Skip to comments.Legislation Would Block EPA’s CO2 Regulations
Posted on 01/11/2010 11:27:12 AM PST by thackney
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to do what Congress couldnt: regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases because allegedly greenhouse gases threaten both the public health and the public welfare, and that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to that threat. To prevent this backdoor policy that would grant the EPA unprecedented authority over American economy, Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced legislation on Friday that would prohibit the agency from implementing national greenhouse gas emissions standards. In his press release, Congressman Pomeroy said,
Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong. That is why I introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act which would stop the EPA from moving forward with its proposal. I am not about to let some Washington bureaucrat dictate new public policy that will raise our electricity rates and put at risk the thousands of coal-related jobs in our state.
Regulating carbon dioxide would unnecessarily drive up the costs of energy. Because we use vast amounts of energy daily, in both personal use and the production of goods and services, those costs would spread like a virus throughout the economy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce outlines a laundry list of businesses and entities that would potentially be affected under Clean Air Act regulations including schools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment complexes and more. And anything with a motor, beginning with vehicles but ranging all the way from lawnmowers, jetskis and leaf blows could be subject to price-boosting regulations.
The EPA is proposing a rule change so the regulations would only affect businesses that emit 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions would prevent some of the smaller businesses from being directly targeted, but most would still be indirectly hit through higher energy costs.
As a result, higher energy prices force production cuts, reduced consumer spending, increased unemployment, and ultimately a much slower economy. And since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, GHG regulations would impact the nations poor the most.
Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy, all in the name of combating global warming, would be a chilling and massively expansive shift towards a top down regulatory environment. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months, if not years. These problems have even state regulators up in arms:
Regulators from around the U.S., including Kansas, Pennsylvania, Florida and California, are calling on the EPA to go slowly with its new rules, and in some cases warning that they lack funding to regulate some of the new emissions sources that would be covered.
The states warnings vary in urgency, with some saying the EPAs proposal can be easily tweaked and others urging the agency to reconsider the proposal, predicting dire consequences. South Carolina regulators, in a letter to EPA dated Dec. 23, said the proposal will cause chaos and warned that many construction projects and jobs are at risk.
In a Dec. 24 letter to the EPA, the California Energy Commission, which oversees energy policy in the state, said the EPAs proposal will likely retard, rather than facilitate, reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions from its electricity sector.
Congressman Pomeroys bill is an essential one if we dont want unelected officials destroying jobs or sending them overseas because its too expensive to conduct business at home. In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal emphasized that We need sensible solutions to the environmental and economic challenges ahead. The EPAs actions are anything but sensible.
Really? Now that’s a democrat I like.
The RATS are running scared!
They are going to freeze their tuchus off in ND if the electric rates rise like the EPA will do.
Proposed by a RAT—no less. Whoa Baby
The Alliance for Clear Climate Economics and Science Solutions (ACCESS) was created to ensure that any regulation of greenhouse gases using existing environmental laws not harm the economy and American jobs, be based on sound science and allow for public review of all underlying data and scientific analysis.
EPA has proposed a legal finding, pursuant to Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), that greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPAs theory, as it has been set forth in the Proposal, is that US. emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to global air pollution, which then in turn endangers US. public health or welfare.
It has been the consistent position of the U.S. Chamber that the CAA was never meant to regulate GHGs, and the convoluted test for endangerment EPA has manufactured in the Proposal only serves to highlight this point. As a matter of law, EPA lacks the authority to regulate worldwide air pollution under CAA Section 202(a), and its domestic-global-domestic endangerment test for GHGs is fatally flawed. However, even if this test were legally permissible, EPA has not adequately demonstrated from a legal or scientific perspective the necessary components of an endangerment finding for GHGs.
To compensate for these obvious legal and scientific shortcomings, EPA commits a wide range of sins of omission, willfully ignoring relevant, credible scientific information, including information generated by EPAs own staff. EPA also willfully ignores the near-unavoidable chain of regulatory determinations and rulemakings that will result, a , matter f in one of the largest and most burdensome regulatory programs in American history. By relying only on data that supports its conclusion and ignoring anything and everything that calls its scientific and legal findings into question, this EPA has exhibited the exact same biased, politically-charged conduct many of its current employees criticized the Bush EPA for injecting into the regulatory process.
In an obvious attempt to mute criticism of the Proposals flaws, EPA has turned the endangerment process into a complicated game of hide the ball. It refused to incorporate any comments from last years ANPR into the record for the Proposal1andhas given no indication whatsoever that its staff actually read the ANPR comments prior to issuing the Proposalyet refused to extend the comment period on the grounds that the public had a chance to respond to much of the Proposal during the ANPR process that EPA now no longer deems relevant. It has cursorily dismissed documents leaked to the public that show obvious disagreement among the agencies in the Executive Branch over the scientific and legal implications of an endangerment finding. And, by issuing a formal notice that it intends to promulgate a Section 202(a)-based tailpipe GHG emissions rule, it has clearly prejudged the issue of endangerment and has therefore turned the Proposal comment period into a complete charade.
do you happen to have a link? can’t open this one
However, how many of them will sign the discharge petition forcing this to the floor for a vote?
Also at the top of the list at:
“Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced legislation on Friday that would prohibit the agency from implementing national greenhouse gas emissions standards. In his press release, Congressman Pomeroy said.”
So why haven’t our snoozing Republican’s done this already?
Wait till Scott Brown wins in MA....we’ve not seen that kind of fear yet among the dems...this would do it.
These guys all act like there is no benefit in being a VERY vocal minority and raising hell everyday against the Dems.
thanks a million—will spread it far and wide
I’m not really fond of promoting a democrat, but on this issue, he is promoting our national interest.
Congressman Earl Pomeroy today announced introduction of H.R. 4396, the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, legislation which would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases. This legislation has been introduced in response to a recent EPA announcement that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This action, if not prevented, could dramatically increase energy rates as well as end up costing North Dakota jobs.
North Dakota is an energy producing state in addition to agriculture. Our boy Pomeroy is just trying to hold onto his job here, but it won’t work - he’ll be replaced by a Republican that will vote in his constituents’ interest all the time as opposed to only in election years.
Thank you, I have no knowledge of Rep Pomeroy beyond what I have read today.
Yeah, Pomeroy’s exceedingly liberal. He had promised to vote against ObamaCare (60-70% of North Dakotans are against it) but switched his vote when Pelosi yanked his chain.
A better title might be Dont Regulate Us Until We are a Third World Nation Act
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.