In The News
Politico Pro: Another EPA delay renews green fears
Thursday May 19, 2011
Green groups and public health advocates fear the Obama administration won't go to the mat to defend major environmental rules that are getting hammered by industry and GOP lawmakers.
Earlier this week, the EPA announced it would stall its controversial air toxics rules for industrial boilers - the latest in a string of rule delays that have ruffled feathers among the administration's supporters. Now, environmental advocates fear the agency will back down on a range of other major rules that have come under fire.
"It's clearly a situation where the agency is making its decision based on political expedience, not principle," said Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew. "And once you get onto that slippery slope, where do you stop?"
Greens are concerned that a trend is developing after the EPA last year punted on a controversial rule to curb ozone pollution and appears likely to push final coal ash regulations until after the 2012 election.
The EPA announced Monday that it would reconsider the final boiler rule issued in February, saying the public did not have sufficient time to comment before the rule was issued. The EPA also postponed the standard in the meantime.
Earlier this week, the EPA announced it would stall its controversial air toxics rules for industrial boilers - the latest in a string of rule delays that have ruffled feathers among the administration's supporters. Now, environmental advocates fear the agency will back down on a range of other major rules that have come under fire.
"It's clearly a situation where the agency is making its decision based on political expedience, not principle," said Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew. "And once you get onto that slippery slope, where do you stop?"
Greens are concerned that a trend is developing after the EPA last year punted on a controversial rule to curb ozone pollution and appears likely to push final coal ash regulations until after the 2012 election.
The EPA announced Monday that it would reconsider the final boiler rule issued in February, saying the public did not have sufficient time to comment before the rule was issued. The EPA also postponed the standard in the meantime.
The Wichita Eagle: Moran's bill would exempt range burning from air quality regulation
Wednesday May 18, 2011
Two environmental issues - Wichita's clean air and the fires that help preserve the Flint Hills' tallgrass prairies - have been pitted against each other for years.
Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran has taken a step he hopes will resolve some of that conflict. He recently introduced legislation to prevent federal environmental rules from restricting planned burning each year in the Flint Hills.
But even in sponsoring the bill, called the Flint Hills Preservation Act, Moran acknowledged Tuesday that he doubted it would get passed. In fact, the first-term senator introduced a similar bill in the House last year that never got a hearing.
Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran has taken a step he hopes will resolve some of that conflict. He recently introduced legislation to prevent federal environmental rules from restricting planned burning each year in the Flint Hills.
But even in sponsoring the bill, called the Flint Hills Preservation Act, Moran acknowledged Tuesday that he doubted it would get passed. In fact, the first-term senator introduced a similar bill in the House last year that never got a hearing.
WATCH: Inhofe Floor Speech on Democrats' Oil and Gas Tax Increase Bill
Democrats Have No Answer to Higher Gas Prices
Tuesday May 17, 2011
Posted by Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe Floor Speech on Democrats' Oil and Gas Tax Increase Bill
"Democrats Have No Answer to Higher Gas Prices"
To learn more....
Democrats' Gas Tax Out of Step With American Consumers - and the Facts
A Real Gas Price Solution: Produce More American Energy, Overturn Obama EPA's Cap-and-Trade Agenda
Video: Democrats Have No Plan to Bring Down Rising Gas Prices, But They Do Have a Plan to Make Them Go Up
Inhofe Op-Ed: Actually, we can drill our way to energy security (Daily Caller)
Dems Admit Bill Not Meant to Reduce Gas Prices
Senate Overwhelmingly Rejects Democrat-Led Effort Against Domestic Energy Jobs
###
Inhofe Op-Ed: Inhofe's view: All pain, no gain (USA Today)
Tuesday May 17, 2011
Not too long ago, President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress proudly announced that America would lead the fight against global warming by passing a cap-and-trade bill. But despite overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 2009, Democrats barely found the votes to get the proposal through the House, and Senate Democrats never even brought it up for a vote.
The reason is simple. Cap-and-trade is designed to make the energy we use more expensive. Consider President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who said in 2008, "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That's about $7 to $8 a gallon.
What the Democrats have since learned is that the American public is more skeptical of the science of global warming than at anytime over the past decade. Frank Newport of Gallup stated earlier this year, "Americans' attitudes toward the environment show a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence."
The reason is simple. Cap-and-trade is designed to make the energy we use more expensive. Consider President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who said in 2008, "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That's about $7 to $8 a gallon.
What the Democrats have since learned is that the American public is more skeptical of the science of global warming than at anytime over the past decade. Frank Newport of Gallup stated earlier this year, "Americans' attitudes toward the environment show a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence."
E&E; News: Inhofe bill aims to cut small drinking water systems a break
Tuesday May 17, 2011
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe wants U.S. EPA to give small drinking water systems, which have fewer customers over which to spread their costs, more of a helping hand in meeting federal requirements.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member introduced a bill yesterday along with Sens. David Vitter (R-La.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) that would require EPA to update the criteria used to determine what waterworks fixes should be considered affordable -- criteria that the agency admitted in 2006 are sometimes unfair to small or low-income communities because of their smaller rate bases.
"Too often federal regulations come with a price tag that is unreasonable for small towns and cities with lower budgets," Inhofe said in a statement. "Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good and can be especially harmful for low-income communities or areas facing economic challenges."
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member introduced a bill yesterday along with Sens. David Vitter (R-La.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) that would require EPA to update the criteria used to determine what waterworks fixes should be considered affordable -- criteria that the agency admitted in 2006 are sometimes unfair to small or low-income communities because of their smaller rate bases.
"Too often federal regulations come with a price tag that is unreasonable for small towns and cities with lower budgets," Inhofe said in a statement. "Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good and can be especially harmful for low-income communities or areas facing economic challenges."
Washington Examiner: Inhofes Energy 101 seminar: Dems have no plan to bring down gas prices because they want higher prices
Friday May 13, 2011
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-OK, sat down in front of a camera yesterday and patiently walked through the major myths about energy being propagated by President Obama, congressional Democrats and the liberal mainstream media. The result is a concise, easy-to-grasp summary of energy facts:
For example, what about all those "subsidies" the federal government is giving Big Oil that Obama and the Democrats want to terminate? Here's Inhofe with the facts:
"Today Democrats are supporting legislation to raise taxes on oil and gas companies. Sure, we hear about ending subsidies for these companies that don't need them. But these aren't subsidies, they're not government handouts, or checks coming from the taxpayers.
"These are tax provisions such as expensing and depreciation provisions that are extended to nearly all companies operating in America, not just oil and gas companies. What this is all about is penalizing businesses to raise more money for the Obama tax and spend machine that has left America drowning in trillions of dollars of deficits and debts. It has nothing to do with Big Oil, nothing to do with deficit reduction."
For example, what about all those "subsidies" the federal government is giving Big Oil that Obama and the Democrats want to terminate? Here's Inhofe with the facts:
"Today Democrats are supporting legislation to raise taxes on oil and gas companies. Sure, we hear about ending subsidies for these companies that don't need them. But these aren't subsidies, they're not government handouts, or checks coming from the taxpayers.
"These are tax provisions such as expensing and depreciation provisions that are extended to nearly all companies operating in America, not just oil and gas companies. What this is all about is penalizing businesses to raise more money for the Obama tax and spend machine that has left America drowning in trillions of dollars of deficits and debts. It has nothing to do with Big Oil, nothing to do with deficit reduction."
VIDEO: Democrats Have No Plan to Bring Down Rising Gas Prices, But They Do Have a Plan to Make Them Go Up
Thursday May 12, 2011
It's not surprising that Democrats in Washington have no plan to bring down rising gas prices. But make no mistake, they do have a plan - to make them go higher.
That's right: the Democrats, along with President Obama, are advocating policies that will make you pay more at the pump. And that's exactly what they want. Consider President Obama's Energy Secretary, who said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That's about $7 to $8 a gallon.
And I've noted before the words of Alan Krueger of the Obama Treasury Department, who said, "The Administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels..."
Now with this kind of attitude-which believes that we can power our economy without more oil and gas produced here in America-it's easy to see why prices are going up. In fact, when President Obama took office, gas was $1.84 a gallon; now, it's nearly $4.00.
That's right: the Democrats, along with President Obama, are advocating policies that will make you pay more at the pump. And that's exactly what they want. Consider President Obama's Energy Secretary, who said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That's about $7 to $8 a gallon.
And I've noted before the words of Alan Krueger of the Obama Treasury Department, who said, "The Administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels..."
Now with this kind of attitude-which believes that we can power our economy without more oil and gas produced here in America-it's easy to see why prices are going up. In fact, when President Obama took office, gas was $1.84 a gallon; now, it's nearly $4.00.
E&E; News: Senate Republicans call on EPA to put controversial chemical assessments on hold
Wednesday May 11, 2011
In light of a recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that criticized how U.S. EPA evaluates chemical toxicity levels, two Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have called on the agency to suspend its assessments of all chemicals "where serious concerns have been raised."
In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson yesterday, Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) said the NAS review of the agency's formaldehyde risk assessment raised significant questions about the agency's methodologies.
"You have repeatedly stated that 'sound science' is the basis for all agency action," the senators wrote. "This is clearly not the case as the NAS report has shown."
The senators said several high-profile chemicals that the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is currently reviewing -- including the water contaminant hexavalent chromium and several fuel additives -- should be "temporarily stopped."
In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson yesterday, Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) said the NAS review of the agency's formaldehyde risk assessment raised significant questions about the agency's methodologies.
"You have repeatedly stated that 'sound science' is the basis for all agency action," the senators wrote. "This is clearly not the case as the NAS report has shown."
The senators said several high-profile chemicals that the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is currently reviewing -- including the water contaminant hexavalent chromium and several fuel additives -- should be "temporarily stopped."
Oklahoman: Members of Congress pursue different partisan paths on energy
Wednesday May 11, 2011
WASHINGTON - Facing political fallout from high gas prices, Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to raise taxes on big oil companies, while the Republican-led House debated a bill to speed up permits for offshore drilling.
The competing approaches framed the political debate in Washington, though neither bill has much chance of becoming law.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate will spend the next few days on legislation that would eliminate some tax deductions for the five largest oil companies, to raise $21 billion over 10 years for deficit reduction.
Reid, D-Nev., said Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips posted a combined $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year and don't need special tax breaks as incentives to produce oil and gas.
The House last week rejected an attempt to consider tax hikes for the biggest energy companies. And the Senate has voted twice in the past year against proposals to eliminate a broad range of oil and gas industry deductions.
The competing approaches framed the political debate in Washington, though neither bill has much chance of becoming law.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate will spend the next few days on legislation that would eliminate some tax deductions for the five largest oil companies, to raise $21 billion over 10 years for deficit reduction.
Reid, D-Nev., said Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips posted a combined $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year and don't need special tax breaks as incentives to produce oil and gas.
The House last week rejected an attempt to consider tax hikes for the biggest energy companies. And the Senate has voted twice in the past year against proposals to eliminate a broad range of oil and gas industry deductions.
Washington Examiner EDITORIAL: The EPA ignores jobs in its rush to regulate
Wednesday May 11, 2011
How important are jobs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Not very, according to recent testimony from EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. After Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., asked whether an EPA economic analysis of new coal ash regulations took into account potential job losses, Stanislaus replied: "Not directly, no." Gardner then followed up: "Is it standard procedure for an economic analysis to ignore the impact on jobs?" Stanislaus could only manage the following in return: "Well I can get back to you on the specific details of how we do economic analysis." It has been over three weeks since that exchange, yet Stanislaus has yet to answer Gardner's question satisfactorily.
The EPA should have been ready for this line of questioning. On Jan. 18, Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which directed the regulatory agencies to "protect pubic health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation." Is the EPA ignoring EO 13563?
The EPA should have been ready for this line of questioning. On Jan. 18, Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which directed the regulatory agencies to "protect pubic health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation." Is the EPA ignoring EO 13563?
