Congress Tries to Cripple EPA

Coal Emissions (4/6/11)

Although the attempt of Congress to cripple the EPA may help short-term profits of oil and coal companies, such action would damage companies benefitting from clean transportation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Healthcare costs would rise. Hybrid and electric car sales would be hurt.

As the Senate and House gear up to vote today and tomorrow on measures to block EPA from updating its health protections, David Doniger, policy director in NRDC’s Climate Center, gives this testimony to the House Oversight and Investigations Committee:

Mr. Chairman, the other witnesses you have heard are pursuing a false story line that demonizes the Environmental Protection Agency and the modest steps it is taking to begin reducing dangerous carbon pollution.  Contrary to that false story line, EPA is doing just what Congress told the agency to do when it wrote the Clean Air Act.  Congress gave EPA the duty to keep abreast of developing science, and to act when science shows that pollution endangers our health and welfare.

The EPA endangerment finding is backed by solid scientific authority.  America’s own most authoritative scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), concluded in 2010:

“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

H.R. 910, the extreme bill that the House of Representatives is on the verge of adopting, would take the unprecedented step of repealing an expert agency’s formal scientific finding of a threat to health and welfare.  Congress has never done this before, and you should not start now.  Politicians do not prosper long when they put themselves in the position of denying modern science.  Repealing EPA’s scientific determination that carbon pollution causes dangerous climate change would be like repealing the Surgeon General’s finding that tobacco smoke causes cancer.  H.R. 910 will harm the health and the pocketbook of millions of Americans.  It is both bad policy and deeply unpopular.

The Clean Air Act’s critics get the economics of environmental safeguards completely backwards. Rather than hurting economic growth, four decades of data show that the Clean Air Act helps our economy grow while it protects the health of millions of Americans.  Over the past 40 years, the American economy has tripled in size while we’ve cut some forms of pollution by more than 60 percent.  That’s because the Clean Air Act does not demand the impossible – it requires only pollution controls that are achievable and affordable.  That’s just as true when setting carbon pollution standards as it has been for other kinds of pollution.

EPA is taking great care to protect American families and American small businesses that are the focus of this hearing.  In fact, EPA has set carbon pollution standards for new cars, SUVs, and over-the-road trucks that will save billions of dollars for American families and small businesses by cutting their gasoline and diesel fuel bills.  And EPA has gone to great lengths to exempt the millions of American small businesses from any obligations as it begins to address carbon pollution from only the very largest industrial sources, such power plants and oil refineries.

Thanks to EPA’s landmark clean car standards, small businesses will save big-time at the gas pump.  Under the Clean Car Agreement brokered by the Obama administration, EPA, acting together with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and California, has set combined carbon pollution and fuel economy standards that will lower gasoline bills for American small businesses and families by billions of dollars.  The first round of standards, for 2012-2016 model cars, SUVs, vans, and pick-ups, will save small business owners as much as $3,000 over the life the vehicle.  EPA’s clean car standards for 2017-2025 will save small businesses even more – as much as another $7,400 per car.  I should note that these calculations were based on gasoline costs starting at $2.61/gallon!  At today’s and tomorrow’s higher gas prices, the savings will be even greater.

EPA is also working with DOT and California on the first-ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for over-the-road trucks.  Those standards, proposed last year, will save the owner of a heavy-duty truck up to $74,000 over the truck’s useful life.  The money saved on diesel fuel will stay in the pockets of truck and fleet owners and will enable them to pass on savings to every American in lower costs for food and other goods.

Lobbyists for some of America’s biggest polluters are falsely claiming that the Clean Air Act’s carbon requirements will fall on millions of apartment buildings, office buildings, farms, and even churches.  The truth is otherwise:  EPA has exempted all small sources of carbon pollution from permit requirements for new and expanded sources.  Instead, directly in line with congressional intent, EPA has focused those permit requirements on only the largest new and expanded sources of carbon pollution, such as power plants, oil refineries, and other big polluters.

When a company wants to build or expand a big plant that will operate for decades, it is only common sense to take reasonable steps to reduce how much dangerous pollution it will put into the air.  So for decades, the Clean Air Act has required that someone – either the state’s environmental agency or the EPA as a last resort – review what the new or expanded plant can reasonably do to reduce its pollution, and put achievable and affordable emission limits into a construction permit.  But this review of available and affordable pollution control measures applies only to the largest sources of carbon pollution, like new power plants, oil refinery expansions, or other large projects.  This is the same review that has been undertaken for decades for similar sources of other pollutants.

EPA has been sued by dozens of trade associations, companies, and right-leaning advocacy groups representing the country’s biggest polluters.  But when put to the test of proving their claims, they failed.  The courts have found no merit in their claims of harm.   This is no surprise, because the court challengers – like the lobbyists who come up to the Hill – are seeking not relief for the small fries, but special favors for the biggest polluters – power plants, oil refineries, and the like.  These pollution giants cannot complain to the courts about EPA’s exempting smaller sources.  Their attempt to hide behind the skirts of small businesses should fare no better here on the Hill.

Congressmen, you deny the science at your peril.  Likewise, you buy into phony story lines about burdens on small business at your peril.  As I mentioned, large majorities of the American people support the Clean Air Act and want EPA to do its job to control air pollution.  They specifically want EPA to do its job to safeguard us from carbon pollution.

Share This Post

About Author: John Addison

Founder of the Clean Fleet Report, author of Save Gas, Save the Planet. John writes about electric cars, renewable energy, and sustainability.

Let us know what you think.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.