No, both Democrats and Republicans should reject political maneuvers designed to delay America’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution.

Congress has the opportunity to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill that will generate millions of American jobs, cut dangerous pollution, and make our nation more secure. Senator Rockefeller says that’s his goal, and that’s where he should be putting his energy, instead of trying to block the only working law on the books to curb global warming.

The Rockefeller bill is much more than a two-year time-out. It would effectively block global warming pollution limits for four years, not two, because it would bar the EPA from doing any of the homework needed to set limits -- research on available technologies or consultation with industry, state, and environmental stakeholders. So even after the two-year period ran out, it would take EPA another two years to get things done.

Some may say that at least Sen. Rockefeller’s bill – unlike Sen. Murkowski’s – does not question the science of climate change. Yet in the end, both bills would paralyze the EPA.

The contrasting positions of the two West Virginia Senators are illuminating. Sen. Robert Byrd has announced that he is not co-sponsoring the Rockefeller bill. The reason, he explains, is that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has explained a reasonable, measured timeline for using the Clean Air Act to curb heat-trapping pollution.

Later this month, she will issue landmark consensus standards for global warming pollution from new vehicles later this month, under the Clean Car peace treaty that President Obama announced in the Rose Garden last May, with the support of car makers, states, labor, and environmentalists. And carbon controls for major new power plants and factories will start to apply only next year. “I take her at her word,” Sen. Byrd said, and he called on coal interests to “embrace the future.”

So let’s focus on the future, not the past. It’s time to move forward on clean energy and climate legislation. In the meantime, Congress should stop interfering with the science and the laws already on the books.

It’s the latest attack on the Clean Air Act, but fortunately it appears to be moving nowhere fast.

Last Thursday, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.) introduced a bill that would freeze implementation of Clean Air Act safeguards against climate-warming pollution. But almost as soon as Sen. Rockefeller introduced his bill, it was dealt a potentially lethal blow when Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) announced he had refused to co-sponsor the bill.

For decades, the Clean Air Act has protected public health, reduced healthcare costs, and propelled technology innovation in cost-effective ways. That’s why any rollback, even a temporary one, would harm not only our environment but also our economy. We need to be moving the ball forward in the push for job-creating clean energy, not turning back the clock.

It’s particularly sad to see Sen. Rockefeller advocating this rollback, because the Clean Air Act is especially good for West Virginians. If the Clean Air Act is enforced, dirty coal use will be reduced (coal is the energy source responsible for more climate-warming pollution than any other), and that means a reduction in the dirty coal mining that is devastating West Virginia.

Mountaintop removal is particularly harmful. This practice involves clearcutting forests, blowing the tops off mountains, and dumping the debris into valleys and streams. In the process, drinking water supplies are poisoned, air is polluted with coal and rock dust, and potential jobs in the tourism industry disappear. And all the while, the coal industry continues to contribute to West Virginia’s economic decline as the number of coal jobs shrinks (the number of miners in West Virginia has declined from more than 60,000 to just 22,000 since 1979). Studies confirm West Virginians are paying for mountaintop removal with their livelihoods and sometimes their lives. There are better options for the state’s economy.

Sen. Rockefeller’s bill introduction comes on the heels of the introduction in January of a resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that similarly seeks to cripple the Clean Air Act. And a number of House members are pushing similar rollbacks. But the good news for Americans who care about their health and the economy is that none of these rollbacks appears to be close to garnering majority support. We at Friends of the Earth will be working to keep things that way.

Our industrial energy & environmental debt will have to be repaid at some point. Delay by the Senate (whether by blocking EPA or filibuster-proofing Legislation) has a negative net present value for the U.S. economy. Why? Because the longer we keep energy investment decisions on hold, the more likely our debt gets repaid with imported technologies manufactured by non-U.S. workers. Business leaders have made this quite clear for a number of years now. At some point business may even stop lobbying for their favorite goodies (as appears to be happening in KGL) and back the good old-fashioned competition of a simple upstream cap (like that outlined in CLEAR). Again, why? Because they can likely make more money competing in the global marketplace than in Washington.

What's the upshot? How about preserving our ability to compete globally? How about preventing the destruction of jobs? How about protecting our fragile economy? I like the idea of my government preventing the EPA from forcing electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket. I like the idea that the EPA would be held accountable by our elected representatives. So the real question is this: What's the downside?

National energy and environmental policy is headed toward putting the nation on a carbon diet. Natural gas producers believe that short-circuiting the legislative process by turning the process over to EPA is the regulatory equivalent of getting your stomach stapled. It seems to be a short cut, but it may not produce or sustain the desired results for our country and may have terrible side effects. It is in the nation’s best interest to delay implementation of EPA greenhouse gas regulations while Congress instead has the opportunity to craft a more balanced approach through debate, negotiation and consensus building.

As an example of the flaws of EPA’s tailoring rule, it currently calls for the application of the “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) standard for greenhouse gas emissions. This sets up a Catch 22 situation for natural gas burners since natural gas combustion already is considered the BACT when it is used in power generation and industrial applications. It would also unnecessarily burden a large number of natural gas infrastructure projects with a time-consuming permitting process that would be of doubtful environmental benefit, all to the detriment of our shared emission goals.

With all due respect to my friends at the National Journal, I think it is misleading to suggest that the issue facing Congress is whether to delay EPA from moving forward with "greenhouse gas regulations" for power plants and other industrial facilities. EPA's proposed approach for dealing with these "stationary sources" has nothing do with "regulations" as most people think of them. Rather, the Agency wants to impose new permitting requirements that will stop construction on industrial projects in the U.S. for at least two years and in many cases much longer. This is not hyperbole. It is simply the way the Clean Air Act works.

EPA's approach for dealing with cars and trucks is very different and can fairly be characterized as "greenhouse gas regulations." The Agency worked with experts to understand the technologies that could be used to reduce greenhouse gas emission from new vehicles; it then went through a rulemaking process to develop clear standards; and it is planning to publish final standards by the end of this month. Vehicle manufacturers will soon know exactly what they must do to meet the requirements that will come into place with the 2012 model year.

EPA's proposed approach for dealing with stationary sources is quite different. No one – not even EPA – has any way of knowing what the greenhouse gas requirements will be, and no one knows how long it will take to find out. Rather, a company that wants to build or expand an industrial facility must submit a permit application and then begin negotiations with a number of parties (usually including a state agency, EPA, other federal agencies, and other "stakeholders") over the requirements that will apply to that facility. In many cases, these stakeholders include environmental activists who really don't want the project to be built at all.

This process is already in place for conventional pollutants (SO2, NOx, particulates, VOCs), for which the "best available control technologies" are well understood. For these pollutants, there usually is no dispute over the type of technology that should be required – just the precise emissions limits that will be written into the permit. Even so, this process takes, on average, more than 18 months even for relatively small projects. For larger projects, it takes several years.

When it comes to carbon dioxide, there is no semblance of any agreement about the "best available control technologies." The power sector believes that, for coal-fired power plants, the best control technology is a high-efficiency boiler. The environmental community believes that the permitting process should be used to outlaw the use of coal entirely, because natural gas should be required as the "best available control technology" for CO2. Some oppose even the use of natural gas, arguing that wind or solar or energy efficiency is a better control technology. One might think that EPA could resolve such issues, but it can't. The best available control technology must be decided on a "case-by-case basis."

Once the proper agency (usually a state environmental agency or EPA) actually issues a Clean Air Act permit, the permit can always be challenged in court by anyone who doesn't like it (and I can't think of any permit issued in recent years that has not been challenged.) The permitting process, from the time a permit application is submitted until the litigation is complete, usually takes several (and often many) years.

Some might say, "Well, if the process already takes this long, the inclusion of greenhouse gases won't be such a big deal. Industry will simply adapt and plan its future projects will an eye toward meeting the greenhouse gas requirements." One problem, of course, is that nobody can plan future projects without any idea of what these requirements will be. In the near-term, though, the biggest problem is that EPA wants to apply its new greenhouse gas requirements to any project that is not able to get its final permit by the end of the year – and perhaps, apparently, even to some projects that already have received their permits. Thus, many companies that have been trying to get permits for months or years will have to go back and get a new permit that requires the "best available control technology" for CO2 (whatever that may be).

Companies that several years ago were seeking to build industrial projects in the U.S. are starting to give up. Some have decided to invest in other countries – countries that they believe have a greater commitment to the rule of law, where investors are given clear standards and a predictable schedule, and where they have confidence that the rules will not change in the middle of the game.

To fix this problem and keep these projects (and the jobs associated with them) in the U.S., Congress does not necessarily need to prohibit EPA from "regulating greenhouse gases." But it must ensure that any such regulations are fair and predictable and cannot be misused by anyone who might want to block or delay construction of virtually any new industrial or manufacturing facility in the U.S

Efforts by Members of Congress to call a regulatory “time-out” signal the potential for a new bi-partisan start on government policy to control emissions of greenhouse gases. There is nearly universal agreement that the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool to regulate greenhouse gases, and that Congress should set a new framework that will help put our country on a path toward more energy efficiency and less emissions. There is also agreement that Congress, and not the EPA, is in the best position to make the trade-offs that will be needed to ensure future global competitiveness for many numerous industries that employ millions of hard working Americans and contribute to our nation’s economic well being.

The forest products industry is proud of its voluntary reductions in greenhouse gases and our increasing reliance on domestically grown, renewable and carbon neutral biomass to power our mills – all of which are important for a sustainable future.

New investment in manufacturing and clean energy technologies runs counter to the arcane and rigid set of rules and regulations that are being triggered by the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. These rules have developed around localized pollutants and are not well suited to address the global realities of greenhouse gases.

Senators Rockefeller, Murkowski and others have proposed legislation that rightly puts the burden on developing climate policy where it belongs – with Congress.

In her Feb. 22 letter to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson warns that congressional enactment of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution to negate the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding would scuttle the joint EPA/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) greenhouse gas/fuel economy rulemaking, which in turn would compel the struggling auto industry to operate under a “patchwork quilt” of state-level fuel economy regulations.

Jackson neglects to mention that the patchwork threat exists only because she, reversing Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s decision, granted California a waiver to implement its own GHG/fuel economy program. Had Jackson reaffirmed Johnson’s denial, there would be no danger of a patchwork, and no ostensible need for the joint EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to avert it.

Jackson should have denied the waiver. California and other states opting into the California program cannot implement separate GHG/fuel economy standards without violating the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which prohibits state laws or regulations “related to” fuel economy. Carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up about 95% of all GHG emissions from motor vehicles. There is no commercially proven technology to filter or capture CO2 emissions from tailpipes. Consequently, the only way sigificantly to decrease GHG emissions per mile is to decrease fuel consumption per mile. The California GHG program is basically fuel economy by another name. As such it it preempted by EPCA, and EPA had no business approving it.

Indeed, granting the waiver is tantamount to affirming a reverse right of preemption whereby California and other states may nullify the operation of federal law within their borders. It’s an affront to the Supremacy Clause.

Specifically, the CARB program would nullify, in California and every other state opting into the California program, the fuel economy reforms Congress enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

In EISA, Congress replaced the “flat-rate” standards of the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which apply to an automaker’s entire fleet, with “attribute-based” standards that vary according to a vehicle’s “footprint” (the area formed by the wheel base multiplied by vehicle track width). The original program had serious drawbacks, such as an adverse impact on vehicle safety. The easiest way to comply with flat-rate standards is to make the average car lighter and smaller. Lighter vehicles have less mass to absorb collision forces; smaller vehicles provide less space between the occupant and the point of collision. NHTSA estimates that CAFE contributed to an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities and 13,000 to 26,000 serious injuries per year.

Although CARB greenhouse gas emission standards are calibrated in grams CO2-equivalent per mile rather than miles per gallon, they are “flat-rate” rather than “attribute-based.” Since the CARB standards substantially regulate fuel economy, they conflict in basic approach with the EISA reforms.

The “flat-rate” character of the CARB program is also what produces the “patchwork” inimical to a healthy auto industry. Consumer preferences differ from state to state, so the same automaker typically sells a different mix of vehicles in each state. Only by sheer accident would the average fuel economy (or grams CO2/mile) of an automaker’s vehicles delivered for sale in one state be identical to that in other state. But under the CARB program, each automaker would have to achieve the same average fuel economy in every “California” state. If all 50 states adopt the California program, then each automaker would have to manage 50 separate fleets, reshuffling the mix in each state regardless of consumer preference. A more cockamamie scheme would be hard to imagine.

EPA is playing a game that sets a new standard for Chutzpah. EPA endangers the U.S. auto industry by authorizing states to flout federal law and the Constitution, and then offers to remove the threat via a rulemaking that just happens to put EPA in the driver’s seat in regulating fuel economy – a power Congress never delegated to the agency when it enacted and amended the Clean Air Act.

This pattern of self-dealing should be obvious by now. The joint GHG/fuel economy regulation will compel EPA to regulate CO2 from stationary sources – another power Congress never delegated to EPA. That, in turn, sets the stage for EPA to “tailor,” that is amend, the Clean Air Act so that EPA can avoid (for six years) imposing pre-construction and operating permit requirements on small business, which would surely ignite a political backlash. So now EPA not only gets to play in NHTSA’s fuel economy sandbox, it also gets to play lawmaker, violating the separation of powers. Even if the tailoring rule withstands judicial scrutiny, it will provide no protection from a National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) rulemaking for CO2 and other GHGs, arguably the most “absurd result” teed up by the endangerment finding.

Finally, it’s not even necessary for EPA to find endangerment or regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act to accomplish the ostensible purposes of the joint rule, if that is what Congress actually wants EPA to do. EPCA as modified by EISA gives NHTSA all the authority required to achieve nearly all the emission reductions proposed in the joint GHG/fuel economy rule. Additional reductions – for example, in CO2 and other GHGs from motor vehicle air conditioning systems – could be addressed by minor tweaksin EISA, if Congress feels strongly about it. There is simply no need to trigger a Clean Air Act regulatory cascade, allow states to preempt federal law, or allow EPA to make law.

Congress should welcome a debate on the propriety of EPA licensing CARB to nullify federal law, just as it should welcome the debate on the propriety of EPA dealing itself into a position to set climate and energy policy for the nation. Actually, those are just two aspects of the same debate. Who is going to make U.S. law and public policy – the people’s elected representatives or non-elected bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges? The Murkowski resolution provides a clear answer. Sen. Rockefeller’s legislation, however, would simply postpone the day of reckoning and cloud the issue.

It is time for the United States to provide international leadership in reducing rates of climate change rather than to continue being a major international contributor to the problem. The current role assigned to EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources will keep the pressure on Congress to consider alternative solutions. Without this pressure, I fear that climate change will continue to be a political football and that the United States will never take the strong actions that are needed.

F Stuart Chapin III

Initiatives by Senators Murkowski and Rockefeller (and similar ones in the House) offer belated recognition that either the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases -- the Supreme Court decision not withstanding -- or it’s simply a blunt instrument that cannot be wielded surgically. Indeed, when the Clean Air Act was being reauthorized in 1990, the House-Senate conference committee explicitly removed a provision granting EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. These recent Congressional initiatives also acknowledge that actions have consequences -- very detrimental consequences to a struggling economy in the case of EPA greenhouse gas regulation.

Moreover, Capitol Hill may finally be realizing that once EPA begins to regulate these gases under the Clean Air Act, there is no stopping point. An agency set up to provide environmental protection would become the pre-eminent economic policy agency of the government, supplanting Treasury and Commerce. EPA’s effort to put self imposed limits on its reach (ie trying to raise emissions threshold for the initial stage of stationary-source regulations) would fail because those selective restrictions violate specific provisions of the Clean Air Act. EPA will be sued no matter what it does, and the potential settlement agreement process means that decisions, actually deals, will be made in the judicial arena.

Any legislation or action under the Congressional Review Act would have to be signed by the President to take effect. Yet, President Obama would likely use his veto pen. So, these initiatives will probably provide only temporary delays, unless the White House and Congress can reach some accommodation on a path forward. Yet, their collaboration on health reform doesn’t exactly inspire confidence for their future teamwork on energy/climate policy.

Climate policy is complex and -- even under the best circumstances -- very difficult to tackle comprehensively. Efforts to date to develop an all-encompassing approach that reduces growth in greenhouse gases while simultaneously promoting robust economic growth have been ill conceived and misguided. They have ignored energy, economic, and technology realities. The climate change policy challenge is a long-term one and must be addressed that way. Fashioning legislative solutions based on hyperbole rather than fact will likely do more harm than good.

Climate change policy, like health care reform, would be better served by focusing first on common ground instead of extremes. Advancing technology, improving energy efficiency, accelerating the long term trend of decarbonization, encouraging the deployment of technologies in developing countries, and setting goals that have some realistic hope of being achieved is a good place to start.

America is a nation of innovators. We are also a nation of enormous natural resources. Congress should lead in carefully crafting a climate policy which allows us to effectively marry those two assets, so that we can achieve the kind of sustainable energy and economic future we all desire.

My hope is that our legislative branch will work with all stakeholders to craft a climate policy that will guide this nation’s efforts in managing the emission of greenhouse gases and in mitigating the affects of the climate change phenomena.

A major portion of that policy guidance will assist the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in meeting the responsibilities that the Supreme Court has said it is obligated to take on. One can understand that members of the United States Senate are more than a bit frustrated by the difficulty and the complexity of the assignment. One can also sympathize with Senator Murkowski from Alaska who seems to be fearful of what the EPA will do in the absence of Congressional action. Her constituents, better than many Americans, see the dramatic impacts of the climate shifts that are manifest across the globe.

However, the issue should raise concern -- not so much with EPA, as with any process that would purport to move to act unilaterally to manage the world’s most prolific emitter. The Senator is correct to be skeptical of any proposal that is not the product of a very broad, participatory process. And, even though that process might not be the most efficient or the most effective; efficiency and effectiveness are, at this point, less important than the fact that a broad spectrum of the American public needs to have ownership of the process and the product. The only way that we, as a nation, get that chance at ownership is if the Congress steps up to its responsibility and works openly and aggressively to fashion the path forward.

Energy policies and energy technologies are rather complicated. But one thing is quite clear. America and other countries around the globe will need to drive more capital into a diverse array of fuels for the next many decades if the essential needs of people are going to be met. It would be imprudent to implement any regulation that directly discourages investment in our energy industry.

While Washington officials continue to hash out these contentious issues, many American businesses are already working to develop and commercialize cleaner fuels and more efficient technologies. Some are researching ways to produce and distribute more sustainable forms of energy -- including biofuel, solar, wind, biomass nuclear, and natural gas. Others are focused on ways to efficiently capture and store carbon or to burn coal more cleanly.

The fact is that the more clean options American businesses and American families have the better off we will be economically and environmentally.

To leave to the administration the responsibility to design, develop and promulgate a system to address the nation’s efforts to manage GHG emissions to mitigate climate change will ultimately result in the public criticism, finger-pointing, and lack of acceptance. Neither stripping EPA of the ability to act, nor forcing EPA to act without Congressional guidance is in the best interest of the people of this or any nation. Unless all three arms of government, executive, judicial, and legislative, are onboard, any efforts will be counterproductive and will only serve to delay effective progress.

By the EPA's own reckoning, it is practically impossible for the agency to apply the Clean Air Act as written to greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA, "administrative necessity" requires it to rewrite the Act's express language so as to begin regulating GHGs from stationary sources without bringing down the entire stationary soruce permitting regime. The source of the problem is the EPA's misguided effort to apply the Clean Air Act to GHGs, as required by the Supreme Court's mistaken opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA. Rather than watch the EPA try to rewrite the Act to avoid "absurd results," Congress should put an end to the whole enterprise. The Clean Air Act was never intended to apply to GHGs, and Congress should make that clear.

While few negative political consequences will come from delaying EPA regulation, such legislation only delays the inevitable -- and Congress will have to revisit the issue again. EPA is already doing everything it can to avoid imposing GHG regulations on the one-million-plus sources that must be regulated under the Act. This is because GHG regulation under the Act is unweildy, not because it is being done too fast. Instead of kicking the climate can past the next election, Congress should fix the underlying problem and replace Clean Air Act regulation of GHGs with a more sensible climate policy. Anythign else is a band-aid -- a temporary fix that doesn't really fix anything at all.

Yes, Senate Democrats and other lawmakers should embrace a suspension in the development of EPA regulations for greenhouse gases from stationary sources. Senator Rockefeller’s bill, introduced last week, is an important development. Congressmen Rahall, Mollohan and Boucher have a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Members of Congress, business leaders and others have been raising concerns about the economic impact of stationary source regulations. They’ve been looking at how the regulations could affect investment in new facilities, business expansion, job creation – including green jobs, and economic recovery. Energy efficiency technology investments are among the many projects that would be delayed, cut back or cancelled as a result of the regulations. Unfortunately, EPA’s response to these concerns has been inadequate and incomplete. Regulation of GHGs from stationary sources goes to the heart of our economic recovery and U.S. competitiveness, but EPA’s proposal fails to provide the protection needed. We believe it’s imperative that Congress step in, suspend development of the regulations, and assert firm control over national climate policy. Congress must also develop a long-term GHG emission reduction strategy for the nation.

We welcome Senator Rockefeller’s decision to introduce his bill on stationary source regulation. His legislation would suspend potential EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years. The bill directs that for two years after enactment, EPA can take no regulatory action and that no stationary source will be subject to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane, except for motor vehicle emission standards. We think Senator Rockefeller’s bill is a measured response that the House and Senate should seriously consider.

We also commend the leadership of those in Congress who, like Senator Rockefeller, understand the importance of this issue. We agree with Senator Lisa Murkowski’s assessment that Senator Rockefeller’s bill is a sign of growing ‘resistance to EPA’s back-door climate regulations.’ We urge Congress to move quickly to halt EPA’s ill-advised regulatory plan. The Rockefeller legislation is an important step in the process.

Global warming and associated climate change is the most serious current threat to our planet. Our addiction to fossil fuels, furthermore, catalyzed a now seemingly endless war that has had disastrous consequences for the U.S. budget, the ability of the developed world to focus on meaningful economic challenges, and the countless number of innocent global citizens who have perished for no good reason.

Atmospheric heating has already started and will likely accelerate rapidly over the coming years. EPA and other federal agencies already possess the tools under the Clean Air Act and other statutes to begin addressing the problem. There is no reason to wait. If Congress wants to add some progressive mechanisms, such as tax and dividend, into the mix, then so be it. But the federal and state agencies with legal authority must make their move, transparently and objectively, without delay.

No one should be surprised that Sen. Rockefeller has thrown his in-state industrial king a political bone. What should be unsettling to us all, however, is that countries such as Germany and China are already out-competing us in renewable technologies. Our current refusal to embrace this inevitable change in energy production is akin to telling Bill Gates et al. several decades ago to stop experimenting with computers and study the Encyclopedia Brittanica some more.

As Niall Ferguson recently wrote, "Any large-scale political unit is a complex system. Most great empires have a nominal central authority -- either a hereditary emperor or an elected president -- but in practice the power of any individual ruler is a function of the network of economic, social and political relations over which he or she presides. As such, empires exhibit many of the characteristics of other complex adaptive systems -- including the tendency to move from stability to instability quite suddenly."

So the question is whether the American people will wait for its political elite, largely controlled by the same forces damaging the planet, to act, or demand action that breaks the destructive status quo. I, personally, do not think the answer is inevitable one way or the other. I do believe, however, that any politician that has the guts to propose and push constructive greenhouse pollution reduction policies will do quite well every election cycle.

It is imperative that Congress delay EPA’s efforts to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources. Most American manufacturing facilities, including steel mills, will be impacted if Congress does not delay EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources. This will impose additional economic burdens and regulatory delays that will impede new business investment and slow efforts to get the economy moving again. Legislative action to stop EPA regulation of stationary sources is essential to preserving jobs and promoting economic growth while Congress considers comprehensive legislation to address climate change.

Furthermore, EPA regulation will only exacerbate the competitiveness problems facing energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries by increasing their costs while their overseas competitors continue to avoid regulation. Only a comprehensive legislative approach to climate change can address the important international competitiveness and carbon leakage issues that are critical to energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like steel. We have already lost 11.7 million manufacturing jobs over the last decade, 2.1 million alone since the start of the recession. The steel industry has already voluntarily stepped up to the plate by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 31% since 1990. Especially in light of the tepid economic recovery and the rampant expansion of steelmaking capacity that has occurred in non-regulated economies like China, the risks and uncertainties of unilateral regulation under the Clean Air Act are simply too great for the EPA to control.