In the first Senate hearing held specifically to discuss President Obama’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), Republicans unpacked their standard attacks on both the climate science used by the administration to back up new regulations and the regulations themselves. Four members of the administration, led by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and supported by Democratic members of the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), continued to emphasize the grave risks posed by a warming climate and the authority the Clean Air Act provides for the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Heat halos
Questions about the strength of the science the administration is relying on to show that the earth is warming were raised by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). According to Sessions, the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change itself has reported “halos of heat” around stations where land temperature is being measured that are not accurate representations of temperatures in the troposphere (the lowest portion of the earth’s atmosphere).
Sessions also referenced research that underplayed the effects of GHGs on ocean temperature. While not disputing that 93 percent of atmospheric heat is absorbed by the oceans, Sessions points to data showing that the temperature of the oceans has increased by only 5/100 of a degree over the last 50 years. Sessions cited additional research indicating that there has been no increase in recent decades in the frequency of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, or global drought.
Also, in a tense exchange, Sessions repeatedly challenged McCarthy to confirm the president’s claim that the atmosphere is heating up faster than anyone had predicted 5 to 10 years ago. McCarthy refused to confirm or dispute that statement, saying only that 2012 was the warmest year on record and that she was not qualified to dissect scientific data. Sessions concluded that the EPA was apparently willing to impose billions of dollars in regulatory costs on the economy without being willing to answer a simple question.
Regulatory avalanche
Regarding the EPA itself, Senator David Vitter (R-LA), EPW’s ranking member, characterizes the CAP as the “biggest regulatory avalanche in U.S. history.” For Vitter, the most problematic aspect of the CAP are the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) the Agency has proposed and will soon make final for new fossil-fuel power plants. In that proposal, the EPA named carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) that has been adequately demonstrated as the basis for the NSPS.
Vitter noted that the Agency has referred to pilot projects funded by the Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to adequately demonstrate that CCS is adequately demonstrated. But, as he has stated before to McCarthy, Vitter repeated that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPact) prohibits the use of CCPI projects as a basis for BSER. “This is a direct legal conflict,” said Vitter.
Other data
In contrast to testimony she has delivered in the past, this time McCarthy was ready with an answer. While conceding that she was not originally aware of the EPact issue, McCarthy now says that the EPA believes this aspect of EPact makes no change in the proposed standard. McCarthy stated first that the EPA is looking at evidence and data “well beyond” what’s been associated with EPact funded projects. “Our understanding of the reading of EPact is that we can’t solely make a determination based on EPact funded facilities,” testified McCarthy. “But there is nothing in the law that precludes us from considering those in a context of a larger and more robust data set” (emphasis added).
Should the Agency finalize a rule as proposed, we can expect to see the EPA discuss the weight it accorded the CCPI projects in the decision to use CCS as BSER. But Vitter said that litigation has already been filed regarding EPA’s use of those projects in the NSPS proposal. It seems likely at this point that resolution of this dispute will fall into the hands of the courts.
A video of the EPW hearing