Opponents of climate change regulation are attempting to dismantle the regulatory framework the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has crafted thus far under the Obama administration. The Senate unsuccessfully attempted to overturn a scientific determination in which the agency found that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. However, EPA still faces court challenges by industry groups on regulations limiting emissions from both vehicles and industrial sources.

On June 10, the Senate defeated a resolution (S.J. Res. 26) introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that would have canceled EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. The Dec. 7, 2009, endangerment finding declared climate-altering emissions a threat to "the public health and welfare of current and future generations" under the Clean Air Act. A procedural vote that would have brought the resolution up for a vote failed, 47-53, effectively killing it.

Critics accused the Senate of attempting to interfere with an agency scientific determination and hailed the defeat of the resolution as a victory not only for the environment, but also for scientific integrity. "It's deeply disturbing that some senators thought they could wave a magic wand and make the entire body of climate science disappear," Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. "The EPA determined that global warming emissions endanger public health," he added. "Fortunately a majority of the Senate stood up to this attack on science."

Murkowski introduced the resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a 1996 law that allows Congress to veto agency regulations and gives privileged consideration to resolutions introduced in the Senate if sponsors meet certain deadlines. Murkowski missed a deadline under the CRA; however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nonetheless allowed her to bring the resolution to the floor. Some benefits of moving a resolution under the CRA include limited time for debate, a prohibition of amendments or filibusters, and the need for just a simple majority to pass any such resolution of disapproval.

"[I]n the face of the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history, Senator Murkowski's resolution never should have even reached the Senate floor," former Vice President Al Gore said in a statement, referring to the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. "The fact that we had to work to defeat this legislation is a testament to the continued strength of the fossil fuel lobby."

The resolution drew significant Democratic support, with six Democrats joining all 41 Republicans to vote in favor. Even if the resolution had cleared the Senate, it was unlikely to pass the House, and President Obama had threatened to veto it.

EPA's decision to explore an endangerment finding was first prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2007, the Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases were eligible for regulation under the Clean Air Act pending an EPA examination of whether emissions posed public health risks.

The endangerment finding is not only EPA's most definitive statement to date on the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, but it also serves as a legal trigger for future regulation. EPA recently finalized two regulations supported by the endangerment finding, one limiting emissions from passenger vehicles and the other targeting stationary sources.

The vehicle emissions rule, finalized in April in partnership with the Department of Transportation (DOT), sets new fuel economy standards for vehicles from model years 2012 through 2016. The standards will require new cars to reach an average fuel economy level of 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016, resulting in 1.8 billion barrels of oil saved over the life of the vehicles, according to administration estimates.

A coalition of industry groups is suing EPA and DOT over the joint rule. The coalition includes, among others, Massey Energy, the owner of the West Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 miners in April, according to BNA news service (subscription required).

Auto makers support the EPA/DOT rule and have filed in court on behalf of the administration. The standards were set after Obama brokered a deal among the auto industry, environmental groups, and states. The industry agreed not to challenge stricter fuel economy standards as long as those standards were consistent across all 50 states. Environmental groups have also filed in court on the agencies' behalf.

EPA faces a more serious challenge to its standards for stationary sources such as power plants and oil refineries. The rule, finalized in May, requires new and existing facilities emitting greenhouse gases above certain thresholds to obtain permits and upgrade pollution control technology beginning in 2011. EPA says the rule covers only major facilities but will still allow the agency to oversee 70 percent of greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources. At least 14 lawsuits have been filed against EPA over the stationary source rule, according to BNA. Plaintiffs include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, is also challenging the rule, hoping to force EPA to move up the implementation schedule.

Additional legislative challenges are also expected. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has introduced legislation (S. 3072) that would delay for two years implementation of EPA's stationary source regulation. The bill would not impact vehicle emissions standards. Some Democrats who opposed the Murkowski resolution said during the debate that they would support Rockefeller's bill and hoped to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Both Obama administration officials and environmental advocates hope that the continued presence of EPA regulation will prod Congress into more quickly passing comprehensive climate change and energy legislation. The House passed a bill (H.R. 2454) in June 2009 that would establish a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases, but action has stalled in the Senate, where different proposals, likely without cap-and-trade provisions, are being considered.

Senators from both sides of the aisle have said they prefer legislation to EPA regulation, and supporters of the Murkowski resolution assailed EPA over what they characterized as an administrative attempt to usurp Congress's power. "Many of the senators who voted for the resolution say they want Congress, not the administration, to address climate change," Knobloch said. "That position has integrity only if the Senate moves swiftly to pass a strong climate and energy bill."

Senate Democrats say they hope to consider and pass a comprehensive bill before breaking for the August recess. However, the BP oil disaster has further complicated both the politics and the timing of the legislation. Obama is scheduled to address the nation Tuesday evening (June 15) and will likely continue his push for comprehensive energy and climate policy.