This document summarizes arguments against regulating carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. It notes that the CAA does not mention CO2 and that Congress specifically rejected proposals to allow EPA to regulate CO2 emissions during 1990 amendments. It also discusses how the statutory language and legislative history show the CAA provides no authority for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases like CO2. The document argues the EPA was right to reject a petition seeking to regulate CO2 as the law is clear the EPA has no such power under the existing CAA.

1. s~~~rr'
t
A~~~~~~~~1S
flg9
~~~~~~~PagelIof 2
RECORD TYPE: FEDERAL (NOTES MAIL)
CEQ I
CREATCR:Dafla M. Perino ( CN=Dana M4. Perino/OU=-CEQ/O=-EOP@Exchaflge
200 3 13:19:12.00
CREATION DATE/TTME:29-AUG-
SUBJECT: EPW: C02 AND CLEAN AIR ACT
CN=John D. Ese/UWH/=O
[cag~OI
WHO
i(
TO:Johfl D.~Este5
READ: UNKINOWN
[ CEQ I
TO:Phil Cooney ( CN=Phil Cooney/OU=CEQZO=EOP@EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
on 08/2.9/,2003
-~~~~---Forwarded by Dana M4. PerinoICEQ/EOP
01:17 PM…-- - - - - -- - - - - - -
From: ."Catanzaro, Michael (EPW)" <Michael_-Catanzaro~epw.senate~gov>
On 08/29/2003 12:21:35 PM
Record Type: Record
To: "Catanzaro, Michael (EPW)" <Michael_-Catanzaro~epw.senate~gov>
IC
cc:
Subjec:EPW: C02 AND CLEAN AIRAC
C02 AND THE CAA
petition to regulate carbon dioxide
Yesterday, the EPA rightly rejected a
earnest protestations to
emissions under the Clean Air Act. Despite
General Counsel Jonathan Cannon;
contrary--the infamous 1998 memo fromIEPA
Clinton EPA Administrator Carol
testimony, based on that memo, from former
groups--the statutory language and
Browner; histrionics from environmental
clear on the matter: the CAA
legislative history of the CAA are absolutely step.
a
provides no authority for EPA to take such
action, had this to say: "They're
Jonathan Cannon, in responding to EPA s
[the Bush Administration] trying to put a stake in the heart for any
with global climate change either by
possible existing avenue for dealing
this administration or any future adm inistration.1
has $4.5 billion for his
Not quite: President Bush's FY 2003 budget
research and study of climate
climate change initiative, which direcs
question, the Bush
change over the next decade. As to telegal
Administration is, contra Cannon, abikng by the rule of law. Lastly, if
authority on EPA to regulate
Cannon is so confident that the CAA cofers
through with it?
C02, why didn't the Clinton EPA folloK
A few notable points on the CAA and C2:
Statutory Issues
of the 1990
*The CAA did not refe to C02 until passage
debated and
amendments. In those amendments, Congress specifically
EPA to regulate C02 emissions.
ultimately rejected proposals to allow
certain greenhouse gasses, not
Congress authorized EPA only to study
103(g) lists carbon dioxide as
regulate them. For example, CAA Sec~ion
part of a "basic engineering
one of several items to be considered as
evaluate and demonstrate
research and technology program" to "develop,
4/1/2004
file://D:149_f kfuni003_ceq.txt

2. ~~~~~~~Page 2 of 2
y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nonregulatory strategies and technologis'
602(e),
*Global warming is mentioned in CAA Section
warmling potential of certain listed
directing EPA to examine the global ozone depletion. However,
substances that contribute to stratospheric
statute that mentions global
this provision--the only one in the
admonishment that it "shall not be
warming--is accompanied by an express regulation under [the CAM3"
construed to be the basis of any additional
[emphasis added].
numerous
*The CAA expressly provides authority to regulate
t'he statute. Sections 108 and 109,
substances specifically referenced in
for example, authorize EPA to regulate so-called "criteria pollutants;"
anr'd regulate hazardous air pollutants
section 112 directs EPA to designate
pollutants Congress determined are
("flAPs"), and lists 190 specific such
Title VI of the CAA authorizes
the most important to regulate. Similarly,
which deplete the stratospheric ozone
EPA to list and regulate substances, regulated. But neither
layer, and designates 53 substances to bhe so
dioxide specifically, are mentioned
global warming generally, nor carbon
deve'loped by Congress.
anywhere in this regulatory scheme
~~~What of the argumenttt carbon dioxide may be regulated
*
listed as HAPs under CAA
as a HAP? Each of the 190 substances
effects in small dosages. Carbon
Section 112 is a poison, producing toxic poison. No
dioxide, by any stretch of thelimagination, is not a
~he 190 substances mentioned
surprise, then, that C02 is not among
in Section 112.
Legislative History the
*The final CAA legislati~on that emerged from
in 1990 contains a stratospheric ozone
conference committee and became law the House and Senate versions.
title that was a compromise between
completely in eliminating the
However, the House version prevailed
'have authorized regulation of"
language in the Senate bill that would
such as carbon dioxide.
non-ozone depleting greenhouse gases
include the
*For example, Title VI/~ as enacted, did not
r~egulate "manufactured substances" in
Senate's language authorizing EPA to
that deplete the ozone layer
terms broad enough to cover both subseances
ozone layer but which affect global
and substances that do not deplete the
enacted requires the Administrator
climate. Instead, CAA Section 60()as that would be phased out
to list "Class I" and "Class II" substances
These substances are defined as
pursuant to CAA Sections 605 and 606.
ozone layer--note that nothing
those that could affect the stratosphIeric
refers to global climate change An
in the definition of such substances
anywhere in the CAA
there are no findings or purposes included
specifically regarding global warmin~glor the need to regulate greenhouse
bill.
gases, as there had been in the Senate
4/1/2004
file://D:149_f kfuni003_ceq.txt