Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
6/19/2015
Appropriators from both chambers of Congress this week reported out interior fiscal year 2016 funding bills that include policy riders placing restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. The Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies funding bill includes a provision that would bar the EPA from developing a federal implementation plan (FIP) under its proposed Clean Power Plan. Under the proposed regulation, which is due to be finalized in August, EPA requires states to develop action plans to meet federally set emissions reduction goals. If a state does not submit a plan EPA has the authority to enact a FIP. “Earlier this year I wrote a letter to all 50 governors that the EPA was on shaky legal ground in its attempt to apply carbon rules from its proposed Clean Power Plan that would require dramatic reduction from exiting power plants,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during the Senate Appropriations Full Committee markup of the bill. “I encourage every governor for the sake of their constituents and their states’ economies not to comply. The bill before us guarantees that governors who heeded my warning will be protected.” The House version of the bill would bar EPA from using any funds to implement the Clean Power Plan and a similar regulation for new-build coal-fired power plants.
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Environment Ranking Member Mark Udall (D-N.M.) offered amendments attempting to strike the Clean Power Plan rider during the full committee markup this week. Udall’s first amendment would have struck several policy riders from the bill but failed by a party line vote of 16-14. A second amendment would have struck only the Clean Power Plan provision but also failed, this time by a tie vote of 15-15. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote in favor of striking the provision. “This is a thinly vailed attempt to dismantle a core premise of the Clean Air Act, which gives states flexibility based on their own specific circumstances, but also provides a federal backstop,” Udall said. “What we’d be left with is basically the same voluntary system we have now that hasn’t made [the] progress we need to make on climate change. We’d be left with a toothless rule that will allow coal-fueled power plants to keep polluting.”
Senate Bill Cuts EPA Funding More than $5 Million
The Senate bill cuts EPA’s overall funding and denies several budget increases requested by the Administration. The bill would fund EPA at $7.6 billion, $538.8 million less than FY 2015. Clean air and climate related science and technology activities would be funded at $106 million, a cut of $10.6 million from FY15 enacted levels. Environmental programs and management funds related to clean air and climate activities would be set at $248.6 million, a decrease of $24.5 million from FY15 enacted levels. “The Committee has not included the Administration’s requests for funding increases and for additional employees related to the Clean Power Plan,” according to the report released alongside the bill. “We reduce funding for the EPA’s legal department where they’re funding somewhat creative justifications for writing rules that go far beyond what Congress intended when important environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were enacted,” Subcommittee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said during the full committee markup.
The Senate bill also denies the EPA’s request for $25 million in state grants to aid in the development of state implementation plans. In his amendments, Udall attempted to grant these funds to the agency. “It’s hypocritical to claim that we should let states take the lead on reducing carbon emissions while at the same time making sure they don’t have the resources to do so,” Udall said.
House Version of Bill Reported Out of Full Committee
The House version of the bill, reported out of committee this week, would cut EPA funding even more than the Senate version. The bill would fund the EPA at $7.4 billion, $1.17 billion below the President’s FY 2016 request. The bill would also cut regulatory programs to $69 million less than FY15 enacted levels and $206 million less than the request. “The bill makes great strides to budget responsibly, investing in proven programs while making cuts where we can, EPA being one agency that can certainly make due with less," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said during this week’s full committee markup. “The bill reduces funding for the EPA by $718 million, 9 percent below last year, encouraging the agency to streamline its operations and focus on its core duties rather than meddling in an unnecessary job-killing regulatory agenda.”
The House bill includes a provision that would prevent the EPA from using any funding to carry out the proposed Clean Power Plan. The bill also includes language baring the agency from using any funds to implement similar proposed regulations for new-build coal-fired power plants, also due to be finalized in August. That regulation would largely mandate the use of carbon capture and storage technology on any new-build coal-fired power plant. “This Administration’s appetite for new regulations and disregard for the will of Congress has left us with little choice but to block the President’s overzealous regulatory agenda in this bill,” House Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said during the markup. “The actions we’ve taken to address EPA’s overreach and to reduce its budget not only help us meet the tight spending constraints under which we’re operating, they help our struggling economy and encourage job creators to invest and expand. That’s why we’ve included these provisions in the bill. That’s why the language needs to stay in the bill.”
The rider was challenged by Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowery (D-N.Y.), who referred to the rider as a “misguided attack on our nation’s clean air.” Lowey’s amendment failed by a vote of 19-32. “As currently written this bill is nothing more than an attempt to protect dirty energy companies by prohibiting the President from instituting his planned regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions,” Lowey said.
White House Weighs in on House Spending Bill
The Administration raised concern with the EPA funding cuts and various policy riders included in the House version of the Interior and Environment funding bill in a June 15 letter to Rogers. “This reduced level of funding would significantly undermine implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule. The proposed Clean Power Plan is a flexible and practical approach to addressing the risks of climate change by reducing carbon pollution from the electric power sector, the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. Climate change is not only an environmental challenge, it is also an economic, public health, and national security challenge,” Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote. Donovan urges Rogers to remove the riders and pass a clean funding bill. “The Administration believes that the Congress should consider appropriations bills free of unrelated ideological provisions. The inclusion of these provisions threatens to undermine an orderly appropriations process,” he wrote.
