Democrats want swifter EPA action on emissions standards

The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency came under fire Tuesday from congressional Democrats, who said he had failed to respond more aggressively to the Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gas emissions could be federally regulated.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson’s appearance before a Senate committee spotlighted the clashes to come between Democratic leaders who want to pass global warming legislation and an administration that resists mandatory limits on carbon emissions out of fear they would damage the economy.

The hearing also showed that, despite the Supreme Court ruling, it might take congressional action -- rather than an EPA initiative -- to establish nationwide regulations on carbon dioxide emissions.

Johnson would not say when or whether his agency would regulate emissions.

“We will move expeditiously, but we will move responsibly,” he told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The panel’s Democrats, led by Chairwoman Barbara Boxer of California, chided Johnson for lacking urgency in confronting global warming.

“There is no excuse for delay,” she said.

It was the first Capitol Hill hearing on the ruling since the court declared this month that the EPA had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.

The White House had disputed that position, and Democrats were clearly dismayed that, in their view, the administration was not quickly altering its policy.

Johnson said he was considering California’s request to implement a law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new vehicles. He set May 22 for a public hearing in Washington and June 15 as the deadline for public comment on the state’s request.

But he declined to say whether he would approve the state’s request, drawing criticism from one environmental group.

“Icebergs are moving faster than EPA,” Karen Douglas, director of the California climate initiative for Environmental Defense, said in a statement.

As to whether the EPA will regulate carbon emissions nationwide, Johnson said the agency must first determine whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare.

That remark drew criticism.

“Surely, you acknowledge that global warming does endanger public health,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said.

Johnson refused to say whether he considered global warming the No. 1 environmental problem. That rankled Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

“You astonish me,” Whitehouse said.

Lieberman, who is sponsoring legislation with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would cap carbon emissions, predicted that Congress would act before the EPA.

But he said congressional action did not “relieve EPA of the legal and, in my opinion, moral obligation to act with all deliberate speed to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Johnson defended the administration’s record on climate change, saying it had invested $35 billion -- “more than any other nation” -- on such efforts as tax incentives to promote cleaner energy sources and technologies that would reduce emissions.

Republicans on the Senate committee criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling and warned that precipitous government action could harm the economy and lead to higher energy costs.

Some people want the EPA to “rush, rush, rush with new carbon regulations,” said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). “They will be too impatient to accept that regulations that will pervade almost every corner of the economy, threaten the jobs of millions, raise the heating and power bills of hundreds of millions, might take a little time.”

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading skeptic of man-made climate change, urged Johnson to move cautiously.

“The simple fact is that this issue is not only extremely complex from a scientific perspective but also from an economic one,” Inhofe said.

Boxer promised to summon Johnson again to keep track of the agency’s progress.

“You’ll be hearing from me,” Boxer said.

*

richard.simon@latimes.com