(CNSNews.com) – Three House Democrats are now pushing legislation that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions—a decision the agency announced in December -- without express permission from the Congress.
Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.)
introduced a bill on Tuesday that would amend the Clean Air Act to exclude regulations based on global warming effects, while Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) has a bill that would keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases at all unless approved by Congress.
In April 2009 the EPA proposed an “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases, claiming that they “endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” An endangerment finding is necessary to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. On Dec. 7, the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson officially signed the finding, opening the way to regulate emissions of gases like carbon dioxide and methane.
By complying with the rules of the Clean Air Act, the EPA claims it can begin regulating things directly, such as automobiles, without any new law from Congress. But some Democrats, contrary to the administration’s views of the issue, are not satisfied with the EPA’s new regulatory direction.
“I'm proud to help sponsor this bill because if Congress doesn't do something soon, the EPA is going to cram these regulations through all on their own,” Rep. Peterson said in a statement.
The Peterson bill, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), specifically curtails the Clean Air Act, which allows the EPA to regulate “air pollutants,” so as to exclude from regulation six greenhouse gases that the agency thinks contribute to global warming.
“The term ‘air pollutant,’” the bill reads, “shall not include any of the following solely on the basis of its effect on global climate change: (1) Carbon dioxide, (2) Methane, (3) Nitrous oxide, (4) Hydrofluorocarbons, (5) Perfluorocarbons, (6) Sulfur hexafluoride.”
Peterson explained that the change was needed because the EPA was overstepping the original intended limits of the law. “The Clean Air Act was not meant for this,” he said. “It was meant to clean up the air, to get lead out of the air. It was not meant to fight global warming.”
“I have no confidence that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act without doing serious damage to our economy,” Peterson said. “Americans know we’re way too dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in this country — and I’ve worked hard to develop practical solutions to that problem — but Congress should be making these types of decisions, not unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.”
Emerson unveiled the legislation in Jefferson City, Mo., at the Missouri Rural Electric Cooperative’s State Legislative Conference, and told attendees, “This legislation is a guarantee that the EPA will not use its rapidly expanding powers to enact policies which members of Congress know will create untold hardships in the rest of the country, especially in Missouri.”
The other bill, from Pomeroy, takes a slightly different approach to the same end. It states that, “Comprehensive regulations to address global climate change must only be enacted—(A) at the direction of Congress; and (B) if Congress specifically intends such regulations to be implemented.”
“Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong,” said Pomeroy. “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,” said Pomeroy.
In the Senate, where a cap-and-trade bill now little chance of passing, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) offered a “disapproval resolution” stating her discomfort with the EPA’s strategy. Three Democrats in the Senate have joined the 35 Republican co-sponsors. These Democrats are Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-Miss.).
Lincoln, Nelson, and Landrieu are considered among the most politically vulnerable in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections.
The “disapproval resolution” has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which will consider whether to report it favorably to the full Senate.
“As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change,” Murkowski said in introducing the resolution on Jan. 21.
The EPA originally placed the rationale for its endangerment finding in the Federal Register on April 24, 2009, claiming the gases were “very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes.”
The EPA also proposed to regulate tailpipe emissions pursuant to the finding: “The Administrator (Lisa Jackson) shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [her] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The EPA’s first round of regulations, focusing on tailpipe emissions, is expected to emerge in March.
The Obama administration, however, is still urging Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill. At the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen last month, Administrator Jackson said her new finding was not a replacement for cap-and trade. “This isn’t an either/or moment,” she said. “This is a both/and moment.”