Barrasso announced today that he will introduce legislation to halt detrimental regulations proposed by the EPA.

The EPA announced plans early this year to designate carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The finding’s effects will require the EPA to regulate any building, structure, facility or installation that produces a certain amount of carbon dioxide per year.

“Virtually everything produces carbon dioxide.  If you’re going to regulate CO2, everyone and everything would have to be regulated.  The Clean Air Act was simply never designed for this type of all-consuming regulation,” Barrasso said.

“The EPA admits the Clean Air Act is a bad option. They know it puts our nation in a bind. But they continue to push it forward,” Barrasso said. “It simply does not make sense.”

“My bill will stop digging us into a deeper hole,” Barrasso said.

Barrasso said his questions to the EPA and the Administration have been met with arrogance and avoidance.

In a letter to Barrasso, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson agreed “the Clean Air Act was not specifically designed to address green house gases” and “other sections [of the Clean Air Act] may not provide needed flexibility, raising serious concerns about the results of applying them.”

Barrasso delayed the Administration’s nominee for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Regina McCarthy. McCarthy refused to tell the Senate how the Clean Air Act would be used to regulate CO2 until after she was confirmed by the Senate. She did say she hopes to deal with the litigants of the Clean Air Act’s potential lawsuits by personally encouraging them not to sue.

“Government officials can’t go around the country trying to convince every litigant, whether it be a national environmental group or a local group, not to sue. This is not only unrealistic, it’s unachievable,” Barrasso said.

“The bottom line is that the Administration appears to have no credible plan to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. While they recognize the dangers of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change, they want to proceed anyway.”
 
Background:

By the EPA’s own estimate, the typical pre-construction permit under the Clean Air Act in 2007 cost each applicant $125,000 and 866 hours to obtain.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are 1.2 million schools, hospitals, nursing homes, farms, small businesses and other commercial entities that would be vulnerable to new controls, monitoring, paperwork and litigation. According to the EPA this “could overwhelm permitting authorities.” The net result will be thousands of jobs lost.

In one instance, the Administration tried to smear the reputation of a career employee at the Small Business Administration who wrote part of an official Administration memo warning of the dangers of regulating climate change using the Clean Air Act. 

“This was a career official in the Small Business Administration who offered a reasonable and thoughtful critique of the impact of the endangerment finding on small business. I simply raised the memo with the Administration, and this was the result.  Career public servants deserve better,” Barrasso said.