EPA Plans Could Mean Huge Energy Cost Increases

The U.S. Senate is likely to vote this week on a measure from Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases as pollutants. Some argue it will be among the most important environmental votes of this decade. The Weekly Standard contends:

The regulation of greenhouses under the Clean Air Act was triggered by EPA’s determination that such gases pose a danger to human health. This is not because they actually pose any danger to human health, like real pollutants, but rather because their accumulation in the upper atmosphere could contribute to “dangerous warming” by 2050. Carbon dioxide is a ubiquitous product of all economic activity and of everything that breathes.

Giving EPA the power to regulate it is tantamount to letting it control virtually the whole economy. And unlike other pollutants, no effective, commercially practicable control technology exists. Where economic activity is found to produce too much CO2 for EPA standards, that activity will simply have to stop. Hidden deep inside thousands of pages of technocratic jargon is a fact that should focus the attention of everybody.  If not stopped this week, EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases risks an economic catastrophe.

According to some estimates, just in the next two years the new regulations could cost 1.4 million jobs and decrease U.S. business investment by 15 percent. One study estimates that GDP will be half a trillion dollars less by 2030.  Another concluded the cost of gasoline will rise by 50 percent, electricity by 50 percent, and natural gas by 75 percent over the next 20 years. Transportation costs are the primary variable in food prices – so food prices will be affected. Low income Americans, who are particularly vulnerable to spikes in energy and food prices, will be hardest hit.

Earlier in the week, we released an Action Alert stating If the EPA moves forward as it plans, dramatic increases in energy costs are just around the corner. Even the EPA admits to huge energy cost increases. It has been estimated that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014. EPA’s own records indicate that permitting provisions alone will cost applicants $125,000 and 866 hours of burden per facility.

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing forward with its plans to regulate and penalize carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has admitted that regulating greenhouse gases under the Act would subject the business community to an onerous and costly process that will see costs skyrocket. The McConnell Amendment seeks to stop the EPA from moving forward with this process and allow Congress to address the issue.

Congress should pursue common-sense solutions to address greenhouse gas emissions, not to allow the EPA to charge forward with a seriously-flawed, job-killing regulatory strategy.

Rallying Cry: Stop the EPA

We reported last week on the efforts of several states (Texas being the latest to file suit) to stop Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases. The reasons are many, including devastating impacts on the economy.

Add a few more powerful players to the mix — Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and a leading Senate committee member. Both want to employ the Congressional Review Act. Here is an explanation:

Barbour is floating a draft letter to governors at their winter meeting asking Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to reject EPA’s endangerment finding. That finding cites climate change as a risk to public health and welfare, which the agency is using as justification for pursuing regulations.

"In addition to placing heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, regulating greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act will be costly to consumers and hurt the U.S. economy, resulting in job losses," according to Barbour’s draft.

This echoes an effort by Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski, who is expected to call for a vote on a resolution in March to use the Congressional Review Act to block EPA, spokesman Robert Dillon said.

She needs 51 votes and has 40 co-sponsors for her disapproval resolution, including three Democrats led by Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln.

Murkowski’s effort, and those by Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton and others in the House, are not expected to be successful, given Democratic control of Congress and opposition from the president, who could veto a resolution even if it gets through both chambers.

But it continues to raise the argument that efforts by the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders to limit U.S. greenhouse gases are serious threats to the economy heading into this fall’s elections. 

South Bend the Site for Climate Change Forum

Congress returns to work on September 8. On that same day, Hoosiers can learn more about climate change and energy legislation being debated in Washington — and how it might impact Hoosier businesses.

The Northwest Indiana Forum and Nucor are sponsoring the Climate Change Forum at the South Bend Marriott. The 90-minute event (11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. with a complimentary lunch included) will tackle, in the organizers’ words: "the global scope of the climate change issue, the impact of greenhouse gases on our local communities, clean energy technology and recycling initiatives."

The goal: a focus on policies that create a sustainable balance between protecting our environment and developing our state’s business sector.

An RSVP is required. Call (866) 731-1929.

The Environmental Debate: Expect a Whole Lot of Gas in Washington

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an endangerment finding on Friday for greenhouse gases. What does that mean? Two members of Congress have decidedly different views.

Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), Energy and Environment Subcommittee chairman in the House: "History will judge this action by EPA, along with the Supreme Court decision (which led to the EPA review)  … as the environmental equivalent to what Brown v. Board of Education meant to our nation’s civil rights laws."

James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Environment and Public Works ranking member in the Senate: The finding "is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America’s global competitiveness."

President Obama and Democratic leaders want to move forward legislatively with a cap and trade plan, along with renewable energy and efficiency mandates. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold four days of hearings this week on a draft plan, including an expected 80 witnesses.

The impact on Indiana, and its reliance on coal, would be enormous. Yes, protecting the environment is important. Doing so at the expense of business and economic development would be devastating.