The choice, then, is clear: the Upton-Inhofe bill repeals EPA's regulatory power grab, while the Rockefeller bill allows it to continue after only two years. In effect, Rockefeller implicitly endorses EPA's cap-and-trade agenda under the Clean Air Act; thus a vote for Rockefeller is a vote for EPA's cap-and-trade agenda.
Rockefeller also fails to provide certainty for business planning and investment. Businesses typically plan on a 10- to 15- year time horizon. A two-year delay does nothing to clarify the contours of the regulatory landscape, and would merely prolong the uncertainty currently plaguing the economy.
Rockefeller also has serious practical flaws:
1) It does not prevent EPA from issuing a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon dioxide and methane; nor does it bar the use of other existing CAA authorities to regulate stationary sources.
2) It does not prevent EPA from establishing new regulatory standards under Title II (which covers mobile sources), including low-carbon fuel standards, which will reduce domestic oil supplies and increase our dependence on foreign oil.
3) It does nothing to prevent EPA from retroactively requiring GHG controls on covered sources. And even if sources were able to complete permit applications during the 2-year moratorium, the bill does not prevent EPA from holding those permits up until after the moratorium expires.
4) It applies to CO2 and methane gases only. But pursuant to EPA's endangerment finding, EPA is moving forward with regulations relating to four other (six total) GHGs.
5) It does not relieve states from enforcing federal requirements. Most states (rather than EPA) administer CAA permitting programs.
6) It leaves the endangerment finding in place, thereby providing a legal basis for climate change "nuisance suits" sponsored by environmental pressure groups hostile to energy development. In addition, it does not prevent citizen suits under the CAA to enforce greenhouse gas permitting requirements.
Upton-Inhofe removes all of these complications by simply repealing EPA's cap-and-trade agenda. Rockefeller leaves them in place. Again, the choice is clear.
