US EPA chief defends GHG regulations as Republicans attack

Washington (Platts)--9Feb2011/643 pm EST/2343 GMT

The Obama administration official charged with implementing new greenhouse gas emissions regulations said a Republican-backed bill to strip the US Environmental Protection Agency of that authority would endanger American health and welfare.

"The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a hearing of the House of Representatives Energy and Power Subcommittee.

"I respectfully ask the members of this committee to keep in mind that EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe," she added.

The Republican bill, drafted by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, would prohibit EPA from regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Upton, a Michigan Republican, called his legislation crucial to maintaining the US' competitiveness in international trade by keeping energy affordable, saying if EPA is allowed to regulate GHG emissions, the cost of energy would soar for both homeowners and businesses.

"These regulations go after emissions of carbon dioxide -- the unavoidable byproduct of using the coal, oil, and natural gas that provides this nation with 85% of its energy," Upton said.

"These fossil fuels are such an important part of our energy mix because they are often the most affordable choice. EPA regulators seek to take away that choice by making the use of these fuels prohibitively expensive," he added.

Upton said his legislation would preserve jobs by keeping US manufacturers globally competitive.

"I know American manufacturers can compete -- but not if they are saddled with burdensome regulations that put us at an unfair disadvantage," he said. "Needless to say, the Chinese government and other competitors have no intention of burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way EPA plans to here in America. Our goal should be to export goods, not jobs."

But Jackson said the EPA regulations would actually generate jobs in the environmental technologies and air pollution control industries. She said those industries in 2008 generated nearly $300 billion in revenues and $44 billion in exports.

She added that EPA's ability to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act stems from a Supreme Court-authorized EPA finding that those emissions endanger Americans' health and welfare.

"Based on the best peer-reviewed science, EPA found in 2009 that man-made greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people," she said. "Chairman Upton's bill would, in its own words, repeal that scientific finding. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question -- that would become part of this committee's legacy."

Environmentalists and their Democratic allies in Congress have blasted Upton's bill for ignoring the reality of global warming. The House Energy and Commerce Committee's top Democrat, Henry Waxman, of California, called the bill "extreme" and said it should be renamed the "Big Polluter Prevention Act." The bill is titled the "Energy Tax Prevention Act."

"The science hasn't changed in the last two years," Waxman said. "In fact, it has only gotten stronger."

But Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a Republican, the lead Senate sponsor of an identical bill, said EPA's intended regulation of GHGs would not stem the tide of climate change, because developing countries, such as China, India and Mexico, "are laughing at us right now" and will not act in concert to reduce C02 emissions.

Inhofe, a noted global warming skeptic, said the US needs to exploit all of its energy resources, including fossil fuels, to keep its economy running.

"Every Republican ... wants all of the above. We want gas, oil, renewables, green, we want it all," he said. "But what is available to run this machine called America? It's coal, oil and gas. ... We have to run this country, and we can't do it now without fossil fuels."

--Herman Wang, herman_wang@platts.com

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.platts.com