Late Friday, the National Association of Manufacturers and a number of other parties filed a legal brief challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health (the so-called endangerment finding).

The NAM’s Vice President for Litigation Quentin Riegel talks about the case below:

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.

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

Wall Street Journal editorial, “An Inconvenient Democracy“:

With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

This reckless “endangerment finding” is a political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of levelling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA’s carbon police will inflict even worse consequences.

The Journal concludes: “The White House has opened a Pandora’s box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.”

Charles Krauthammer, Fox News All-Stars:

Look, it’s blackmail. It is a way of saying to Congress: Either you do cap-and-trade or we will do cap, no trade. We will regulate every aspect of American life if the EPA now has in its power — and perhaps it will enact it over time — to intrude on every aspect of American life. Essentially what it can do is to regulate emissions from any institution, any enterprise, any apartment block that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 in a year, which is a very low level.

It [EPA] says it will raise that higher but it doesn’t actually have the authority to actually raise it. …

It really is what Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, said: Environmentalism is the new socialism. It is a way for the feds — for the best and brightest in the federal government — to regulate all aspects of life. It used to be in the name of socialism, which was social equality. Now it’s in the name of the planet.

It is a smart strategy on the part of the left, but it is a hell of a way to do it. If you want to do it, at least you do it by the consensus of Congress. If you do it by regulation, there will be a revolution on the administration’s hands.

The National Association of Manufacturers was cited in many news reports on the Environmental Protection Agency’s declaration Monday that greenhouse gases threaten the public health, triggering the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Some examples:

Wall Street Journal, “EPA Calls Greenhouse Gases a Public Threat“:

EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

USA Today, “EPA’s carbon dioxide emissions ruling could raise energy costs“:

Industry groups say EPA regulation would eventually drive up energy costs, lead to lost jobs and delays in project permits and construction. More immediately, “This adds more uncertainty and could impact how companies make decisions,” says Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers.

ABC News, “EPA Determines Greenhouse Gases Harmful to People and Environment“:

“I’ve heard from every industry sector, I’ve heard from utilities, I’ve heard from large manufacturers, I’ve heard from small manufacturers. There is a significant concern from every single manufacturing sector out there,” said Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Washington Times editorial, “Reckless ‘endangerment’ for breathing“:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the ruling “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project.” The National Association of Manufacturers likewise blasted the decision, and political and think-tank leaders warned of massive job losses because of it.

The NAM’s news release is here.

Keith McCoy, vice president for Energy and Resources Policy, issued a statement on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers in reaction to the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement of an endangerment finding, “NAM Says EPA Endangerment Finding Will Hurt Manufacturers’ Competitiveness.” Excerpt:

The EPA is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy. This finding comes when unemployment is hovering at 10 percent, and many manufacturers are struggling to stay in business. It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.

Our nation needs a comprehensive federal policy that will achieve environmental results without inflicting unnecessary economic harm. This is a complex issue that deserves a rigorous, public and transparent debate in Congress.

By forcing manufacturers to meet unrealistic goals and placing burdensome costs on them, the EPA is hurting America’s competitiveness.

That, and it’s one of the greatest bureaucratic power grabs in the history of the United States.

From the EPA:

• Press release
• Administrator Jackson’s Speech
• Read more about the endangerment finding

The NAM’s Bryan Brendle attended the briefing this afternoon and reports that questions about Climategate were simply dismissed. (See his Twitter posts here.) Administrator Lisa Jackson also broke away during the presentation, having to fly off to Copenhagen.

Wall Street Journal editorial, “Terms of ‘Endangerment’,” with the sub-headline, “The EPA’s anti-carbon rule is an admission that CO2 limits hurt the economy.”

Cap and trade may be flopping around like a dying fish in Congress, but the Obama Administration isn’t about to let the annoyance of democratic consent interfere with its climate ambitions. Almost as bad is the new evidence that it understands how damaging its carbon regulations and taxes will be and is pressing ahead anyway.

The White House is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency’s April “endangerment finding” that as a matter of law CO2 is a pollutant that threatens the public’s health and must therefore be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such a rulemaking would let the EPA impose the ossified command-and-control regulatory approach of the 1970s across the entire economy, even if Democrats never get around to passing a cap-and-tax bill.

Yet a curious twist is buried in the EPA’s draft rule. The trade press is reporting that the agency thinks it enjoys the discretion to target the new rules only to major industrial sources of carbon emissions, such as power plants, refineries, factories and the like. This so-called “tailoring rule” essentially rewrites clear statutory language of the Clean Air Act by bureaucratic decree.

On Monday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters that a formal endangerment finding would probably “happen in the next months.” The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

“Legislation is so important, because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly (and) least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution,” Jackson said. “We get further faster without top-down regulation.”

But Jackson insisted the EPA would continue on a path that began when the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated if the government determined they threatened the public.

“Two years is a long time for this country to wait for us to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling,” Jackson said.

The comment period closed on Tuesday for the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act. The National Association of Manufacturers submitted comments, which you can read at www.nam.org/endangerment. Excerpt:

The NAM’s mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve American
living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth. As a general matter, the NAM supports EPA regulations that are designed to provide net benefits to environmental quality and the public health, including the health of manufacturing workers and their families. Conversely, NAM opposes regulations that would impose overly burdensome compliance costs on the manufacturing sector, especially those with no clear goal for achieving improved environmental quality.

Applying these principles here means that NAM must oppose EPA’s proposed endangerment determination. An endangerment determination by EPA is not simply an observation by the agency about climate change nor is it simply a straightforward recitation of scientific data. Rather, it is a policy determination, which must be based on a solid factual record, and which, once made, will have profound consequences for American workers and businesses. A positive endangerment determination would trigger an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s regulatory authority over the American economy because it would allow – and in some cases require – EPA to regulate domestic emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. Regulated entities would include thousands of stationary sources and millions of motor vehicles. Such action will provide no net benefits to environmental quality, but will result in serious risks to our nation’s short-term economic recovery and long-term international competitiveness. EPA regulation of GHGs as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act would even hinder the manufacturing sector’s ability to deploy the advanced technologies which will be necessary to deal effectively with the challenges posed by GHG emissions, therefore undermining the objectives of any rational federal climate policy.

On Friday, the PBS NewsHour program’s lead report was a piece on the EPA’s proposed finding of endangerment from the major greenhouse gases, save for water vapor. Featured in the discussion was Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

The transcript of the segment is here. Excerpt follows (David Bookbinder is from the Sierra Club):

JEFFREY BROWN: So what are the stakes? I mean, what specific areas of tension do you think now as this — as it moves forward? What do you see happening?

KEITH MCCOY: Well, I think this is going to force Congress to act and do something. We would argue that this needs to be a robust and transparent debate, and we certainly hope that that’s what takes place.

But if that doesn’t take place, there’s real concern about using the Clean Air Act as a blunt instrument to regulate carbon, which could potentially impact the entire permitting process for manufacturers.

JEFFREY BROWN: The Supreme Court case from two years ago really was focused on auto emissions.

DAVID BOOKBINDER: That’s correct.

JEFFREY BROWN: But this goes potentially much further.

DAVID BOOKBINDER: Yes, it does.