Representative Ike Skelton - Issue Spotlight: Ike's Common Sense Energy Primer

March 12, 2010

Ike's Common Sense Energy Primer

Outline

The Clean Air Act: What Was It Meant to Do?

The Supreme Court: An Unlikely Player

EPA Regulations: How would they Affect You?

Stopping the EPA: A Congressional Imperative

Legislation in the House: H.R. 4572 and H.J. Res 76

Bipartisan Support: Endorsements of Anti-EPA Legislation

The Clean Air Act: What Was It Meant to Do?

The Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended several times since then. It was passed to get lead out of the air and to reduce smog.

Specifically, the Clean Air Act built a regulatory structure to limit the emission of six airborne pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. Each of these chemicals are proven to be harmful to humans and pose a demonstrable threat to public health.

Following the enactment of this legislation, levels of smog and acid rain in some areas were drastically reduced. And, since the EPA left regulation of these gases to individual states, local governments were able to determine how to best reduce local emissions of these pollutants.

But nowhere in the Clean Air Act are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane mentioned. In fact, Congress has never explicitly granted EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, especially not under the Clean Air Act.

Want to learn more about the Clean Air Act? Click here.

The Supreme Court: An Unlikely Player

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government (EPA) had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, within the authority of the Clean Air Act if these emissions were deemed to endanger public health.

Since that ruling, EPA has been studying greenhouse gases and has been moving aggressively to implement regulations to curb them – not just from cars and trucks, which is what the Massachusetts case involved, but also from power plants, farms, and businesses.

On December 7, 2009, EPA issued a so-called “Endangerment Finding” about greenhouse gas emissions, which declares these emissions a threat to human health and therefore subject to federal regulation pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

To read a copy of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” click here.

Want to read more about the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling? Click here.

EPA Regulations: How would they affect me?

To be frank, no one knows exactly how costly EPA greenhouse gas regulations would be. But, there is no doubt that such regulations would negatively impact families, farms, and small businesses throughout Missouri and the nation.

In late December of 2009, the Small Business Administration, a federal organization designed to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small businesses, wrote a letter to the EPA outlining the costs greenhouse gas regulations would impose on American commerce. The letter, from a nonpartisan federal agency, stated:

EPA has certified that the GHG Tailoring Rule, along with two interrelated rules that will result in the federal regulation of greenhouse gases for the first time, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. We disagree….The [EPA’s greenhouse gas] rules are likely to have a significant economic impact on a large number of small entities. Small businesses, small communities, and small non-profit associations will be affected either immediately or in the near-term.

Other organizations, from rural business groups to agricultural organizations, have also voiced their concerns over EPA greenhouse gas regulations. The Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, in a recent letter to Missouri Representatives, stated that "thousands of Family farms in Missouri alone will be swept up in clean air permitting requirements and fees that could total hundreds of millions of dollars annually." And, the National Federation of Independent Business feels that "an endangerment finding … would trigger a regulatory avalanche … and impose potentially crushing regulatory burdens on previously unregulated small entities." In short, there is little doubt that EPA regulations of greenhouse gases would be costly to the farms and businesses of Missouri’s Fourth District.

Stopping the EPA: A Congressional Imperative

In recent years, Congress has debated proposals to help make America more energy independent and encourage the use of more homegrown and renewable energy like biofuels, wind power, and nuclear power. These are sound principles that hold real potential for Missouri – both in terms of jobs and lower energy prices - and ought to be addressed by Congress.

But, federal agencies like EPA have no business meddling in American energy policy. Congress has the power to make laws specifically because its members are accountable to the American people. That is why some in Congress are making a concerted effort to stop the EPA from imposing greenhouse gas regulations on families, farms, and businesses.

In 2009, the House voted to move H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, to the Senate. This bill would stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and instead create a market based system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time.

I voted to move that bill to the Senate. It was the only legislative vehicle moving through Congress that allowed those of us concerned with EPA to put the breaks on the Agency’s misguided effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is what I said when the House took action on the bill last year.

Other parts of H.R. 2454 were controversial and needed fixing during the legislative process. I pledged at the time to refine the bill. But, drawn-out debates about other issues have prevented action on energy legislation in the Senate.

As outlined above, EPA has left no doubt that it intends to put serious regulations in place regarding the emissions of greenhouse gases. And, in light of the major impact EPA regulations could have on so many Americans, I have decided to act. Working with Jo Ann Emerson, a Republican Congresswoman from Cape Girardeau and a good friend, and Collin Peterson, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have introduced two pieces of legislation that would stop the EPA.

Legislation in the House: H.R. 4572 and H.J. Res. 76

Bipartisanship is the key to stopping EPA’s misguided greenhouse gas regulations. It is clear to many House Members, just like many people from Missouri’s Fourth District, that greenhouse gas regulations from the EPA would be costly and harmful to American families and businesses. Using this common concern, I am now building support around two pieces of legislation designed to stop EPA’s proposed regulations.

On February 3, 2010, I introduced a bill, H.R. 4572, that would specifically exclude any greenhouse gas regulations from the purview of the Clean Air Act. It also prohibits the EPA from using indirect land use standards from other countries, like Brazil, to determine the environmental impact of American farms.

On February 25 of this year, I introduced H.J. Res. 76, a joint resolution, identical to one introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska), that would reject the EPA’s December 9 Endangerment Finding. By doing so, the resolution would strip the EPA of the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Supported by over 175 rural business and agricultural organizations, this resolution currently has 40 cosponsors. And, I am continuing to build support, along with Congresswoman Emerson, for this resolution from both sides of the political spectrum.

Bipartisan Support: Endorsements of Anti-EPA Legislation

As I mentioned earlier, the key to stopping the EPA will be bipartisan support. Working with both parties, I have built substantial support both here in Washington and throughout the nation for H.R. 4572 and H.J. Res. 76. Listed below are several letters of support from rural electric coops, agriculture groups, and small business organizations. If you would like to read any of the letters, simply click on the links.

National Federation of Independent Business

American Farm Bureau Federation

Missouri Farm Bureau Federation

176 Agriculture and Rural Business Organizations – including the Missouri Cattlemen’s and Soybean Associations

Association of Missouri Electric Coops

- 30 -

Return to Home Page

	March 12, 2010

	Ike's Common Sense Energy Primer

	Outline The Clean Air Act: What Was It Meant to Do? The Supreme Court: An Unlikely Player EPA Regulations: How would they Affect You? Stopping the EPA: A Congressional Imperative Legislation in the House: H.R. 4572 and H.J. Res 76 Bipartisan Support: Endorsements of Anti-EPA Legislation The Clean Air Act: What Was It Meant to Do? The Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended several times since then. It was passed to get lead out of the air and to reduce smog. Specifically, the Clean Air Act built a regulatory structure to limit the emission of six airborne pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. Each of these chemicals are proven to be harmful to humans and pose a demonstrable threat to public health. Following the enactment of this legislation, levels of smog and acid rain in some areas were drastically reduced. And, since the EPA left regulation of these gases to individual states, local governments were able to determine how to best reduce local emissions of these pollutants. But nowhere in the Clean Air Act are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane mentioned. In fact, Congress has never explicitly granted EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, especially not under the Clean Air Act. Want to learn more about the Clean Air Act? Click here. The Supreme Court: An Unlikely Player In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government (EPA) had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, within the authority of the Clean Air Act if these emissions were deemed to endanger public health. Since that ruling, EPA has been studying greenhouse gases and has been moving aggressively to implement regulations to curb them – not just from cars and trucks, which is what the Massachusetts case involved, but also from power plants, farms, and businesses. On December 7, 2009, EPA issued a so-called “Endangerment Finding” about greenhouse gas emissions, which declares these emissions a threat to human health and therefore subject to federal regulation pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling. To read a copy of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” click here. Want to read more about the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling? Click here. EPA Regulations: How would they affect me? To be frank, no one knows exactly how costly EPA greenhouse gas regulations would be. But, there is no doubt that such regulations would negatively impact families, farms, and small businesses throughout Missouri and the nation. In late December of 2009, the Small Business Administration, a federal organization designed to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small businesses, wrote a letter to the EPA outlining the costs greenhouse gas regulations would impose on American commerce. The letter, from a nonpartisan federal agency, stated: EPA has certified that the GHG Tailoring Rule, along with two interrelated rules that will result in the federal regulation of greenhouse gases for the first time, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. We disagree….The [EPA’s greenhouse gas] rules are likely to have a significant economic impact on a large number of small entities. Small businesses, small communities, and small non-profit associations will be affected either immediately or in the near-term. Other organizations, from rural business groups to agricultural organizations, have also voiced their concerns over EPA greenhouse gas regulations. The Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, in a recent letter to Missouri Representatives, stated that "thousands of Family farms in Missouri alone will be swept up in clean air permitting requirements and fees that could total hundreds of millions of dollars annually." And, the National Federation of Independent Business feels that "an endangerment finding … would trigger a regulatory avalanche … and impose potentially crushing regulatory burdens on previously unregulated small entities." In short, there is little doubt that EPA regulations of greenhouse gases would be costly to the farms and businesses of Missouri’s Fourth District. Stopping the EPA: A Congressional Imperative In recent years, Congress has debated proposals to help make America more energy independent and encourage the use of more homegrown and renewable energy like biofuels, wind power, and nuclear power. These are sound principles that hold real potential for Missouri – both in terms of jobs and lower energy prices - and ought to be addressed by Congress. But, federal agencies like EPA have no business meddling in American energy policy. Congress has the power to make laws specifically because its members are accountable to the American people. That is why some in Congress are making a concerted effort to stop the EPA from imposing greenhouse gas regulations on families, farms, and businesses. In 2009, the House voted to move H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, to the Senate. This bill would stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and instead create a market based system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time. I voted to move that bill to the Senate. It was the only legislative vehicle moving through Congress that allowed those of us concerned with EPA to put the breaks on the Agency’s misguided effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is what I said when the House took action on the bill last year. Other parts of H.R. 2454 were controversial and needed fixing during the legislative process. I pledged at the time to refine the bill. But, drawn-out debates about other issues have prevented action on energy legislation in the Senate. As outlined above, EPA has left no doubt that it intends to put serious regulations in place regarding the emissions of greenhouse gases. And, in light of the major impact EPA regulations could have on so many Americans, I have decided to act. Working with Jo Ann Emerson, a Republican Congresswoman from Cape Girardeau and a good friend, and Collin Peterson, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have introduced two pieces of legislation that would stop the EPA. Legislation in the House: H.R. 4572 and H.J. Res. 76 Bipartisanship is the key to stopping EPA’s misguided greenhouse gas regulations. It is clear to many House Members, just like many people from Missouri’s Fourth District, that greenhouse gas regulations from the EPA would be costly and harmful to American families and businesses. Using this common concern, I am now building support around two pieces of legislation designed to stop EPA’s proposed regulations. On February 3, 2010, I introduced a bill, H.R. 4572, that would specifically exclude any greenhouse gas regulations from the purview of the Clean Air Act. It also prohibits the EPA from using indirect land use standards from other countries, like Brazil, to determine the environmental impact of American farms. On February 25 of this year, I introduced H.J. Res. 76, a joint resolution, identical to one introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska), that would reject the EPA’s December 9 Endangerment Finding. By doing so, the resolution would strip the EPA of the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Supported by over 175 rural business and agricultural organizations, this resolution currently has 40 cosponsors. And, I am continuing to build support, along with Congresswoman Emerson, for this resolution from both sides of the political spectrum. Bipartisan Support: Endorsements of Anti-EPA Legislation As I mentioned earlier, the key to stopping the EPA will be bipartisan support. Working with both parties, I have built substantial support both here in Washington and throughout the nation for H.R. 4572 and H.J. Res. 76. Listed below are several letters of support from rural electric coops, agriculture groups, and small business organizations. If you would like to read any of the letters, simply click on the links. National Federation of Independent Business American Farm Bureau Federation Missouri Farm Bureau Federation 176 Agriculture and Rural Business Organizations – including the Missouri Cattlemen’s and Soybean Associations Association of Missouri Electric Coops - 30 - Return to Home Page