BulletProofBlog the blog on crisis communications

As would be the case with any piece of legislation that potentially impacts 17 percent of the national economy, the media spotlight has been firmly affixed on healthcare reform since early summer. But amid the town hall meetings, Presidential addresses, and heated protests, Congress has been moving forward on another legislative priority that could potentially have a far greater impact on the American economy.

“Cap and Trade” legislation – a bill seeking to limit the emissions a company can generate without a monetary offset – narrowly passed the House this summer without a great deal of fanfare. Now, the fate of the legislation rests with six Senate Committees of jurisdiction – of which only one (Environment and Public Works) has reported out a bill. With action expected from the other five committees in relatively short order, energy and environmental interests are shoring up and expanding their lobbying teams in anticipation.

But there’s a new wrinkle. Late last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent the White House recommendations for an “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide is a pollutant dangerous to public health. The White House has 90 days to review and act on the ruling – but the safe bet is that the Obama Administration will determine that the government can regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Taken along with the fact that the EPA’s enforcement budget has been dramatically increased, it now looks as if the EPA is poised to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, regardless of Congressional action.

That means the companies that oppose of Cap and Trade no longer have the option of simply fighting the legislative language coming out of Congress. In order to forestall what could be a far more aggressive approach by the EPA, they must now come hard to the negotiating table to convince Congress to enact more flexible emissions curbs – with the hope of mitigating regulatory prerogatives.

Under ordinary circumstances, Cap and Trade opponents would likely engage in a typical “inside/outside” campaign consisting of lobbying pressure inside the Beltway and constituent pressure in the Senators' home states. But with the ongoing healthcare debate dominating the public’s attention, a more segmented approach is called for. In order to most effectively make their case, Cap and Trade opponents must identify and motivate their constituencies by geography and demography to best leverage the pockets of support where concerns over Cap and Trade trump those over healthcare reform.

Most important, they must move quickly – because after eight long years on the sidelines, the EPA is eager to get back into the game.