Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EPA CAA Email 8.29.03 (b)

EPA Clean Air Act Authority
FOIA
Email 8.29.03 (b)

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EPA CAA Email 8.29.03 (b)

  1. 1. ARMIS 152. Pagel of3 RECORD TYPE: FEDERAL (NOTES MAIL) ( CN=William F. Holbrook/OU=CEQ/O=EOP@Exchange [ CEQI CREATOR:William F. Holbrook 2003 13:36:26.00 CREATION DATE/TIME:29-AUG- SUBJECT:: Re: EPW: C02 AND CLEAN AIR ACT ( "Catanzaro, Micha TO:"Cataflzaro, Michael (EPW)" <MichaelCatanzaro~epw.senate.gov> READ:UNKNOWN TEXT: folks of the other Had a thought on climate/carbon. Might remind FutureGen, hydrogen specific programs beyond the FY03/04 budget figures. fuel, climate strategy, etc. - Bill From: "Catanzaro, Michael (EPW)" <MiichaelCatanzaro~epw.senate.gov> on 08/29/2003 12:21:35 PM Record Type: Record To: "Catanzaro, Michael (EPW)" <MichaelCatanzaro~epw.senate.gov> cc: Subject: EPW: C02 AND CLEAN AIR ACT C02 AND THE CAA to regulate carbon dinoxide Yesterday, the EPA rightly rejected a petition emissions under the Clean Air Act. De spite earnest protestations to Counsel Jonathan Cannon; contrary--the infamous 1998 memo from EPA General testimony, based on that memo, from firmer Clinton EPA Administrator Carol statutory language and Browner; histrionics from environmental groups--the on the matter: the CAA legislative history of the CAA are absolutely clear provides no authority for EPA to take such a step. had this to say: "They're Jonathan Cannon, in responding to EPA's action, in the heart for any [the Bush Administration] trying to put a stake possible existing avenue for dealing kith global climate change either by this administration or any future admIinistration."1 $4.5 billion for his Not quite: President Bush's FY 2003 bpIdget has study of climate climate change initiative, which dirercts research'and change over the next decade. As to tihe legal question, the Bush rule of law. Lastly, if Administration is, contra Cannon, abiding by the Cannon is so confident that the CAA confers authority on EPA to regulate with it? C02, why didn't the Clinton EPA follow through A few notable points on the CAA and C02: Statutory Issues *The CAA did not refer, to C02 until passage of the 1990 debated and amendments. In those amendments, Congress specifically C02 emissions. ultimately rejected proposals to a~llw EPA to regulate not 2 ~Congress authorized EPA only to studV certain greenhouse gasses, 4/1/2004 file://D:l152_f~puuni003_ceq.txt
  2. 2. -. 2 of 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ as regulate them. For example, CAA Section 103(g) lists carbon dioxide a "basic engineering one of several items to be considered as part of and demonstrate research and technology program" to "develop, evaluate nonregulatory strategies and technologies." *Global warming is mentioned in CAA Section 602 (e), of certain listed directing EPA to examine the global wIarming potential depletion. However, substances that contribute to stratospheric ozone this provision--the only one in the statute that mentions global that it "shall not be warming--is accompanied by an express a~dmonishment construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under [the CAA]" [emphasis added). *The CAA expressly podsauthority to regulate numerous Sections 108 and 109, substances specifically referenced in the statute. "criteria pollutants;" for example, authorize EPA to regulate so-called hazardous air pollutants section 112 directs EPA to designate a~d regulate ("HAPs"), and lists 190 specific such pollutants Congress determined are VI of the CAA authorizes the most important to regulate. Similarly, Title the stratospheric ozone EPA to list and regulate substances, which deplete But neither layer, and designates 53 substances toIbe so regulated. global warming generally, nor carbon d~ioxide specifically, are mentioned Congress. anywhere in this regulatory scheme dev~eloped by * ~~~What of the argument tIhat carbon dioxide may be regulated HAPs under CAA as a HAP? Each of the 190 substancesilisted as in small dosages. Carbon Section 112 is a poison, producing toxic effects dioxide, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a poison. No mentioned surprise, then, that C02 is not among-the 190 substances in Section 112. Legislative History *The final CAA legislation that emerged from the a stratospheric ozone conference committee and became law i~1990 contains Senate versions. title that was a compromise between the House and in elmntgth However, the House version prevailed completely language in the Senate bill that would have authorized regulation of dioxide. non-ozone depleting greenhouse gases such as carbon *For example, Title VIJ, as enacted, did not include the substances" in Senate's language authorizing EPA to tegulate "manufactured ozone layer deplete the terms broad enough to cover both substances that but which affect global and substances that do not deplete the ozone layer requires the Administrator climate. Tnstead, CAA Section 602(a) ~s enacted would be phased out to list "Class T" and "Class II" substances that pursuant to CAA Sections 605 and 606. These substances are defined as layer--note that nothing those that could affect the stratospheric ozone climate change. And in the definition of such substances refers to global in the CAA there are no findings or purposes included anywhere to regulate greenhouse specifically regarding global warming or the need gases, as there had been in the, SenatIe bil 4/1/2004 file:/ID:152_ftjuuniOO3_ceq~txt
  3. 3. Page 3 of 3 3 4/1/2004 file://D:1 52j puuni0O _ceq.txt

    Be the first to comment

    Login to see the comments

EPA Clean Air Act Authority FOIA Email 8.29.03 (b)

Views

Total views

841

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

1

Actions

Downloads

3

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×