By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Senate is preparing to vote on a resolution disapproving of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) stated intent to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The vote on the resolution, called S.J. Res. 26, has been scheduled for June 10, according to Ryan Findlay, national legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB).

The resolution is sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
“A lot of things are against it right now, but at the same time a lot of members of Congress are concerned about the issue,” Findlay said. “We want to make sure it stays with the Congress whether greenhouse gases are regulated.”

In order for the resolution to take effect, both houses of Congress would have to pass it, and it would have to be signed by the president. Findlay conceded it’s not likely these things will happen, or if it was passed and then vetoed that it could be overridden.
Nonetheless, dozens of national farm groups think the resolution is important and sent another letter to senators earlier this month urging them to vote for it.

According to the letter, sent to senators on May 19, the EPA estimates that more than 37,000 farms would eventually have to get “Title V” permits under the new regulatory plan, with each permit costing an average of $23,000. The letter states this would cost farmers more than $866 million collectively, to obtain the permits.

The figures on the number of farms affected and how much the permits would cost are taken from EPA documents, namely a draft version of the so-called tailoring rule as well as the final version of the rule, according to Rick Krause, a climate specialist at the American Farm Bureau Federation.

“We are assuming the tailoring rule is a phase-in that will eventually require permits for every entity above the (Clean Air Act) statutory threshold of 100 tons per year for Title V,” Krause said. The final tailoring rule “shows that each Title V permit would cost an average of $23,200 just to get the permit.”

“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 states. “S.J. Res. 26 offers the clearest and most sensible approach to assure this occurs ... All of the undersigned organizations support S.J. Res. 26. We urge all senators to vote ‘yes’ on the motion to proceed to consideration of this resolution and vote ‘yes’ on adoption of the resolution.”
The letter was signed by about 50 different groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Milk Producers Federation and National Corn Growers Assoc.

Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation., said his organization signed onto the letter because the resolution would at least “slow things down” in the area of greenhouse gas regulations. His group believes that such regulations would place a significant burden on all farmers, including dairy farmers.

“We believe that regulating individual point-sources of (GHG) pollution is not the way to go,” he said.

Although not a statute, the resolution would be binding and would be just as good as a law if it passed, Findlay said. That’s because resolutions of disapproval have special standing under the Congressional Review Act. The effect of passage would thus be to nullify the EPA’s endangerment finding, which would mean the EPA would no longer have any basis for regulating GHG emissions. The EPA would then have to start over and reconsider the endangerment issue.