Over the weekend, former Missouri Senator Kit Bond wrote in the Southeast Missourian about the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which requires power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.  (News coverage of the new rule here and here.)

Senator Bond writes that this new regulation will have a serious impact on coal-fired power plants:

Every time an American family turns on a light switch, heats a home in winter or air conditions that home in the summer, that family will pay higher utility bills. Workers who depend on coal-fired plants for paychecks will face unemployment when plants are closed. Rural communities that depend on tax revenue from utilities to fund schools will struggle to keep doors open for students when coal-fired facilities are shut down due to the cost of complying with EPA’s regulatory onslaught. And farmers and businesses — from the local pharmacy to drugstore — will face higher energy prices, making it more difficult to stay in business — let alone create jobs.

Senator Bond notes that, together with the Utility MACT regulations, this new rule will cost jobs. He writes,

Recent analysis from the National Economic Research Associates shows that by 2020 the cost of just two of the coming onslaught of regulations the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules — will be the loss of 1.4 million jobs and an averageutility bill increase, of 11.5 percent — and in some cases, more than 20 percent.

For more about the EPA’s regulatory agenda, be sure the visit the NAM’s No New Regs site.

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced a delay in news standards for industrial boilers, a sign the agency recognizes its earlier regulatory proposal would have hammered manufacturers, the economy, and employers’ ability to create jobs.

From the EPA’s update page, a fact sheet.

• The agency is reconsidering the standards because the public did not have sufficient opportunity to comment on these changes, and, as a result, further public review and feedback is required to meet the legal obligations under the Clean Air Act.
• EPA is also issuing a stay to delay the effective date of the standards for major source boilers and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators. The stay will allow the agency to seek additional public comment before requiring thousands of facilities across multiple, diverse industries to make investments that may not be reversible if the standards are revised following reconsideration and a full evaluation of all relevant data.
• The stay will remain in place until the proceedings for judicial review of these rules are completed or EPA completes its reconsideration of the standards, whichever is earlier.

In its story, “EPA to Postpone Boiler Rules Amid Industry Group Complaints,” Bloomberg cites an e-mail from the National Association of Manufacturers: “This will alleviate job creators from burdensome and costly regulations while the EPA goes through the reconsideration process…[and] removes a level of uncertainty found among manufactures that has discouraged future investment and job growth.”

The NAM, American Forest and Paper Association and numerous other business groups filed a motion with the EPA  for an administrative stay in April.

Writing at the Cato Institute’s blog, Cato@Liberty, Walter Olson gives us a single paragraph that captures why the Supreme Court should reject the Second Circuit’s ruling that Connecticut and other states could sue five electric utilities for contributing to global warming. From “AEP v. Connecticut: Global Warming as Political Question”:

By its nature, global warming is exactly the sort of policy question traditionally entrusted to the political branches: it is wholly unsuited to individualized justice based on links between particularized emissions and particularized effects, its proposed remedies are much disputed and likely to be the result of inevitably arbitrary compromise, sovereign negotiations with foreign actors play a crucial role, and so forth. As the courts have long recognized, one does not generate a case for judicial action simply by piling atop each other the propositions “something needs to be done” and “the political branches have not done it.” Indeed, the Obama administration itself has more or less invited the Supreme Court to dismiss the action on political-question grounds.

The media coverage of Tuesday’s oral arguments we read highlighted the Administration’s argument that the need for the public nuisance suit by the states and environmental groups had been obviated by the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases. As Greenwire framed it: “[The] Obama administration maintains that U.S. EPA, through its recent efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, has “spoken directly to the question plaintiffs ask the courts to resolve.” (continue reading…)

The hearing today by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on recent EPA regulations on industrials boilers, cement manufacturing plants and utilities included strong and substantive testimony from representatives of affected industries. (Background memo) Below we’ve cited the testimony from Dirk Krouskop with MeadWestvaco on the Boiler MACT regs. In addition …

Thomas A. Fanning, the Chairman, President and CEO of  The Southern Company, testified on the Utility MACT rule. His prepared statement included this summary:

EPA has proposed Utility MACT rules under timelines that we believe will put the reliability and affordability of our nation’s power system at risk. EPA’s proposal will impact plants that are responsible for nearly 50 percent of total electricity generation in the United States. It imposes a three-year timeline for compliance, at a time when the industry is laboring to comply with a myriad of other EPA mandates. The result will be to reduce reserve margins—generating capacity that is available during times of high demand or plant outages—and to cause costs to soar. Lower reserve margins place customers at a risk for experiencing significant interruptions in electric service, and costs increases will ultimately be reflected in service rates, which will rise rapidly as utilities press ahead with retrofitting and projects to replace lost generating capacity due to plant retirements.

The solution is to allow the industry the time to make a smooth transition to the next generation of emissions control technology required by the Utility MACT standard. A more deliberate schedule for promulgating the standard, coupled with a more realistic compliance schedule, would ease the strain on the industry and reduce risks to consumers. Anything less will put at risk the economic growth and job creation that depends on reliable and affordable electricity every day of the year.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr.,Executive Chairman of DTE Energy, also focused on the EPA’s plans to further regulate electric utilities. From his prepared statement: (continue reading…)

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power is holding the fifth day of its hearing on “The American Energy Initiative” this morning focusing onrecent EPA rule makings on boilers, cement manufacturing plants and utilities.

In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield highlighted the impact on manufacturers of the EPA’s rules on industrial boilers, aka Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology):

Thousands of power plants and facilities depend on affordable energy from boilers. That includes paper mills, refineries, and chemical plants, schools and hospitals. Literally millions of jobs rely on affordable energy from these facilities, and those jobs are put at risk if those boilers can no longer be installed and run in a cost effective manner.

And where manufacturing is concerned, we live in a global economy and need to be mindful that regulations that disproportionately raise the cost of building and operating boilers in the U.S. may chase manufacturing activity and jobs overseas. And as is so often the case with EPA regulations, few if any other nations have any desire to go down the same costly path as with these new boiler regulations.

That is why EPA’s extremely stringent regulations are worrisome, especially given the state of the economy. And that is why easing compliance is so crucial to the economic recovery.

Among those testifying Dirk J. Krouskop, vice president for safety, health and environment at MeadWestvaco, the major packaging company. Krouskop also emphasized the economic impact of the Boiler MACT rules, of great concern to the forest products and paper industry, while detailing the many other regulations that have affected the industry’s growth and global competitiveness. From his written statement:

We know that the current wave of regulations is unsustainable. Living with such an uncertain regulatory environment not only costs current jobs, but also prevents new jobs from being created. (continue reading…)

The National Association of Manufacturers was cited several times in the House floor debate Thursday on H.R. 910, to prevent the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Congressional Record, Page H2370:

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, we are here today because the EPA has continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. It was tried through cap-and-trade over the last year and a half. That bill went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan way. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue when we’re talking about preventing the EPA from running millions of jobs out of our country, and that is literally what’s at stake here.

Believe me, as people look through the letters of support and as we comb through the days of testimony that we’ve had on this over the last 2 years with regard to this concept of the EPA’s regulating greenhouse gases, Madam Chair, we are talking about a proposal by the EPA that, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, would run 3 million jobs out of our country.

Now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. In fact, our legislation, the National Energy Tax Prevention Act, will create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today where so many employers, so many of our job creators, are scared to death of the threat now of regulation coming over; because, again, Congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through cap-and-trade in a bipartisan way.

The analysis Rep. Scalise is referring to is, we presume, the earlier NAM-ACCF analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could have even greater economic consequences than that cap-and-trade legislation, which as negotiated legislation included many exemptions, subsidies, delays and deals intended to minimize the harm and job loss. EPA regulation can evade the same policy and political compromises, exacerbating the uncertainty that Rep. Scalise is right to emphasize.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chief sponsor of H.R. 910, also inserted an NAM-cosigned letter into the record (page H2372): (continue reading…)

The Akron Beacon-Journal this week published an op-ed by Ward J. Timken Jr., chairman of the board of directors of The Timken Co., “EPA regulations weigh down the economy“.

The Timken Co. is a leading global manufacturer of highly engineered bearings, alloy steels, and related components and assemblies. Ward Timken Jr. is a member of the National Association of Manufacturers’ executive committee. He wrote:

Timken has a U.S.-favorable trade balance, with jobs in Ohio and throughout the U.S. supporting growing demand around the world. It requires us to keep costs down and drive efficiency to optimal levels.

In our Canton, Ohio, steel plants, we are continuously reducing our energy consumption and carbon intensity using highly efficient electric-arc-furnace technology and the most advanced manufacturing methods. We often collaborate with government to develop energy-saving technologies and balanced policies across party lines.

Understanding that the aims of economic and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive, I encourage you to join me to make our voices heard. Please contact our representatives in Congress and ask them to preserve jobs and the democratic process by putting a stop to the EPA’s regulatory overreach.

This week’s legislative activities in Congress to achieve that goal — stopping the EPA’s regulatory overreach — produced a mixed result. The House on Thursday voted 255-172 to pass H.R. 910, to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The same legislation in the form of the McConnell Amendment failed Wednesday in the Senate on a 50-50 vote. However, in votes on four amendments, a majority of Senators expressed opposition in one form or another to the EPA’s current plans. As Politico summarized: “All of them failed, but 17 Democrats broke with their party and president to support measures that rein in the greenhouse gas regulations on varying levels….In all, 64 senators voted to block or delay the climate regulations, which Senate Republicans were more than happy to note.”

The NAM is certainly going to continue the fight against the EPA’s attempt to take over the making of environmental, energy and economic policy. See our website: www.NoNewRegs.org.

The House just voted 255-172 to pass H.R. 910, to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The vote reflect bipartisan support for Congress exercising its responsibilities in setting energy, environmental and economic policy.

We’ll post the roll call vote when it becomes available.

UPDATE (3:18 p.m.): That was quick. The roll call vote is here. It shows 19 Democrats joining 236 Republicans in voting for passage.

UPDATE (3:30 p.m.): Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee issues a statement, “U.S. House Puts Families First, Approves Bipartisan Bill to Stop EPA From Driving up Gasoline and Energy Prices, Harming Job Creation.” Included are comments from Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY).

The release also notes the NAM’s support for the bill. Thank you for the mention.

From Politico Pro, “Message Sent? Democrats cross over to smack down ‘rogue’ EPA”, via Sen. Jim Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog:

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat, told POLITICO earlier this week that there’s growing opinion among Democrats that EPA is becoming a “rogue agency,” adding that the White House needs to take action to curb the agency’s power. “I think the president’s out of step on this one, and he’s going to have to get his agency under control,” he said.

In the Senate on Wednesday, even Democrats who are typically backers of the Obama administration – like Max Baucus of Montana, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Carl Levin of Michigan – jumped on the anti-EPA bandwagon to endorse Democratic amendments to curtail the agency’s power. Those amendments were aimed at allowing vulnerable Democrats to take slaps at EPA that could protect them in upcoming elections.

The votes from Wednesday, April 6, on amendments to S. 493:

Sixty votes were needed for adoption of Sen. McConnell’s amendment to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Among Democrats, Sens. Manchin, Pryor, Landrieu voted aye. We thank them. (UPDATE: 9:45 a.m. Thursday: And Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE). Thank you, as well.)

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote no.

Very sorry to see Senators from energy and manufacturing states vote to surrender the Legislature’s energy and environmental policy-making responsibilities to the Environmental Protection Agency. Their vote not only will lead to higher energy costs and fewer manufacturing jobs, but a continued centralization of power in the Executive Branch.

Over at the EPA, they’d be popping champagne corks, except, you know, that would emit carbon pollution. Guess they’ll have to settle for the pleasures of unrestrained regulatory authority.