For Immediate Release: February 10, 2011

ST. Paul – As the debate over whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be able to regulate carbon heats up in Congress, the region’s top EPA official spoke this afternoon to hundreds of local business owners and lawyers about the EPA’s role, the process, and the challenges that may lie ahead.

Robert Kaplan, regional counsel for EPA Region 5, gave the keynote address at Carbon Management and the Law: Climate Change Issues for 2011, held at the William Mitchell College of Law. As regional counsel, Mr. Kaplan oversees approximately 136 staff that are responsible for the conduct of civil and criminal enforcement actions under all federal environmental statutes throughout the six-state Midwest region. The full conference addressed carbon management, corporate perspectives, legal and practical implications, and regulatory trends.

Mr. Kaplan’s visit to St. Paul—and the topic of the five-hour conference—was incredibly timely, as the debate in Congress over whether and how the EPA can restrict federal regulation of carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act intensified this week. Several different bills are currently circulating in Congress that would deny or significantly delay the EPA’s authority—established in 2009—to regulate carbon emissions. (See more background on the EPA and the Clean Air Act below.)

“One thing is clear and indisputable: CO2 rates are rising. It’s no longer deniable that we have a problem; the challenge is what we do about it,” said Kaplan. He then described the EPA’s process for regulating carbon emissions, and said “we’re out the door and moving ahead.” Mr. Kaplan was joined by several other influential speakers at the conference, including Kimberly Thorstad (Cargill), Judy Poferl (Northern States Power Company), David Hughes (Target Corporation), and representatives from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and numerous prestigious law firms. Bill Grant—the newly appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Energy Security—gave the closing remarks. Grant praised Minnesota’s 20-year history of progressive energy policy, especially in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and global warming emissions reduction goals.

On December 23, 2010, the EPA announced a two-year plan to set clean air standards for power plants and oil refineries, the two largest industrial sources of carbon pollution. The EPA will propose performance standards for fossil-fueled power plants by July 26, 2011 and issue the final standards by May 26, 2012. The agency will propose pollution performance standards for oil refineries by December 10, 2011 and finalize these by November 10, 2012. These responsible and thoughtful steps will set national limits for power plant and refinery carbon pollution and create regulatory certainty for industry, while cutting down on energy waste.

Unfortunately, some members of Congress, with the backing of the coal, oil, and electric utility industries, are attempting to block the EPA from setting standards to reduce emissions. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Representative Fred Upton (R-Michigan), chairman of House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky), chairman of the energy subcommittee have introduced bills to block the EPA’s authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. Senator John Barrasso’s (R-Wyoming) bill was introduced last Monday, and would also deny EPA authority. A bill sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), would block the EPA’s work to limit global warming pollution from power plants and other industrial sources for at least two years and prohibit EPA from researching available emission reduction technologies and their costs during this period. These misguided efforts let polluters and their army of Washington lobbyists put public health in jeopardy, a risk we simply can’t afford.

Fresh Energy’s science policy director J. Drake Hamilton was part of a panel that addressed national, regional, and local regulatory trends. Hamilton urged Congress to allow the EPA to update air pollution regulations to improve human health and create jobs in the clean energy economy.

While the attack on the EPA’s authority is making headlines across the country, polls show that most Americans want the EPA to do more, not less. According to a survey commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council at the end of January, nearly two-thirds (or 63 percent) of the 1,007 respondents said that “the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water,” versus under a third (29 percent) who think the EPA already “does too much and places too many costly restrictions on businesses and individuals.”

Anything that allows producers of dirty energy like coal to continue polluting thwarts America’s move to independence from oil and delays our progress toward a 21st-century energy economy. Preserving EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is vital to human health and welfare.

Background

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has had the authority since 1970 to set limits on air pollutants that threaten the health and welfare of the American people—like particle pollution, carbon monoxide and lead. Late in December 2009—after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence—the EPA determined that global warming pollution fits into this category.

The Clean Air Act has a proven record of progress over the last 40 years. While the United States’ population and gross domestic product have both grown dramatically since 1980, concentrations and emissions of regulated air pollutants have dropped. The Clean Air Act is also cost-effective: the health benefits of the Act exceed its costs by as much as a 40-to-1. And don’t think it’s a partisan issue. In fact, the Act was revised with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush in 1990.

Based on the 2009 decision, the EPA has begun to regulate global warming pollution, putting America on a path to building cars and trucks that get better gas mileage and emit less pollution. Going forward, the Clean Air Act will also make sure our country’s largest power plants and factories reduce global warming pollution, use clean energy, and operate more efficiently.

With no national climate change policy in place, the ability of the EPA and other agencies to regulate global warming pollution is more important than ever.

- end -

ST. Paul - As the debate over whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be able to regulate carbon heats up in Congress, the region's top EPA official spoke this afternoon to hundreds of local business owners and lawyers about the EPA’s role, the process, and the challenges that may lie ahead.