The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleared another hurdle last week in advancing on its mandate to regulate GHG emissions. The Murkowski Resolution (S.J. Res. 26), a measure that would have overturned the EPA's finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare, and would have stripped the EPA of its authority to regulate GHGs, was defeated 53-47 in a Senate vote June 10th. The Resolution was supported by all 41 Senate Republicans, and six Democrats representing States that rely heavily on coal-based electricity generation.
Senate challenges to EPA regulation are not over, however. Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-W.Va.) Resolution (S-3072), co-sponsored by five Senate Democrats, would delay EPA regulation of stationary sources for two years. This measure has broader support within Democratic ranks, as it allows the EPA to maintain its authority to regulate GHGs and implement emissions limits for vehicles released in March, but provides Congress with more time to enact climate legislation. Timelines for a floor vote on the Rockefeller Resolution have not yet been published.
The EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs is concurrently being challenged in the courts. The EPA’s final tailoring rule, released May 13, is subject to a June 3rd federal appeals court challenge based on its exempting smaller sources from emissions control requirements. This follows a number of other lawsuits challenging EPA’s use of the Clean Air Act to address climate change, and eighteen lawsuits related to the EPA’s final rule establishing Jan. 2, 2011 as the start date for the application of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to GHG emissions.
Meanwhile, efforts continue to advance climate legislation in the Senate, with a climate bill potentially to be tabled in July. If the Murkowski Resolution represents a gauge for Senate appetite to enact climate legislation, as believed by some, it will be an uphill battle to secure the 60 votes required for success. But the votes could be there. Eight senators that voted for the Resolution made statements saying that they believe we need to reduce GHG emissions. Whether their notional support is followed up with votes favouring GHG-limiting policy remains to be seen.
By Eva Berton, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
