Global Warming In the News

Darren Samuelsohn, E&ENews PM senior reporter

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging Congress to pass a law that would stop U.S. EPA from enacting greenhouse gas regulations through the Clean Air Act.

The chamber's request sent to lawmakers yesterday takes issue with a preliminary EPA document published in the Federal Register that spells out options for controlling heat-trapping emissions from cars, power plants, factories and beyond.

While no major action on EPA's advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is expected until after President Bush leaves office, Bruce Josten, the chamber's executive vice president of government affairs, signaled that his group was taking no chances.

"The programs contemplated by the ANPR would give EPA vast control over the daily operations of many aspects of our economy not presently regulated by EPA, all in the name of global warming," Josten wrote lawmakers. "This is far too much economic control by an agency that was created by an executive order without an overarching mission set forth by Congress."

EPA released its 570-page climate plan last month despite complaints from nine Cabinet officials within the Bush administration. Even EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson added a cover letter that essentially disowned the underlying material as a preliminary, staff-written draft (E&ENews PM, July 11).

Playing on the Bush administration's concerns, the chamber argues EPA staff has "gift-wrapped a solution none of us want" by publishing a document that suggests regulations well beyond the intent of the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

In an interview today, Jason Burnett, who resigned in June from his post as the EPA associate deputy administrator, said the government has a statutory obligation to follow through with the Supreme Court's order. "EPA must move forward administratively with the law it has," he said.

But Burnett said Congress is well positioned to play a role in addressing greenhouse gas regulations and perhaps give EPA a clear signal about what its role should be.

"There's no question that new legislation could be better than moving forward with the Clean Air Act, better in terms of environmental outcome and better in terms of economy outcomes and reduced regulatory complexity," Burnett said. "I welcome a debate on how Congress can do better than the current law."

Environmental groups say the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are creating the false impression that EPA ultimately will finalize restrictions stronger than anyone wants.

"People need to keep their eye on the ball here," said David Baron, managing attorney at Earthjustice. "We're decades behind in dealing with this problem. The focus is going to be on the big sources. We're having enough trouble getting EPA to look at those."

Added Frank O'Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Watch, "It's clear that the chamber is worried about an EPA in the post-Bush era. Of course, for many of us, that era can't come soon enough."

The chamber does not hide its views on global warming policy, having run ads earlier this year critical of cap-and-trade legislation from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.).

And last week, the chamber asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to retract a scientific report on climate change because it relied on data that has not yet been published (ClimateWire, Aug. 4).