Twenty-four trade associations joined Tuesday in sending a letter to U.S. Senators expressing support for S.J.Res. 26, the resolution to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The National Association of Manufacturers signed onto the letter. Excerpt:

The trade associations listed below write to ask you to support Senator Murkowski’s greenhouse gas (GHG) “endangerment” resolution – S.J. Res 26. The measure will prevent EPA from establishing a de facto new national energy policy via regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We also urge you to reject any measures to codify EPA regulation of GHGs under the CAA through legislatively affirming EPA’s “tailoring” rule or another similar measure.

While our organizations may differ on some subjects with respect to approaches towards climate change, we are united in opposition to unilateral EPA action to regulate GHGs under the CAA. We urge you to support the bipartisan S.J. Res. 26 and reject any attempt to codify EPA’s “tailoring” rule into law.

The supporters:

Lots of employers, lots of JOBS represented by these groups.

The National Association of Manufacturers also issued a statement from Executive Vice President Jay Timmons, “Manufacturers Urge Senate to Pass Murkowski Resolution.”

The National Association of Manufacturers and 19 other business groups filed a petition in federal appeals court Tuesday challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest interpretation of the “Johnson Memo,” in which the agency declared its plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and other stationary sources. The EPA intends to impose its mandates by Jan. 2, 2011.

As NAM President John Engler said in the news release:

Today’s challenge is yet another step we are taking to stop EPA from its overreach in regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. We believe this issue deserves transparency and debate that should be handled by Congress, not by a bureaucratic agency that has no accountability to the American people.

EPA’s power grab creates uncertainty and adds costly new burdens on manufacturers while further complicating a permitting process the EPA and state environmental enforcement agencies are not equipped to handle. Further, these actions will stifle job creation and harm our competiveness in a global economy by adding compliance, administrative and legal costs.

The trade association petition filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is available here. The NAM’s Manufacturing Law Center has additional background and filings.

Others filing their own litigation include the American Iron and Steel Institute and Gerdau Amersteel Corp., Inc.  From E&E News: (continue reading…)

From the AP, “Industry groups file lawsuit over polar bear rule“:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Five industry groups have sued the Interior Department over a rule to protect the polar bear that they say unfairly singles out business operations in Alaska for their contribution to global warming.

Groups representing the oil and gas, mining, and manufacturing industries asked a federal judge Wednesday to ensure that laws designed to protect the bear, which was recently designated a threatened species, are not used to block projects that release heat-trapping gases in the state.

The American Petroleum Institute was joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Iron and Steel Institute in the lawsuit, which explicitly challenges three words — except in Alaska — that appear in a 62-page rule issued in May.

A copy of the suit, American Petroleum Institute v. Kempthorne, is available here.

API’s statement is here, and it’s a very useful pre-corrective:

The oil and natural gas industry is committed to the conservation of the polar bear and other marine mammals. Companies active in Arctic region energy exploration implement polar bear mitigation and avoidance programs, and they provide funding and logistical support for important polar bear studies carried out in the United States and in Canada. API filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday because it believes the U.S. Interior Department’s determination that the Endangered Species Act is “not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy‟ makes sense, and that the interim final rule issued by the Department needs to be expanded to include Alaska as the Act is implemented. API member companies are not challenging the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species.