Martin Schneider
GHG Monitor
3/28/2014
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy defended the EPA’s FY 2015 budget request in two hearings on Capitol Hill this week, highlighting the Obama Administration’s emphasis on combating climate change as lawmakers focused primarily on new water regulations and a employee scandal at the agency involving a senior manager posing as a CIA agent. “The agency will … focus resources on the development of commonsense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants, the single largest source of carbon pollution,” McCarthy told the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee March 27. “When it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the president’s budget provides support for the states to help them implement the Clean Air Act.”
In the FY 2015 budget, the Obama Administration cut funding for the EPA by about 4 percent from 2014 enacted levels, asking for $7.89 billion for the Agency, down from $8.2 billion. Although the request trimmed overall funding for EPA, addressing climate change and improving air quality were named as top funding priorities, with the Administration requesting $1.03 billion for such efforts, $41 million higher than FY 2014 enacted levels. The EPA’s request includes $234.6 million for addressing climate change, an increase of $45.2 million from current levels. Funding for improving air quality would be set at $741.9 million, a decrease of $2.5 million from current levels. The FY 2015 request also would provide an additional $10 million and realign 24 staff members to support implementation of the President’s Climate Action Plan, enhance education and outreach, and foster state engagement and partnership. The Climate Action Plan sets out ambitious goals across federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the key pieces of the plan is to set carbon emission standards for new and existing power plants, a task already underway by the EPA.
Questions on Methane Leaks, RGGI
Appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee the day before, McCarthy faced questions on a host of issues, including one from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) on the EPA’s perceived ‘war’ on coal. “Is there a war on coal? You know, a lot of people in Nebraska think there is because we have those coal-fired plants,” Fischer said. “And do you think it’s fair to say maybe the EPA has somewhat of a war on coal so that we can lessen our dependence on coal in this country?” McCarthy responded: “Senator, I don’t think that’s fair to say. What we’re trying to do is our job to protect public health by reducing pollution from some of the larger sources of pollution.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) focused his questions on EPA’s efforts to combat methane leaks. “If methane is burned, it is a dramatic improvement over burning coal from a point of view of polluting our environment and oceans with excess carbon dioxide,” Whitehouse said.
“But if it’s not burned, if it just leaks, it’s actually worse than carbon dioxide. And so getting after the leaks and making sure that it’s not leaking is important because without that natural gas industry can’t make its argument that it’s actually an improved fossil fuel. It actually loses the battle and suddenly becomes just as bad, perhaps even worse, than coal. So that question of methane leakage becomes really vital to the reputation of this industry and to our success at battling climate change.” Calling methane leaks “a big issue and one that we’ve begun to tackle,” McCarthy noted that EPA is “working with the larger administration to look at all of the challenges that the administration sees and potential solutions for reducing methane across a number of industry sectors. The President’s Climate Action Plan indicated that the administration would be putting out a methane strategy. You will be seeing that shortly.”
‘Overzealous Regulatory Agenda’
At the House hearing, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) pressed McCarthy on the “Administration’s overzealous regulatory enforcement agenda,” including the New Source Performance Standards for new power plants and upcoming emissions rules for existing plants. “The Administration’s go-it-alone approach is not one that lends itself to building partnerships or developing sensible policies that lead to economic growth,” he said. “Unfortunately, EPA continues to serve as a primary conduit to carry out that agenda. When the president issues a directive stating that EPA must propose a rule to regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants by June 1st of 2014, then it’s clear that the White House does not care what the rule says or about the impacts to American jobs.”
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) agreed, emphasizing that coal-fired electricity isn’t going away. “The nation needs this inexpensive electricity that comes from burning coal,” Rogers said. “You’re going to have to have it. There’s not enough wind nor sun nor nuclear or natural gas or anything else that can produce the power that’s already in place by burning coal. So whether you like it or not — and I know you don’t — whether you like it or not, you’re going to have to use coal to keep your lights on. And so the uncertainty driven by the bureaucratic overreach that the courts have severely cautioned you on now several times — this overreach that we see coming on beats all the others by 10 lengths.”
