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 »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."