IBJNews

Obama climate rules unlikely to wait until after election

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Within weeks, President Barack Obama's administration is set to unveil unprecedented emissions limits on power plants across the U.S., much to the dismay of many Democratic candidates who are running for election in energy-producing states. Fearful of a political backlash, they wish their fellow Democrat in the White House would hold off until after the voting.

But Obama can't wait that long.

Unlike the Keystone XL oil pipeline, whose review the administration has delayed, probably until after November's elections, the clock is ticking for the power plant rules — the cornerstone of Obama's campaign to curb climate change. Unless he starts now, the rules won't be in place before he leaves office, making it easier for his successor to stop them.

So even though the action could bolster Republican attacks against some of this year's most vulnerable Democrats, the administration is proceeding at full speed. Obama's counselor on climate issues, John Podesta, affirmed that the proposal will be unveiled in early June — just as this year's general election is heating up.

"Having this debate now will only injure Democrats," said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic strategist. "Democrats are in trouble. The best thing when you're in trouble is to avoid further controversy."

To be sure, Americans generally support cutting pollution. A Pew Research Center poll late last year found 65 percent of Americans favor "setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change," while 30 percent were opposed.

But Democrats are fighting most of their toughest races this year in conservative-leaning states that rely heavily on the energy industry, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska and Montana. Already, conservative groups have spent millions accusing Democrats in those states of supporting energy policies that would impede local jobs and economic development.

Never mind that it's Obama's administration — not House or Senate candidates — drafting the rules. Even when Democrats try to distance themselves from Obama on the issue, Republicans say that's evidence that congressional Democrats are impotent to rein in their party's out-of-control president.

Republican Rep. Steve Daines, who is running to unseat Democratic Sen. John Walsh in Montana, calls the new rules part of a broader war Obama is waging on Montana's jobs and families. Daines said in an interview, "The Democratic-led Senate has been complicit in supporting President Barack Obama's war on coal, and Montanans don't like it."

Seeking to head off those arguments, some Democrats already are assailing the expected new rules in hopes voters won't lump candidates together with Obama in states where the president is highly unpopular. Rep. Nick Rahall, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia and a top GOP target, said an earlier Obama plan affecting only new power plants "hinged on fantasy and endangers our economy."

"Count me as a skeptic, but I expect the EPA's proposal for new regulations aimed at existing plants to be just as far-fetched and unworkable," Rahall said.

Last year, the administration proposed the first-ever carbon dioxide limits on newly built power plants, drawing fierce criticism from energy advocates from both parties who say the technology to capture enough pollution to meet those standards isn't yet commercially viable.

Climate activists say the next step — rules cracking down on existing plants — are even more critical to curbing the pollutants blamed for global warming. Unlike with new plants, the Clean Air Act doesn't let the government regulate emissions from existing plants directly. Instead, the government will issue guidelines for reducing emissions, then each state will develop its own plan to meet those guidelines.

Rolling out such regulations is complex, and the Environmental Protection Agency is notorious for missing deadlines. There's little wiggle room for delay in the process, as laid out in an executive order Obama signed last year:

— In early June, the EPA is supposed to propose the overall rule, known as a draft.

— Then there's a full year in which the public can comment, the EPA reviews those comments and makes any revisions before finalizing in June 2015.

— States then have another full year to submit their implementation plans, by June 2016.

— The EPA must then review each plan individually before deciding whether to accept it or force a state back to the drawing board. Expect litigation — especially in Republican-led states that oppose the rules to begin with.

— Obama's presidency ends soon after, in January 2017.

White House officials declined to say whether Democratic candidates or lawmakers have reached out to the White House's political office to ask for the rules to be delayed until after the election. Obama plans to play an active role in promoting the change by speaking about it once it's released, officials said.

Meanwhile, conservative groups are ready to attack. The American Energy Alliance, which has spent more than $1 million on television criticizing Obama's energy policies and candidates who support them, said it's more than likely the emissions rules will wind up in the group's ads this year.

"It wouldn't matter when they were coming out, but it just so happens to be an election year as well," said Tom Pyle, the group's president. "That's not something that's gone unnoticed by us."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Pathetic
    Not a worthwhile comment in the bunch, except maybe Brian's. If this is the state of thinking among the GOP, I am ashamed to be counted as one. If anything points to the fact that the status of our education in Indiana is pathetic, it's the comments I have read here. Brian, I would not look to any of these commenters for any "thoughfulness".
    • Sheep
      Wait a minute. I thought it was Global Warming and since that was proven a joke, they moved to Climate Change (which we have and is called the 4 seasons) and now Climate Stagnation or ???? Those scientist you speak of are paid to exhale this hoax. Come on man, you choose to ignore the fact this was proven to be a hoax. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia was proven to be a joke. Come on man! Think for yourself.
    • Now cancer?
      Oh man! Now we're guaranteed CANCER if we aren't forced to pay huge electric bills for this hoax. There is NOT widespread agreement among scientists about climate change. The fear mongering is so distasteful and pathetic, but it is the left wing, after all. They thrive on fear and misery.
    • Urban Ledgend
      I don't have lung cancer...am 68 and have lived in Indiana. Maybe a better choice of life style would be better.
    • Cancer
      Electric bill may go up but your lung cancer may be postponed a few years. Indiana has some of the lowest electric bills in the country of the dirtiest air. Indianapolis just slipped further in a pole of low quality air.
      • Electric bill?
        Can anyone say with a reasonable amount of thoughtfulness, by what percentage will my electric bill go up as a result of this?
      • Clarification
        Mark are you speaking as one of the 200 Scientists that contributed to the report or are you just a plain Hoosier.
      • Glaciers in Indiana
        There were glaciers right here in Indiana thousands of years ago that all melted away long before man started emitting CO2, yet I am supposed to believe that man is having a meaningful impact on the climate because temperatures have dropped by a half degree. Mkay.

        Post a comment to this story

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        Sponsored by
        ADVERTISEMENT

        facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
         
        Subscribe to IBJ
        1. I never thought I'd see the day when a Republican Mayor would lead the charge in attempting to raise every tax we have to pay. Now it's income taxes and property taxes that Ballard wants to increase. And to pay for a pre-K program? Many studies have shown that pre-K offer no long-term educational benefits whatsoever. And Ballard is pitching it as a way of fighting crime? Who is he kidding? It's about government provided day care. It's a shame that we elected a Republican who has turned out to be a huge big spending, big taxing, big borrowing liberal Democrat.

        2. Why do we blame the unions? They did not create the 11 different school districts that are the root of the problem.

        3. I was just watching an AOW race from cleveland in 1997...in addition to the 65K for the race, there were more people in boats watching that race from the lake than were IndyCar fans watching the 2014 IndyCar season finale in the Fontana grandstands. Just sayin...That's some resurgence modern IndyCar has going. Almost profitable, nobody in the grandstands and TV ratings dropping 61% at some tracks in the series. Business model..."CRAZY" as said by a NASCAR track general manager. Yup, this thing is purring like a cat! Sponsors...send them your cash, pronto!!! LOL, not a chance.

        4. I'm sure Indiana is paradise for the wealthy and affluent, but what about the rest of us? Over the last 40 years, conservatives and the business elite have run this country (and state)into the ground. The pendulum will swing back as more moderate voters get tired of Reaganomics and regressive social policies. Add to that the wave of minority voters coming up in the next 10 to 15 years and things will get better. unfortunately we have to suffer through 10 more years of gerrymandered districts and dispropionate representation.

        5. Funny thing....rich people telling poor people how bad the other rich people are wanting to cut benefits/school etc and that they should vote for those rich people that just did it. Just saying..............

        ADVERTISEMENT