EPA pushes strict pollution rule

WASHINGTON — As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took up its climate bill for the first time Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed requiring thousands of greenhouse-gas emitters to install stricter pollution-control technology.

The so-called "tailoring rule," published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment until Dec. 28, would apply the Clean Air Act to power plants and other sources that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse-gas emissions each year.

The proposal targets a narrower group than what was originally envisioned, a measure applying to any facility emitting just 250 tons of pollution. Without the change, the EPA estimates, the rule could apply to more than 6 million facilities.

Agency spokeswoman Adora Andy called the proposal "a common-sense measure, strategically tailored to the largest facilities to ensure it does not place a burden on the small businesses that make up the better part of our economy."

As EPA acted, Democratic and Republican senators debated whether Congress should enact legislation that would cap greenhouse-gas emissions. The House passed a similar bill in June.

Under a cap-and-trade system outlined in legislation authored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., industries would be allowed to buy and sell pollution allowances.

Referring to an EPA analysis that the bill would cost U.S. households between 22 and 30 cents a day, Boxer said at the opening of the hearing, "For 30 cents a day, we will put America in control of our own energy future and take a stand for homegrown American energy rather than foreign oil from countries who don't like us. For 30 cents a day, we will protect our kids from dangerous pollution."

But Republicans rejected that argument, suggesting the Kerry-Boxer bill would damage the economy. The panel's top Republican, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, said the measure's inclusion of provisions to soften the transition to a low-carbon economy "is an implicit acknowledgment that the bill will destroy jobs. ... I'm sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won't find much consolation in green welfare programs."

Even some Democrats suggested the bill would have to be modified. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose panel also has some jurisdiction, said he has "some concerns about the overall direction of the bill before us today," including its goal to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2020.

"We cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from an achievable consensus on common-sense climate legislation," he said.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, questioned whether Democratic leaders were rushing to pass a bill through committee before international negotiators meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

"Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now?" he asked. "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"

Some lawmakers are worried about the prospect of EPA regulating greenhouse gases on its own. In an interview Monday, S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans negotiating with Democrats on the bill, said, "If we do nothing, EPA's going to step in and regulate. Congress ought to lead, not the EPA."

Voinovich raised the same point questioning why the administration would press ahead with a proposal on greenhouse gases while legislation was pending.

There is a question of whether EPA's move to narrow the impact of its greenhouse-gas rule will withstand a legal challenge, since it alters the Clean Air Act's 250-ton threshold for major sources of pollution. Several legal experts say that, if the agency loses in court, most small businesses and even some homes will be subject to the new requirements.

McClatchy Newspapers contributed to this report.