Lisa Jackson says the EPA is taking 'modest steps' in writing climate rules. EPA's Jackson swings back at critics

Lisa Jackson is sticking to her guns.

The Environmental Protection Agency finds itself constantly under attack from industry groups and Republicans who say the agency is overreaching on everything from climate change to microscopic soot. And with the failure of the White House and Congress to pass a climate bill, combined with a potential GOP takeover, now could be seen as the right time for the agency’s head to dial back the rhetoric.


But at an event last month celebrating the Clean Air Act’s 40th anniversary, Jackson swung hard at industry groups, offending some officials in the room and potentially adding fuel to claims the Obama administration is anti-business.

In an interview this week with POLITICO, Jackson showed no indication of backing down.

“It’s definitely anti-lobbyist rhetoric,” Jackson said. “It’s definitely meant to reflect the fact that, when I go around the country, people want clean air. They are as passionate about clean air and clean water as any of a number of issues; they want protection for their families and their children.”

“I meet with individual businesses all the time, and industry has a huge role to play,” Jackson added. “But I do very much believe that it’s time for us to get past this tired dance, where folks inside this Beltway get paid a lot of money to say things that aren’t true about public health initiatives that this agency is charged by law with undertaking.”

Jackson said EPA is taking a “series of modest steps” in writing climate-themed rules under the Clean Air Act, despite bipartisan efforts in Congress to block them and about 90 different lawsuits in federal court.

“The Clean Air Act is a tool. It’s not the optimal tool. But it can be used,” she said. “And, in fact, I’m legally obligated now to use it. And so we’ve laid a lot of groundwork on that and we’ll continue.”

Jackson’s shop is now the main battleground in the federal push to fight global warming, as many experts predict Congress will show little appetite to try a comprehensive climate bill again in the near future.

“A window has slammed shut in Washington, and it may be a few more years before we can pry it open again,” said Eric Pooley, author of “The Climate War,” a recently published book that chronicles the past three years of debate on global warming.

Enter Jackson, who is pursuing her work, thanks to a 2007 Supreme Court decision clearing EPA to write climate rules as long as the agency could prove greenhouse gases threaten public health or the environment. The first hammer comes down in January with greenhouse gas limits on some of the biggest industrial sources, namely power plants and petroleum refiners, which are already in various stages of the air pollution permitting process.

An additional set of climate-themed requirements will come in July for both existing and new industrial plants that trigger the permit rules by increasing their emissions.

Combined, Jackson said those two rules should make a noticeable dent in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. “It’s not the majority of the regulated community,” she said. “But because of those two things together, that’s a large segment of the workload.”

Hoping to give industry some cushion on costs, EPA is also studying its options for setting up a cap-and-trade program in which regulated companies could buy and sell pollution permits based on how much they’ve cleaned up their facilities. But Jackson insisted any cap-and-trade system would not be as ambitious as what Congress authorized EPA to set up in the early 1990s to deal with acid rain emissions from power plants, let alone the climate bills that died this year under a cloud of controversy.

“We’re going to try as much as possible to give flexibility,” she said. “One of the most flexible programs we’ve ever had is a true cap-and-trade program. We can’t replicate that, but we can certainly look at opportunities.”

During an interview published last week in Rolling Stone, President Barack Obama said he wasn’t giving up on his climate agenda in 201l, suggesting a less ambitious approach that addresses the issue “in chunks.”

Jackson deferred to Obama on what the president has in mind for EPA under the “chunks.” But she answered that he’s “rightfully very proud” of EPA, the Transportation Department, the auto industry and state officials for coming together in 2009 on regulations that will get fuel economy beyond 35 miles per gallon by the middle of the decade.

“He sees the situation as sort of the win all around, multiple-win public policy that this country could and should be embracing,” Jackson said. “And certainly, there’s some amount of frustration with the fact that we can’t get past that same set of issues on the stationary source side easily.”

Jackson said she also sees changes coming in the nation’s energy infrastructure because of the 2009 economic stimulus package, which included a record $80 billion for renewable projects. “With all the signals we’re trying to send, that’s the next big chunk,” she said.

While EPA works those “chunks,” the agency will also have to play defense.

The prospect of a GOP-controlled House or Senate in 2011 would most likely set the stage for Obama to follow through on veto threats on any legislation restricting EPA’s ability to write climate rules. Even before the election, coal-state Democrats are still hoping to get a Senate vote on legislation that halts the agency’s work on stationary sources for two years.

“Even in the face of the president’s veto threat, we must send a clear message that Congress — not an unelected regulatory agency — must set our national energy policy,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the leading sponsor of the bill.

Lawsuits challenging Jackson’s authority are also starting to work their way through the courts, with nearly 90 sets of plaintiffs — oil and coal companies, conservative think tanks and a coalition of states, including the attorneys general from Texas and Virginia — filing at least four different cases.

EPA’s critics are also questioning the agency’s work on a number of conventional environmental issues, including regulations for toxic coal ash, power plant mercury emissions and microscopic levels of soot.

Jackson said the attacks are part of the territory.

“The rules we put forth have been smart, sensible rules,” she said. “Part of the line of attack is to somehow villainize the work of this agency. But this agency protects human health and the environment. And the majority of people in this country, a strong majority, expect clean air, expect clean water, expect that their representatives in Congress are there to help get them that, to represent them and not special interests.”