Federal agencies should consider how their actions would contribute to climate change when conducting environmental reviews on energy, mining and infrastructure projects, the White House said Thursday.
The draft plan from the Council on Environmental Quality aims to guide federal agency reviews of greenhouse gas emissions through the National Environmental Policy Act, which applies to decisions requiring federal approval such as highways, export terminals and electric grid infrastructure.
“Climate change is a particularly complex challenge given its global nature and inherent interrelationships among its sources, causation, mechanisms of action, and impacts; however, analyzing the proposed action’s climate impacts and the effects of climate change relevant to the proposed action’s environmental outcomes can provide useful information to decisionmakers and the public,” the guidance said.
Business groups and Capitol Hill conservatives criticized the move, as they lashed out against a similar 2010 draft from the environmental council. They feared that requiring agencies to consider the climate impact of their actions would slow construction of pipelines, terminals to export liquified natural gas and coal, and limit auto exports.
“Manufacturers are glad CEQ chose not to finalize the flawed 2010 proposal, and we plan to review this updated draft and submit comments. That said, we remain concerned, as we were in 2010, about any expansion of NEPA that could inject even more uncertainty and delay into an already challenging permitting process,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and natural resources policy with the National Association of Manufacturers.
The move is the latest example of the Obama administration focusing its agencies’ attention on limiting the greenhouse gases that scientists say drive climate change. The White House also has directed agencies to consider how to make infrastructure more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as adapting to rising sea levels. The guidance released Thursday suggested a thorough accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for actions that would result in at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually.
The council said agencies should take a broad look at the effect their actions have on emissions. The draft guidance said agencies should be aware that approving an infrastructure project could create “upstream” or “downstream” emissions that are connected to the project.
“When assessing direct and indirect climate change effects, agencies should take account of the proposed action — including ‘connected’ actions — subjects to reasonable limits on feasibility and practicability. In addition, emissions from activities that have a reasonably close causal relationship to federal action … should be accounted for in the NEPA analysis,” the guidance said.
Still, the environmental council said agencies would maintain “substantial discretion” in pursuing the environmental reviews they undertake. It suggested the guidance would make it easier to compare alternatives, though agencies would not be required to select the lower-emitting option if they had good reason.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has pushed the administration for a broad review of the climate impact of coal mining on federal land, applauded the initiative.
“By using bedrock environmental law to evaluate how actions could worsen climate change, this update to NEPA gets our entire government rowing in the same direction. It’s a smart step that creates a more comprehensive climate strategy, and the Obama administration is once again showing their commitment to tackle climate change,” Markey said.
But Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said the move would slow the economy. He had asked the council to withdraw its 2010 plan in May.
“The Obama administration is attempting to increase federal authority beyond NEPA’s original intent and further slow down job-creating projects in this last-ditch effort to appease its far-left environmental base right before the holidays,” Vitter said. “This is certain to hurt job creation and economic growth.”
