The EPA chief hasn’t spoken publicly on the rule beyond an official statement. Spurned on smog, will EPA head go?

Will EPA chief Lisa Jackson stay or go?

That’s the new parlor game among Washington insiders after the White House publicly undercut the agency’s attempts to install tougher regulations on smog.


Since the White House’s announcement Friday, Jackson hasn’t spoken publicly on the rule beyond an official statement touting the president’s leadership on clean air issues. Someone who has spoken with Jackson since Friday told POLITICO she’s still digesting it all and hasn’t shared even with those closest to her what her thinking is.

President Barack Obama invited Jackson on Air Force One Sunday when he toured areas of New Jersey that had been damaged by Hurricane Irene. Jackson served as a New Jersey state official for several years.

As the EPA administrator, Jackson’s been a loyal foot soldier for the Obama administration, leading the Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force and fighting congressional Republicans tooth and nail on environmental regulations.

“I certainly think the White House genuinely wants her to be comfortable with this decision and to stay,” an administration source said.

A White House official said Obama expects Jackson will stay with the administration.

“Under the leadership of Lisa Jackson, the EPA has taken historic steps to protect public health and in his statement on Friday, the president again reiterated the important role she has played and will continue to play as a member of his team,” the official said in an email.

“The president fully expects Administrator Jackson to continue to play an aggressive role in protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink and most importantly the health of our families,” the official added.

The EPA declined to comment, pointing to the White House statement. And Jackson ducked a question on the rule from a pool reporter during Sunday’s New Jersey trip.

For Jackson — whose teenage son suffers from asthma — the smog rule has been a long time coming.

“This is one of the most important protection measures we can take to safeguard our health and our environment,” Jackson said in 2009 when announcing plans to tighten the George W. Bush-era standards. “Smog in the air we breathe can cause difficulty breathing and aggravate asthma, especially in children.”

And she doubled down this summer, calling the Bush administration standards “not legally defensible,” given the Bush White House rejected science advisers’ calls for tougher limits.

As recently as July, EPA lawyers were asking a federal appellate court in Washington to delay litigation over the Bush-era ozone standard because a new Obama ozone rule was just around the corner.

But major business groups appealed directly to the White House, warning that the ozone rule would be one of the most expensive environmental rules ever imposed on the U.S. economy — with an estimated cost of up to $90 billion annually — and that a new rule would hurt Obama’s reelection bid.

Jackson didn’t get much of a heads up prior to the announcement, prompting criticism from greens that the White House had blindsided the EPA chief. An administration official said that the White House didn’t notify the agency of the decision until last Thursday — and that the EPA was not involved in the decision-making process.

The White House had been reviewing EPA’s proposal since July. Many observers speculated that the administration would try to appease both sides with a final standard of 70 parts per billion — more than environmentalists wanted, but less than industry feared.

So far, the White House has taken several steps that appear aimed at blunting the force of its decision on Jackson.

Obama issued the decision himself, calling it part of a larger effort aimed at “reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” And top White House officials have also doubled down on their commitment to setting new limits for mercury from power plants — another one of Jackson’s top priorities.

Still, some of Jackson’s supporters don’t expect her to stick around much longer in light of the decision, and some are even calling for her to resign in protest.

“I don’t think she’s going to resign immediately,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. But, he added, “If six months from now Lisa Jackson was going to go off and spend more time with her family, who could blame her?”

Thomas McGarity, a professor at the University of Texas Law School and a member scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform, wrote in a blog post Tuesday that Jackson should either defy the president by issuing the standard or “do the honorable thing and resign.”

Plenty of other observers don’t think Jackson is looking to get out in a hurry, pointing to other high-profile EPA regulations coming down the pike, such as the utility air toxics rule and greenhouse gases regulations.

GOP energy strategist Michael McKenna said he doesn’t think Jackson is on the outs. “Where's she going to go?” he said.

But he said Jackson’s clout has been jeopardized now that she’s been so publicly overruled by the White House.

She’ll be thinking, “What am I going to get sandbagged on next?” McKenna said. “This is just throwing chum into the water for sharks.”

EPA’s critics in industry and on Capitol Hill have already called for Obama to ease up on rules beyond just the ozone standard.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said Tuesday that he hopes Obama will continue to pull back on other controversial rules.

“I think that definitely that he is going to do that because that’s where the politics is,” Inhofe said. However, he said, “I wouldn’t want him to do that to the extent that he’d be reelected.”

House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor asked Obama on Tuesday to use ozone as a starting point for scaling back regulations.

“While we appreciate your announcement on Friday asking the EPA to withdraw its new draft ozone standards, we believe it is critical to not stop there, and instead act to further reduce this cumulative regulatory drag of uncertainty on economic growth and job creation,” the Republicans wrote in a letter to the White House.

Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 9:12 p.m. on September 6, 2011.