Latest News, Regulatory Updates Congress Developing Bipartisan Strategy on Manufacturing Private Activity Bond Bills Introduced OSHA Sends 14,600 Letters to Hazardous Employers Click for All the Latest News & Regulatory Updates

Key Links Home Information Resources & Federal Website Links Directory of Lawmakers U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives Become Involved in Government Affairs AFS/NADCA Government Affairs Committee 2011 Metalcasting Alliance for Government Affairs Conference Congressional Plant Tours

Climate Change

The American Foundry Society (AFS) and North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) support environmental regulations designed to provide real net benefits to the environment and public health; we oppose regulations that create adverse economic impacts without corresponding benefit to human health and the environment.

Meeting environmental requirements has become a huge and growing responsibility for the metalcasting industry. New and pending regulations will significantly increase our cost of doing business in the U.S. and threaten the building of new facilities, as well as upgrades and modifications to existing plants. We continue to urge Congress and policymakers to implement environmental policies that are reasonable and achievable.

Background:
Burdensome and unnecessary proposals could erode our industry’s environmental and efficiency gains and have unintended consequences for the U.S. economy, including sharply raising energy costs. Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with a number of regulations that could impact the ability to deliver energy resources, cost millions of jobs, and put U.S. manufacturers, including metalcasters, at a competitive disadvantage globally.

The regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources is just one of a wave of pending regulations that EPA is proposing that pose a threat on metalcasters. Other examples include the Boiler MACT rule and tighter standards on emissions from ozone-forming (smog) gases. Individually and collectively, these new air emissions limits will impose a severe burden on our industry.

The current 112th Congress is examining ways to scale back EPA’s regulatory agenda. House Republicans have even proposed massive cuts to the agency’s budget.

Congressional Action:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New EPA rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act went into effect on January 2, 2011. Two key Republican committee leaders introduced draft legislation in January that would prevent EPA from implementing its plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-OK) and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) released draft legislation, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, that would permanently strip EPA of its authority to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources, such as power plants and manufacturing facilities. AFS and NADCA support this measure. The draft is intended to draw feedback from lawmakers and lead to a consensus on EPA pre-emption. Mark-up of the bill in the House will not likely occur until March according to committee staff. A copy of the draft is available at:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=45d63c2c-2f0b4e4d-9024-094927bee994

In addition to the Upton-Inhofe draft, two alternative EPA pre-emption bills were introduced at the end of January in the Senate by Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA).

• Barrasso's bill would pre-empt EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act as planned and would also bar any administration from regulating emissions under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and any other existing environmental statute.
  
• Rockefeller re-introduced the EPA Stationary Source Regulations Suspension Act (S. 231), which would place a two-year stay on EPA's plans to implement carbon rules for stationary sources only. Six Democrats co-sponsored the bill: Sens. Kent Conrad (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Ben Nelson (NE), and Jim Webb (VA). He has said that the extra time will allow carbon capture and storage technologies to further develop.

Upton-Inhofe hope to steer a middle course between the two Senate bills, by proposing a permanent repeal of authorities like the Barrasso does, but by pre-empting only Clean Air Act authorities like Rockefeller. Like Barrasso's bill, Upton-Inhofe would steer clear of EPA's tailpipe emissions rules for cars and light trucks through 2016, but would then bar EPA from being involved in the drafting of any future fuel economy rules.

In early March, the House and Senate agreed to a two week Continuing Resolution (CR) government funding bill removes some of the earlier riders on the EPA, including restrictions on EPA’s ability to use funds to implement GHG emissions rules and modify a Federal air quality standard for soot. Ultimately, the two chambers will need to agree on a CR, or another piece of legislation, incorporating spending levels for the government for the balance of the fiscal year (through September 2011).

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)/Higher Ozone Standards
Ground-level ozone is one of six pollutants regulated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—standards set by the EPA to monitor and regulate air pollutants considered harmful to public health. NAAQS are reviewed on a five-year cycle; nevertheless, EPA is pushing forward with a planned final rule only three years after its previous review, despite the fact that no new data exist on which to base new standards. In December 2010, the EPA announced that it will delay issuing final NAAQS for ozone until July 2011.

More stringent standards would be costly, unattainable and unnecessary— and impose a severe burden on American manufacturers. A Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI study finds that the proposal could result in the loss of 7.3 million U.S. jobs by 2020; add $1 trillion in new regulatory costs per year between 2020 and 2030; and sharply reduce the nation’s productivity. AFS and NADCA believe EPA should withdraw its rulemaking and allow the normal five-year review of the ozone standard to continue.

Dust
Particulate matter standards are also under review by the EPA. A draft report issued last year by the agency calls for substantially tightening air quality standards for fine particulate matter. The report comes as EPA prepares to issue a draft proposal and a final rule for annual and 24-hour fine particulate matter standards.
EPA last revised the fine particulate matter standards in 2006, tightening the allowable concentration from 65 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter when measured over a 24-hour period. It left in place the annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter.

Environmental groups sued EPA over the revised standards, arguing that EPA ignored staff and scientific advisors’ recommendations for a lower annual standard of between 13 and 14 micrograms. A federal appeals court ruled against the Agency, finding that EPA had failed to adequately explain why a level of 15 micrograms adequately protects public health and welfare and visibility. EPA is now reconsidering the annual standard in response to the court ruling.
Previous air dispersion models only had to account for filterable particulate. New air permits now require condensables to be included in the total PM 2.5 emissions, making the standard that much more difficult to meet. We are very concerned about the new levels being considered that are between 12 - 14 ppb - which are approaching naturally occurring background levels.

Outlook:
The cumulative burden of these new and costly regulations is nearing a tipping point. The 112th Congress has the ability to recognize the dangerous course we are on and to change it. AFS and NADCA welcome legislative efforts to slow or halt EPA’s regulatory authority.

Any effort to strip or limit EPA's regulatory authority is expected to start in the Republican-controlled House, where such a bill has a strong chance of clearing the House of Representatives fairly quickly. Senate passage of a bill is more challenging, because 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the upper chamber.

For further information, contact the MAGA Washington Office, 202/842-4864.