The U.S. Senate on June 10 voted 47-53 against legislation that would have blocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). President Obama had vowed to veto the bill had it passed.
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) joined 48 other agricultural organizations in drafting a letter to Senate members urging their support for S.J. Res. 26, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
According to ARA, the measure stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that held that GHGs are pollutants under the CAA, and EPA’s subsequent finding in 2009 that mobile source GHG emissions contribute to climate change that endangers public health and welfare. As a result, EPA in April 2010 finalized GHG emission standards for motor vehicles that will first apply to 2012 model year vehicles.
“With publication of its ‘tailpipe’ rule affecting mobile sources, EPA has set in place the framework for regulating stationary sources,” ARA and the other agricultural organizations said in their letter. “Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the application of these programs to have severe economic impacts on agriculture.”
The letter charged that ag producers could incur increased input costs as a result of these EPA-mandated GHG regulations. Citing EPA statistics that there are more than 37,000 farms emitting above CAA threshold levels, the letter said permitting requirements alone under the EPA rule would cost farmers more than $866 million.
“Members on both sides of the aisle have said throughout the climate debate that this issue should be decided by Congress, not the EPA, and we agree,” the letter said. “The sole issue is whether Congress will defer to a regulatory agency on a matter that affects virtually the entire economy.”
The National Cotton Council (NCC) also sent a letter to Congress urging support for S.J. Res. 26. NCC President and CEO Mark Lange stated that without relief from Congress, EPA regulation of GHGs under the CAA would impose a severe economic impact on the U.S. cotton industry, including “increased costs of production, inability to generate off-sets, increased processing costs for ginning and textile production, and market disadvantages with its international competitors in India, China, and Brazil, who do not incur such regulatory burdens.”
In related news, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on June 9 introduced a scaled-back climate change bill that would not create the cap-and-trade system backed by many Senate Democrats, but would instead focus on cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil by supporting domestic production, renewable energy, and vehicle efficiency. Lugar said a cap-and-trade system would “represent a significant disconnect with the priorities of many Americans,” and warned that the “added expense” of such a program “could intensify economic pressures.”
Lugar was joined by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had earlier worked with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on the American Power Act, an energy and climate bill unveiled in May (GM May 17, p. 10) that includes provisions for increasing nuclear power and offshore drilling, but also retains a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon pollution by factories and electric utilities.
The American Power Act was criticized by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), which charged that the bill would incentivize a switch to natural gas as an energy source, and therefore increase the demand for and price of natural gas for the domestic fertilizer industry. “Essential industries, such as fertilizer, will be severely challenged by climate policy that does not address our unique sensitivity to the price and availability of natural gas,” said TFI President Ford West.