OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Lawmakers With Energy, Manufacturing Ties Oppose EPA Regulations

March 4, 2010 - by Eric Naing

Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D, WV] is the latest in a bipartisan series of lawmakers who are trying to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate greenhouse gases. Not-so-coincidentally, many of these lawmakers have ties to the industries that would be most affected.

Rockefeller today introduced the Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act, which would prevent the EPA from regulating the greenhouse gases emitted by power plants and industrial manufacturers. The Washington Post has the bill for you to read here.

As I have discussed before, a 2007 Supreme Court ruling allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act. As part of the Obama administration’s plan to tackle climate change, the agency plans to use that authority – first by limiting emissions by cars and light trucks and then by targeting power plants, industrial manufacturers and other “stationary” sources of greenhouse gasses.

The administration’s preferred way to deal with this issue is for Congress to pass comprehensive climate change legislation with a mechanism, such as a cap-and-trade system, to limit carbon emissions. The House passed such a bill last year (H.R.2454) but the Senate has struggled to follow suit. Without something like a cap-and-trade system, the administration has turned to EPA regulations.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0] last December introduced a bill similar to Rockefeller’s (H.R.4396) that would strip the EPA of this regulatory power unless the agency first gets permission from Congress.

Besides passing laws limiting the powers of the EPA, Congress also has the option of passing a “resolution of disapproval” overturning regulations set by the legislative branch. This includes the EPA’s power over carbon emissions.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK] has been pushing such a resolution (S.J.Res.26) since January. Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4] has a similar resolution (H.J.Res.76) in the House.

Despite the bipartisan nature of the effort to stop the EPA regulations, all these measures are unlikely to become law. Aside from having to pass both chambers of Congress, they also must survive a likely presidential veto.

Most of these lawmakers justify their position by saying that EPA regulations will hurt the economy and that they are protecting jobs – or as Rockefeller puts it, they’re taking an “important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy.”

Of course, money also plays an important role. EPA regulations of “stationary” greenhouse gas emitters will hit two industries particularly hard: energy and manufacturing. And a quick stroll though shows that all of the sponsors of the aforementioned legislation have received tens of thousands of dollars from both industries in just the current election cycle:

  • Rockefeller, whose state of West Virginia is heavily reliant on coal, can include among his top donors energy giants like American Electric Power, CONSOL Energy and Peabody Energy – the largest private-sector coal company in the world.
  • Some of Murkowski’s top donors are Constellation Energy, Exxon Mobil, Southern Conmpany and Chevron.
  • Rep. Skelton has received significant campaign donations this year from industrial manufacturing firms such as General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.
  • And Rep. Pomeroy’s top donors include manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and energy companies such as National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Xcel Energy, Tesoro Petroleum and Entergy Corporation.
Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.


  • justamick 03/05/2010 4:49am

    No big surprise there. As long as their pockets are lined with cash, who cares about the earth or the earth that we’ll leave our children! Dispicable!

  • mkail666 03/05/2010 9:58am

    On the other hand, how many Congressmen are being supported by green energy companies that stand to gain from stricter regulations on big polluters?

  • Scottar 03/06/2010 4:27pm

    Yah right, CO2 drives climate change like a gun creates crime. look, if what the AGW believers say is true then you wouldn’t have Professor Phil Jones admitting the last fifteen years really didn’t show any warming. It’s all political skulduggery for power and money.

    when you follow the money you see the governments have gave millions to the climate scare mongers over the paltry millions that fissile fuel companies have donated to any skeptics. The naive have been herded like dumb sheep down a climate change rat hole of fear over all kinds of misrepresented facts and events. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie is a prefect example, it’s filled with hyped up pseudo science and misrepresented facts.

    It’s like when H2O was presented by it chemical name of monooxide dihydrogen and certain facts and qualities of the substance where taken out of perspective, many people got dumbed into signing a bogus petition to ban it. Such is the nature of crass stupidity.

  • becauseican 11/09/2011 2:05am

    Thank you for the posts. I found the information to be informative and useful.
    roof repairs elk grove california

  • Spam Comment

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.