Lisa vs. Lisa: why my Lisa is right

Much has been written over the last two weeks about Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's showdown with the head of the Enivronmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson.

With all the back room dealing and arm twisting that was deployed in order to pass the the current cap-and-trade bill through the House, the legislation has more loopholes than Glenn Beck's mental health.

The bill has stalled in the Senate because even some Democrats are worried about exacerbating an already weak economic recovery where the nation's unemployment is at a 26 year high with no signs of reversal.

But that hasn't stopped the Environmmental Protection Agency from trying to impose the same rules by essentially re-writing the Clean Air Act's statutory language by bureacratic fiat.

In response to a 2006 Supreme Court case that ruled the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 from mobile sources, the EPA's Jackson is moving to regulate both mobile and stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities.

In response, Murkowski, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, proposed an amendment to the fiscal 2010 Interior and environment appropriations bill that would allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions only from mobile sources as per the court's ruling.

"Senator Murkowski is concerned about the economic consequences of EPA command-and-control regulation of emissions," said Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon.

Advocates of the cap-and-trade bill argue that if the Supreme Court ruled that regulating mobile sources was acceptable, then certainly they meant that stationary sources also fell under that ruling.

In an editorial in this morning's Anchorage Daily News they argued this very point. "It's interesting that Sen. Murkowski's failed measure would have let EPA continue work on new anti-pollution rules for greenhouse gases from vehicles. A molecule of greenhouse gas is the same whether it comes from a vehicle or a power plant."

Currently, the stautory language of the Clean Air Act explicitly requires the EPA to regulate sources that emit more than 250 tons of a given air pollutant annually.

But this is a very low limit for CO2, and so would capture schools, hospitals, farms, malls, restaurants, large office buildings and many others. To exempt these sources, the EPA's proposal would unilaterally increase the rule for greenhouse gases from 250 tons to 25,000 tons.

However the decision by the Supreme Court never gave the EPA the ability to play favorites when it came to enforcing CO2 emissions.

This is why so many public policies that are rushed through without thought, cause uncertainty and unecessary litigation.

And it's one of the reasons my Lisa is right.

If proponents argue that the Supreme Court decision of 2006 makes no distinction between the EPA's ability to regulate mobile and stationary sources, why would they believe the court would allow the EPA to make a distinction about who has to comply, while allowing the EPA to draw their own lines?

How long before environmental interests sue the Federal Government demanding they enforce the 250 ton limit as stated in the Clean Air Act, thereby forcing schools, hospitals, farms and everyone else into compliance.

This is a cynical back door attempt by the EPA, which if successful will spawn lawsuits and higher costs without the benefit of legislative accountability.

Andrew Halcro is running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Don Young in the 2010 Republican primary. Halcro is  the publisher of AndrewHalcro.com, a blog devoted to Alaska issues and politics. He is president of Avis/Alaska, his family business. Halcro served in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003, and he ran for governor in 2006 as an independent. He and Democrat Tony Knowles lost to a woman named Sarah Palin.