Greenhouse gases likely to face EPA regulation

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, Obama administration officials said.

The decision, which most likely would play out over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate-change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States' negotiating position at U.N. climate talks set for December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points to such a finding.

Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, said she had asked her employees to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare the documentation for a so-called endangerment finding. Jackson said she had not decided to issue such a finding but noted the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, is April 2.

"We here know how momentous that decision could be," Jackson said. "We have to lay out a road map."

She took a first step Tuesday, when she said the agency would reconsider a Bush administration decision not to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from new coal-burning power plants. In announcing the reversal, Jackson suggested the EPA was considering additional measures to regulate heat-trapping gases.

The Obama administration signaled that it supported Jackson's approach, deferring to her to discuss the administration's response to the Supreme Court case.

If the environmental agency determines carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history.

"We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule," Jackson said. "We don't want people to spin that into a doomsday scenario."

Even some who favor an aggressive approach to climate change said they were wary of the agency's asserting exclusive authority over carbon emissions. They said the Clean Air Act, now more than 40 years old, was not designed to regulate ubiquitous substances such as carbon dioxide. Using the law, they said, would capture carbon emissions from new facilities, but not existing ones, blunting its impact. They also think a broader approach that addresses all sectors of the economy and that is fully debated in Congress would be better than a regulatory approach that could drag through the courts for years.

The finding and proposed regulations would be issued in sequence, with ample opportunity for public comment, Jackson said. The regulations would work in concert with legislation and not supplant it, she added.

That is not likely to assuage critics, including many Democrats from states dependent on coal-generated electricity and manufacturing jobs, where such regulation could significantly increase costs. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who has championed the auto industry, said the regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions by the EPA would set off a "glorious mess."

Many environmental advocates said the EPA's action was long overdue but added that it was only a stopgap until Congress passes comprehensive climate-change legislation.

"It's politically necessary, scientifically necessary and legally necessary," said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. But, he added, congressional action is preferable to the agency's acting on its own. "Trying to address climate change via a series of rule makings from EPA is a distant second-best."