Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) today introduced a bill which, if passed, would become the “Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act.’’ This bill, like Sen. Murkowski’s proposal that I’ve written about before, would curtail the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). There are major differences between the proposals however and I think these are worth clearing up. I suspect media reports will group the two proposals together, even though the practical and political effects will be very different.
First, even though both proposals target EPA CAA authority over GHGs, they are mirror images of each other. The Murkowski proposal would kill the EPA’s endangerment finding for mobile sources (cars and trucks). In the short term, this would block all EPA efforts to regulate GHGs under the CAA, though in principle the EPA could make a new endangerment finding under a different section of the act and go after other kinds of sources. The Rockefeller proposal would leave the endangerment finding and mobile source regulation intact but, as its title indicates, would impose a two-year moratorium on EPA regulation of stationary-source (power plants, etc.) GHGs.
The Rockefeller bill makes much more sense, I think. This isn’t to say I personally support it, just that it addresses concerns over EPA regulation of GHGs much more effectively than the Murkowski proposal. Mobile-source regulation is the one piece of the CAA/GHG process that has broad support. The regulations the EPA plans to finalize this month were a product of compromise with the auto industry last year. All of the comprehensive climate bills I know of leave EPA authority over mobile sources intact. It’s EPA regulation of stationary sources, and in particular requirements for preconstruction GHG permits, that is causing the most controversy and putting the most pressure on Congress. If Congress wants to relieve this pressure then the Rockefeller path is the right one, not Murkowski.
Second, the political differences are obvious though I’m skeptical about whether the end result will be any different. Rockefeller is a Democrat, and while Murkowski has support from some moderate Dems, this new proposal seems pitched more directly at the center-left core of the Senate. Unlike Murkowski’s proposal, it will need 60 votes to pass, but it is probably more likely to get them. Similar bills are being proposed by House Dems. This makes it much more likely, I think, that the bill will pass one or both houses—though I leave it to more adept vote-counters to make the call.
Even if the bill did pass both houses, it would still have to be signed by President Obama. I cannot imagine the president would sign the bill. It blocks action on GHGs that the president has publically stood behind. Also, and maybe more importantly, the bill would take an arrow out of the quiver of the executive branch. No President likes that. Until and unless that changes—or unless Congress somehow comes up with a veto-proof majority—the Rockefeller bill won’t become law.
Nathan Richardson is a Visiting Scholar at RFF.
