Carrying signs reading “No Regulation without Representation” and wearing “Carbon Cops” T-shirts, with green-rapped SmartCars, the tour is rolling through Arkansas and will be traveling the country.
The effort is to stop the EPA from broadening its reach and using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The EPA has moved to determine greenhouse gases, including CO2 which we exhale, as dangerous.
Since the US Senate has failed to pass cap and trade legislation (which would cap our prosperity and trade our jobs to China), President Obama is at it again, trying to force intrusive global warming regulations on the American people by circumventing Congress and our Constitution.
The Environmental Protection Agency, under the direction White House Climate Czar Carol Browner, is ignoring the public outrage against the unpopular cap-and-trade tax scheme and is trying to impose even more intrusive energy regulations on the American people by ignoring the entire democratic process altogether.
Stand up and fight back! Join Americans for Prosperity’s Regulation Reality Tour at a location near you! See the future under EPA regulations…a future that might very well include Carbon Cops.
They look silly driving the Smart Cars across the country and issuing “citations” at our events for everyday tasks like mowing your lawn, filling your gas tank, or driving a truck. But this could be a frightening reality if we don’t urge our senators to stop the EPA before it’s too late. There will be countless permits and fees to enforce these arbitrary regulations, and you can bet they’ll send government bureaucrats to penalize you for simply living your life. With badges, caps, and flashing cop car lights, we hope our Carbon Cops wake citizens up to what a future might look like if we don’t act now.
We are planning the tour will come to Texas. Texas has sued the EPA to stop the regulation of greenhouse gases and global warming skeptics are demanding a full vetting of the issue in Congress.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the EPA's greenhouse gas findings are laced with 'cover-ups, and the suppression and destruction of scientific evidence.'
Related links:
Texas has sued the EPA:
http://americansforprosperity.org/021610-press-statement-texas-takes-epa-court-global-warming-regulations
Learn more about the Regulation Reality Tour: http://regulationreality.com/
Americans for Prosperity has launched its Regulation Reality Tour in Arkansas:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/032410-regulation-reality-tour-rolls-through-arkansas
Showing posts with label EPA regs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA regs. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Cong. Barton takes on the EPA - YEA!
Dear Cong. Joe Barton -
On behalf of more than 975,000 Americans for Prosperity activists, we commend you for introducing a resolution of disapproval to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the Act was never designed to do. We urge your colleagues to become cosponsors of this resolution and stand with you to rein in the EPA.
Of the several onerous proposals to inject the federal government into global warming regulations, EPA’s plan is the worst. As you know, the agency’s endangerment finding will force millions of businesses, churches, schools and hospitals across the country to deal with the complex, time consuming and costly EPA permitting process for the first time. This proposal will quite literally shut down all new investment and development as the private sector struggles to assess its exposure to the new regulations. EPA’s plan would also cripple state permitting agencies, who would be forced to implement the new unfunded mandate.
Congress must step in and assert its authority to rein in this runaway executive agency. Your resolution of disapproval will help restore the proper balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, and we thank you for doing so.
We applaud your efforts to block EPA’s unacceptable regulatory overreach and urge your colleagues to support your efforts.
-- Peggy Venable, Texas director, Americans for Prosperity
and the entire AFP team
On behalf of more than 975,000 Americans for Prosperity activists, we commend you for introducing a resolution of disapproval to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the Act was never designed to do. We urge your colleagues to become cosponsors of this resolution and stand with you to rein in the EPA.
Of the several onerous proposals to inject the federal government into global warming regulations, EPA’s plan is the worst. As you know, the agency’s endangerment finding will force millions of businesses, churches, schools and hospitals across the country to deal with the complex, time consuming and costly EPA permitting process for the first time. This proposal will quite literally shut down all new investment and development as the private sector struggles to assess its exposure to the new regulations. EPA’s plan would also cripple state permitting agencies, who would be forced to implement the new unfunded mandate.
Congress must step in and assert its authority to rein in this runaway executive agency. Your resolution of disapproval will help restore the proper balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, and we thank you for doing so.
We applaud your efforts to block EPA’s unacceptable regulatory overreach and urge your colleagues to support your efforts.
-- Peggy Venable, Texas director, Americans for Prosperity
and the entire AFP team
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
EPA's effort to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
Americans for Prosperity brief -
The EPA is advancing a three-piece regulatory strategy to implement greenhouse gas regulations (GHG) under the Clean Air Act (CAA.) These actions would have devastating consequences for the economy. Although cap-and-trade appears imperiled in the Senate for 2010, EPA’s actions remain the greatest threat to affordable energy and economic liberty on the horizon.
Regulatory Proceedings
Endangerment Finding: EPA has issued an endangerment finding for GHGS, which must be in place before any final regulations can be issued. EPA issued a Final Agency Action on December 15, 2009, officially classifying GHGs as likely to “endanger the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are now officially regarded as pollution by the federal government.
Petitions for judicial review that wish to challenge the agency’s findings are due by February 16, 2010. Several private firms and association groups are expected to file suit. The public comment period for this agency action is closed; however, more than 17,000 AFP activists put comments in the docket.
Light-Duty Vehicle Rule: EPA and the Department of Transportation issued a joint proposed rulemaking on September 28, 2009 to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. This action is largely a response to both Massachusetts v. EPA and California’s request for a CAA waiver so it could issue state-level vehicle emission regulations, a petition that was denied by the Bush Administration and subsequently approved by the Obama Administration on July 8, 2009.
The public comment period for this proposed rule is closed. A final rule is expected in March 2010, a date that would allow the new regulations to cover model year 2012. There will still be an opportunity for public comments on the final rule.
Tailoring Rule: The third piece of EPA’s effort is a facilitating action, which is designed to lessen the impact of the endangerment finding on stationary sources that will be required to obtain prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and title V permits for the first time.
The proposed rule envisions a phased approach wherein during the first six years EPA would raise the applicability threshold for PSD and title V permits from the statutorily mandated 100-250 tons per year (tpy) (depending on source category) to 25,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for GHGs only. Five years later in the next phase, EPA would conduct a second round of rulemaking to issue “revised applicability and significance level thresholds and other streamlining techniques,” lowering the thresholds and regulating more sources as EPA finds “administratively feasible.”
There are serious legal concerns about EPA’s ability to unilaterally rewrite the applicability thresholds. The agency claims “administrative necessity” and “absurd results” allow it to deviate from the clearly expressed statutory language. Legal challenges will most certainly come from both environmental groups seeking a strict application of the CAA and from business groups seeking to vacate the rule.
The period for public comments on the proposed rule is closed. However, AFP activists submitted more than 18,000 public comments. There will be another opportunity for public comments when a final rule is issued, which may coincide with the March 2010 timetable for the light-duty vehicle rule.
Legislative Remedies
At this point in the regulatory process AFP believes that without congressional intervention it is more likely than not that EPA’s efforts to regulate GHGs will become law. The combination of the Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and an aggressive Obama Administration will likely provide enough support to enact and sustain the regulations. Congress must step in and exercise its authority to define EPA’s limitations under the CAA.
House of Representatives: There are currently four pieces of legislation that have been introduced that would preempt EPA’s ability to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
• UPDATE: Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Ike Skelton ( D-Mo.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) introduced a new piece of legislation, H.R. 4572, on February 3, 2010, which would block EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA.
However, this significant bipartisan effort to stop EPA is not a clean bill. The bill also includes changes to the way EPA calculates the greenhouse gas footprint of biofuels. Ethanol—and related biofuels—have increasingly come under fire because if you add the impact of land use changes to their greenhouse gas totals, they actually contribute more to GHG emissions than traditional fuels. This new bill would bar EPA from counting the full impact of biofuels. It’s a huge giveaway to the ethanol lobby.
• Blackburn Bill: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced H.R. 391, which would both bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and clarifying that nothing in the CAA shall be construed as authorizing EPA to regulate climate change or global warming in the future.
The Blackburn Bill currently has 150 cosponsors, including Democrat Dan Boren from Oklahoma. Additionally, 121 representatives have signed a discharge petition to force the bill out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and get a vote on the House floor; 218 signatures are needed to discharge the bill.
• Pomeroy Bill: Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) introduced H.R. 4396, which would also bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and includes a Sense of Congress that the CAA was never intended to handle GHGs. The Pomeroy language is slightly weaker than the Blackburn; however, it would likely succeed in blocking EPA. There are no cosponsors or legislative activities on Pomeroy’s bill.
• Waxman-Markey: The House-passed climate bill also contains language that would bar EPA from expanding its regulatory portfolio. Sections 831-35 restrict EPA by stating in various forms that “no greenhouse gas may be added to the list … on the basis of its effect on global climate change.” However, it appears unlikely that companion legislation will pass the Senate and it is unknown whether this preemption language would survive a conference committee.
Senate: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act on January 21, 2010. The bill is S.J.Res.26, and it has already attracted 40 cosponsors.
• Congressional Review Act: The CRA was established in 1996 during the Contract with America. It provides a “fast track” method for Congress to invalidate Executive regulations of which Congress does not approve. In order to block a new regulation—such as EPA’s GHG efforts—from taking effect, Congress must take action no later than 60 days after the final rule is filed. The CRA requires a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, the CRA provides for a 30-signature threshold to discharge it from committee and a simple majority vote (51) to pass once it is on the floor. In the House, a disapproval resolution would require 218 signatures to discharge and 218 votes to pass.
It appears likely that Sen. Murkowski has the 51 votes needed to pass the resolution in the Senate, although if she does not, she will not offer the proposal. Opponents of EPA’s actions still have significant work to do in the House to reach 218 votes.
Additionally, if the resolution does pass both chambers, it would require President Obama’s signature to overturn EPA’s proposed rule. AFP believes it would be very difficult for the president to issue his first veto against his own party’s Congress. If he did so, Obama would politically own any adverse consequences that arise from EPA’s regulations.
Conclusion
There remain several avenues, mainly legislative or judicial, that could stop EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA. AFP believes that Congress must act swiftly to block EPA. In order for Congress to act, AFP must help continue to create public awareness and political accountability on this issue. The Blackburn Bill in the House, and the disapproval resolution in the Senate are free market advocates best hope for congressional intervention.
The EPA is advancing a three-piece regulatory strategy to implement greenhouse gas regulations (GHG) under the Clean Air Act (CAA.) These actions would have devastating consequences for the economy. Although cap-and-trade appears imperiled in the Senate for 2010, EPA’s actions remain the greatest threat to affordable energy and economic liberty on the horizon.
Regulatory Proceedings
Endangerment Finding: EPA has issued an endangerment finding for GHGS, which must be in place before any final regulations can be issued. EPA issued a Final Agency Action on December 15, 2009, officially classifying GHGs as likely to “endanger the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are now officially regarded as pollution by the federal government.
Petitions for judicial review that wish to challenge the agency’s findings are due by February 16, 2010. Several private firms and association groups are expected to file suit. The public comment period for this agency action is closed; however, more than 17,000 AFP activists put comments in the docket.
Light-Duty Vehicle Rule: EPA and the Department of Transportation issued a joint proposed rulemaking on September 28, 2009 to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. This action is largely a response to both Massachusetts v. EPA and California’s request for a CAA waiver so it could issue state-level vehicle emission regulations, a petition that was denied by the Bush Administration and subsequently approved by the Obama Administration on July 8, 2009.
The public comment period for this proposed rule is closed. A final rule is expected in March 2010, a date that would allow the new regulations to cover model year 2012. There will still be an opportunity for public comments on the final rule.
Tailoring Rule: The third piece of EPA’s effort is a facilitating action, which is designed to lessen the impact of the endangerment finding on stationary sources that will be required to obtain prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and title V permits for the first time.
The proposed rule envisions a phased approach wherein during the first six years EPA would raise the applicability threshold for PSD and title V permits from the statutorily mandated 100-250 tons per year (tpy) (depending on source category) to 25,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for GHGs only. Five years later in the next phase, EPA would conduct a second round of rulemaking to issue “revised applicability and significance level thresholds and other streamlining techniques,” lowering the thresholds and regulating more sources as EPA finds “administratively feasible.”
There are serious legal concerns about EPA’s ability to unilaterally rewrite the applicability thresholds. The agency claims “administrative necessity” and “absurd results” allow it to deviate from the clearly expressed statutory language. Legal challenges will most certainly come from both environmental groups seeking a strict application of the CAA and from business groups seeking to vacate the rule.
The period for public comments on the proposed rule is closed. However, AFP activists submitted more than 18,000 public comments. There will be another opportunity for public comments when a final rule is issued, which may coincide with the March 2010 timetable for the light-duty vehicle rule.
Legislative Remedies
At this point in the regulatory process AFP believes that without congressional intervention it is more likely than not that EPA’s efforts to regulate GHGs will become law. The combination of the Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and an aggressive Obama Administration will likely provide enough support to enact and sustain the regulations. Congress must step in and exercise its authority to define EPA’s limitations under the CAA.
House of Representatives: There are currently four pieces of legislation that have been introduced that would preempt EPA’s ability to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
• UPDATE: Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Ike Skelton ( D-Mo.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) introduced a new piece of legislation, H.R. 4572, on February 3, 2010, which would block EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA.
However, this significant bipartisan effort to stop EPA is not a clean bill. The bill also includes changes to the way EPA calculates the greenhouse gas footprint of biofuels. Ethanol—and related biofuels—have increasingly come under fire because if you add the impact of land use changes to their greenhouse gas totals, they actually contribute more to GHG emissions than traditional fuels. This new bill would bar EPA from counting the full impact of biofuels. It’s a huge giveaway to the ethanol lobby.
• Blackburn Bill: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced H.R. 391, which would both bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and clarifying that nothing in the CAA shall be construed as authorizing EPA to regulate climate change or global warming in the future.
The Blackburn Bill currently has 150 cosponsors, including Democrat Dan Boren from Oklahoma. Additionally, 121 representatives have signed a discharge petition to force the bill out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and get a vote on the House floor; 218 signatures are needed to discharge the bill.
• Pomeroy Bill: Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) introduced H.R. 4396, which would also bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and includes a Sense of Congress that the CAA was never intended to handle GHGs. The Pomeroy language is slightly weaker than the Blackburn; however, it would likely succeed in blocking EPA. There are no cosponsors or legislative activities on Pomeroy’s bill.
• Waxman-Markey: The House-passed climate bill also contains language that would bar EPA from expanding its regulatory portfolio. Sections 831-35 restrict EPA by stating in various forms that “no greenhouse gas may be added to the list … on the basis of its effect on global climate change.” However, it appears unlikely that companion legislation will pass the Senate and it is unknown whether this preemption language would survive a conference committee.
Senate: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act on January 21, 2010. The bill is S.J.Res.26, and it has already attracted 40 cosponsors.
• Congressional Review Act: The CRA was established in 1996 during the Contract with America. It provides a “fast track” method for Congress to invalidate Executive regulations of which Congress does not approve. In order to block a new regulation—such as EPA’s GHG efforts—from taking effect, Congress must take action no later than 60 days after the final rule is filed. The CRA requires a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, the CRA provides for a 30-signature threshold to discharge it from committee and a simple majority vote (51) to pass once it is on the floor. In the House, a disapproval resolution would require 218 signatures to discharge and 218 votes to pass.
It appears likely that Sen. Murkowski has the 51 votes needed to pass the resolution in the Senate, although if she does not, she will not offer the proposal. Opponents of EPA’s actions still have significant work to do in the House to reach 218 votes.
Additionally, if the resolution does pass both chambers, it would require President Obama’s signature to overturn EPA’s proposed rule. AFP believes it would be very difficult for the president to issue his first veto against his own party’s Congress. If he did so, Obama would politically own any adverse consequences that arise from EPA’s regulations.
Conclusion
There remain several avenues, mainly legislative or judicial, that could stop EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA. AFP believes that Congress must act swiftly to block EPA. In order for Congress to act, AFP must help continue to create public awareness and political accountability on this issue. The Blackburn Bill in the House, and the disapproval resolution in the Senate are free market advocates best hope for congressional intervention.
Hutchison Statement On EPA Endangerment Finding: ME TOO!!!
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is supporting the Texas challenge to the EPA:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison released the following statement concerning the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases that pose great risk to Texas’ economy:
“The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases has begun a regulatory process that will lead to disaster for the Texas economy. I am proud to be part of the fight to overturn this badly misguided plan by the Obama administration. In Texas, we have long recognized that we can both grow our economy while protecting our environment. This overreach by the EPA is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the many who have rightfully stood up against cap and trade legislation also being pushed by this administration. The EPA’s actions represent a sweeping mandate that will cost jobs and cannot stand.”
On January 21, 2010, Senator Hutchison joined with Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in a joint resolution (S.J.Res.26) disapproving of the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
not from the editor: Actually, KBH had signed onto legislation which would stop the EPA, not just express disapproval. - Peggy V.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison released the following statement concerning the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases that pose great risk to Texas’ economy:
“The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases has begun a regulatory process that will lead to disaster for the Texas economy. I am proud to be part of the fight to overturn this badly misguided plan by the Obama administration. In Texas, we have long recognized that we can both grow our economy while protecting our environment. This overreach by the EPA is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the many who have rightfully stood up against cap and trade legislation also being pushed by this administration. The EPA’s actions represent a sweeping mandate that will cost jobs and cannot stand.”
On January 21, 2010, Senator Hutchison joined with Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in a joint resolution (S.J.Res.26) disapproving of the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
not from the editor: Actually, KBH had signed onto legislation which would stop the EPA, not just express disapproval. - Peggy V.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)