Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
P
OSSIBLE
I
SSUES FOR
C
ONGRESS
The President's plan mostly envisions actions that do not require further
authority from Congress to accomplish, although some would rely on
appropriations of funds to specific programs. An initial review of the Climate
Action Plan raises a few initial questions some in Congress may wish to
explore.
1.
The cumulative impacts of existing measures and the President's
announced plan have not been assessed, in terms of accomplishments
in reducing GHG emissions or in terms of costs and savings that may
result. In addition to net costs or benefits, distributional impacts
across regions, sectors, and segments of the population may be of
interest.
2.
Some in Congress and, more generally, in the American public
oppose regulation of GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. Some
legislators have proposed resolutions or bills to curtail executive
authority in advance of EPA finalization of rules. Once a rule is
finalized, Congress may use the Congressional Review Act (CRA, 5
U.S.C. §§ 801
et seq.
)
38
to overturn the rule by enacting a joint
resolution of disapproval. The CRA allows for the use of expedited
procedures when considering such a joint resolution, and, if the joint
resolution were to be enacted, the rule would no longer have force or
effect. However, the resolution of disapproval would require the
signature of the President, who would be unlikely to sign a bill
overturning his own agency's rule. A two-thirds vote in both House
and Senate could overcome a Presidential veto.
In May 2013, the Administration released an updated range for the
―social costs of carbon‖ (SCC)—dollar values representing the
benefits of avoiding damages of climate change, expressed as dollars
per ton of CO
2
released in particular years.
39
These SCC estimates
have been, and will be used, to compare the benefits with the costs of
prospective regulations,
40
though cost-benefit analysis has not
typically been a determinative factor in regulatory choices. While the
interagency group that developed the SCC acknowledged the
difficulties of providing such values, the 9
th
Circuit Court ruled in
2007 that estimating the benefits of rules without including such
values for climate damages is ―arbitrary and capricious.‖
41
Some
observers have expressed concern that the new SCC values could be
