By a vote of 47 yeas to 53 nays, the Senate voted against the motion to proceed to a vote on S.J.Res. 26, the resolution to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

It used to be that Congress jealously protected its rights and prerogatives against the encroachment of the Executive Branch.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) is now on the Senate floor praising the Chicago Blackhawks.

UPDATE (5 p.m.): Here’s the roll call vote. Puzzling to see the Senators from coal and lignite states, especially, vote to let the EPA determine the fate of all of these energy-related jobs.

The Hill reports that some Senate Democrats may attempt to have it both ways on whether the Executive Branch should set climate and energy policy  by supporting a resolution by Sen. Jay Rockefeller that would put a two-year moratorium on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

What message does that send? 

• With this vote, we affirm Congress’ policymaking role in the American system of government. Well, at least for two years .
• EPA regulation would be disastrous for the economy. Therefore we stand strongly against its destruction of jobs and prosperity. Well, at least for two years.
• We recognize that EPA regulation is wrong, but important political constituencies demand some sort of action — even if it is EPA command-and-control. We believe this resolution represents a reasonable compromise. Well, at least for two years.

Do they not recognize that uncertainty is the enemy of investment, jobs and economic recovery?

George Will’s column today is timely and on point, “Jobs report a nightmare for Obama progressivism.”

Today investors and employers are certain that uncertainties are multiplying.

They are uncertain about when interest rates will rise, and by how much. They do not know how badly the economy will be burdened by the expiration, approximately 200 days from now, of the Bush tax cuts on high earners — aka investors and employers.

They know the costs of ObamaCare will be higher than was advertised, but not how much higher. They do not know the potential costs of cap-and-trade and other energy policies.

They do not know if “card check” — abolition of the right of secret ballot elections in unionization decisions — will pass, or how much the economy will be injured by making unions more muscular.

They do not know how the functioning of the financial sector will be altered and impeded by the many new regulatory rules and agencies created by the financial reform legislation.

Let uncertainty multiply. The recovery is not a priority. Jobs can come later.  The economy will not get well, at least for two years.

The National Association of Manufacturers today sent a “Key Vote” letter to U.S. Senators expressing manufacturers’ support for S.J.Res. 26, the resolution of disapproval to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions without Congressional approval. From the letter:

Manufacturers support a comprehensive, federal climate policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy and a renewed commitment to nuclear energy.

Prior to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, energy inflation and price volatility were major contributors to the loss of approximately 3.7 million high-wage manufacturing jobs. Manufacturers use one-third of our nation’s energy. Because of the impact a federal climate policy will have on the nation’s energy future, this is an issue that must be debated by Congress without pre-emption from a federal agency.

EPA regulations, with no guidance from Congress, could establish disincentives for the long-term investments needed to grow jobs and expedite economic recovery. The Murkowski resolution seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs. That discussion must take place before the EPA starts regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities.

EPA lacks the authority to write its own law, its own version of the Clean Air Act, to control greenhouse gas emissions, which by extension controls economic activity. You could be a believer in stringent controls but still recognize that the American system of representative democracy does not grant the power to issue such controls to an executive branch agency. S.J.Res. 26 serves as a clear test for Senators whether they really believe that Congress is the policymaking branch of government.

Senate debate is expected Thursday. Key Vote letters are used by the NAM in ranking the members of Congress on their support for manufacturing.

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…)

The Environmental Protection Agency has decided that Texas is failing to crack down on refineries and other energy producers to the agency’s satisfaction, so the EPA is taking over permitting in the state. As The Houston Chronicle reported on May 25:

“I think the writing will be on the wall — unless we start seeing better permits that address our objections, we are very likely to begin federalizing others,” EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz said in a telephone interview. “The state is not following federal Clean Air Act requirements.”

In The Forth Worth Business Press Alex Mills, president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, reacts to the EPA’s regulatory march in an op-ed, “Texas vs. EPA war becomes an air battle impacting jobs“:

EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz threw more gasoline on the fire when he directed EPA to rescind a permit issued by the State of Texas, because Texas “is not following the Clean Air Act requirements.”

EPA’s unprecedented action impacts the Flint Hills Resources refinery in Corpus Christi, which has been operating under permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) since 1952. Now, the 300,000-barrel-per-day refinery, which has spent more than $2.8 billion since 1981 on “significant environmental upgrades,” must try to get a federal permit for the first time in Texas history to stay in business.

Armendariz indicated that his EPA enforcers also could be requiring federal permits of the remainder of refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities in Texas and the other states in Region 6.

About half of the nation’s refinery capacity is in Region 6. Without refineries, crude oil producers will not have a market for their crude oil. More refined products will need to be imported. Jobs will be lost. Energy prices will soar. The economy of Texas and the nation will be damaged severely.

Armendariz was after the productive sectors of the Texas economy as a professor at SMU before his appointment to the EPA job.

The Environmental Protection Agency has now posted its latest version of greenhouse gas emission regulations on its website, with background and supplementary materials.

Final GHG Tailoring Rule
May 13, 2010 – EPA sets greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thresholds to define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

• Fact Sheet (PDF) (6pp, 33k)
• Final Rule (PDF) (515pp, 688k)
• Timeline Outlining Permitting Steps under the Tailoring Rule (PDF) (1pg, 79k)
• Summary of Clean Air Act Permitting Burdens With and Without the Tailoring Rule (PDF) (2pp, 445k)

“Tailoring” in this case means the setting of specific emission limits to stationary sites, primarily industrial and energy facilities, thus requiring their adherance to the permitting process. The EPA claims it has the authority to set its own limits under the Clean Air Act, a dubious assertion.

According to the EPA’s fact sheet:

• This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to limit which
  facilities will be required to obtain PSD and title V permits. Facilities responsible for nearly
  70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to
  permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters-
  power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
• Emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities
  will not be covered by these programs at this time. 

You have to love that “at this time.” They’ll get to you soon enough.

Would it be hyperbole to say that the last two weeks have witnessed the greatest expansion in history of the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over U.S. economic activity and the day-to-day lives of American citizens? If so, we’ll just encourage readers to ponder the substance — and costs — behind the anodyne headlines.

• 4/01/2010 — “EPA Issues Comprehensive Guidance to Protect Appalachian Communities From Harmful Environmental Impacts of Mountaintop Mining“
• 4/01/2010 — “DOT, EPA Set Aggressive National Standards for Fuel Economy and First Ever Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels For Passenger Cars and Light Trucks“
• 3/31/2010 — “EPA Disapproves Air Permitting Exemption Program in Texas“
• 3/30/2010 — “EPA Proposes to Revoke New Source Review Final Rule“
• 3/29/2010 — “EPA Formally Announces Phase-in of Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse Gases/Agency reiterates no stationary source requirements until 2011“
• 3/29/2010 — “EPA to Scrutinize Environmental Impact of Bisphenol A“
• 3/26/2010 — “EPA Proposes Veto of Mine Permit Under the Clean Water Act“
• 3/23/2010 — “EPA Proposes to Add Sources to Greenhouse Gas Reporting System/Requirements target potent and persistent greenhouse gases“
• 3/22/2010 — “EPA Administrator Jackson Outlines New Vision for Clean, Safe Drinking Water“

There’s at least a little flexibility on the margins. Thankfully, “Limited Use of Modified Grenade Simulators Approved for Use at Camp Edwards.”

From Greenwire, via The New York Times, “16 ‘Endangerment’ Lawsuits Filed Against EPA Before Deadline“:

Industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers and three states filed 16 court challenges to U.S. EPA’s “endangerment” finding for greenhouse gases before yesterday’s deadline, setting the stage for a legal battle over federal climate policies.

Filing petitions yesterday were the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Another was filed by a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association

From the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “New Lawsuit, Petition Challenge EPA Global Warming Regulations After Lead Global Warming Scientist Admits Data Sloppiness, No Warming.”

Earlier posts:

• States Resist Imperial EPA’s Power Grab on CO2 Regulation
• NAM, Business Groups Challenge EPA Endangerment Finding

Office of Gov. Rick Perry, Texas, “Texas Takes Legal Action Against Federal Government Over EPA CO2 Mandates“:

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples today announced that the state is taking legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

“Texas is aggressively seeking its future in alternative energy through incentives and innovation, not mandates and overreaching regulation,” Gov. Perry said. “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ. This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”

• Petition for Reconsideration of Endangerment Cause
• Petition for Review

Washington Post, “Virginia challenges U.S. greenhouse gas curbs”

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) on Tuesday filed paperwork attacking the legal underpinnings of an Obama administration effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, joining a crowd of political conservatives and business groups with similar objections.

Cuccinelli sent a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, asking the agency to reconsider its finding in December that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health by contributing to climate change. That finding is a legal trigger, which would allow the EPA to regulate those gases under the Clean Air Act, the same way it regulates the pollutants that cause smog.

Cuccinelli also filed a separate petition asking a federal court to review the EPA’s finding.

See also Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Va. challenges EPA’s stance on global warming”

The National Association of Manufacturers and other major business and agriculture groups also filed a petition for review on Tuesday.

A bipartisan trio of House members on Tuesday introduced a bill to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Collin C. Peterson (D-MN), and Jo Anne Emerson (R-MO) introduced H.R. 4572, which would also amend the 2007 Energy Bill to stop EPA from calculating land use changes in foreign countries in determining American renewable fuels policy, and would broaden the definition of renewable biomass.

“Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at EPA,” Skelton said. “America’s energy and environmental policies should be set by Congress.”

The presence of two chairmen, Skelton of House Armed Services, and Peterson of House Agriculture, underscores the rising level of Congressional opposition to the Imperial EPA’s attempt to supersede the policymaking branch of government. The sponsors and the place the bill was announced — the Missouri Rural Electric Cooperative State Legislative Conference — also reinforce the broad nature of that opposition: Rural lawmakers, farm groups and the rural electric cooperatives are resisting.

President Obama conceded in New Hampshire yesterday that the cap-and-trade legislation he supports lacks the Senate votes for passage. But there remains the circumvention of policymaking through the EPA, a topic he did not discuss at his townhall meeting. (Although he invoked the Clean Air Act when talking about acid rain.)

As Rep. Peterson said in his statement: “[Elected] officials should be making these types of decisions, not unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. I’m proud to help sponsor this bill because if Congress doesn’t do something soon, the EPA is going to cram these regulations through all on their own.”