{"id":180,"date":"2010-08-02T10:20:33","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T15:20:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=180"},"modified":"2012-01-31T15:46:04","modified_gmt":"2012-01-31T20:46:04","slug":"rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

by Hannah Chang<\/p>\n

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid\u2019s decision to delay introduction of a climate bill to the Senate floor, the focus is now more than ever on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs).\u00a0 Senator Lisa Murkowski, undeterred by the failure of her proposed resolution of disapproval to overturn EPA\u2019s GHG endangerment finding, has proposed Senator Jay Rockefeller\u2019s Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act<\/a> as an amendment (No. 4517<\/a>) to a small business tax relief bill (H.R. 5297<\/a>).\u00a0 Originally introduced on March 4, 2010,[1] the Delay Act is co-sponsored by six centrist Democrats<\/a>[2] all of whom voted to reject Murkowski\u2019s resolution.\u00a0 A White House official indicated that President Obama would veto the Rockefeller bill if passed.\u00a0 (That announcement was made before the bill was proposed as an amendment to the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act.)<\/p>\n

Unlike Senator Murkowski\u2019s resolution of disapproval, which would have entirely disabled EPA\u2019s regulatory authority over GHGs, the Delay Act is written to allow continuation of relatively uncontroversial EPA efforts to regulate GHGs.\u00a0 The Delay Act\u2019s main target is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule<\/a> (Tailoring Rule), which is slated to take effect on January 2, 2011 and would phase in New Source Review PSD and Title V operating permit requirements for stationary sources of GHGs.<\/p>\n

This blog post analyzes the text of the Delay Act to assess the extent to which it displaces EPA authority.\u00a0 It appears that exceptions to the Act\u2019s bar on EPA action leave room for EPA to take action, such as preparing reports and providing technical guidance, short of regulating stationary sources.\u00a0 Similarly, the language of the Act may permit EPA to take action, such as proposing rules and accepting public comments, short of actually subjecting CO2<\/sub> and methane to regulation under the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n

The provisions of the Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act<\/span><\/p>\n

The proposed amendment, entitled \u201cSuspension of Certain EPA Action,\u201d is short, comprised of a subsection (a) that bars EPA action on stationary sources, a subsection (b) setting forth three exceptions to the bar in subsection (a), and a subsection (c) regarding the treatment of CO2<\/sub> and methane under the Clean Air Act.\u00a0 The amendment (with specific citations removed) reads in its entirety as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201c(a) In General<\/span><\/em>.\u2014Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not take any action under the Clean Air Act with respect to any stationary source permitting requirement or any requirement under section 111 of that Act relating to carbon dioxide or methane.<\/p>\n

(b) Exceptions<\/span><\/em>.\u2014Subsection (a) shall not apply to\u2014<\/p>\n

(1) any action under part A of title II of the Clean Air Act relating to the vehicle emissions standards contained in [docket numbers omitted] or [docket number omitted];<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(2) any action relating to the preparation of a report or the enforcement of a reporting requirement; or<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(3) any action relating to the provision of technical support at the request of a State.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(c) Treatment<\/span><\/em>.\u2014Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action taken by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency before the end of the 2-year period described in subsection (a) shall be considered to make carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for any source other than a new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, as described in section 202(a) of that Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

Subsection (a)\u2019s bar on action and subsection (b)\u2019s three exceptions<\/span><\/p>\n

The act would prevent EPA from regulating CO2 <\/sub>and methane emissions from stationary sources during a two year period beginning on the date of the bill\u2019s enactment.\u00a0 Subsection (a)\u2019s mandate that EPA \u201cmay not take any action<\/span><\/em> under the Clean Air Act\u201d regarding stationary source permitting or \u00a7 111 contrasts with other legislative language commonly used to bar agency action: \u201cmay not obligate or expend any funds for.\u201d[3]<\/p>\n

Where this latter language, or similar language barring the use of funds, has been used, it is clear that an agency is prohibited from acting at all.\u00a0 For instance, where Congress has legislated that \u201cnone of the remaining funds appropriated . . . may be made available for making a final determination\u201d to list a species under the Endangered Species Act, even minimal agency action was barred.\u00a0 In that case, the scientific studies and field work necessary for making a final determination had already been completed and the only remaining action was in-house review and decisionmaking by the EPA.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the remaining process, although it would \u201crequire only a slight expenditure of funds,\u201d was barred because \u201c[t]he use of any government resources \u2013 whether salaries, employees, paper, or buildings \u2013 to accomplish a final listing would entail government expenditures.\u201d\u00a0 Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Babbit<\/span><\/em>, 73 F.3d 867, 871-72 (9th Cir. 1995).<\/p>\n

The Delay Act\u2019s failure to use language prohibiting any use of funds<\/span><\/em> suggests a less-complete bar on action, which raises the question of what constitutes the \u201caction\u201d that EPA is prohibited from taking.\u00a0 Case law is not illuminating on this point, but the Delay Act\u2019s own exceptions to the bar on action, set forth in subsection (b), suggest that EPA may still take some important actions relating to greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n

The first exception leaves intact EPA\u2019s authority under the Clean Air Act Title II to regulate motor vehicle emissions that relate to EPA\u2019s GHG endangerment finding or the recently finalized joint rulemaking by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) establishing GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles.\u00a0 Although the language of the bill\u2019s mandate addresses only stationary sources and would clearly not affect EPA\u2019s authority to address mobile sources anyway, this exception clarifies an intent to steer clear of the groundbreaking EPA-NHTSA partnership, which is now working on a second phase of the joint rulemaking that would establish light-duty vehicle standards for model years 2017 and beyond.<\/p>\n

The second exception indicates that the bar on EPA action does not apply to \u201cany action relating to the preparation of a report or the enforcement of a reporting requirement.\u201d\u00a0 The \u201creporting requirement[s]\u201d are a pointed reference to EPA\u2019s GHG Reporting Rule, which went into effect on January 1, 2010 and to which EPA continues to add additional source categories and clarifying amendments.\u00a0 \u00a0The GHG reporting regime would remain untouched under this exception.<\/p>\n

Equally important is the Delay Act\u2019s exception for any action \u201crelating to the preparation of a report.\u201d\u00a0 The term \u201creport\u201d is not defined in the Clean Air Act, and \u201ca fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.\u201d \u00a0Burns v. Alcala<\/span><\/em>, 420 U.S. 575, 580-581 (1975).\u00a0 The ordinary meaning of report is \u201ca usually detailed account or statement\u201d or \u201ca usually formal record of the proceedings of a meeting or session.\u201d\u00a0 Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary<\/span>. <\/em>This broad definition comports with the Clean Air Act\u2019s use of the term, which includes, for instance, a study on \u201cthe need for, and feasibility of, controlling emissions of toxic air pollutants which are unregulated under this chapter\u201d that \u201cshall be available for public review and comment and shall include a summary of all comments.\u201d\u00a0 42 U.S.C. 7521(l)(1).\u00a0 Given this broad understanding of the term \u201creport,\u201d subsection b(2)\u2019s exception is likely quite expansive.\u00a0 EPA probably remains empowered to take a number of steps to study and present findings related to stationary source permitting and \u00a7 111 under this exception as written.<\/p>\n

The Delay Act\u2019s third exception applies to \u201cany action relating to the provision of technical support at the request of a State.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cTechnical support\u201d is not defined in the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations, but the term is probably understood to include technical guidance to states regarding engineering or technology best practices[4] and standards.[5] Under the Clean Air Act\u2019s New Source Review program, major new or modified sources in attainment areas are required to apply best available control technology (BACT), which is usually determined by State or local permitting agencies.\u00a0 A state could in theory request that EPA provide technical support in the form of guidance on recommended BACT, and under the Delay Act\u2019s exception for \u201ctechnical support at the request of a State,\u201d EPA could probably comply with such a request.<\/p>\n

Moreover, because the Delay Act only requires that a state request provision of technical support, and does not specify that a State request technical support in pursuit of implementing the state\u2019s obligation under the Clean Air Act, it is possible that a state could request that EPA provide technical support on new source performance standards for certain categories of stationary sources.\u00a0 Under \u00a7 111, new source performance standards are technology-based standards that apply to specific categories of stationary sources and are developed and implemented by EPA.\u00a0 Under subsection (b)(3)\u2019s exception, EPA probably would not be barred from providing guidance at the request of a state on the types of technology standards that could be imposed on categories of stationary sources.\u00a0 But the exception would not extend to any action by EPA that goes beyond providing mere technical support (i.e. actually implementing such standards).<\/p>\n

Subsection (c) and the treatment of CO2<\/sub> and methane<\/span><\/p>\n

Subsection (c) of the Delay Act addresses the \u201ctreatment\u201d of CO2<\/sub> and methane under the Clean Air Act: \u201c[N]o action taken by [EPA] before the end of the 2-year period . . . shall be considered to make carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for any source other than a new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine . . . .\u201d \u00a0EPA has issued guidance interpreting \u201csubject to regulation\u201d specifically in the context of the PSD program,[6] but given that this phrase is used in various sections of the Clean Air Act,[7] the language in \u00a7 2(c) appears to prevent EPA from generally regulating CO2<\/sub> and methane under the Clean Air Act.\u00a0 In other words, EPA would be barred from deeming CO2<\/sub> and methane criteria pollutants subject to regulation under state implementation plans; EPA would similarly be barred from regulating CO2<\/sub> and methane as hazardous air pollutants or under \u00a7 115 relating to international air pollution.<\/p>\n

An interesting choice of language suggests, however, that EPA could take some action during the two-year delay period regarding the treatment of CO2<\/sub> and methane.\u00a0 The Delay Act indicates that \u201cno action taken . . . shall be considered to make carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant subject to regulation.\u201d\u00a0 This language leaves open the possibility that EPA can<\/span><\/em> <\/span>take action so long as the action is not considered to subject CO2<\/sub> and methane to regulation under the Clean Air Act.\u00a0 It is possible that drafting and issuing proposed rules, requesting public comments, and responding to such comments are actions that can be taken because they do not actually subject CO2<\/sub> and methane to regulation.<\/p>\n

[1] A bill with the same language, H.R. 4753, was introduced in the House of Representative by Rep. Nick Rahall (also of West Virginia) and has 13 co-sponsors<\/a>, 11 of them Democrats.<\/p>\n

[2] Senators Kent Conrad (ND), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Ben Nelson (NE), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Jim Webb (VA).<\/p>\n

[3] See, e.g.<\/em>, 10 U.S.C. \u00a7 2806b (\u201cFunds may not be obligated or expended in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment program . . . .\u201d); 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 4822 (\u201c[T]he Secretary [of Housing and Urban Development] may not obligate or expend any funds or otherwise carry out activities related to any other policy development and research project until the report is transmitted.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[4] E.g<\/em>., EPA, Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height Regulations)<\/em>, Revised. Publication No. EPA-450\/4-80-023R.<\/p>\n

[5] Guidelines for [Best Available Retrofit Technology] Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule<\/em>, 40 C.F.R. Pt. 51, App. Y (guidelines designed to help States and others \u201c(1) identify those sources that must comply with the BART requirement, and (2) determine the level of control technology that represents BART for each source\u201d).<\/p>\n

[6] See EPA, Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

[7] E.g.<\/em>, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 7412(a)(2) (referring to \u201cmotor vehicles or nonroad vehicles subject to regulation under subchapter II of this chapter\u201d), \u00a7 7412(b)(2) (\u201cNo substance, practice, process or activity regulated under subchapter VI of this chapter shall be subject to regulation under this section.\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Hannah Chang With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid\u2019s decision to delay introduction of a climate bill to the Senate floor, the focus is now more than ever on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs).\u00a0 Senator Lisa Murkowski, undeterred by the failure of her proposed resolution of disapproval to overturn EPA\u2019s GHG endangerment finding, has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":330,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[642],"tags":[9424],"class_list":{"0":"post-180","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-congress","7":"tag-congress","8":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nRockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"by Hannah Chang With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid\u2019s decision to delay introduction of a climate bill to the Senate floor, the focus is now more than ever on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs).\u00a0 Senator Lisa Murkowski, undeterred by the failure of her proposed resolution of disapproval to overturn EPA\u2019s GHG endangerment finding, has […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-02T15:20:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-01-31T20:46:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jason James\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jason James\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jason James\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8f0d9a9c0d7b85121d29f44e3646aaf\"},\"headline\":\"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T15:20:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:46:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2082,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Congress\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Congress\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T15:20:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:46:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/08\\\/02\\\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8f0d9a9c0d7b85121d29f44e3646aaf\",\"name\":\"Jason James\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/jjames\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"by Hannah Chang With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid\u2019s decision to delay introduction of a climate bill to the Senate floor, the focus is now more than ever on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs).\u00a0 Senator Lisa Murkowski, undeterred by the failure of her proposed resolution of disapproval to overturn EPA\u2019s GHG endangerment finding, has […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2010-08-02T15:20:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-01-31T20:46:04+00:00","author":"Jason James","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jason James","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Jason James","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e8f0d9a9c0d7b85121d29f44e3646aaf"},"headline":"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act","datePublished":"2010-08-02T15:20:33+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:46:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/"},"wordCount":2082,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Congress"],"articleSection":["Congress"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/","name":"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-02T15:20:33+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:46:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/08\/02\/rockefeller-now-murkowski-again-the-stationary-source-regulations-delay-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rockefeller Now, Murkowski Again: The Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e8f0d9a9c0d7b85121d29f44e3646aaf","name":"Jason James","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/jjames\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/330"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}