May 12 - Senator Murkowski’s Bipartisan Disapproval Resolution

There are serious attempts in Washington, DC to reconfigure American industry and to compel price increases and thereby, significant changes in consumer behavior. In plain English, there are those want to dramatically raise gasoline and other prices so that Americans will have no choice but to drive less, regardless of the consequences for refinery workers or everyday Americans.  

It may seem hard to believe, but there are those who would are openly advocating that the price of gasoline to be governmentally-driven to $7.00 or even $9.00 per gallon!

Similar prior attempts have collapsed before.  For example, ‘cap and trade’  has gradually diminished as a means of achieving climate control, international provisions that were negotiated in Copenhagen greatly softened, and Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman work to forge a bipartisan climate bill broke down.  With time running out in this election year, an unexpected crisis has arisen from within the federal bureaucracy.     

In an explicit attempt to spur Congress into action, EPA announced its intent to regulate CO2 if Congress did not. It's a tactic that now seems more than unfortunate.  Virtually all players in the debate over climate change see substituting bureaucrats for Members of Congress as a huge step in the wrong direction.  Unfettered civil servants in search of massive CO2 reductions of 80% or more are widely seen as a sure-fire regulatory disaster in these already-tough economic times.

Without Congressional action, many expect EPA will drive fuel and other prices up. Unlike Congress, EPA lacks authority to mitigate these punitive price impacts though tax credits, rebates, off-ramps, caps or other mechanisms to help consumers through its planned transition to a much-carbon-constrained economy. 

Fortunately, there is a way out of this corner that Congress now finds itself in.  A bipartisan “disapproval resolution” (S.J.Res. 26) can protect consumers from EPA’s regulatory overreach.  

At a time when our economy is recovering from the ‘Great Recession’ a calamity not seen since the Great Depression, unleashing EPA bureaucrats to raise gas prices in the hope of improving our environment is a false choice.  Please join me in telling our Senators that you oppose EPA’s efforts to cut CO2 by directly or indirectly raising gas prices.  The Senate and the Congress cannot cede their responsibility to address climate to bureaucrats who are unlikely to truly appreciate the jarring, life-altering impacts their regulatory foray will have on real Americans lives.   Here are some additional facts:

The Disapproval Resolution:

• Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) bipartisan “disapproval resolution” (S.J.Res. 26) prevents EPA from using ill-suited statutes to impose new climate regulations upon unsuspecting American families and businesses. 

• Congress has statutory authority to stop ill-considered regulations, and EPA’s proposed regulations meet this test.
• S. J. Res 26 has won more support than any other Senate climate bill; 41 Senators support this including Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Background:

• EPA issued its greenhouse gas ‘endangerment finding’ in December.  Although some say it’s merely an affirmation of global climate change, in truth, it’s much, much more!

• ‘Endangerment’ is unleashing unprecedented expansions of EPA’s regulatory powers -- including the power to destroy jobs and to compel huge new cost increases. 

• While EPA will first regulate vehicles, overlapping provisions will extend EPA’s reach to stationary sources – giving it authority to regulate all greenhouse emissions.

• EPA expects 6 million buildings, facilities, farms, landfills, and establishments to be affected.  

• EPA also anticipates 3.9 million single family homes to also be regulated.

• Those regulated will face an inflexible bureaucracy, requiring permits before building or modification, and, in many cases, very expensive “best available control technologies.”
  

 Why S. J. Res 26 is Necessary:

• Congress didn’t write the Clean Air Act to apply to greenhouse gases. Virtually everyone agrees the Act is America’s costliest and least effective way to achieve emission reductions.

• President Obama, his EPA Administrator, senior congressional Democrats, environmental, union and business leaders all want new legislation instead of new EPA regulation!


• It’s clear, however, that Congress needs time to develop a responsible policy that works economically and environmentally. At least 15 Democratic Senators have expressed doubt about the Senate’s ability to legislate soon, or outright opposition to other current proposals. 


• Because the Senate will wisely not pass bad legislation to stop worse regulations, it now appears that EPA will move before Congress acts!


• S. J. Res 26 prevents EPA’s over-reach, and keeps debate in Congress, where it belongs. 

 EPA Can’t Have it Both Ways:

• An American generates 20 tons of CO2 a year; even a Toyota Pruis makes 3.7 tons/year! 


• Mindful that it is rousing a sleeping tiger, EPA has signaled its wish to unilaterally raise the Clean Air Act’s regulatory threshold for green-house gas emissions from 250 to 75,000 or more tons per year –from the statute’s current triggers. However,  EPA lacks the legal authority to ignore the plain meaning of the law, no matter how meritorious or expedient its position may be,. EPA’s companion “tailoring rule” which seeks to soften its blunt-instrument “endangerment rule” can be counted on to be challenged in court, and, perhaps not surprisingly, more than a few observers note that the outlook isn’t good.

• Paralleling these concerns, a DC Circuit Court of Appeals publicly warned EPA last October on another matter that “It looks for all the world like agencies choose their policy first and then later seek to defend its legality. This gets it entirely backwards … whether or not agencies value neutral principles of administrative law, courts do, and they will strike down agency action that violates those principles – whatever the president's party, however popular the administration, and no matter how advisable the initiative.”

• Even if the ‘tailoring rule’ somehow survives litigation, it will still not protect from EPA’s onerous regulations.  States and localities often require legislative amendment to deviate from EPA rules.  Like it or not, EPA will hit everyday Americans! 


• If states cannot amend their laws, their smaller emitters will not escape these regulations. And even if states do act, the relief not last – EPA has made clear that smaller sources will ultimately face regulation within a matter of years.

 
Addressing Criticisms:

• S.J. Res 26 does not address or dispute the science of global climate change; it will also not impede or prevent the Senate from considering climate legislation; and it will not impact, in any way, America’s world-leading air quality controls and standards that are addressing a wide array of other pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

• Senator Murkowski and many others are committed to finding responsible ways to better address this challenge.  She and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have for example, coauthored an energy bill providing a more effective and less costly path to near-term emission reductions.