Climate Debate in Congress

With a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a diminished Democratic majority in the Senate, the mood of the 112th Congress (2011– 2012) regarding climate change is markedly different from that of the 111th Congress (2009 – 2010) [1]. Rather than debating measures to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the focus has been on preventing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating GHG emissions under its existing authority. Much of this discussion has taken place within the context of larger political battles over government spending levels.

The first four months of the 112th Congress were devoted to enacting a law that dictated federal spending through the end Fiscal Year 2011 (September 30, 2011). The regular process for doing this is to enact full-year appropriations bills before the beginning of the relevant fiscal year. However, seven short-term stopgap spending measures [2] were enacted after September 30, 2010 to give Congress and the President more time to negotiate a “full” Continuing Resolution (CR) that would last through the end of the fiscal year. The last two short-term CRs enacted also elicited a reduction in federal spending.

The final CR [3] for Fiscal Year 2011 was agreed upon by all parties at the eleventh hour, avoiding a government shutdown. Overall, this CR reduced federal spending by $40 billion. Despite political posturing and threats, EPA’s GHG regulatory authority survived unscathed while funding for NOAA’s Climate Service and the position of Assistant to President for Energy and Climate Change were eliminated and commitments to international climate finance were greatly reduced.

The Fiscal Year 2012 spending process has been just as gridlocked as the prior year’s, though it has involved less brinkmanship. The Fiscal Year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill passed the House Appropriations Committee along a party line vote. If enacted, this spending legislation would block EPA from regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources, amend the Clean Air Act to exclude GHGs from the definition of an air pollutant, cut climate change mitigation and adaptation activities by $83 million - 22 percent from the previous year, and require a cumulative impact analysis of EPA’s regulations. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not passed any appropriations bills. Instead, the Congress passed a Continuing Resolution from October 1, 2011 (the start of Fiscal Year 2012) until November 18, which was followed by additional CRs for later dates. These CRs will continue to fund government agencies at the Fiscal Year 2011 level until new funding bills supersede them. Congressional leaders have attempted to pass some of the appropriations bills through both chambers of Congress before the expiration of this CR, though none have yet succeeded.

Also relevant to discussions of funding for climate-related programs was the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was signed as part of the political deal to raise the US debt ceiling in August 2011. The Act created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the “Supercommittee,” with a mandate to reduce the U.S. deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. The deadline for its recommendations, including any increases or decreases to climate-related spending was November 23, 2011. As the Supercommittee did not come to an agreement on cuts, certain automatic “sequestered” cuts will be made to government programs starting in Fiscal Year 2013 (barring Congressional intervention), likely affecting climate-related programs, along with many other government spending priorities.

In addition to the federal spending measures, members of both parties have introduced legislation to either delay or strip EPA’s authority to reduce GHGs under the Clean Air Act [4]. The most notable of these are the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910 [5]) to strip EPA’s regulatory authorities for GHGs and Sen. John Rockefeller’s (D-WV) two-year delay of EPA GHG regulations (S. 231 [6]). The Energy Tax Prevention Act was voted out of the House Energy and Commerce committee and passed the House floor by a largely party-line vote in April.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) allowed for a vote in April on the Senate companion to H.R. 910 (McConnell Amendment, S. 482 [7]) along with three other similar amendments to an unrelated bill authorizing programs to assist small businesses. The three other proposals were: Sen. Rockefeller’s two year delay plan; Sen. Stabenow’s amendment [8] for a two-year delay for industrial sources, block EPA from allowing California in setting tougher emission standards, and shield agricultural sources; and Sen. Baucus’s amendment [9] would codify the tailoring rule. All four amendments failed to reach the 60 votes necessary for passage by significant margins. The McConnell Amendment failed 50-50, while the Rockefeller Amendment failed 12-88, and the Stabenow and Baucus Amendments both failed 7-93.

More recently, Congress has focused its attention on trying to restrict EPA’s regulatory authority for other Clean Air Act programs. Although these programs do not directly reduce GHG emissions, the pollution control deployment, fuel switching, and plant replacements that are likely consequences of new rules will also likely reduce GHG emissions. In September 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act , that would delay implementation of, among other regulations, the Boiler MACT and Utility MACT rules pending completion of additional economic studies (other than those EPA and the Office of Management and Budget have already conducted). This bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate. Similarly, in November, the Senate rejected a proposal to block the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, voting 56-41 on a bipartisan basis against a plan to nullify it through the Congressional Review Act.

In addition to these activities, discussion continues on clean energy and climate issues. President Obama proposed the adoption of a clean energy standard (CES) in his 2011 State of the Union address [10] and his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future [11]. Specifically, he called for 80 percent of American energy to come from clean sources by 2035. In the Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ranking Member Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) undertook a thorough study of the policy components of a standard and solicited stakeholder input on the matter. In the House, the leadership of the Republican Party has not expressed interest, while some Democrats have shown interest in the proposal. The discussion of a CES is likely to evolve over the remainder of this Congress and set a benchmark for future action.

Despite the initial trends, it is possible that bipartisan support may emerge for low-carbon provisions in the transportation bill and farm bill in the remainder of this Congress. Bipartisan discussion on a number of these substantive issues began in the last congress and is continuing in the 112th Congress.

The following is a list of introduced bills related to greenhouse gas emissions in the 112th Congress.

House of Representatives

H.R. 97 [12] - Rep. Blackburn (R-TN)
H.R. 153 [13] - Rep. Poe (R-TX)
This bill prohibits the use of Environmental Protection Agency funds to enact a cap and trade program or regulate of greenhouse gases from stationary sources
H.R. 199 [14] - Rep. Capito (R-WV)
This bill delays the regulation of carbon dioxide and methane from stationary sources for two years from enactment.
H.R. 279 [15] - Rep. Fortenberry (R-NE)
This bill prohibits the regulation of methane from livestock using the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 910 [5] Proposed by Reps. Upton (R-MI) and Whitfield (R-KY) and Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) This proposal questions human-caused climate change, amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit EPA from issuing regulations concerning greenhouse gases for the purposes of addressing climate change, and excludes GHGs from the definition of “air pollutant.” It specifically repeals eleven rules and actions issued since 2009, including the Endangerment Finding, the Tailoring Rule, and New Source Review rules. Exemptions for this prohibition are made for the joint rulemakings for emissions standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for light-duty vehicles (May 2010) and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (November 2010) and statutorily authorized programs addressing climate change. Nor are state rules affected by this bill as long as they are not federally enforceable or part of Federal law, with the exception of the prohibition of the California waiver for tougher GHG standards for motor vehicles.

Senate

S. 228 [16] Introduced by Sen. Barrasso (R-WY) This bill prohibits the President or any Federal agency from promulgating regulations to control GHGs, consider climate effects of GHGs in any rule, or take other actions unless controls of the gas are related to non-climate effects. It specifically repeals eleven rules and actions issued since 2009, including the Endangerment Finding, the Tailoring Rule, and New Source Review rules, as well as any actions related to GHGs in state or federal implementation plans and other guidance. Exemption for this prohibition is made for the joint rulemakings for emissions standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for light-duty vehicles (May 2010).
S. 231 [6] Introduced by Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) This bill will delay EPA GHG regulations for stationary sources for two years, and exempt light-duty and medium/heavy -duty vehicle standards from that delay.
S. 482 [7] Senate version of H.R. 910.