May 24, 2012

Proposal to Handicap EPA's Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Evaporates in Senate

In April, Senate Republicans failed in their attempts to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. While this is a short term victory for the Obama administration, the nature of the vote raises questions about the EPA’s congressional support in the not so distant future.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R., KY.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R., OK.), introduced an ambitious measure that would reject the EPA’s finding that climate change is a threat to public health and welfare, and rein in the Obama administration’s environmental policies. Ultimately the proposal failed with only four Democrats joining the ranks of Republicans seeking to restrict the EPA’s authority. A companion measure in the Republican-held House passed 255-172 the next day, but was more a symbolic vote given the lack of Senate  support and promised presidential veto. 

Senate Democratic leadership countered the Republican proposal with a handful of less comprehensive measures to restrict the EPA’s plan of action. This tactic allowed moderate Democrats to cast votes against the EPA on proposals that were meant to be defeated, and provided them with the necessary political cover to eventually block the McConnell and Inhofe rider. 

In total, 17 Democratic Senators voted for at least one of the four measures, and a majority of the Senate is now on record supporting some type of restriction to the EPA’s authority. Coupled with the passing of the doomed-yet-symbolic House bill that sought to nullify the EPA’s scientific findings and resulting greenhouse gas regulations, the outlook for the Obama administration’s climate policies may be cloudy.

The EPA had taken the stance that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to human health, and in 2009 began to assert its power under the Clean Air Act to set standards for power plants, refiners and other major emitters. But, with an additional 17 Democrats supporting the House measure, and the 2012 Campaign season fast approaching, one wonders if the White House will be able to rally the support needed to continue its climate initiatives.  

© 2012 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

About the Author

Counsel

Jon D. Sohn is an experienced climate change and clean energy public policy leader. He has first-hand experience preparing U.S. domestic and international environmental policy and regulations backed by advocacy and testimony before the United States Congress and Executive Branch.

He has in depth understanding of private sector finance, multilateral development banks and United Nations processes in climate and energy policy matters coupled with a unique ability to work collaboratively with private sector, government and non-governmental organization stakeholders to formulate...

202-496-7642

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.