In The News
BAUCUS AMENDMENT: NO PROTECTION FOR FARMERS, CONSUMERS, SMALL BUSINESSES
Wednesday March 23, 2011
Bottom line: A vote for the Baucus amendment is a vote for EPA?s job-destroying cap-and-trade agenda. Small businesses, farmers, and consumers would still have to pay higher prices for gasoline, diesel, and fertilizer caused by EPA?s regulations.
Sen. Baucus (D-Mont.) on EPA's cap-and-trade agenda: "I do not want the EPA writing those regulations. I think it's too much power in the hands of one single agency, but rather climate change should be a matter that's essentially left to the Congress." (Link to Video)
Sen. Baucus (D-Mont.) on EPA's cap-and-trade agenda: "I do not want the EPA writing those regulations. I think it's too much power in the hands of one single agency, but rather climate change should be a matter that's essentially left to the Congress." (Link to Video)
THE ROCKEFELLER AMENDMENT DELAYS JOBS AND ECONOMIC
Wednesday March 23, 2011
Sen. Rockefeller's amendment, however, sends a different message. His proposed two-year
delay of EPA's cap-and-trade agenda would:
- Delay new jobs;
- Delay new construction;
- Delay economic recovery; and
- Allow EPA bureaucrats to mandate national energy and climate change policy
A vote for the Rockefeller amendment is a vote for political cover. A two-year delay
leaves intact EPA's cap-and-trade architecture, established on January 2. It will do
nothing to expedite or erase burdensome permitting rules for new construction required
EPA's cap-and-trade agenda.
A 2-year delay maintains EPA's cap-and-trade agenda, which will raise energy prices and
destroy jobs. That agenda should be repealed, not delayed.
delay of EPA's cap-and-trade agenda would:
- Delay new jobs;
- Delay new construction;
- Delay economic recovery; and
- Allow EPA bureaucrats to mandate national energy and climate change policy
A vote for the Rockefeller amendment is a vote for political cover. A two-year delay
leaves intact EPA's cap-and-trade architecture, established on January 2. It will do
nothing to expedite or erase burdensome permitting rules for new construction required
EPA's cap-and-trade agenda.
A 2-year delay maintains EPA's cap-and-trade agenda, which will raise energy prices and
destroy jobs. That agenda should be repealed, not delayed.
Tulsa World: Legislators tout nuclear plant safety amid crisis
Monday March 21, 2011
WASHINGTON - Key members of Oklahoma's congressional delegation stand by their support of nuclear power as the horrific disaster continues to unfold in Japan.
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. John Sullivan expressed confidence concerning the safety record of the nation's existing nuclear plants, including those that surround Oklahoma in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas.
"I don't see any danger,'' Inhofe said.
Perhaps more on point, the two Republicans, who serve on different congressional committees with oversight responsibility of nuclear power, warned against "knee-jerk'' reactions in the U.S. to the Japanese tragedy that could derail long-awaited progress on new plants in this country.
Inhofe said any conclusions drawn from the events in Japan would be premature, as he used a recent Senate hearing to discuss the evaluations made on U.S. plants to ensure they can withstand a "once-in-10,000-year event.''
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. John Sullivan expressed confidence concerning the safety record of the nation's existing nuclear plants, including those that surround Oklahoma in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas.
"I don't see any danger,'' Inhofe said.
Perhaps more on point, the two Republicans, who serve on different congressional committees with oversight responsibility of nuclear power, warned against "knee-jerk'' reactions in the U.S. to the Japanese tragedy that could derail long-awaited progress on new plants in this country.
Inhofe said any conclusions drawn from the events in Japan would be premature, as he used a recent Senate hearing to discuss the evaluations made on U.S. plants to ensure they can withstand a "once-in-10,000-year event.''
Tulsa World: EPA schedules Tulsa hearing on haze regulations
Friday March 18, 2011
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe won a quick concession Friday from a federal agency to hold a Tulsa hearing on a contentious regional haze plan for Oklahoma.
In an e-mail to the Oklahoma Republican's office, an official with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated a second hearing is being scheduled for Tulsa in addition to a previously announced April 13 hearing in Oklahoma City.
Details on the Tulsa hearing are expected to be announced later.
Inhofe, who has criticized EPA for denying Oklahoma's regional haze plan, asked for the Tulsa hearing on Thursday in a letter to Al Armendariz, EPA's regional administrator in Dallas.
"I want to thank EPA, in particular Region 6 Administrator Dr. Armendariz, for agreeing to my request to hold a hearing in Tulsa,'' Inhofe said Friday.
In an e-mail to the Oklahoma Republican's office, an official with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated a second hearing is being scheduled for Tulsa in addition to a previously announced April 13 hearing in Oklahoma City.
Details on the Tulsa hearing are expected to be announced later.
Inhofe, who has criticized EPA for denying Oklahoma's regional haze plan, asked for the Tulsa hearing on Thursday in a letter to Al Armendariz, EPA's regional administrator in Dallas.
"I want to thank EPA, in particular Region 6 Administrator Dr. Armendariz, for agreeing to my request to hold a hearing in Tulsa,'' Inhofe said Friday.
Tulsa World: Inhofe wants EPA haze pollution hearing held in Tulsa
Thursday March 17, 2011
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, a critic of a federal agency's action on regional haze pollution, asked Thursday for a hearing on the contentious matter to be held in Tulsa.
"This is a matter which has received the attention of leaders throughout the state, and I believe an additional public hearing in Tulsa is necessary," the Oklahoma Republican said in a letter to Al Armendariz, regional administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Previously, EPA announced an April 13 hearing in Oklahoma City.
In his letter, Inhofe wrote of his concern about EPA's denial of Oklahoma's proposal on regional haze, adding the agency's action could impose costs of nearly $2 billion on Oklahoma's utilities.
He accused the EPA of assuming the state's role under the Clean Air Act, warning its approach would result in higher utility rates for Oklahoma consumers and less flexibility for utilities.
Announced earlier month, EPA's proposal would require three of Oklahoma's oldest coal-fired power plants to switch to cleaner-burning natural gas or install technology to reduce regional haze pollution.
"This is a matter which has received the attention of leaders throughout the state, and I believe an additional public hearing in Tulsa is necessary," the Oklahoma Republican said in a letter to Al Armendariz, regional administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Previously, EPA announced an April 13 hearing in Oklahoma City.
In his letter, Inhofe wrote of his concern about EPA's denial of Oklahoma's proposal on regional haze, adding the agency's action could impose costs of nearly $2 billion on Oklahoma's utilities.
He accused the EPA of assuming the state's role under the Clean Air Act, warning its approach would result in higher utility rates for Oklahoma consumers and less flexibility for utilities.
Announced earlier month, EPA's proposal would require three of Oklahoma's oldest coal-fired power plants to switch to cleaner-burning natural gas or install technology to reduce regional haze pollution.
E&E; News: Senate Dems push back vote on EPA amendments again
Thursday March 17, 2011
Efforts to pre-empt U.S. EPA's authorities to regulate greenhouse gas emissions were always expected to be an easier sell in the Republican-controlled House than in the Democratic Senate, but they are causing plenty of havoc in the upper chamber too.
Senate Democratic leaders have been delaying a vote since Tuesday on a measure that would pre-empt EPA's climate change rules, but they have now acknowledged that it is unlikely to receive a vote until after next week's recess.
"We don't have any comment about why this is being moved back," said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
But Republicans said the amendment -- offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- was within striking distance of the 60 votes needed to pass controversial legislation in the Senate and that had spooked the Democratic leadership.
Senate Democratic leaders have been delaying a vote since Tuesday on a measure that would pre-empt EPA's climate change rules, but they have now acknowledged that it is unlikely to receive a vote until after next week's recess.
"We don't have any comment about why this is being moved back," said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
But Republicans said the amendment -- offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- was within striking distance of the 60 votes needed to pass controversial legislation in the Senate and that had spooked the Democratic leadership.
Tulsa World: Vote on EPAs role in greenhouse gas regulation delayed
Thursday March 17, 2011
WASHINGTON -- A vote on a controversial proposal by U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe to block a federal agency from regulating greenhouse gases was put off Thursday until after next week's recess.
"I am relieved,'' the Oklahoma Republican said, promising to use the next nine days effectively.
"Time is not their friend.''
Noting the expectation set by the Democratic leadership on the proposal, Inhofe said the vote was delayed because opponents were not sure of its outcome.
"If they knew they had the votes, they would have brought it up,'' he said.
"I am relieved,'' the Oklahoma Republican said, promising to use the next nine days effectively.
"Time is not their friend.''
Noting the expectation set by the Democratic leadership on the proposal, Inhofe said the vote was delayed because opponents were not sure of its outcome.
"If they knew they had the votes, they would have brought it up,'' he said.
POLITICO Pro: Senate climate vote not ready for prime time
Thursday March 17, 2011
A Senate showdown over the Obama administration's climate change agenda appears like it will have to wait for another day.
After maneuvering behind closed doors for a second consecutive day Wednesday, Democratic and Republican leaders conceded they'll probably punt on floor debate on an amendment to kill the EPA's pending greenhouse gas rules, as well as a less aggressive alternative, until after next week's recess.
Both sides of the climate policy debate have said all week that they want the Senate to vote on the anti-EPA amendment sponsored by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Jim Inhofe, Congress' most outspoken skeptic on global warming science.
But with whip counts shifting by the hour and several alternative proposals under consideration, neither party's leaders were willing to pull the trigger on a vote.
After maneuvering behind closed doors for a second consecutive day Wednesday, Democratic and Republican leaders conceded they'll probably punt on floor debate on an amendment to kill the EPA's pending greenhouse gas rules, as well as a less aggressive alternative, until after next week's recess.
Both sides of the climate policy debate have said all week that they want the Senate to vote on the anti-EPA amendment sponsored by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Jim Inhofe, Congress' most outspoken skeptic on global warming science.
But with whip counts shifting by the hour and several alternative proposals under consideration, neither party's leaders were willing to pull the trigger on a vote.
E&E; News: Senate Dems still mulling a way forward on EPA amendments
Wednesday March 16, 2011
The first Senate test votes on handcuffing U.S. EPA are expected later tonight, when the chamber is likely to take up two competing measures to halt the agency's climate change programs as amendments to an unrelated bill.
A bill to permanently strip EPA of its greenhouse gas authorities (S. 482), sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), is expected to receive a vote this evening. Democratic leaders are still weighing whether also to offer an alternative from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would delay EPA's rules for two years.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had suggested yesterday that he might bring the Inhofe language -- offered as an amendment by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- to the Senate floor, but the vote was not scheduled as of publication time.
Inhofe spokesman Matt Dempsey said the switch came when Democrats realized the amendment had a good chance of being adopted. "Democrats were pretty confident, but what we understood happened was that they didn't have the votes," he said.
A bill to permanently strip EPA of its greenhouse gas authorities (S. 482), sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), is expected to receive a vote this evening. Democratic leaders are still weighing whether also to offer an alternative from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would delay EPA's rules for two years.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had suggested yesterday that he might bring the Inhofe language -- offered as an amendment by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- to the Senate floor, but the vote was not scheduled as of publication time.
Inhofe spokesman Matt Dempsey said the switch came when Democrats realized the amendment had a good chance of being adopted. "Democrats were pretty confident, but what we understood happened was that they didn't have the votes," he said.
EPW POLICY BEAT: DO AWAY WITH A TWO-YEAR DELAY
Wednesday March 16, 2011
After Obamacare took effect, opponents realized that delaying Obamacare was not an option. The same principle applies to the Rockefeller bill: EPA's cap-and-trade agenda under the Clean Air Act is bad policy, which will raise energy prices and destroy jobs. It should be repealed, not delayed.
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.
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.
