Specifically, these issues include:

• the establishment of dioxin/furan emission limits that relied on a small amount of data that are largely below detection limits;
• the achievability of many of the new source limits, the solid fuel particulate matter, CO, and dioxin/furan new source limits; and
• improperly revised definitions which could reclassify boilers – already subject to MACT standards – as solid waste incineration units.

 In addition to this reconsideration petition, the NAM and other manufacturing groups also submitted a Petition for Administrative Stay  on April 27 which urges the EPA to stop the rule from taking effect while the reconsideration process continues. The stay, if granted, would provide manufacturers with the certainty they need to make business decisions pending the final outcome of the reconsideration of the rule.

* MACT – Maximum Achievable Control Technology

GACT – Generally Achievable Control Technology

CISWI – Commerical / Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators

From the discussion of the latter (audio clip):

Timmons: The NAM is supporting the McConnell bill because it’s very definitive. It says the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gases, and then Congress can then come back and create a law that would allow them to do that or do it in a way that Congress dictates.

Roma: It had originally been in Congress’ purview, and then the EPA did an end-run around when it ran into balky congressional leaders, right?

Timmons: Well, that’s exactly right. A couple of years ago there was a bill that was on the House floor to regulate greenhouse gases, and it did pass the House, it stalled in the Senate. So Congress actually said, no, we’re not going to allow the regulation of greenhouse gases. And now you have the EPA saying, well, if Congress isn’t going to do it, we’re going to do it. So, hey, that’s a fun job to have.

Don Wade: The reason we don’t want the EPA to tighten the screws on regulation on greenhouse gases is that it will increase the cost to manufacturers’ stuff. That stuff then will cost you, the consumer, more. It’s like a tax, only it’s not a tax. It’s a hidden tax.

Timmons: It’s a hidden tax that does raise the costs of all energy inputs into manufacturing. Manufacturing uses 30 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States to create those goods that you’re talking about that consumers buy. So you have one of two things happen. You either raise the costs of goods or manufacturers simply can’t compete, so jobs are lost.

And the other part of this is, it’s not just manufacturing. Somebody says, “Ah, let business pay,” well, this is also the consumer. This is also the retired…these are my retired parents, who are trying to pay their heating and cooling bill. And if you look at gas prices today, I don’t think anybody wants to pay more for energy costs.

WLS has posted audio of the full 12-minute interview here.

The ads are available at the campaign’s website: www.nonewregs.org.

The NAM just sent a letter to the U.S. Senate urging Senators to vote for the McConnell amendment and opposing two alternative amendments that fail to achieve the desired goal: Protecting the U.S. economy, manufacturers and workers from costs of EPA overregulation. The amendments may provide a modicum of political cover, but they simply extend the uncertainty that threatens the U.S. economic recovery.

As NAM President Jay Timmons wrote in a blog post at The Hill, “A choice: Recovery or regulator?“:

Manufacturers have been proved a bright spot during the U.S. recovery, making new investments, hiring thousands of employees every week, and exporting more than other sectors of the economy. Yet uncertainty compels the companies to practice caution, holding off investments until it’s clear just how much control over the economy the EPA will wield.

When Senators vote on the McConnell amendment this week, they will be choosing between a private-sector led recovery and the uncertainty and costs threatened by an unrestrained regulator, the EPA. Manufacturers ask that the Senators embrace the recovery by voting for the McConnell amendment.

More …

• The Hill) E2Wire blog, “Manufacturing industry targets vulnerable senators in ads blasting EPA rules“
• The Hill, E2Wire blog, “Climate votes promise to echo on stump“
• Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Human Events, “Energy Tax Prevention Act: The Only End to Cap and Trade.”

And William O’Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, offers a good analysis of the clear political consequences of this week’s vote in an Investor’s Business Daily op-ed, “Key Vote At Hand On EPA Authority,” noting the introduction of the alternative, weaker amendments sponsored by Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV):

Even trade unions are worried about the political and economic fallout of the agency’s massive new regulatory push.

They all have good reason to worry. Voters are in no mood to back politicians who show little regard for their top concern — creating jobs. In fact, voters fired more than a dozen lawmakers in 2010 who’d backed the so-called “cap and trade” greenhouse gas bill.

Jobs and the economy are still top concerns — global warming barely registers in these polls—and given the low expectations for economic growth between now and Nov. 2012, that’s almost certain to continue into the next election.

The NAM letters comes from Aric Newhouse, senior vice president for policy and government relations. Text:

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in the United States representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges your support for legislation that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources. To that end, the NAM key-voted Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) Energy Tax Prevention Act amendment (No. 183) to the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 493).This amendment would stop EPA regulations that are costing jobs and hurting our nation’s economic recovery.
In addition, two other amendments that address GHG regulations were offered to S. 493 by Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) (No. 236) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) (No. 215). While manufacturers appreciate the efforts of Sens. Baucus and Rockefeller, unfortunately, their amendments do not solve many problems associated with the EPA’s GHG regulations and provide little regulatory certainty for our nation’s job creators.

Manufacturers support the McConnell Energy Tax Prevention amendment. It would stop the EPA from regulating GHGs from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act, thus facilitating a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs.

In today’s fragile economy, when we need American businesses to expand at full speed, these regulations create uncertainty and delay. The McConnell amendment (No. 183) is the best approach to stop these regulations and give manufacturers the assurance they need to expand operations and put Americans back to work.

The NAM issued its Key Vote letter supporting the McConnell Amendment on March 15.

Excerpt from the NAM letter:

At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from the most severe recession since the 1930s, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, with no guidance from Congress, will establish disincentives for the long-term investments necessary to grow jobs and expedite economic recovery. The McConnell Amendment seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs before EPA regulates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities.

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 and large-scale deployment of nuclear power plants.

Sen. McConnell explained the amendment in floor remarks earlier today. (Text and video) A separate news release from his office presented the remarks of 15 Senate Democrats criticizing the EPA’s overreach.

Key vote letters are developed by a committee made up of manufacturers of all sizes and are used to rate a members’ support for manufacturing during a session of Congress.

Also this afternoon, the full House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 34-19 to report out H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which has the same language as the McConnell amendment. In the portion of the committee discussion we watched online, Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) spoke about the damaging impact EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would have on manufacturing and manufacturing jobs. We thank him.

P.S. Three Democrats joined the House Republicans on the committee in voting for the bill: Reps. Barrow (GA), Matheson (UT), and Ross (AR).

The National Association of Manufacturers sent an e-mail letter to committee members Monday urging them to vote yes. Excerpt of the e-mail, signed by Aric Newhouse, senior vice president for policy and government relations:

This legislation prevents the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA). It would also allow the EPA to regulate mobile source GHG emissions for model years 2012-2016 but would prevent regulation during subsequent years.

Manufacturers face tremendous uncertainty as the EPA and state permitting authorities begin the implementation process of regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources. Though the EPA is currently regulating the largest new and modified facilities, it has announced that it will start regulating existing power plants and refineries in the near future. Manufacturers use one-third of our nation’s energy, and burdensome regulations on these facilities will increase manufacturers’ energy costs, hindering our competitiveness. Furthermore, as many as six million industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, agricultural and commercial establishments eventually will be subject to regulation under the CAA.

This legislation is needed to stem the tide of the EPA’s overreach and give our nation’s job creators the assurance they need to expand their businesses and put Americans back to work.

The Wall Street Journal editorializes today in support of the bill, which would have policy set by the policymaking branch of government, Congress. From “Carbon and Democracy: Congress gets ready to overrule the EPA on cap and trade rules“:

The bill, which the committee will likely approve today and the House will likely pass later this spring, would restore the plain regulatory meaning that “pollutant” held for decades until the EPA decided in 2009 that all of a sudden it also applied to carbon. John Dingell helped write the Clean Air Act and its 1990 revision, and the Michigan Democrat has repeatedly said that neither was ever meant to address climate.

Other critics of the EPA’s carbon agenda include Senate Democrats like West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller and Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, neither of whom is otherwise known for business sympathies. But they understand that the EPA is about to unleash an economy-wide deluge of new rules and mandates that is already costly and destructive, and it has barely begun.

Right. The EPA has attempted to spin the expansion of its regulatory control over the economy as only a limited spate of regulation over heavy emitters such as refineries and coal-fired power plants. But, even the EPA concedes that those limits represent just the first stage of its control over carbon dioxide, the inevitable by-product of all human economic activity.

For that process to have any value, agencies must undertake it in good faith and engage in serious self-scrutiny. Unfortunately, bureaucracies are usually more interested in justifying their existence and activities, and the regulatory review is likely to be misused for that purpose.

The Environmental Protection Agency recent “analysis” of the benefits of the Clean Air Act provides a clear case in point. Last week the agency issued a news release, “EPA Report Underscores Clean Air Act’s Successful Public Health Protections/Landmark law saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone“:

WASHINGTON – A report released today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the benefits of reducing fine particle and ground level ozone pollution under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will reach approximately $2 trillion in 2020 while saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone. The report studied the effects of the Clean Air Act updates on the economy, public health and the environment between 1990 and 2020.

Diane Katz at the Heritage Foundation delves into the flawed assumptions, methodological gimmicks, and general spinning in a Webmemo, “Coming Clean on Regulatory Costs and Benefits“:

The report is astonishing for a variety of reasons—not the least of which is the enormous discrepancy between the Obama Administration’s numbers and those of a similar previous study by the Clinton Administration EPA, which pegged the economic benefits of the act to be $170 billion (or 91 percent less than the Obama EPA’s estimates). This magnitude of difference is explained by the unreliable assumptions underlying the Obama EPA’s wildly inflated claims.

Nevertheless, newspaper headlines across the country—and throughout the blogosphere—trumpeted the new cost–benefit calculation as proving regulation to be unquestionably beneficial. The media’s lack of scrutiny is particularly troublesome because, in this instance, the EPA is evaluating itself. Indeed, for every step beyond the agency’s press release, the questionable methodology and leaps of logic are painfully obvious.

As Katz summarizes: “The benefit estimates in the report range from $250 million to $5.7 trillion—a vast difference that indicates vast uncertainty about the EPA’s claims.” This from an Administration that has pledged itself to “sound science.”

Today’s  Washington Examiner reports that Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are holding the EPA to account, working to stop the agency from exceeding its authority and misusing the Clean Air Act to establish a national regime of greenhouse gas regulation. The committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee holds two hearings this week that offer an opportunity to examine the EPA’s activities, including ginned-up analyses: Tuesday on Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations, and Friday on the EPA’s budget.

For now, the EPA’s report suggests the limits of the Administration’s regulatory review:

• White House to agencies: Go back and review all your old regulations.
• Agencies to White House: Wow! They’re so much better than we ever thought!

The EPA has received tremendous pressure to revise the proposed rules from manufacturing groups as well as members of congress. Last week, a group of senators wrote a letter to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and EPA Administrator Jackson urging them to release a Department of Commerce study analyzing the economic impact of the rules.

Should the courts grant the EPA’s request for an extension, manufacturers urge the Agency to continue meeting with the interested parties to ensure that the new emission limits are realistic and affordable. Boilers represent major investments for many companies, and adding unnecessary compliance costs could add to consumer costs in the end.

According to a Heritage Foundation review, 10 major rules came out of the EPA in fiscal 2010 with a cost of more than $23 billion. Is it Ms. Jackson’s contention that these government-imposed costs will not discourage the private sector to invest in new equipment or hire new workers, or that U.S. industry can afford whatever new burdens the government chooses to throw at it?

Consider the most burdensome of these proposals, the EPA’s plan to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s attempt to force the nation off fossil fuels. This plan relies heavily on making energy more expensive. Consumers rein in other spending when their heating and electricity bills go up. Manufacturers, the economy’s largest users of electricity, behave no differently.

Ms. Jackson’s desire to paint the agency’s first 40 years as innovative bliss and economic rapture is understandable. But as the EPA moves into middle age, it’s time for Congress to check its power and conduct the serious oversight of the damage the agency’s agenda is doing to U.S. competitiveness and job creation. America, suffering from continued high unemployment and a fitful economic recovery, cannot afford the EPA’s regulatory excess.

You said earlier that it was clear that Congress was rejecting the idea of a cap-and-trade program, and that you wouldn’t be able to move forward with that. Looking ahead, do you feel the same way about EPA regulating carbon emissions?  Would you be open to them doing essentially the same thing through an administrative action, or is that off the table, as well?   

The President’s answer included a claim that is just not true: 

The EPA is under a court order that says greenhouse gases are a pollutant that fall under their jurisdiction. And I think one of the things that’s very important for me is not to have us ignore the science, but rather to find ways that we can solve these problems that don’t hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy in this country, that, in fact, may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs that — and that put us in a competitive posture around the world. 

Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute refutes the President’s contention in a post at the American Spectator’s blog:

The 5-4 majority in Massachusetts v. EPA — and we know how the Left feel about 5-4 majorities effectively making decisions assigned to the political branches or process (coughBushvGorecough) — held that EPA could determine greenhouse gases are ‘pollutants’ if it chooses to but must ground any such decision in the statute. 

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843-844 (1984) . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. (Justice Stevens writing for the majority).

This plainly exposes the president’s claim today as factually incorrect.

The majority made this decision by determining that “all airborne compounds of any stripe” that are ‘emitted’ can be called a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. To which Justice Scalia replied in his dissent in a footnote “It follows that everything  airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant’. This reading of the statute defies common sense.” (emphasis in original but, give them no ideas, please!).

As John Engler, President of the National Association of Manufacturers, told reporters in a post-election conference call Wednesday, the new Congress is likely to reclaim its primacy in setting environmental, reclaiming it from the EPA.

[Part] of what many of the business organizations have been arguing from the beginning is that the EPA is getting way outside its authority from the Congress as it seeks to go through the regulatory process to regulate that which cannot pass in the congressional legislative process.

Horner, by the way, has been on a roll of acerbic astuteness in his recent, pre-election blog posts.