June 9, 1998

The Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Browner:

When Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on March 4, 1998, he assured us that there would be no efforts by the Administration to implement the Kyoto Protocol, until it was submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The Administration was wise in providing such assurances and in repeating them to others in Congress both before and after that hearing. A subsequent letter from Budget Director Raines has further clarified the matter by stressing that the Administration's fiscal year 1999 $6.3 billion budget for its climate change initiatives separate from any Kyoto implementation effort.

Since then, it has come to my attention that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated two actions which appear inconsistent with those assurances. One is of a regulatory nature, the other is of a legislative character.

As to the first action, EPA proposed on February 3, 1998, a rule under section 612 of the Clean Air Act for "restrictions or prohibitions on substitutes for ozone depleting substances." (63 F.R. 5491, February 3, 1998). However, the proposal has nothing to do with depleting substances. Instead EPA "assessed the possible contribution of self-chilling can technology to U.S. emissions of global warming gases when HFC-134a and HFC-152a are used" and concluded that the use of such gases for this type product would result in "unacceptable" greenhouse gas emissions. EPA reached this conclusion even though the agency was unable to discern any "actual market penetration" because "the product has not yet been introduced" into the marketplace. Nevertheless, the proposed rule would ban the use of these substances for these purposes. There is no assertion in the notice that this action is needed to protect the stratospheric ozone, which is the purpose of title VI of the Clean Air Act.

In the second matter, I understand that the EPA is funding a study with the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment entitled "Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Emissions Trading." The assumptions used, presumably as the basis for the contracted study, include that the U.S. will ratify the Kyoto Protocol and that there is some but limited international trading. It also apparently assumes that legislation would be required to establish a domestic carbon dioxide emissions trading system and that the design of such a system could be based on several options. The options targeted for study, moreover, include some based on regulatory energy efficiency standards for the appliance and transportation industries, such as corporate average fuel economy (CAF) requirements.

In addition, I note that the Heinz Center includes a number of so-called "Research Collaborators", many of whom are present or former EPA personnel. Except for the natural gas and aluminum industry, none of these collaborators represents the other industries likely to be affected by the study, nor do they appear to represent labor, agriculture, small business, or the general public.

In light of Mr. Eizenstat's assurances, I request that you explain why the EPA has undertaken such actions apparently designed to meet thus far unmandated requirements and that you provide the Agency's statutory basis for doing so.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

Back to the Public Record Home Page