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 »
"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”
The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.
President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."
Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.