Today, the EPA published its response to the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA — which mandated that the agency determine whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health — listing various ways to control emissions. In letters attached to the document, however, administration officials “disavow[ed] the document’s conclusions.” The Wall Street Journal reports:
stephenjohnson32.jpg In a letter accompanying the EPA document…Susan Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, bluntly disavowed the analysis, saying it relied on “untested legal theories” and “cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration.”
“There is strong disagreement with many of the legal, analytical, economic, science and policy interpretations in the draft. These letters do reflect agreement with you that the Clean Air Act is a deeply flawed and unsuitable vehicle for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Ms. Dudley wrote in the letter, dated Thursday and addressed to the EPA’s administrator, Stephen Johnson.
Brad Johnson at the Wonk Room notes that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson decided to attack the work of his own staff in addressing climate change, concluding that the Clean Air Act is “ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.”