Just in Case You Were Still Hoping

The Senate Climate bill won't go anywhere in the next six weeks, WSJ confirms.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."

Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.

Speaking of Appropriations Riders. . .

Grist mulls over the possibility that Congress might use an appropriations rider to kill EPA authority to regulate GHGs under the mobile source and BACT provisions of the Clean Air Act, in response to Monday's revelation that EPA's endangerment finding had been sent to the White House. You can read the piece here.

[Proviso: I disagree with many of the Grist piece's characterizations of the Mass v. EPA decision; it is not quite as slam-dunk in "requiring" GHG regulation under the CAA as the piece makes it out to be.]

It is certainly true that even Democrats have been making a lot of noise about taking away EPA's Clean Air Act Authority over GHGs as a condition of creating a new climate bill. (You can see this in questioning of Lisa Jackson by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee a few weeks ago, detailed in this post.) But unilaterally getting rid of EPA CAA authority over GHGs without passing a climate bill would be pretty shocking. And I for one believe (hope?) that the White House knows what its doing, and that Congress won't be able to kill EPA authority through an appropriations rider. This can be seen in the way that the White House and EPA have broken the endangerment finding process into digestible bits--making the finding, for instance, but not creating the concomitant regulations of vehicle GHG emissions--and has been feeding those bits slowly to Congress at strategic moments--just before Kerry-Boxer was introduced, just before Ban Ki-moon's visit--to keep it moving along. (For a good overview of how this has been trucking along since last spring, see the "Climate Change" section of Ohio Environmental Law Blog, here.)

GHG Endangerment Finding Sent to White House

Apparently, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters today that she had sent the final version of EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases to the White House on Friday. The Reuters article can be read here. (The proposed version of the finding, released last April, can be read here.)

Other news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, are reporting the story. But the current version of the finding and the accompanying letter are not yet available on the EPA or White House web sites.

The endangerment finding was made under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, part of its mobile source (vehicle) provisions, and is the ultimate result of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. This pertains only to mobile sources, and, by its terms (as proposed in April) will not immediately be followed by regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs.

That said, a final endangerment finding will give environmentalists a strong legal case that the EPA must now issue regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs. EPA has also signaled that it would have to make a similar endangerment finding and issue regulations for emissions of GHGs from stationary sources, including power plants. Some (though not all) in the environmental community are eager to see EPA action via the PSD provisions of the Act, though industry supporters have warned that such a finding for stationary sources would virtually shut down the economy.

If EPA issues regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs, environmental litigators will be able to make a slam-dunk argument that GHG's are regulated by the Clean Air Act, and thus subject to the Act's "best available control technology" (BACT) provisions. (This is an argument they have been advancing for some time in their battle against coal-fired power plants, but is weakened by the fact that no actual regulations of GHGs have been issued under the Act. Three weeks ago, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued an order, In the Matter of BP Products North America (EAB, October 16, 2009) in which it explained that "at this time EPA continues to construe" BACT to cover only those pollutants "subject to either a provision in the Clean Air Act or a regulation adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.")

The White House has 90 days to act, but Administrator Jackson told Reuters that she expects an expedited review. This move will put additional pressure on the Senate to continue to move forward with climate change legislation, and may also help show the world, in advance of next month's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, that the U.S. is moving forward to regulate greenhouse gases.

More information will be posted as it becomes available.

Update: The Washington Post is reporting the story now, and confirms that the finding has not been released publicly. They obtained a statement from the National Association of Manufacturers that they are concerned that EPA is moving forward before Congress has a chance to pass its own bill (confirming that this may well be designed to place pressure on Congress, since you can be assured that NAM is calling on its connections in the Senate right now.) And they obtained a statement from environmentalists that they think that the Administration is doing this to avoid going to Copenhagen "empty handed." The full article, which reflects some great last-minute reporting by Juliet Eilperin, can be read here.

The Denver Science News Examiner is reporting the story here (and its being reprinted in the Washington D.C. Examiner, so being read for free by D.C. Metro commuters on their way to work this morning.) And BNET is reporting the story, describing the move as "Climate Bill Stimulus."

Earthjustice Petitions EPA to Revoke BACT Permit for Failure to Cover GHGs

Earthjustice announced on Tuesday that it filed a petition with EPA on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, and Northwest Environmental Defense Center, challenging PSD and MACT permits granted to the TransAlta Coal-Fired Power Plant in Centralia, Washington, for failure to adequately control for NOx, mercury, and CO2.

In a joint press release, the groups announced that they had filed the petition for EPA review of the permit, granted by the Southwest Washington Clean Air Agency.

Environmentalists React to EPW Action

Although the fate of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill has been made more uncertain by the apparent defection of one of its main sponsors, environmentalists reacted with approval to its passage this morning by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. NRDC crafted this message for its President, Frances Beinecke:

Chairman Boxer and her colleagues took an important step forward with today's action. They have worked under difficult circumstances to craft S. 1733 and sought to have full consideration of this important legislation in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

We welcome the announcement yesterday by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman that they are committed to working together to combine the best of S. 1733 with additional provisions to produce a bi-partisan bill that the Senate will pass.

The Sierra Club put this similar message together for its executive director, Carl Pope:

The Sierra Club is pleased that Chairwoman Boxer and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act today. . . . We are distressed that the Republican Senators on the committee were unwilling to even sit down and discuss this important plan for less pollution, more jobs and greater security. Polluters like Oil and Coal are spending tens of millions of dollars to stand in the way of progress. It appears that the Senators who boycotted these meetings have sided with those special interests. Fortunately a bipartisan group of Senators led by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham are working together to find constructive ways to keep this effort moving forward. We look forward to working with that group to finish a bill that will build our clean energy economy. . .

So a little less politic re the GOP boycott in Boxer's committee, but perhaps purposefully obtuse about the emphasis on "clean coal" and provisions for offshore drilling that Graham seeks to include in any bill.

EarthJustice did not join the others in applauding the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman effort. Instead, in this careful message crafted for its president Trip Van Oppen, it (1) concentrates on the symbolism of having a climate bill move forward in the Senate, (2) applauds the fact that Kerry-Boxer does not preempt Clean Air Act applicability to GHG emissions, and (3) signals disapproval (perhaps?) of further incursions by special interests:

Momentum is building toward a transformational shift to a clean energy economy that doesn't rely on burning fossil fuels that are primarily responsible for global warming. . . . We applaud the Environment and Public Works Committee and chairman Boxer for approving legislation that builds upon the Clean Air Act, which has a proven track record of reducing pollution from the dirtiest sources. The Clean Air Act has successfully protected the public and the environment from mercury poisoning and acid rain, and is currently poised to reduce climate pollution from mobile sources that account for up to four percent of U.S. emissions. Coal companies and other special interests are attempting to derail or delay this legislation -- and keep us hooked on fossil fuels as our main source of energy. We are encouraged to see those who are interested in making the U.S. a clean energy leader prevail.

Let's hope that the off-the-record negotiations Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are undertaking don't result in something drastically different than this vision. Because the last thing we can afford is a climate bill in name only.

Now a Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Climate Bill is in the Works

And it won't have much to offer if you don't support offshore drilling or believe in "clean coal".

Tossing another layer on top of the anarchy that has erupted in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee over the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate bill, Senator Kerry himself announced today that he would also be pushing a second climate bill on a "dual track" outside of the committee process, even as his first bill struggles forward. He will be working on this bill behind closed doors with Senators Graham (R, SC), and Lieberman (I, CT).

As this Washington Post article notes, other Senate committees have been working on their own climate bills as well, and all will have to be reconciled in the end. This just adds another to the heap. But the action by Kerry, who made his announcement alongside Senators Lieberman (I, CT) and Graham (R, SC) today, shows that Senate leaders don't have much faith that the Kerry-Boxer bill will win the necessary 60 votes in the end. (Or, you could look at all this with rose-colored glasses, like the Boston Globe, which is reporting that "Sens Kerry, Graham, Lieberman join forces to rescue climate bill.")

This country has a lot to do to curb GHG emissions, and strong federal mandates for renewable generation and energy efficiency should form the core of any good bill. Waxman-Markey emerged from the committee process in the House so badly weakened that environmentalists were privately dismayed, and publicly almost ready to withdraw support. So its a major (major) disappointment that the Senate may end up pitching more of the Waxman-Markey framework overboard. (Kerry-Boxer was 90% based on Waxman-Markey.) Even more worrisome, according to the Post "Graham said that the bill should protect the climate, but also allow for more offshore drilling, an expansion of nuclear energy and an emphasis on 'clean coal' technology." And Lieberman confirmed that the three were committed to a "cap and trade" scheme, "but noted that the scheme had 'a lot of moving parts you could negotiate on.'"

The Huffington Post does not mince words, reporting the story as "Kerry, Graham, Lieberman Working on Weaker Climate Compromise," here.

Fish and Wildlife Finally Proposes Critical Polar Bear Habitat

But warns that this will not be a backdoor for global warming regulation

In advance of an expected flurry of Senate, EPA and White House activity on a climate change bill tomorrow, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced today a proposed designation of over 200,000 acres of "critical habitat" in the Arctic for polar bears, which were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) almost a year and a half ago. The proposed habitat includes part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Environmentalists had campaigned since 2005 to bring the polar bear under the protection of the ESA. They did this not just for the sake of the species, but also to spur government action to regulate emissions of GHGs contributing to climate change while the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress sat on their hands. The Bush Interior Department finally relented on the listing on May 14, 2008, see 73 Fed Reg 28,212, but did not designate critical habitat at the same time, as required by the Act. Environmentalists promptly sued, and today's proposed designation settles that suit. In a teleconference this afternoon, according to this article in the New York Times, Thomas Strickland, Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks cautioned that “[t]he Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool to directly address the carbon emissions that are root cause of climate change.” In other words, we should not expect further Interior regulations curbing GHG emissions to avoid a "take" of the new critical habitat any time soon.

The proposed rule is available here, and maps of the habitat here. Environmentalists reactions to today's proposed designation, which urge that the government must now act to prevent further degradation of that habitat by curbing drilling and restricting emissions of GHGs, are available here, here, and here.

EPA Holds the Line on BACT and CO2

Agency makes clear that it does not view CAA BACT provisions as applicable to GHGs

On Monday, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued an order to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to reconsider a permit it granted for BP to expand its Whiting (Indiana) refining facility to refine oil shale. NRDC, Sierra Club, the Environmental Law & Policy Institute and others filed a petition in August 2008 for the federal EPA to reconsider IDEM's decision to grant the permit. In the petition, environmentalists alleged that IDEM had let BP get away with incomplete calculations of its emissions, and that it had failed to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2, petitioners urged, should be subject to the CAA's best-available-control-technology (BACT) requirements, CAA § 165(a), following the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision.

In its ruling, EAB threw petitioners a bone by conceding that the emissions calculations were incomplete, and remanding the permit for reevaluation of the aspects that incompleteness affected. (This allowed environmentalists to claim victory.) But it stonewalled on the critical CO2 point.

Petitioners urged that the BACT requirements applied to CO2 under Mass v. EPA, in which the Court held that CO2 was a "pollutant" under the CAA. This, they said, means that CO2 is a pollutant that is "subject to regulation" under the CAA and therefore subject to the BACT requirements. (See CAA § 165(a) (requiring BACT be installed preconstruction for all pollutants "subject to regulation under this chapter.")

Rather than concede that CO2 was "subject to regulation," something that Lisa Jackson's EPA has been flirting with but avoiding, the EAB held that "at this time EPA continues to construe" BACT to cover only those pollutants "subject to either a provision in the Clean Air Act or a regulation adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant." The phrasing opens the door to the possibility that EPA may change its interpretation in the future--important to keeping the pressure on Congress to pass GHG-specific legislation--but maintains the status quo for now.