53422221.

doc Page 1 of 2

Nov 8, 2007 06:20 PM EST

Senate tries to cap emissions EPA won't

By: Ryan Grim
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is the House’s
assistant principal. If you’re called down to
his hearing room, more likely than not,
you’re in for it. Thursday’s unfortunate
delinquent is Stephen Johnson, the
administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
His misdeed, as far as Waxman is concerned:
failing to exercise his executive branch
obligation to regulate carbon emissions as
pollutants.
Across campus, the Senate is addressing
Henry Waxman isn’t quite so convinced of the EPA’s
independence climate change in a different way, by
working to pass legislation that would
create a legal obligation for the executive branch to regulate carbon emissions.
The dueling approaches are the result of political calculations and a recent Supreme Court
ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, which requires the federal agency to treat carbon as an air
pollutant.
The Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-
Va.), would cap carbon emissions and create a market where industry can trade emission
permits.
Why is the Senate trying to cap emissions if the EPA can already do it? In short, because
the EPA doesn’t want to, which is why Johnson has been sent to the office.
Johnson has a tight line to walk: He has to show that he’s in compliance with the Supreme
Court ruling while not committing to doing too much. “I have to abide by the law as it’s
written today,” Johnson says.
He also thinks that “we must continue to improve our knowledge of the science,” but
promises that the EPA is “developing regulations to pursue it from a regulatory standpoint”
using a “deliberative and thoughtful process.”
Democrats aren’t buying. “No, you’re not,” Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) tells him flatly.
“You’re looking for any avenue you can to avoid doing it.” Several Democrats bring up the
EPA’s long-running refusal to approve a waiver for California to enact its own carbon
regulation scheme.
There seems to be just as much faith on the Senate side that Johnson’s serious about
action. “The executive branch has its position,” says Warner, “and I think it’s important
that the legislative branch fulfill its responsibilities.”
Johnson’s call for patience on confronting climate change is echoed by several GOP
senators. “We need to have an administration analysis of the costs and benefits of the
bill,” says Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking minority member.
53422221.doc Page 2 of 2

“The pace of committee action is unprecedented,” complained Sen. George Voinovich (R-
Ohio), citing a violation of “the standards of courtesy by which this body traditionally
operates.”
“So I’m asking that you slow it down,” he says directly to Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-
Calif.).
If Voinovich thinks Senate Democrats are being rude in pressing forward with the
Lieberman-Warner bill, he’d probably find Waxman’s behavior downright criminal.
“It’s as if the Supreme Court never ruled and EPA never heard of global
warming,” Waxman says. “For most of [Johnson’s] tenure, he has been able to avoid
climate change issues by saying that EPA lacks legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions.
This changed in April when the Supreme Court ruled that Administrator Johnson does have
the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.”
Lieberman says there should be no wonder why Johnson has yet to regulate CO2 emissions.
“This is not some environmental group. This is the EPA of the Bush administration,” he
says.
Back on the House side, Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) is piling on. “Many people who have
talked to me have renamed your agency the Environmental Pollution Agency,” he says.
Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) comes to Johnson’s defense. “Congress is reprimanding you for
not enforcing rules and regulations that I don’t think we’ve given you necessarily the
power to do,” he says. “What we can’t pass in law we want you to kind of deal with
administratively.”
Shays concedes, though, that Johnson’s boss deserves some of the blame. “I think people
can throw stones at you and get away with it because, frankly, the administration hasn’t
been the champion of dealing with global warming.”
For Voinovich, the EPA, rather than the villain here, should be guiding the Senate. “At the
very least, members should be provided with an economic analysis — undertaken by an
independent agency, like the Energy Information Administration or the Environmental
Protection Agency — before moving forward,” he says, emphasizing "independent" both in
his written statement and as he reads it.
Waxman isn’t quite so convinced of the agency’s independence. He quizzes Johnson about
his knowledge of an administrative lobbying effort involving the Department of
Transportation to battle a California attempt to regulate greenhouse gases on its own.
“Did you know, at the time you called [the Department of Transportation secretary], that
she was engaged in a lobbying effort against the California waiver?” Waxman asked.
“I did not know,” Johnson said, as Waxman’s eyes nearly popped out of his head.
“You did not?”
“To the best of my recollection, I did not know,” he qualifies.
“I’m glad you threw in ‘to the best of my recollection,’” Waxman says, before asking,
“Were you briefed by your lawyer how to say things so you wouldn’t be committing
perjury?”
Rep. Dianne E. Watson, a California Democrat who grills him on his position on California’s
plan, also reminds Johnson that he’s under oath.
The EPA chief assures her that he’ll make a decision whether to allow California to
regulate carbon emissions by the end of the year.
While the Senate deliberates it own plan, Watson tells Johnson that California has
another. “We’ll settle it in court,” she says.