In The News
IBD Editorial: Stop EPA's Energy Tax
Friday February 11, 2011
Federal Authority: At a contentious hearing on legislation to keep the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, Republicans rightly called global warming a power-grabbing hoax that is all pain for no gain.
The assertion came at a Wednesday hearing before the House subcommittee on energy and power on the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011." The measure is designed to reassert the authority of Congress to levy taxes on the American people and direct public policy - powers that are being usurped by the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In a power grab that rivals ObamaCare in audacity and job-killing effects, the EPA has claimed unto itself the power to regulate carbon dioxide, a byproduct of human and animal respiration and the basis for all life on earth, as a pollutant. At least with ObamaCare, Congress - our representatives - voted to pass it.
The assertion came at a Wednesday hearing before the House subcommittee on energy and power on the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011." The measure is designed to reassert the authority of Congress to levy taxes on the American people and direct public policy - powers that are being usurped by the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In a power grab that rivals ObamaCare in audacity and job-killing effects, the EPA has claimed unto itself the power to regulate carbon dioxide, a byproduct of human and animal respiration and the basis for all life on earth, as a pollutant. At least with ObamaCare, Congress - our representatives - voted to pass it.
The Upton-Inhofe Discussion Draft: The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Wednesday February 9, 2011
What it does: Repeals EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and:
1) Puts Congress Back in Charge
2) Stops Backdoor Cap-and-Trade
3) Protects Jobs, Consumers, and Small Businesses
1) Puts Congress Back in Charge
2) Stops Backdoor Cap-and-Trade
3) Protects Jobs, Consumers, and Small Businesses
Inhofe EPW Rapid Response: Setting the Record Straight on Upton-Inhofe, The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Wednesday February 9, 2011
Myth: The Upton-Inhofe bill prohibits states from regulating greenhouse gases and addressing climate change.
FACT: The Upton-Inhofe bill expressly allows states to keep existing policies in place, and allows states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as they see fit. According to Section 330(b)(5): “This section does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt and enforce State laws and regulations pertaining to the emission of a greenhouse gas.” The bill also makes clear that any changes States have adopted in their State implementation programs and Title V operating permit programs pertaining to greenhouse gases are not federally enforceable.
FACT: The Upton-Inhofe bill expressly allows states to keep existing policies in place, and allows states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as they see fit. According to Section 330(b)(5): “This section does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt and enforce State laws and regulations pertaining to the emission of a greenhouse gas.” The bill also makes clear that any changes States have adopted in their State implementation programs and Title V operating permit programs pertaining to greenhouse gases are not federally enforceable.
Inhofe EPW Rapid Response: Supreme Court/Massachusetts v. EPA
Wednesday February 9, 2011
CLAIM: The Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA forced EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
"Just to be clear, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, found that greenhouse gases are a pollutant. They ordered EPA to make a determination as to whether...they said that EPA must make a determination as to whether or not greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. And rather than ignore that obligation, I chose as Administrator, and I believe I had no choice, to follow the law." EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Hearing on the EPA's FY 2011 Budget, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 23, 2010.
FACT: The Supreme Court ruled that EPA possesses the discretion under the Clean Air Act to decide whether greenhouse gases from mobile sources "endanger public health and welfare."
Here is what the Court wrote: "Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
EPA had a choice, and it decided that greenhouse gases do endanger public health and welfare. This was the wrong decision.
"Just to be clear, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, found that greenhouse gases are a pollutant. They ordered EPA to make a determination as to whether...they said that EPA must make a determination as to whether or not greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. And rather than ignore that obligation, I chose as Administrator, and I believe I had no choice, to follow the law." EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Hearing on the EPA's FY 2011 Budget, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 23, 2010.
FACT: The Supreme Court ruled that EPA possesses the discretion under the Clean Air Act to decide whether greenhouse gases from mobile sources "endanger public health and welfare."
Here is what the Court wrote: "Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
EPA had a choice, and it decided that greenhouse gases do endanger public health and welfare. This was the wrong decision.
E&E; News: Inhofe will testify at House hearing on Upton's EPA bill
Tuesday February 8, 2011
When the House Energy and Commerce Committee hears testimony tomorrow on Chairman Fred Upton's proposal to permanently bar U.S. EPA from regulating emissions linked to climate change, one of the star witnesses will be Upton's friend and collaborator, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Inhofe told reporters today that he has always assumed he would testify in support of the bill, which Upton (R-Mich.) and he unveiled last week to elicit comments from their colleagues and which they say they hope will form the basis of a bicameral agreement on EPA pre-emption.
"I'll be talking about the president having the audacity to give a speech to the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce yesterday about what he's going to do ... 'We're going to review regulations' ... at the same time he is proposing regulations," said Inhofe, who is top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Inhofe told reporters today that he has always assumed he would testify in support of the bill, which Upton (R-Mich.) and he unveiled last week to elicit comments from their colleagues and which they say they hope will form the basis of a bicameral agreement on EPA pre-emption.
"I'll be talking about the president having the audacity to give a speech to the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce yesterday about what he's going to do ... 'We're going to review regulations' ... at the same time he is proposing regulations," said Inhofe, who is top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Politico: NRC ACTION
Tuesday February 8, 2011
NRC ACTION - Two EPW Republicans cranked out a stiff letter to the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Committee yesterday over the "timeliness" of his agency's relicensing process when it comes to plants that have seen organized resistance. "[T]he agency's reputation has now been compromised," said Jim Inhofe and David Vitter, ranking member on its nuclear subcommittee in the last Congress, because the NRC now has a "dual standard."
LISTEN: Inhofe on Grandy Group Talks About Effort to Stop EPA Energy Tax and New Alliance on Ethanol
Monday February 7, 2011
Posted by Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe on Grandy Group Talks About Effort to Stop EPA Energy Tax and New Alliance on Ethanol
Links to Information Discussed in Interview
Link to "The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011"
The Oklahoman: Inhofe, environmentalists on same side (this time) -02/06/11
VIDEO: Oklahoma Matters with Ed Kelley: Ethanol has given Jim Inhofe a strange bedfellow - 02/03/11
Tulsa World: Inhofe's new allies on ethanol issue surprising - 01/30/11
Tulsa World: Sullivan, Inhofe blast EPA ruling on ethanol - 01/22/11
Inhofe Urges EPW Oversight Hearings of Ethanol Policy
Sen. Inhofe: Providing Responsible Oversight of Federal Ethanol Policy
Friday February 4, 2011
With the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Congress doubled the corn-based ethanol mandate despite mounting questions about ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its economic sustainability-and numerous other issues. Then, as now, Senator Inhofe argued that the fuels industry and engine manufacturers need more time to understand and manage the myriad challenges of an unrealistic corn-based ethanol mandate.
The most pressing issue facing corn ethanol is the so-called "blend wall". EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015. Yet, long-standing federal regulations require that a gallon of gasoline should contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. So there will soon be more corn ethanol production than the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline. So what is the solution?
The most pressing issue facing corn ethanol is the so-called "blend wall". EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015. Yet, long-standing federal regulations require that a gallon of gasoline should contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. So there will soon be more corn ethanol production than the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline. So what is the solution?
WATCH: EPA Stresses the Importance of States' Role in Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing
Friday February 4, 2011
During a hearing on Wednesday in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, EPA Administrator Jackson, when asked about EPA's study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water quality and public health, provided helpful clarity on how the essential practice is currently regulated.
Senator Inhofe welcomed Administrator Jackson's observation that states are already regulating hydraulic fracturing-a fact that anti-production activists either ignore or deliberately obscure in their efforts to ban it. As Administrator Jackson stated: "I want to make two points on hydraulic fracturing: One is that it is not an unregulated activity; many localities, many states regulate aspects of the drilling process. One thing I think EPA can do to add to the body of knowledge is to determine where there are any holes in that regulatory structure."
Senator Inhofe welcomed Administrator Jackson's observation that states are already regulating hydraulic fracturing-a fact that anti-production activists either ignore or deliberately obscure in their efforts to ban it. As Administrator Jackson stated: "I want to make two points on hydraulic fracturing: One is that it is not an unregulated activity; many localities, many states regulate aspects of the drilling process. One thing I think EPA can do to add to the body of knowledge is to determine where there are any holes in that regulatory structure."
VIDEO: Oklahoma Matters with Ed Kelley: Ethanol has given Jim Inhofe a strange bedfellow
Thursday February 3, 2011
Ed Kelley: Ethanol has given Jim Inhofe a strange bedfellow. Oklahoma's senior senator is teaming up with a liberal group called Friends of the Earth to take on the boondoggle of ethanol. The motives of Inhofe and the lobby group certainly are different. According to the Tulsa World, Inhofe opposes a recent decision by the federal government to allow gasoline with more than 10% ethanol to be sold in newer vehicles. Meanwhile Friends of the Earth hate ethanol because it may cause global warming, which makes the alliance between the Friends and Inhofe even more interesting: that's because no member of congress has fought harder against the prospect of global warming than Jim Inhofe. A spokesman for Friends of the Earth welcomes Inhofe opposition to ethanol, even if for different reasons. She cites the often quoted phrase that in Washington there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Well I'm not so sure about that, but Inhofe's newest admirers can obviously say what they want
