Research Briefing

Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Bipartisan Resolution Will Protect Businesses From Regulatory “Nightmare Scenario”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: “At A Time When Our Economy Is Struggling To Rebound And Millions Of Americans Are Looking For Work, We’re On The Verge Of Burying Some Of Our Most Important Economic Engines Under A Mountain Of Bureaucratic Regulations. Few Industries Will Escape The EPA’s Reach — Not Manufacturers, Not Farmers, Not Small Businesses.” (Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Congress Needs To Lead Climate Talks,” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 6/6/10)

MURKOWSKI RESOLUTION WOULD VETO EPA’S

REGULATORY POWER OVER GREENHOUSE GASES

“Murkowski Objects To The EPA’s Authority And Believes That Congress Should Set Such Standards Instead Of The Executive Branch.” (J. Taylor Rushing, “Senate Fight Over EPA Resolution To Highlight First Week After Recess,” The Hill, 6/6/10)

Murkowski Resolution Would “Veto The EPA’s Power To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under The ‘Endangerment Finding’ It Issued Last December.” “Specifically, Murkowski’s measure would veto the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases under the ‘endangerment finding’ it issued last December. That finding would lead to regulations that ‘will ultimately endanger job creation, economic growth and America’s competitiveness,’ Murkowski said, and is opposed even some by congressional Democrats who prefer congressional action instead.” (J. Taylor Rushing, “Senate Fight Over EPA Resolution To Highlight First Week After Recess,” The Hill, 6/6/10)

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT A “BLOW TO THE WHITE HOUSE”

“Murkowski's Measure Has 41 Formal Co-Sponsors, Including Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu Of Louisiana, Ben Nelson Of Nebraska And Blanche Lincoln Of Arkansas.” (J. Taylor Rushing, “Senate Fight Over EPA Resolution To Highlight First Week After Recess,” The Hill, 6/6/10)

Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) Has Also Indicated He Would Vote For Murkowski Resolution. “Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) on Tuesday broke ranks with Democratic party leaders and indicated that he would support an effort by Senate Republicans to overturn new rules to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.” (An Hughes, “Rockefeller Signals Support To Overturn Greenhouse-Gas Curbs,” The Washington Post, 6/8/10)

• Rockefeller’s Support “Represents A Blow To The White House.” “The defection on the Obama administration's cornerstone environmental policy represents a blow to the White House, which on Tuesday threatened to veto any measure to overturn the first-ever Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse-gas rules.” (An Hughes, “Rockefeller Signals Support To Overturn Greenhouse-Gas Curbs,” The Washington Post, 6/8/10)

EPA REGULATIONS WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE TO OBAMA’S “CAP AND TRADE” ENERGY TAX AND A “NIGHTMARE SCENARIO” FOR BUSINESSES

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "The Obama Administration Has Again Reminded Washington That If Congress Won't Legislate, The EPA Will Regulate..." Sen. John Kerry: "[T]oday we went from 'wake-up call' to 'last call' on the urgency of senate action on comprehensive energy and climate legislation.  The Obama administration has again reminded Washington that if congress won't legislate, the EPA will regulate..." (Sen. John Kerry, "Kerry: EPA Final Ruling Underscores Urgency For American Power Act," Press Release, 5/13/10)

Endangerment Finding Would Allow EPA To Regulate 70% Of Emissions In United States. “The ‘tailoring’ rule would subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act sources emitting more than 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually. The law’s current threshold is 250 tons annually for other pollutants… EPA officials said exempting small polluters would still allow the agency to regulate about 70 percent of the U.S. economy’s greenhouse gas emissions…“ (Coral Davenport, “Prodding Lawmakers On Climate Change, EPA Issues A ‘Tailoring’ Rule,” CQ Today, 5/13/10)

• Emissions Level Would Ratchet Down To 50,000 Tons, Allowing The EPA To Regulate “Schools, Hospitals, Apartment Buildings, And Thousands Of Small Businesses.” “Applying the original Clean Air Act format to entities emitting more than 250 tons of greenhouse gases annually would suddenly put schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and thousands of small businesses under new EPA controls… Thursday’s tailoring rule keeps the 250-ton-per-year rule in place for other emissions, but scales up controls for greenhouse gases so that only major industrial polluters spewing over 100,000 tons per year or more would be hit. Eventually, however, the rule would ratchet down to 50,000 tons per year or more.” (Coral Davenport, “Prodding Lawmakers On Climate Change, EPA Issues A ‘Tailoring’ Rule,” CQ Today, 5/13/10)

Small Businesses Not Hiring Due To Concerns About Obama's Energy Legislation.  "Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses' energy costs ... Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60 % of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government's Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery."  (Gary Fields, "Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze On Small Businesses," The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)

Emissions Caps Would Reduce Emmployment By Nearly 1 Million Jobs Per Year. "Overall, a cap-and-trade system that reduces annual GDP by 0.34 percent per year can be expected to reduce U.S. employment by roughly 964,900 jobs per year, reduce household earnings by $37.8 billion, and reduce total U.S. economic output by $136.1 billion." (Andrew Chamberlain, "Who Pays For Climate Policy?," Tax Foundation, 3/09)

EPA Regulations Are Described As "A Nightmare Scenario" For Businesses. "The blunt instrument of EPA regulation is a nightmare scenario for many lawmakers and major industries. Businesses that have a seat at the table in legislative negotiations would have little opportunity to influence regulations." (Coral Davenport, "EPA Prepares To Classify Carbon Dioxide As Dangerous," CQ Today, 12/7/09)

• Burdening Manufacturers With Higher Energy Costs. "'EPA is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy,' said Keith McCoy, Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy at the. National Association of Manufacturers." ("EPA To Move On Emissions As Congress Stalls," Reuters, 12/7/09)

And Regulations Would Make American Industries Less Competitive In The Global Market. "The agency's proposed regulations are opposed not only by coal companies and their customers but also by a wide range of American industries that fear that new rules will impose huge costs and make it difficult for American manufacturers to compete with goods from countries without carbon dioxide limits." (John Broder, "Lawmakers From Coal States Seek To Delay Emission Limits," The New York Times, 3/4/10)