Democrats on the Waxman-Markey Fence Worried about RES, Allocations
By SolveClimate’s Stacy Morford.
The usual court jesters shot off verbal fireworks as a week of hearings got underway on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, but the real attention on Capitol Hill was tuned to a few moderate Democrats who have the power to make or break the bill.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman acknowledged their concerns this morning as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood were being questioned by the committee.
Praising one of those moderates, former committee chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), Waxman said he had hoped to see his legislation pass with something like the committee’s 42-1 vote that had secured amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990. But he added,
“I have my suspicions after listening to the opening statements here that we may not be able to succeed in the same way.”
The statements and questions so far from the committee’s moderate Democrats suggest that winning enough votes will likely mean rewriting the bill’s proposed renewable energy standard to account for regional differences. It may also require free emissions permits and other aid for industries – particularly automotive and energy – that will need to evolve to survive in a carbon-constrained world.
The RES currently proposed in the draft legislation would require utilities to derive 25 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025.
Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) both expressed concerns that that level would penalize states like theirs that lack the wind power of Texas and the sunshine and geothermal reserves of California. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) said his state could probably reach its current target of 15 percent by 2025, and possibly do better if nuclear and biomass could count, but 25 percent was out of the question.
Jim Matheson (D-Utah) asked Chu if he thought Congress would be overprescribing if it required both an emissions cap and a national renewable energy standard.
Chu has been outspoken in his desire to restore the United States’ place as the world’s leader in energy technology. The RES, he said, is a necessary interim driver of innovation and renewable energy use. The cap won’t start until 2012, and industry will need time to adjust. The RES, meanwhile, will drive renewable energy development by guaranteeing a marketplace. Energy executives who testified later in the day echoed that argument, saying federal rules would create stability and expectations that businesses could bank on.
That doesn’t mean that that the RES has to be uniform nationwide, though. A few committee members questioned whether Congress could instead require each state to set a minimum standard, which could then be met in ways tailored to that state’s own resource mix. Twenty-eight states already have renewable energy standards.
Dingell also questioned the “aggressive nature of the renewable electrical standard,” but he and Gene Green (D-Texas) were more focused on aid for industries, particularly the U.S. automakers and refiners.
Green, worried about job losses in the Houston ship channel area that he represents, urged the committee to provide ample free emissions allowances from the trading program for energy-intensive industries, as well as financial support for consumers facing higher electricity prices.
“We must protect our energy–intensive industries, including refineries, so we do not simply export those jobs abroad to nation without carbon controls and lax environmental regulations,” Green told the committee.
Dingell called for doubling the incentives for the Department of Energy’s advanced technology vehicle incentives programs to help the auto industry in his home state. He added:
“Of course, the question of auction versus allocation still lies before us, and that is a very serious question. Some might say ‘deal breaker’ for many members.”
The auction details from the cap-and-trade portion of the bill have yet to hammered out, which has created an easy target for fiscal fear mongering among opponents. Without knowing how the money from cap-and-trade auctions would be distributed, the Congressional Budget Office can’t accurately gauge the bill’s financial impact.
Jackson offered the committee the EPA’s newly released cost assessment: The energy bill for an average family would rise between $98 and $140 per year.
However, the EPA’s analysis looked only at the cap-and-trade portion of the bill, and with so many details yet to be determined by the committee, the EPA had to make assumptions about the price of carbon ($13-17 per ton in 2015) and the percentage of revenue that would be returned to consumers (40 percent).
The 40 percent rebate for consumers, a number recommended by the bill’s authors, did offer more insight into how Waxman and Markey might propose divvying up the revenues, but it was still only an estimate.
The committee’s 23 Republican members asked Waxman in a letter this week for more hearings to flesh out the details before the committee begins marking up the legislation for a vote.
“Your discussion draft lacks any decision on permit allocations versus auctions,” they wrote. “The manner in which you will address this issue is the cornerstone of the legislation; without it the bill is simply not finished and not ripe to be marked up or accurately discussed in the context of a hearing.”
In the absence of stronger data, some opponents have resorted to inventing their own numbers.
Two of the most outspoken opponents of the bill – Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) – suggested that the lack of details was a conspiracy to prevent the committee from knowing the true cost. They repeated the GOP’s manipulation of a recent MIT study, saying the increase would be $3,100, a number the study’s own author says is 10 times too high.
It was a fellow Republican, LaHood, who spoke up today about the continued abuse of the MIT study.
LaHood held up a letter from the study’s author correcting the GOP’s use of his numbers. But when he asked to enter the letter into the committee record, Shimkus objected. If the MIT letter was submitted, then Shimkus wanted to submit a story written by the Weekly Standard, too. Waxman agreed to both.
Shimkus was clearly playing to the cameras this morning. He vowed that “those of us who want jobs are going to try to defeat this bill” and went on to declare cap-and-trade a greater danger than terrorism:
“I see this as the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country as I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress. I’ve seen two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above.”
Like it or not, economics will be the issue for members of Congress. Their re-election campaigns are built on numbers – how many jobs they created, how much federal bacon they brought home – and their campaigns are always on.
WonkLine: April 22, 2009
From the Wonk Room.
On Earth Day, President Obama is visiting a “wind turbine manufacturer in Iowa” to “champion his push to cap greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable alternatives to fossil fuels,” as top officials testify before Congress on behalf of action on green jobs for a green future.
Oil-patch and Blue Dog Democrats like Gene Green (D-TX) and Jim Matheson (D-UT) yesterday called for subsidies for the oil and nuclear industries to be added to the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill, while criticizing federal renewable energy and energy efficiency standards.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) criticized the Environmental Protection Agency for taking initial steps to obey a Supreme Court mandate to regulate global warming pollution, saying, “if alphabet agencies can do what they want without regard to what Congress believes, there’s something wrong with the system.”
EPA Analysis: Waxman-Markey Could 'Play a Critical Role in the American Economic Recovery and Job Growth'
From the Wonk Room.
As Congressional hearings on draft green economy legislation begin, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that the bill will “play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth.” The initial EPA analysis, based on the draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), looks only at the effects of the cap-and-trade “market-based emissions program,” without modeling the effects of the complementary renewable energy and energy efficiency standards in this comprehensive legislation. Despite the limited review, the EPA has found that Waxman-Markey would “enable American workers to serve in a central role in our clean energy transformation”:
The draft bill would establish a wide range of policies to promote the development and deployment of new clean energy technologies that would fundamentally change the way we produce, deliver, and use energy. The bill would: (1) advance energy efficiency and reduce reliance on oil; (2) stimulate innovation in clean coal technology to ensure that coal remains an important part of the U.S. energy portfolio by capturing harmful greenhouse gas emissions before they enter the atmosphere; (3) accelerate the use of renewable sources of energy, including biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal; (4) create strong demand for a domestic manufacturing market for these next generation technologies that will enable American workers to serve in a central role in our clean energy transformation; and (5) play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth – from retooling shuttered manufacturing plants to make wind turbines, to using equipment and expertise in drilling for oil to develop clean energy from underground geothermal sources, to tapping into American ingenuity to engineer coal-fired power plants that do not contribute to climate change.The ACES Act does not address the question of how allocate the revenues of a carbon market auction. Industry executives and conservative allies like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are calling for free giveaways to polluters. However, the EPA analysis finds that polluter giveaways are “highly regressive.” A full auction of permits and equitable returns, however, allows for working families to come out ahead:
Assuming that the bulk of the revenues from the program are returned to households, the cap-and-trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers. . . . Returning the revenues in this fashion could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program.
The EPA modeling finds that a significant proportion of the required emissions reductions in Waxman-Markey are achieved through the use of one billion tons of international offsets a year. Because of the use of offsets, the U.S. electricity sector is expected to produce 10% fewer greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2025, although the overall cap declines by over 25 percent.
The EPA analysis confirms that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will create jobs in the clean energy industry, benefit consumers, slash oil use, and cut pollution. This analysis disproves the false claims made by those who want to continue our existing energy policies.The Environmental Defense Fund:
EPA’s new analysis shows that the market-based cap on carbon contained in the American Clean Energy and Security Act can be met for $98 to $140 per year for the average American household. Those estimates only consider the costs of reducing global warming pollution, and do not take into account the benefits of action.
Public Hearing on Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
The first of the two public hearings on its proposed mandatory registry for greenhouse gases will be held Monday, April 6, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Tuesday, April 7, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Arlington, Virginia. Logistical information to facilitate your attendance is provided below. Pre-registration especially for those wishing to make public comments is recommended due to time and capacity limitations. All visitors will need to go through security and present a valid photo identification, such as a driver’s license. Once you arrive in the lobby level, you will be directed to the hearing’s location. EPA will also web stream the public hearing:
Hearing Location
Environmental Protection Agency
Conference Center — Lobby Level
One Potomac Yard (South Building)
2777 S. Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a disability, please contact Carole Cook at 202-343-9263 or via email at cook.carole@epa.gov at least 10 days prior to the meeting to provide ample time to process your request.
EPA To Hold Public Hearings On Greenhouse Gas Registry
The Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it will hold a two-day public hearing next week in Arlington, Va. on its “proposal for the first comprehensive national system for reporting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by major sources in the United States.”
The hearing will take place Monday and Tuesday, April 6 and 7 from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the EPA Potomac Yard South Conference Center, 2777 Crystal Drive, Room S-1204, Arlington, VA 22202. Daily parking is available in the building and photo ID is required.
Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center Kickoff
The kickoff of the Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center at Georgetown Law will take place on Monday, February 23, 2009, from 5:00 – 8:00 p.m. on the 12th Floor of the Gewirz Student Center, located on the Georgetown Law campus at 120 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
Gov. Chris Gregoire (D-Wash.) and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.) will deliver remarks at 5:30 p.m. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will speak at 6:30 p.m.
Robert Sussman To Be EPA Senior Policy Counsel
From the Wonk Room.
The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports Center for American Progress senior fellow Robert Sussman “is returning to the Environmental Protection Agency” as “senior policy counsel to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, advising her on climate and environmental issues across the agency.” An official announcement is expected shortly. Before joining the Center for American Progress, Sussman was the Deputy Administrator during the Clinton administration, serving under Carol Browner, now President Obama’s White House energy and environment adviser.
The truth is that our environmental laws were not written to be static. They are flexible tools to address unanticipated or emerging problems that science identifies over time.
Sussman’s work for the Center for American Progress highlighted that approach. He crafted recommendations for regulatory and funding mechanisms to spur the development of carbon capture and sequestration technology for coal plants, “to reconcile reliance on coal for electricity with the need to reduce the threat of global warming.”
Obama Administration Adds Todd Stern, Lisa Heinzerling to Key Climate Positions
With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy.
Stern was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank run by John Podesta, the chair of the Obama transition. Stern was a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, as Vice Chair of the firm’s Public Policy and Strategy practice. Stern wrote on international climate change policy for CAP, promoting the creation of the E-8, a coalition of nations “focused on global ecological and resource problems” – (United States, China, India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Japan, and the European Union).
Stern was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary in the White House from 1993 to 1998. He also coordinated the Administration’s Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999, acting as the senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto and Buenos Aires negotiations.
Carbon Control News reports that Georgetown Law professor Lisa Heinzerling will be joining the Environmental Protection Agency “to advise incoming Administrator Lisa Jackson on how to address climate change.” As Bradford Plumer notes at The New Republic, Heinzerling “was the lead author of the plaintiff’s brief in Massachusetts v. EPA back in 2007, in which the Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the EPA did, in fact, have the authority to regulate carbon-dioxide.”
Although the administration has not confirmed the appointment, Gristmill’s Kate Sheppard reports that Heinzerling’s voicemail recording at Georgetown says she is on a two-year leave from the school because she has “taken a position in the new administration.”
Sen. Barrasso Places Hold on EPA Nominee Jackson Because of Browner
Wishing to meet with President Obama’s White House energy and environment adviser Carol Browner, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has delayed the nomination of Lisa Jackson to be Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator. He placed an anonymous objection to the unanimous consent resolution to move the nomination without a roll call vote on Tuesday, and raised his concerns with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, on Wednesday.
Barrasso spokesman Gregory Keeley tells E&E News:The bottom line is Senator Barrasso is concerned about this new structure with an appointed energy czar in the White House with no accountability in the White House. Just about how that will operate. He wants to know that. He wants to ensure sufficient transparency and oversight. He wants to be convinced Congress will have the ability to get answers from the appointed czar, Carol Browner. At this stage, he’s not convinced that’s the case.
Yesterday, Browner participated in President Obama’s economic briefing, with National Economic Director Lawrence Summers, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and White House Policy Council Director Melody Barnes.
Granta Nakayama, a Bush administration appointee, is the interim EPA administrator. According to E&E News, Nakayama “has been a noncontroversial figure since joining EPA as its top enforcement official in July 2005.”
UPDATE: E&E News reports that Granta Nakayama has resigned, with Mike Shapiro replacing him as interim EPA administrator.
Shapiro, 60, has previously been a senior official in the Office of Water, director of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste, and deputy assistant administrator in EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, where he helped implement the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. He also has held positions in EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Nominations of Lisa P. Jackson to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nancy Helen Sutley to be Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality 1
- Lisa P. Jackson, Nominated to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Nancy Helen Sutley, Nominated to be Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality
10:00 Boxer: Today marks a turning point for the environment and the health of the United States. I want to welcome Mrs. Jackson, who I’ve had the privilege to have several discussions in my office. Nancy Sutley has a strong record of service in my state of California. The mission of the EPA is to protect the public health and the environment. EPA must rely on science, not special interests. The chair of the CEQ needs to bring all the voices in the administration together.
10:11 Inhofe: What exactly is going to be the role of the new energy czar Carol Browner?
10:15 Lautenberg (D-N.J.): I am delighted to be able to greet Lisa Jackson. Lisa has fought to keep our state’s air clean. The challenges facing our environment are serious, numerous, and require immediate action.
10:20 Bob Menendez (D-N.J.): I’m proud to join my colleague in presenting Lisa Jackson to the committee. Her scientific background complements her managerial experience. I believe she will be the best administrator in the history of the department we have seen. In New Jersey, only the strong survive. Not only has she survived, she has thrived.
10:25 Boxer (D-Cal.): I’m going to miss Sens. Bond and Voinovich. But we keep renewing this Senate. Even when we disagree we’ve had a great working relationship.
10:26 Bond: We’ll do everything we can to keep it interesting.
10:27 Inhofe: We had breakfast this morning with the new members. I will really miss these two guys.
10:27 Klobuchar: I welcome our two new members. I enjoyed meeting with Jackson and Sutley. First, to quote Sen. Clinton, I’ve been very concerned that the EPA has been “operating in an evidence-free zone.” I’d like no more redacted testimony, and no more testimony intended to mislead on the facts and the law. Home-grown energy will generate a boom in our economy. I look forward to your thoughts how protecting the environment will create a 21st-century economy.
10:31 Barrasso: Congratulations to both of you, and thank you for both coming to my office. We in Wyoming are concerned when federal laws are used in ways they were never intended. Ranchers and miners in Wyoming know that dealing with climate change through the Clean Air Act would be a disaster. Turning the Endangered Species Act into a climate change bill is something Congress never intended. The true intent of the Clean Water Act—there’s overwhelming objection to extending jurisdiction over all water in the United States.
10:35 Boxer: We really have very big differences. You’re not going to make everybody happy. If you do, you’re doing nothing.
10:36 Merkley: We’ll miss Voinovich and Bond’s experience.
10:38 Bond: I want to protect the natural resources of Missouri. I was the co-author of the acid rain emissions trading provisions of the Clean Air Act. We need to protect our families. We’re suffering right now. They’re facing the housing crisis and job loss. Protecting families from climate change proposals that would raise costs by $6.7 trillion. That means zero-carbon nuclear power. Cellulosic ethanol. We want clean cars. We want clean coal technology. But we can’t support proposals from East and West Coast states that would kill Midwest manufacturing. We want to find a middle ground.
10:42 Carper: We can no longer afford inaction on climate change or air pollution. We must send the right signals to industry. We need leaders that can build alliances. I can think of noone more qualified to lead the EPA and the CEQ than Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley. Inaction means that thousands will die prematurely from pollution, thousands of children will be exposed to mercury.
10:47 Alexander: I enjoyed our meeting. Sen. Carper and I have worked together quite a bit: we need a new CAIR rule and a new rule on mercury. In discussions about climate change, I hope you will focus on carbon-free solutions and be skeptical of so-called renewable solutions—they’re just wind. Windmills on our ridges would interfere with our views of the Smokies. Subsidies for wind are 27 times greater per kilowatt-hour than any other renewables. All revenues from cap and trade should be returned to the people. A carbon-free fuel standard and cap and trade for power plants would cover two-thirds of all carbon emitted, then return all the money collected to people having trouble paying their energy bills.
10:51 Cardin: Thank you for being willing to serve. I’ve had the chance to talk with both of you in my office. The first issue I’m going to bring up is the Chesapeake Bay.
10:55 Isakson (R-Ga.): I’m very impressed by her resume, Tulane and Princeton. One of the unintended consequences of regulation is that it sometimes doesn’t work. There are ways to find flexibility. The potential regulation of greenhouse gases by the department has included the possibility of taxation on livestock. We have to be very careful about regulating natural emissions. I didn’t always agree with Carol Browner but she had a lot of sense. I was proud to be able to talk with you, Ms. Sutley, yesterday. It’s very important that we come up with a working water plan.
10:58 Whitehouse (D-R.I.): It is a perilous and fascinating time. With respect to the EPA, this is an agency that has fallen into significant distress. It needs its integrity restored. The people who work at the EPA give up a great deal in their lives. They’re not significantly well paid. They take pride in the mission. If you take away that pride by taking away the integrity of the agency, you risk taking away the key element of the agency’s success. Johnson has been a disgrace to this country.
11:02 Voinovich (R-Ohio): I think this next two years may be the most important two years I’ve served. I think some of the work we do on this committee is going to shape what the future looks like. I enjoyed our meeting in my office. For the record, I think Steve Johnson did an outstanding job as head of the EPA.
11:06 Lautenberg (D-N.J.): The EPA prevented action at the local levels. Under Mr. Johnson, the EPA sided with industry more often than not. The current administration has failed to provide sufficient funding to support the Superfund program. It’s time to usher in a better and brighter future.
11:10 Merkley (D-Ore.): It has been our experience in the past few years that it’s been up to the states to take the lead. We have the most aggressive renewable energy standard. The most aggressive energy efficiency standards for appliances.
11:15 Baucus (D-Mont.): Asbestos is an insidious poison.
11:17 Vitter (R-La.): I haven’t had a chance to visit with Nancy Sutley.
11:20 Jackson: Opening statement.
11:25 Baucus: Asbestos in Libby, Montana.
Jackson: It sounds like one of the worst sites I’ve heard of. I will report within 90 days on this issue.
Baucus: EPA’s never done a toxicity assessment.
11:33 Inhofe: Sen. Boxer and I genuinely like each other. This job is really tough. I was really pleased that you talked about transparency. This is very important. I don’t agree with the criticisms with the current administration not being forthcoming. I think they have. There’s never been a director who’s been more qualified than Stephen Johnson. I think he did a very good job.
Jackson: I look forward to working with this committee.
Inhofe: You were very emphatic about science. You said, science is my guide. That’s music to my ears. I know people don’t want to talk about it, but so many individuals have changed their mind on global warming. I want a commitment that you will take the time in the next two weeks that you will pull up my speech on the floor, and meet with you at some point.
Jackson: I’m happy to exchange views with you and to read your speech.
11:49 Boxer: It seems to a lot of us that there are disasters waiting to happen. EPA has authority to act. Will you commit to quickly assess the sites for immediate hazards and establish strong standards?
Jackson: EPA must assess the hundreds of sites out there immediately. Many are upstream of schools. I think EPA needs to assess first and foremost the current state. That’s only the beginning. EPA has in the past assessed its regulatory options with coal ash. It’s time to reassess those options.
Boxer: Sen Carper is going to have authority over TVA. We may move legislatively, but I think you have the authority to act. Rep. Rahall is looking to regulate under the Mining Act. I don’t think that’s necessary. Last year, President-elect Obama co-sponsored my bill to grant the California waiver. Will you immediately revisit the waiver?
Jackson: You have my commitment I will immediately revisit the waiver, looking at the science and the rule of law, relying on the advice of the staff.
11:55 Barrasso: On coal ash, I talked about clean coal technology with the nominee for Sec. of Energy and Interior. We don’t want to limit new technology.
Jackson: Coal is a vital resource in our country. It provides about 50% of our electricity. We have to mention in the same breath that it is the largest source of greenhouse emissions. We must invest aggressively in a technology that will work.
Barrasso: In the Financial Times, an article talks about what we’re asking people to do – to save the planet, they have to clean their teeth in the dark.
Jackson: One of the ways to begin to address climate change today is energy efficiency. Changing our habits, our appliances. I prefer not to think of this as pain as individual responsibility. People need to understand they have a responsibility in the choices they make. We should give them choices, allow them to have energy-efficient homes, more efficient cars.
Barrasso: Obama is going to appoint Carol Browner as White House adviser.
Jackson: Final EPA decisions will be made by the EPA administrator.
Barrasso: If you two disagree?
Jackson: I take very seriously my legal responsibility to enact the laws of Congress. Advisers can agree and disagree.
Barrasso: Questions of Congressional intent.
Jackson: I believe the laws are meant to have the flexibility to deal with the issues of today. I will commit to an ongoing conversation.
Barrasso: Unfunded mandates to states have grown.
Jackson: Budget realities for states are playing out every day. The EPA administrator has a role in formulating the President’s budget. Much of the permitting and enforcement work happens at the state level.
12:04 Lautenberg: I feel in some ways you’re part of my group. This is an engine that can’t stop. You were instrumental in writing New Jersey’s global warming law.
Jackson: We now have a modest cap-and-trade program operating in ten Northeast states. I look forward to sharing that experience with those in the committee that want to. There’s a tremendous role for states and municipalities in terms of reducing global warming emissions.
Lautenberg: We have to eliminate or certainly reduce this attack on the welfare of our children. We are facing something if unchecked will affect the health of future generations to a disastrous level.
12:12 Isakson: I have a suggestion for you to consider: people in regulatory positions can assume their relationship with those they regulate is adversarial, or they can work with businesses. I hope you’ll work on the issue of downstream pollution.
Jackson: As a resident of a state that gets one-third of its pollution from outside sources, I well understand the conundrum of meeting attainment standards.
Isakson: Taxing cattlemen that emit methane naturally since God created the earth.
Jackson: My commitment is that we will have conversations with stakeholders. All industries have the potential to do environmental harm. We have to make sure they are ready to deal with the future.
Isakson: Erosion control and the Clean Water Act.
12:19 Boxer: I can assure you that 80% of this country are much more worried that we’ve done nothing on CO2.
12:21 Whitehouse: There’s some dispute on this committee on whether the EPA is in distress. I don’t think there’s any dispute within the EPA.
Jackson: The role of the Inspector General is important.
Whitehouse: Watch out for OMB. It has become the political bullyboy influencing agency decisionmaking. I’ve spoken to Peter Orszag about this. Cass Sunstein’s appearance promises reform. Rhode Island is one of the states participating in the California waiver. How much can you go forward on your own?
Jackson: Much of the initial agenda for the EPA is now set by court decisions. I will review the California waiver decision forthwith. The Supreme Court has ordered the EPA to make an endangerment finding. When that finding is made, it triggers the beginning of the regulatory process. Another court decision on CAIR commands EPA to review that. All those things together means there will be an extraordinary burst of activity not just from EPA but also from Congress. I think there is a real opportunity to move together. Industry would prefer a clear roadmap. I think there is tremendous opportunity there.
12:29 Boxer: Obama committed not to reviewing the waiver, but signing the waiver. TVA needs to stop bemoaning commitments to the environment.
12:32 Cardin: We look forward to the California waiver going forward. Chesapeake bay and lead poisoning.
Jackson: Lead poisoning in children is an important issue.
12:39 Carper.
12:50 Voinovich: It would be great to get Browner together with the committee. We haven’t done very much in this committee. We haven’t been able to harmonize issues of energy, economy, environment. A hundred communities are being asked to take care of their combined-sewer overflow problems. We have an interesting environment today. We need to do more planning than ever before. I think there’s an urgency about climate change. It has national security implications. But how do you do something without killing the economy?
Jackson: We need to be able to review our rules: Are they legal, are they sustainable, are they based on science?
1:02 Merkley: We have one lifetime to address climate change.
1:32 Boxer: Perchlorate. Superfund.
1:50 Jackson hearing concludes.
2:05 Sutley: I will play an important role in formulating the executive branch’s policy on climate change. There is effectively no agency that is not touched by these issues. It will be a complete effort by the executive branch.
Boxer: OMB role.
Sutley: The OMB has executive order responsibilities. I think science decisions and science review should be done by science experts in the agencies. I don’t expect people in the OMB unless they are scientists to review the science.
Boxer: OMB has gotten involved and called the shots. It’s a red flag. The Obama OMB may be different from the Bush OMB. We look to you for leadership on the environment. From what you’ve said, I feel good about it. The IRIS program.
2:16 Whitehouse: You play everybody who participated in the public process for a fool when you make actual decisions in secret. The entire agency process was a sham, all done behind closed doors by OMB and the White House. This is an issue I’ve taken up with OMB.
2:19 Sutley: The question of how the role of the climate adviser is formulated is an important one. The CEQ will retain all of its statutory roles. The EPA administrator will continue her advisory role. Climate change is one of the most important issues of the day. I can tell you that we will be working together closely, and the decisions of which policies the president will pursue will be his decision.
Whitehouse: Will you report to Carol Browner on issues of climate change?
Sutley: I know we will work together very closely.
Whitehouse: Oceans.
2:27 Boxer: There are some questions in writing that we would like answers to by Friday so we can move on the nominations. We stand adjourned.