Graham challenges EPA leader's claims

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham fired off a letter Monday to the Environmental Protection Agency seeking a list of South Carolina businesses that would be affected by rules to control global warming pollution.

Upset by remarks EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson made over the weekend in Columbia, Graham said he remains unconvinced that pending greenhouse gas regulations will affect only large industries. Small businesses also could be vulnerable to the EPA rules, he said.

"My belief is that she is giving assurances that will not withstand scrutiny," said the S.C. Republican, who wants Congress to pass a bill addressing greenhouse gases, instead of letting the EPA rules take effect. "I want to know with specificity, 'What companies in South Carolina do you intend to regulate first - and over time, who is next?'"

In an interview Sunday with The State newspaper, Jackson said the EPA rules will focus on large industries that produce about 80 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. She said the rules were mandated by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but are not intended to regulate restaurants, apartment buildings and other small businesses - as Graham and state regulators said at a recent meeting in Columbia. They also said small farms, churches, schools and even homes could be affected.

"At this point in time, there's just no basis that says we're going to reach down to small businesses," Jackson told The State.

Jackson said she and President Barack Obama prefer that Congress pass a bill addressing greenhouse gases, but she also said the EPA's first-ever greenhouse gas regulations will help.

The rules will first apply to 300 to 400 companies nationally, and only if those companies want to expand or build new facilities, she said. They would later apply to other companies that release large amounts of greenhouse gases. In May, the EPA is expected to formally declare which industries the rules will apply to. They are supposed to begin taking effect early next year.

Jackson was traveling in the Charleston area on an environmental justice tour Monday and unavailable for further comment.

Rising earth temperatures, fueled in part by man-made greenhouse gases that trap heat, are contributing to rising sea levels and an array of other environmental problems, many scientists agree. Rising sea levels are an important issue in South Carolina, where the state's heavily developed beachfront is a cornerstone of a multibillion-dollar tourism industry.

Graham has been a leader in efforts to control greenhouse gases, but says the EPA's regulations won't be flexible enough. The pollution controls could be expensive for businesses to install.

"I know where this thing goes by regulation," he said. "Once you start, you never stop."

He plans to unveil a bill early next week that addresses climate change, while also looking more broadly at the country's energy needs. The bill is expected to include a fee on oil companies that release carbon dioxide and provisions to promote nuclear power and drilling for oil and natural gas off the Atlantic coast. Graham said he wants to promote jobs and decrease the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Whether such a bill will pass Congress remains in doubt, which is why the EPA regulations are important as a kind of safety valve, clean air advocates have said. The EPA's first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, said last week that regulation through the Clean Air Act may be the only way to attack the problem, according to the Environment and Energy news service.

In his letter Monday, Graham asked Jackson if she has a list of companies affected by the regulations, what the rules would cost each company and how many jobs "could be lost" if the EPA rules take effect.

"I remain concerned about the impact regulations could have on South Carolina's economy," Graham's letter said. "EPA actions limiting their ability to locate, operate, or expand in South Carolina will not only impact these industries directly, but will cause numerous small businesses to close due to the lost business opportunity.'