Even if the Obama administration gets its sweeping controls on carbon emissions from power plants into final form as expected in one year, the president will still have to wait for his successor to seal — or undo — his hoped-for environmental legacy.
The regulatory regime to limit greenhouse gases from existing power plants, unveiled in draft form earlier this month, stands to become the centerpiece of Obama’s climate agenda. And top advisers to the president have proclaimed that attempts to dismantle the rule are doomed to fail.
But a variety of avenues exist to change the policy down the road, even if the regulations are made final in June 2015 as anticipated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Another administration could rewrite or simply not enforce the regulations — a likely outcome if a Republican wins the White House in 2016. If, say, Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, he might not have as much to worry about.
There are plenty of real-world examples to show how major regulations can be changed after a new occupant moves into the White House. The Obama administration, for instance, has already overhauled a slate of environmental regulations that President George W. Bush put on the books.
Case in point: In 2005, the Bush administration put the finishing touches on a rule to curb mercury emissions from power plants. Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit threw out the regulation. The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to reconsider. But the Obama administration later asked the court to deny the appeal. In 2011, Obama’s EPA proposed a new rule that’s widely considered by environmentalists to be more stringent than the previous policy.
Federal agencies have slowly but surely plastered over Bush administration environmental policy — largely by reworking rules that didn’t hold up in court. EPA rewrote Bush-era regulations to rein in air pollution blowing across state lines, and the agency plans to toughen ozone standards that date back to the days Obama’s predecessor held office. The Interior Department is also revising Bush administration regulations on mountaintop-removal coal mining.
Future presidents could take a similar tack. The administration is rushing to wrap up the global-warming rule before Obama leaves office. But after the power-plant regulations are finalized, states will have another year to submit plans outlining how they expect to comply. Legal challenges are virtually guaranteed to outlast the administration.
Industry groups and conservatives are already plotting strategy to pick apart the rule. And if parts of the regulation need to be rewritten or the rule is thrown out entirely, its fate will rest largely in the hands of whoever lives in the White House.
“Massaging this rule is likely to become a top priority for future administrations,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative think tank American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office during the Bush administration. “It’s not easy to roll back regulation, but opposition to the rule is strong and it’s not going away.”
Even if the global-warming rule is not rewritten, it could still be undermined at the top reaches of the executive branch in other, more subtle, ways. Another administration could sit on its hands when it comes time to enforce the mandate. EPA could also delay making revisions to the rule if part of it is knocked down in court or could overlook lackluster efforts by states to comply.
And here too, the Obama administration may have set precedent. In 2010, EPA agreed to issue regulations that would curb greenhouse-gas emissions from refineries. But four years later, those rules have yet to surface. The administration hasn’t renounced its pledge to rein in refinery pollution. But it has relegated the responsibility to the back burner while it focuses on the global-warming rule and other initiatives.
“This administration has perfected the argument that even with a legal obligation they can delay action because they have other priorities,” said Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown Law School professor and senior climate policy counsel to former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. “That could come back to haunt anyone who cares about climate change.”
What We're Following See More »
"Hawaii is the first state to prepare the public for the possibility of a ballistic missile strike from North Korea. The state's Emergency Management Agency on Friday announced a public education campaign about what to do. Hawaii lawmakers have been urging emergency management officials to update Cold War-era plans for coping with a nuclear attack as North Korea develops nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that can reach the islands."
"President Obama’s White House quietly produced a plan in October to counter a possible Election Day cyber attack that included extraordinary measures like sending armed federal law enforcement agents to polling places, mobilizing components of the military and launching counter-propaganda efforts. The 15-page plan, a copy of which was obtained by TIME, stipulates that “in almost all potential cases of malicious cyber activity impacting election infrastructure, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments” would have primary jurisdiction to respond."
"In internal conversations, Trump has recently pondered the idea of nominating Giuliani, a stalwart of his campaign. Even before last week's blast at Sessions in a New York Times interview, Trump had expressed fury at Sessions...for recusing himself from the Russia investigation."
"Donald Trump Jr.'s legal team is expanding its operation, bringing on D.C.-based attorney and longtime regulatory lawyer Karina Lynch, his team told ABC News. Lynch also confirmed to ABC News that she is joining the team. Donald Trump Jr. is one of the people connected to the Trump administration whom the Senate Judiciary Committee has said it wants to interview as part of its investigation into possible Russian involvement in the 2016 election."
"Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner in a statement released early Monday denied colluding with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. 'I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,' Kushner, who is also President Trump's son-in-law, said in prepared remarks to congressional investigators probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election. 'I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.' Kushner is scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed hearing on Monday."