A national emissions reduction program should be developed through targeted federal legislation. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions through existing regulatory tools like the Clean Air Act is the wrong way to regulate a global problem like climate change. The Clean Air Act automatically triggers a cascade of regulatory programs that stifle energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that are essential to meeting both environmental and economic objectives. A single, national emissions reduction program that establishes uniform standards, mechanisms and requirements would be much more consistent and efficient than the implementation of multiple state, regional or statutory programs that impose varying compliance and reporting obligations. Piecemeal state and local regulations will harm efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and could discourage investment in new technology that is needed for a lower carbon economy.

Legislation that preserves U.S. competitiveness is a far better way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, especially for industries like the forest products industry that face stiff competition from countries without the same environmental requirements. Otherwise, we risk actually increasing our global emissions by moving even more production to countries without these environmental protections. U.S. climate change policies should recognize the principle of carbon neutrality of biomass combustion and the contributions of working forests and forest products to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gases. Our industry produces products from renewable and recyclable raw materials, is the largest producer and user of renewable energy, and is committed to sustaining the environment that is essential to our future success. By reducing emissions the right way, we can save jobs and the economic resources that are essential to drive the environmental improvements we all want.

Using the Clean Air Act to implement sweeping greenhouse gas(GHG) regulations not only would be remarkably inefficient, it could be disastrous for the U.S. economy. It could impact virtually every vehicle, home, factory and farm in America and lead to a paralyzing slowdown in business expansion and job creation at a time when millions of Americans are still struggling to find work.

Under the proposed GHG standards, millions of businesses would be required to obtain GHG permits just to continue operating. Firms that plan expansions would need additional permits each year before moving forward with construction and modification projects. The states are not prepared to handle the permit requests, the path of implementation is unclear, and the costs and delays would likely prove severe. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed enforcement delay until 2011 would do nothing to reduce the devastating impacts.

Existing federal legislation was not designed to control GHGs. The Clean Air Act was intended to control traditional (i.e., regional and local) pollutants. Congress should pre-empt EPA from expanding the use of existing statutes.

Similarly, the patchwork of inconsistent and potentially conflicting state climate programs doesn't advance a coherent national effort to tackle what is in reality a global issue. The prospect of more EPA overreaching and inconsistent state programs creates uncertainty which discourages businesses from making informed investment decisions. Without certainty, investment and economic growth will be stifled.

The question isn’t do you think we should defang the EPA and states. The question is: would you fly in an airplane that has no back up system? Imagine that for some reason, the hydraulics in your plane failed and the captain couldn’t get the landing gear down. Wouldn’t you want the plane to have a back up system so you could land safely?

That is what the existing Clean Air Act as administered by EPA and the states offers in the case of federal legislation to regulate global warming pollution: back up.

I support enacting a federal cap to cut carbon emissions. I think a well-designed cap will be effective. But what if unanticipated problems arise and the federal cap doesn’t work as expected to meet the reduction targets? That is when the key provisions of the existing Clean Air Act should be there as our back up system. The EPA and the states should be there with extra tools to get the job done.

This dual-pronged approach is nothing new. The Clean Air Act has never relied on one system alone to reach its pollution limits. The Acid Rain program, for instance, includes an overall cap on sulfur emissions, but it also includes New Source Review, so that when a company puts new money into an old plant to refurbish it, then it has to invest in modern pollution control technology at the same time.

Industry already has 20 years of experience working with a cap and complementary programs. The cap, with a safety net below, has indisputably made our nation’s air cleaner and safer.

That is why we should maintain state authority to regulate emissions as well. For example, it is absolutely imperative to keep California’s authority over vehicle emissions. When the federal government has turned its back on innovation, California administrations of both parties have lead the nation with ambitious new standards, and other states have eagerly followed. Likewise, all states must maintain their freedom to curb emissions through a variety of efficiency standards, performance standards, and limits on factory-type sources.

This is authority that turns states into laboratories of innovation. When the federal government goes dark, the lights stay on in states across the nation, and this is what pushes America forward.

Innovation coupled with strong safety nets make for a powerful combination--in carbon caps and in airplanes.

I’d like to echo the words posted by Bill Becker on behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a sister organization of State officials that NARUC works with on issues of common concern. From our perspective, Congress should find a way to accommodate existing State and regional programs and consider ways to ensure that early adopters are given appropriate credit for their actions. There is much to be learned from what is already happening in such initiatives as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Mid-Atlantic and similar State and regional-level programs throughout the country.

We believe that the most effective way to lower carbon emissions is for the federal government to partner with, and not preempt, their State counterparts. To date, nearly every significant clean-energy program has started at the State level. We’ve learned what works and what doesn’t, just as we’ve learned that what works in one State may not in another.

As it relates to climate change, we would expect that emissions in States with reduction programs would satisfy a “federal floor,” but nothing in a comprehensive climate bill should prohibit those States who wish from going beyond Federal requirements unless compliance is found to be impossible. States that are willing to develop their own programs in a manner that’s generally consistent with federal requirements should be allowed to go beyond new federal limits.

Any legislative effort undertaken by Congress should be the only national program to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG); it should effectively and conclusively pre-empt all federal, state or local laws.

First, it is important to note that the Clean Air Act (CAA) was never designed nor intended to deal with such broad ranging and ubiquitous emissions such as carbon dioxide. One needs to look no further than the ongoing struggles of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strike upon an “acceptable” emissions limit pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. EPA’s efforts to devise a tailoring rule under the CAA have been met with confusion and are rife with uncertainty. EPA recognizes the absurdity in utilizing the CAA to regulate GHG emissions and has sought to set a threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2e and, subsequently, another proposal of 75,000 tons of CO2e under the CAA, in its stationary source tailoring rule. This approach has produced a myriad of questions of how GHGs are to be regulated under the CAA and does not even address the issue of legal standing.

Second; American businesses and industries require some measure of stability and certainty in order to commit to capital investments required in long term business planning. The legislative and regulatory uncertainty that has been borne of this myopic effort to regulate GHGs in the draconian manner the Administration has chosen to pursue has produced neither stability nor certainty. As a result you find that the business community overwhelmingly supports the principle of pre-emption should any regulation of GHGs be addressed legislatively.

Unlike other emissions, GHG are global in nature. Local and state actions cannot alter the global concentrations of GHG. Similarly, Congress should not leave open pathways to GHG regulation through other federal laws. Full pre-emption – federal, state and local – is essential to creating a manageable regulatory structure; otherwise, the floodgates open for constant legal battles over jurisdiction, authority, and standards regarding oversight and implementation. If Congressional action to regulate GHG emissions is to be effective and economically viable, it needs to create the certainty and stability required for the marketplace to develop and implement long term business plans. Creating a multitude of state and federal emissions regulations leaves the issue in greater uncertainty than currently exists and will do nothing to create jobs or maintain a robust business climate in America.

The truth is, a sensible answer to the question of whether a federal climate program should preempt EPA and the states depends on the program. The answer is yes, if climate experts can attest that such a federal program will create an emissions path that fulfills America’s part of a global campaign to preserve the climate, whether it’s done through a broad carbon-based tax, strict caps and tradable permits, or some combination of the two. If the program meets that test, further EPA or state regulation would be superfluous as well as expensive. But if whatever passes doesn’t meet that standard, the proper response is quite different. Most sensible people properly would have opposed, say, an effort to permanently preempt EPA and state regulation as part of the nudges and winks that comprised the Bush administration’s climate agenda. Strikingly, while even the Bush EPA and White House didn’t propose such a step, demands have been heard recently, mainly from the right and from some others as well, to preempt EPA in the absence of any new federal climate program at all. Such a radical step almost certainly would end any serious effort by Congress to address climate change, since the prospect of strict EPA regulation has become a powerful incentive for Congress to enact a serious federal program, which in turn could then properly preempt that regulation.

Only three states generate 30% or more of their state and local tax revenue from “Licenses and other Sources”: Wyoming 30% (fossil fuels), Delaware 34% (corporate domiciles), and Alaska 53% (fossil fuels). Yet Alaska emits less than 1% of total U.S. co2 (not surprising for a population of just 700,000 people). Tiny population, tiny pollution Alaska – and their Senator’s cause celeb is blocking the nation’s pollution regulator from doing its job. So it’s about the money. Fine. But the Senators outside of Alaska should get on with legislation needed by both the economy and the planet – acknowledging the EPA matters only if they fail. And if they aren’t up for complicated legislation right now – a very viable antidote remains CLEAR. Co2, and energy independence, are national issues. Business is right that state policies risk hurting U.S. jobs and productivity – something we certainly don’t need right now. And we no more need state carbon markets than we do states going back to their own currencies.

Defang, declaw, and lock away both EPA and the states. It would be irresponsible for Congress to abdicate instead of legislate. The Supreme Court decision not with standing, the Clean Air Act is the wrong instrument for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Allowing EPA to go ahead with its regulatory approach would be a case of every problem being a nail when your only tool is a hammer.

There may be a technical, but tortured, interpretation of Section 202 of the CAA that allowed the Supreme Court to conclude that greenhouse gases could be defined as a pollutant but 25 years of legislative history and common sense should have lead the Court to a totally different decision, especially if it had followed its own standards as defined in Merrill v Daubert.

This was not the first time that the Court has acted in a politically correct manner over the course of the past 200 years and it probably won’t be its last. Legal constructions aside, Congress explicitly decided in the 1990 reauthorization of the Act not to give EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions. It should reaffirm that decision now.

The climate issue involves the 3 Es—energy, economy, environment. EPA is illsuited to address them. And, the bottom line is that emissions are an energy issue that cannot simply be regulated away using authority designed and intended to deal with conventional pollutants. Since the primary emission of concern is CO2 which is produced mainly from energy combustion for economic activities, heating and lighting our homes, and providing transportation fuel reducing CO2 emissions without hampering economic growth must come from new energy technologies, increased energy efficiency and low or no carbon fuels. EPA has no expertise in managing the interaction between energy and economic growth.

It is equally inappropriate for states to attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to conventional pollutants. All that will happen without pre-emption is that there will be a patchwork of approaches that raise energy costs and reward special interests who have the resources to game the system. CO2 emissions are global and state efforts to regulate them would have no discernable affect on atmospheric levels.

We have observed over the past 3 decades the perversity of California being able to adopt its own tailpipe standards that then become national standards because other states adopt them and ultimately automakers accept to avoid having to manufacture different vehicles for a small set of states. Part of California’s current fiscal crisis is attributable to the pursuit of a greenhouse agenda that makes little economic sense. Like wise, where northeastern states, like Connecticut for example, have set power plant standards, they have had the effect of raising the cost of in- state electricity production while increasing the amount of electricity imported from some other states. Where that happens, those other states end up increasing their CO2 emissions but the importing state can claim to be taking responsible action without accomplishing anything.

State actions that lead to increased energy efficiency through building codes and tax incentives and shifting from coal to gas or to nuclear for electric power generation will reduce greenhouse gas intensity. States should do what they can do well and not get involved with issues that clearly are the purview of the federal government.

The long term solution to the greenhouse emission issue is technology but technology will not displace fossil energy in the near term. EIA projects that in 2030, 80% of our energy needs will still come from fossil energy. We need to view the climate challenge as a marathon and abandon the notion that mandated dramatic reductions in emissions can be made in as little as a decade without causing serious economic problems. The long view that strikes a balance among the three Es is where Congress should focus its attention.

This post is written by Amy Royden Bloom, senior staff associate at the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

Climate legislation should not preempt state or local authority to implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, EPA authority to regulate GHG emissions should be preserved.

Most federal environmental laws employ a state-federal partnership to achieve their goals, as exemplified by the Clean Air Act, one of the most successful environmental laws ever enacted. Congress has correctly understood that environmental goals can best be achieved when the federal government enacts national measures – setting the floor – but federal law allows state and local governments to be more stringent. The same approach should be used for global warming.

· Global warming is such a monumental challenge that action at all levels of government is needed. State and local action can help fill gaps left by the federal government.

· A cap-and-trade system is one tool, but not the only tool, for reducing GHG emissions. For example, Congress in 1990 amended the Clean Air Act to create a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide in order to address acid rain, but it did not preempt the existing authorities of state and local governments to regulate sulfur dioxide emissions in their respective jurisdictions.

· State and local authority serves as a backstop to the federal government in case a future administration fails to fully implement the law, evolving science shows that the caps set were too weak or loopholes in the legislation prevent the reduction targets from being met.

· State and local innovation moves national policy forward. The agreement announced last year among the federal government, auto manufacturers, the autoworkers’ union and states to set GHG emissions standards for cars nationwide never would have happened had not California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia adopted such standards on their own. The ten states involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative demonstrated that a GHG cap-and-trade system could work in the U.S. and that a system where 100 percent of allowances are auctioned also raises substantial funds for energy efficiency.

· State and local governments can enact measures to reduce GHG emissions in areas where the federal government lacks authority. For example, local governments can adopt building codes that require greater energy efficiency and land use planning requirements to discourage driving and encourage public transit and walking.

· State and local governments can creatively identify measures that appeal to their particular citizens or “small potatoes” measures to reduce GHG emissions that would not be necessarily adopted nationally. For example, a local government could decide to promote bike transit for all of its workers. A state might want to promote its home-grown wind energy companies with aggressive wind energy targets. A state or local government might choose to satisfy its citizens’ desires to tread lightly on the planet by setting more stringent GHG reduction requirements for itself than the federal bill.

· State and local governments can adopt measures that reduce GHG emissions but also have the collateral benefit of reducing other air pollutants, such as ozone and soot, mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.

· GHG emissions are emitted by so many activities that produce or use energy that preemption of GHG regulatory authority could cut a wide swath through state and local authority over a broad range of activities, like energy efficiency requirements, requirements to reduce other air pollutants, promotion of renewable energy and even zoning.

Industry concerns that state and local governments would “run wild” and destroy a federal cap-and-trade system are overblown. State and local governments respond to the same types of constituents as the federal government, and state and local governments will not take steps that damage their industry or citizens. A cap-and-trade program can succeed even with overlapping state and local authority: the success of the acid rain sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program has not in any way been undermined by the ability of state and local government to further restrict sulfur dioxide emissions in their jurisdictions. State and local innovation can help decrease the costs of GHG abatement, by identifying and promoting innovative or additional measures for reducing GHG emissions. For example, if a state or local government enacts energy efficiency requirements, decreasing the demand for electricity, this would increase the supply of national GHG allowances. Furthermore, if the national program has a cap that stands the test of science and achieves the intended GHG reductions, it is highly unlikely state and local governments will find the need to take action. State and local governments have a lot on their plates, not leaving room for superfluous actions.

Turning to EPA authority, Congress should not peremptorily strike all EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions. There are several existing Clean Air Act authorities that can help reduce GHG emissions sensibly: New Source Performance Standards that would require all sources to reduce GHG emissions by some amount and Best Available Control Technology requirements for major sources, when they are built or undergo major modifications. (The threshold for major sources in the Act – 100/250 tons per year – does need to be increased as these tonnage amount capture thousands of sources.) In addition, as recognized in the House climate bill passed last summer, climate legislation needs to include provisions that require coal-fired power plants to capture and sequester their GHG emissions, since it is unlikely that the price of carbon allowances would be sufficiently high enough to induce such a technological change. EPA GHG regulations serve as a critical transition, as well as a necessary complement, to an economy-wide cap-and-trade program.

Yes, federal climate change and energy legislation should pre-empt the states when it comes to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. We need a comprehensive national policy for reducing greenhouse gases, preferably one that is developed in tandem with a national energy policy. Having dual regulatory systems – federal and state – would hinder efforts to reduce GHGs and create a barrier to business investment and job creation. Indeed, parallel state and federal systems would dampen investment in energy efficiency and related technology. Moreover, new federal climate and energy legislation should override the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act under which EPA is regulating GHG emissions at stationary sources. Because projects intended to enhance energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are those subject to regulation, the combination of state and federal regulation will cause these projects to be postponed, perhaps indefinitely. The irony is that many of these are the very projects that the Administration says it wants to encourage to help expand clean energy and to stimulate the economy. We also need to remember that GHG regulation is unique in having economy-wide implications and global competitiveness impacts. The jobs, investments, and impacts associated with a move to a carbon-constrained economy make clear that we need a single national system. It is essential that climate legislation pre-empt State regulation and inconsistent, existing EPA regulations.

The "best" argument for pre-empting the Clean Air Act and state authority under Congressional legislation is that such regulation actually works in reducing greenhouse pollution. This is the reason industry, and a handful of prominent insider environmental groups, have succeeded in convincing certain Senators and coal-state Representatives to waive Clean Air Act provisions with a forty year record of success and a benefit-cost ratio of 42-1. The capitulation is pitiful but it is real. Let the battle begin. Once the American people realize the stakes, the cheerleaders for this atrocious "deal" will get their fair due. Those who sell out the Clean Air Act do so at their peril.

So while I reveal the venom of my alter-ego Professor Snape, let me not drone on like many law teachers. One poignant example will hopefully prove my point and return me to the generally amiable Tucson-loving tree hugger that I strive to be. Let’s look at the "goal" of any climate legislation. Shouldn’t the goal be to solve the problem of global warming and reassert American leadership? Shouldn’t we reject proposals that have no chance of truly biting into rampant greenhouse pollution? That is why we continue to ask: shouldn’t the number 350 be at least equally as important as the number 60?

Late last year, he Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to designate all major greenhouse gases as "criteria pollutants" under the current CAA, thus potentially triggering mandatory national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that must be based upon the best available science. The basic NAAQS legal architecture is relatively simple even if some of the details raise novel implementation issues.

First, Section 108 of the CAA requires the EPA to make a list of air pollutants emitted by many or diverse sources that cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. When such pollutants are so added, the EPA must issue air quality criteria that specify the pollutants’ known negative effects and that "accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge" (which in this case is that atmospheric carbon dioxide limits must be no more than 350 parts per million according to Dr. James Hansen and other scientific experts. Second, under Section 109 of the CAA, the EPA must set a national greenhouse pollution limit sufficient to protect the public health and welfare. And, third, pursuant to CAA’s Section 110, each state must develop and implement an implementation plan (or "SIP") to meet the national greenhouse pollution limit through enforceable emissions controls for pollution sources within that state. Other complementary provisions of the CAA — such as new source review, new source performance standards and mobile source regulation — aid the states in meeting the NAAQS requirements. It is through these mechanisms that injurious air pollutants such as lead, particulate matter and various smog components have been reduced in this country over the CAA’s successful 40-year history.

Objections to this science-based national greenhouse pollution cap approach under NAAQS fall into two general categories: the so-called "apportionment challenge" and the "enforcement scare" respectively. Both these objections are clearly answered by the plain language of the statute and the approach could be implemented by EPA in a transparent and predictable way.

Section 179B of the CAA requires the EPA to approve a SIP that meets all requirements of the act but still will not reach attainment provided that the state can establish "that the implementation plan of such state would be adequate to attain and maintain the relevant national ambient air quality standards by the attainment date specified under the applicable provision of this chapter, or a regulation promulgated under such provision, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States." Thus, the EPA could and should approve good faith pollution-reducing SIPs that demonstrate that foreign greenhouse gas emissions (from, for example, China or India or Brazil) make overarching attainment by the target date impossible. Far-right Republicans are either breathing a sigh of relief or annoyed they have lost a political chit. But the statute says what it says. Flowing from this plain language on foreign pollution is the EPA’s equally clear ability to create a national greenhouse pollution standard that represents not only the appropriate United States share of overall global levels, but also each individual state’s fair apportionment. Using greenhouse gas inventories already completed or underway in 47 states, as well as the EPA’s recently promulgated greenhouse pollutant reporting rule, each state’s proportional contribution to the necessary national reduction can be soon readily assessed. This is completely in line with the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for various pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, where the court rejected the EPA’s rule because the agency never actually measured the pollution contribution of specific sources from individual states but developed a more nebulous region-wide approach. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA could and should define each state’s proportional greenhouse gas contributions under its authority to prevent emissions in one state from interfering with attainment or contributing to nonattainment of greenhouse pollution targets in other states.

Once the "apportionment challenge" is solved, the "enforcement scare" becomes a hoax. As is the case for other criteria air pollutants, if a state, despite implementing all of its SIP measures to the best of its ability, nonetheless still fails to achieve compliance with NAAQS by its attainment date, it must simply revise its SIP and continue its efforts. One threshold point, here, must be reinforced: a state would not be in nonattainment because the global standard had not been met but rather would be held only to its apportioned share based on the national standard, which is itself apportioned taking into account all global sources.But even if a state could not meet its apportioned limit, assuming good faith, the SIP merely requires implementation of all reasonably available control measures, demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment, quantification of emissions from new and modified sources with permits based upon lowest achievable emission rates, and conformity of its transportation projects. See 42 U.S.C. Sections 7502, 7503, 7506. This is hardly revolutionary stuff and has been done for other harmful air pollutants for 40 years.

The question then becomes, what greenhouse pollutant reduction system is most recognizable to government officials and the general public? The Clean Air Act. What existing legal tool actually possesses overarching scientific standards not subject to provincial "coal state politics?" The Clean Air Act. What law, treaty or proposal has the best chance of protecting our children, our environment and life as we know it from global warming? The Clean Air Act.

Whatever new system Congress and the international community decide to adopt to address global warming, it must build upon the Clean Air Act, not replace it. The act provides irreplaceable benefits and undeniable backstop protections to Americans and the rest of the world. And to the ideological demagogues now hyperventilating over their fear of regulation: Every necessary protective standard passed by the United States Congress has spawned economic innovation that has led to jobs and development, not to mention tremendous savings in health care. Renewable energy — wind, solar, geothermal and others — is the most robust opportunity for economic growth since the computer explosion that preceded it.

As with many aspects of climate policy, there is some truth to the arguments on both sides of the debate over how federal legislation should treat state action and EPA Clean Air Act (CAA) authority. The answer is less about who is right or wrong and more about appropriately balancing the strengths and weaknesses brought to the table by states and the federal government. Both have important roles to play in a strong federal climate and clean energy program.

Addressing our climate change and clean energy challenges ultimately requires a strong, comprehensive federal program that sets a nationwide carbon price and puts us on the path to a more secure energy future. A comprehensive national program would be more economically efficient, create regulatory certainty for business that unlocks major private investment dollars, and offer a minimum level of environmental protection. But the vast scope of the problem demands that the federal government work with states to implement the most comprehensive solutions.

States have a long history of being innovative leaders in tackling air pollution problems. In recent years, they have also played a similar role on climate and energy policy. California has pioneered a number of policies, including the first-ever standard to reduce the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels. Ten Northeastern states have successfully implemented the first mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) trading program in North America, limiting emissions and setting a price on carbon. And thanks to its renewable energy standards, Texas has become one of the world’s largest wind power markets. These and dozens of other states have proven that their policies work and provide valuable lessons for the federal government. Federal policy should recognize these states’ achievements and preserve their role as policy innovators.

Federal policy should treat the states as partners: they have the relevant policy experience, know what works within their own borders, and will have a role in implementing federal policy on the ground. One reasonable middle-ground approach contained in the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 largely leaves states free to pursue a wide range of policies across all economic sectors, but halts the implementation of state and regional GHG trading programs for six years in order to give a federal program time to get up and running. If at the end of that period states find the federal program inadequate, they can adopt their own market programs. Such an approach recognizes that policies like comprehensive market-based climate and energy mechanisms are most effectively addressed at the federal level. At the same time, states remain free to develop complementary policies that address local concerns in areas such as transportation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

A middle-path forward in any new legislation also exists regarding preemption of EPA authority to regulate under the CAA.

Several aspects of EPA’s CAA authority are useful regardless of what course Congress takes, particularly in certain sector-specific applications. For example, the recent adoption of new emissions standards for light duty vehicles has been widely viewed as an appropriate and important step toward limiting carbon emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It is conceivable that legislation might include a provision that treats EPA authority in the same manner as state GHG trading programs, suspending some forms of regulation for a few years in order to give a federal program time to get established for those sources covered under the federal program. But it might allow EPA to continue to judiciously use existing authorities for those sources that fall outside of any newly created federal regime. As with the states, Congress needs to recognize the EPA as a partner and craft comprehensive legislation that takes advantage of EPA’s existing strengths and expertise.