Lobbyists Press EPA on Carbon Regs
Published by The New York Times
12 January 2010
By Anne C. Mulkern
Both sides hope they can have an impact, but lobbying EPA is different from lobbying Congress.
Companies that make campaign contributions to lawmakers cannot do the same with EPA employees. Some key arguments made to lawmakers, such as how legislation would affect certain states, workers or consumer groups, are far less likely to influence EPA. And the agency is limited in how much it can factor in cost as it decides on regulations.
"It's a different ball game entirely," said David Bookbinder, Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "When you're dealing with Congress, it's a political institution where political considerations loom large in any decision."
"EPA is clear, it is setting its own policy objectives," Bookbinder said. "We have no influence on that."
EPA in March is expected to roll out the first-ever federal standards affecting greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes. This follows the agency's move in December declaring greenhouse gases a danger to public health. The tailpipe standards would automatically trigger requirements that stationary sources -- such as power plants -- install "best available control technology," or BACT, according to EPA. The agency has proposed a separate rule to shield smaller facilities from those requirements, the "tailoring rule," which is also expected to be in place by March.
A large segment of the energy business, in conversations with EPA workers and in comments filed on EPA's notice of its proposed tailoring rule, is arguing that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will create havoc.
Federal regulations will conflict with state rules, industry advocates said, with many states forced to target carbon emissions from smaller sources that would be affected by the federal rule. As well, there is concern that EPA might try to govern what kinds of power plants can be built, favoring cleaner fuel sources like natural gas over coal.
Companies have realized that EPA is serious about regulation, and not merely making what many thought six months ago was a political threat to push Congress to act on climate, analysts said.
"There was a widespread expectation going into 2009 that this would be the year of domestic climate legislation," said Sam Thernstrom, who worked at President George W. Bush's White House Council on Environmental Quality and is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "2009 didn't turn out that way."
"EPA is going to move forward," Thernstrom said. "Industry has woken up to that fact. Potentially regulated industries that stand to lose a lot of money here need to pay attention to the regulatory process right now."
Many of those industries are lobbying lawmakers and asking them to rein in EPA. They are expressing support for a proposed amendment from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) aimed at blocking U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
"It's merely a prudent way to say, 'Let's look before we leap,'" said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, an industry trade group. "It strikes us as a reasonable approach to take."
Behind the scenes, energy companies and trade groups are talking to lawmakers about how EPA's plan could adversely affect utilities, coal companies, and the oil and gas industry.
"They're lobbying EPA, they're lobbying Congress, and they're hoping either Congress will act or EPA will act," said Jeff Holmstead, former EPA air chief during the Bush administration and now an industry lawyer. "If you get every member of Congress to lobby EPA, they may be forced to deal with it even if they might not otherwise be persuaded to deal with it on their own."
Holmstead, who has lobbied for Duke Energy Corp., Edison Electric Institute, Southern Co. and Arch Coal Inc., worked with Murkowski's staff on the wording of an EPA amendment she offered last fall, the Washington Post reported this week.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, are waging a counter-push. A coalition of 37 environmental, public health and liberal advocacy groups in a letter sent to senators last week urged opposition to Murkowski's amendment."
Full article published here.
12 January 2010
By Anne C. Mulkern
"Skeptical about the prospects of climate legislation in the Senate, energy companies and environmental groups have shifted their lobbying efforts toward U.S. EPA.
Energy businesses want to stop EPA from proceeding with its plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, a move expected to come in March. If the agency does decide to impose restrictions, industry wants them delayed until 2012 or later. Meanwhile, environmentalists are urging the agency to move as quickly as possible to regulate major emission sources.
Energy businesses want to stop EPA from proceeding with its plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, a move expected to come in March. If the agency does decide to impose restrictions, industry wants them delayed until 2012 or later. Meanwhile, environmentalists are urging the agency to move as quickly as possible to regulate major emission sources.
Both sides hope they can have an impact, but lobbying EPA is different from lobbying Congress.
Companies that make campaign contributions to lawmakers cannot do the same with EPA employees. Some key arguments made to lawmakers, such as how legislation would affect certain states, workers or consumer groups, are far less likely to influence EPA. And the agency is limited in how much it can factor in cost as it decides on regulations.
"It's a different ball game entirely," said David Bookbinder, Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "When you're dealing with Congress, it's a political institution where political considerations loom large in any decision."
"EPA is clear, it is setting its own policy objectives," Bookbinder said. "We have no influence on that."
EPA in March is expected to roll out the first-ever federal standards affecting greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes. This follows the agency's move in December declaring greenhouse gases a danger to public health. The tailpipe standards would automatically trigger requirements that stationary sources -- such as power plants -- install "best available control technology," or BACT, according to EPA. The agency has proposed a separate rule to shield smaller facilities from those requirements, the "tailoring rule," which is also expected to be in place by March.
A large segment of the energy business, in conversations with EPA workers and in comments filed on EPA's notice of its proposed tailoring rule, is arguing that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will create havoc.
Federal regulations will conflict with state rules, industry advocates said, with many states forced to target carbon emissions from smaller sources that would be affected by the federal rule. As well, there is concern that EPA might try to govern what kinds of power plants can be built, favoring cleaner fuel sources like natural gas over coal.
Companies have realized that EPA is serious about regulation, and not merely making what many thought six months ago was a political threat to push Congress to act on climate, analysts said.
"There was a widespread expectation going into 2009 that this would be the year of domestic climate legislation," said Sam Thernstrom, who worked at President George W. Bush's White House Council on Environmental Quality and is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "2009 didn't turn out that way."
"EPA is going to move forward," Thernstrom said. "Industry has woken up to that fact. Potentially regulated industries that stand to lose a lot of money here need to pay attention to the regulatory process right now."
Many of those industries are lobbying lawmakers and asking them to rein in EPA. They are expressing support for a proposed amendment from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) aimed at blocking U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
"It's merely a prudent way to say, 'Let's look before we leap,'" said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, an industry trade group. "It strikes us as a reasonable approach to take."
Behind the scenes, energy companies and trade groups are talking to lawmakers about how EPA's plan could adversely affect utilities, coal companies, and the oil and gas industry.
"They're lobbying EPA, they're lobbying Congress, and they're hoping either Congress will act or EPA will act," said Jeff Holmstead, former EPA air chief during the Bush administration and now an industry lawyer. "If you get every member of Congress to lobby EPA, they may be forced to deal with it even if they might not otherwise be persuaded to deal with it on their own."
Holmstead, who has lobbied for Duke Energy Corp., Edison Electric Institute, Southern Co. and Arch Coal Inc., worked with Murkowski's staff on the wording of an EPA amendment she offered last fall, the Washington Post reported this week.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, are waging a counter-push. A coalition of 37 environmental, public health and liberal advocacy groups in a letter sent to senators last week urged opposition to Murkowski's amendment."
Full article published here.
Labels: Climate Change Bill, EPA, US lobbying
posted by Andrew at
14:12
0 Comments
