The Obama administration's push to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549) hit a bit of a speed bump Tuesday, with the release of an Office of Management and Budget memo that concludes the policy could bring serious economic consequences to factories, small businesses and localities across the country.
The nine-page document, which was immediately circulated by administration critics and environmentalists, faults the EPA for developing a one-sided rationale for the regulation that, among other things, didn't take into account positive effects of climate change in some regions.
"It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons," the document states, adding that new public health initiatives like cooling centers could mitigate the effects of heat waves in less fortunate parts of the country.
Advocates of tough new rules addressing greenhouse gases see such criticisms as unnecessary meddling on EPA's turf. But it's evidence that OMB, part of the Executive Office of the President, is willing to assert its broad oversight responsibilities over the federal regulatory process, even when that casts doubt on some of the administration's top domestic priorities.
The memo specifically takes issue with the EPA's April 17 decision to issue a "proposed endangement finding" stating carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public health and welfare by triggering global climate change. The document also said emissions from motor vehicles contribute to global warming.
New regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from car and trucks are "likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the OMB memo said. And should EPA extend its finding to so-called stationary sources, such as power plants, "small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs" like the agency's New Source Review, the document continues.
Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell Giuliani and administration critic, said the memo raises questions about whether EPA cherry-picked public health literature to justify its actions, and whether it is trying to expand its regulatory muscle beyond the parameters Congress outlined in the Clean Air Act.
But administration officials say the EPA was simply responding to a directive stemming from a 2007 Supreme Court case that found greenhouse gases are pollutants and directed the agency to determine if they threaten the public. The reiterated that they would like to see the matter resolved this year through climate change legislation, not regulations.
"Hopefully (we) will begin to put in place a process that can be considered by both the House and the Senate to put ourselves on a path toward energy independence while decreasing the level of harmful greenhouse gases that are emitted each day," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Post A Comment