducive attitude is what the administration is hoping for -- acknowledging that it too would rather see a legislative remedy. Toward that end, supporters of the White House say that critics of earlier clean air laws used fear tactics to try and defeat those bills. Laws, such as Clean Air Act, they emphasize have dramatically cut emissions while also creating new jobs and spawning modern technologies.

"The Obama administration is prepared to use existing laws, even as it works with Congress on new ones, to move our country toward cleaner energy that will protect the health of people and of future generations," says David Doniger, policy director for the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

To the chagrin of some, President Obama came to office on a platform allocating resources and advancing rules to promote environmental affairs. By moving decisively to classify greenhouse gases as dangerous pollutants, he is fulfilling his pledge.

 

Respond to the editor.
Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog