EPA Wordplay: What Does "Endanger" Mean?

EPA previously concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are not "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, a reading so unreasonable that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to give it the deference normally afforded to an expert agency's interpretation of its governing statute.

Now, EPA is stumbling over the word "endanger." The Act requires EPA to regulate tailpipe emissions of air pollutants that might "endanger public health or safety." As reported here by the ContraCostra Times, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson testified on Friday that he won't be able to decide until THE END OF 2008 whether greenhouse pollution meets this test because "endanger" is a "legal term of art" that must be studied. He also declined to tell the special House committee on global warming when he would decide whether to grant California's waiver request to authorize that State's landmark tailpipe controls, insisting that he's "looking at every option." He failed to explain, however, what options beyond "grant or deny" he might be considering.

"This is grossly unsatisfactory," responded Rep. Jay Inslee, who insisted: "This is like saying we're going to have a meeting next year about getting Osama bin Laden."

California Attorney General Jerry Brown accused EPA of engaging in an "exercise in obfuscation and dissembling," and predicted the EPA would deny California's request, made in 2005, thereby forcing the state to sue.

Committee Chair Ed Markey seemed prepared to give Johnson a whole snoutful of endangerment to help clarify the scope of that term, complaining that Johnson would be "the last environmental minister in the Western world" to decide that greenhouse gases are harmful.

Comments

[Brian Schmidt]

I once heard Alex Kozinski say during a hearing that answering a CWA petition for a rule change concerning a legal question should take about two weeks.

Given that the EPA should be able to answer the endangerment question by using undisputed facts, it shouldn't need any more time than that.

[Erica Rancilio]

Shortly after reading this post, I tracked down the transcript for the Committee Hearing. It has since disappeared from both the Committee of Enviro.and Public Works page and the Energy Independence and Global Warming Subcommittee page. Oddly enough, Johnson's original testimony w/the 'term of art' language has been replaced by a written testimony mentioning none of that.

[Tim Dowling]

Erica -- Thanks very much for your post. If you have an electronic copy of the original testimony, please email it to me at tim AT communityrights.org

Tim Dowling