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.

From The Hill’s E2 Wire energy blog, “OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Senate, House climate votes on tap“:

LATE BREAKING: The Senate will vote on a GOP-backed plan to kill Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules Wednesday afternoon, according to Democrats and a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Lawmakers will vote on McConnell’s amendment to small-business legislation, as well as several Democratic alternatives. The amendments need 60 votes to pass.

Votes on the amendments to S. 493, the small business reauthorization bill, begin at 4 p.m.

Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains what the vote signifies in a post at BigGovernment.com, “Senate to Vote on EPA’s Power Grab: Does the Rule of Law Still Matter?”

The Senate will, one presumes, finally vote either this week or next to block EPA from imposing President Obama’s ‘other way to skin the cat’ of Kyoto-style energy rationing, by using the Clean Air Act – a law that EPA’s own public filings inescapably acknowledge was never intended for such purpose. What will be at stake is little less than the rule of law itself.

Policy sanity also stands to take a beating, or else gain a new lease on life. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which by design strangles our ability to use them. Further, the Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.

With über-green Germany, even nuke-happy France, appearing set to ramp up their coal use in the wake of Japan’s nuclear incident, the first rational response would be to call off EPA’s war on coal. Not to fight like mad to preserve and advance it.

Got up and opened the window to a bright and beautiful morning, took a deep breath and exhaled carbon pollution.

Watered the plants on the window sill, applauding my courage because that greenery had been consuming so much carbon pollution it was bound to be toxic.

Forgot to reset the toaster and burnt the toast. Had to scrape off the carbon pollution, but it was still edible.

Took a shower, creating the most potent greenhouse gas known to man, water vapor. Breathed a sigh of relief, knowing it wasn’t carbon pollution. But then felt bad about breathing.

In other serious lines of argumentation, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), March 31, Congressional Record, Page S2013:

Jeez. Carbon dioxide causes strokes? Now I feel really guilty.

The House begins its legislative business at noon today, and on the floor schedule is H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, i.e., the bill to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Twelve amendments sponsored by Democrats are scheduled for consideration, as well.

The National Association of Manufacturers sent a “Key Letter” to the House Tuesday reaffirming the NAM’s support for the bill.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) cited NAM’s concerns in an op-ed in The Washington Examiner today, “Capping the EPA’s backdoor energy tax.” The column is an excellent summary of what’s at stake for the manufacturing, the costs of energy, the economy and jobs.

No matter what side of the ideological spectrum you’re on, it is crystal clear that economic harm will certainly result from these rules and regulations, and it is incumbent on Congress to issue this cease-and-desist order to the EPA.

In the 11th Congressional District of Illinois, I represent an area that is home to three nuclear power plants, hydropower plants, ethanol and biodiesel plants, and two oil refineries. Our district embodies the all-of-the-above approach to energy that we must stand for.Nuclear energy production alone employs more than 2,500 people through the Illinois Valley.

Manufacturers and energy producers at the local and national level, such as Edison Power in my district and the National Association of Manufacturers, have made it clear that the Energy Tax Prevention Act is necessary in order to curtail the EPA’s overreaching regulations and create the certainty job creators need to grow their businesses and get more folks back to work here at home.

If Congress fails to pass this legislation, our country will be giving the EPA the green light to impose greenhouse gas regulations, without congressional authority, which will inevitably increase energy and consumer prices for American families and ship U.S. jobs overseas.

The National Association of Manufacturers today sent a “Key Vote” letter to House members calling for their support for H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A House floor vote is scheduled for Wednesday.

Excerpt from the letter.

At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from the most severe recession since the 1930s, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with no guidance from Congress, will cost jobs and slow economic growth.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs before the EPA regulates GHG emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities. Congressional debate and consensus on this issue is especially critical, as the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon.

As consumers of roughly one-third of our nation’s energy, manufacturers in the United States support a comprehensive, federal climate policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon technologies.

The White House has issued a veto threat, making its argument on the deceptive conflation of greenhouse gas emissions with pollutants: We need EPA regulation of carbon dioxide in order to prevent asthma and bronchitis. It’s as if supporters of EPA regulation, including the Administration, lack both the intellectual and political confidence to argue the true substance of the legislation. They instead fall back on the specious “carbon pollution” claims.

You can understand a power-seeking Executive Branch arrogating legislative authority to itself, but why would Congress permit it? Yet Senate leadership still will not allow a floor vote on the McConnell-Inhofe amendment — the companion to the House bill — asserting the legislative branch’s policymaking prerogatives. The Hill’s E2 Wire reports the twists and turns and abdications in a round-up of Capitol Hill energy news, “OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House mulls rules of engagement on climate battle.”