In The News
Upton-Inhofe One Pager on The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Wednesday February 2, 2011
What it does: Repeals EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and:
1) Puts Congress Back in Charge
- The Upton-Inhofe bill stops EPA bureaucrats from making policy decisions that should be made by Congress.
- Congress never authorized greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law is wrong, and now it’s time for Congress to restate what the law is.
1) Puts Congress Back in Charge
- The Upton-Inhofe bill stops EPA bureaucrats from making policy decisions that should be made by Congress.
- Congress never authorized greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law is wrong, and now it’s time for Congress to restate what the law is.
Section by Section Summary of The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Wednesday February 2, 2011
Section 1: Short Title
Section 1 provides the short title for the legislation, the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011."
Section 2: No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Section 2 amends the General Provisions of the Clean Air Act with a new Section 330. Section 330(a) expressly defines the greenhouse gases that are to be excluded from regulation (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane). Section 330(b)(1) makes clear that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") may not promulgate regulations or take action with respect to greenhouse gases due to concerns regarding possible climate change under the Act. The term "air pollutant" is clarified to not include greenhouse gases for the purposes of addressing climate change.
Section 1 provides the short title for the legislation, the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011."
Section 2: No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Section 2 amends the General Provisions of the Clean Air Act with a new Section 330. Section 330(a) expressly defines the greenhouse gases that are to be excluded from regulation (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane). Section 330(b)(1) makes clear that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") may not promulgate regulations or take action with respect to greenhouse gases due to concerns regarding possible climate change under the Act. The term "air pollutant" is clarified to not include greenhouse gases for the purposes of addressing climate change.
Myth vs. Fact on The The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Wednesday February 2, 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.
Oklahoman: Norman city manager to miss Washington committee meeting
Wednesday February 2, 2011
NORMAN - Severe weather forced cancellation of City Manager Steve Lewis' flight to Washington, D.C. Tuesday. Lewis was scheduled to talk to a U.S. Senate committee about chromium-6 in Norman's drinking water today.
Lewis was supposed to be on a panel that will address the chromium-6 issue before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The panel will include representatives for water supplies in Virginia and Wisconsin, a public health professor from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.
Lewis will be allowed to submit comments to the committee, although he can't be there in person, said Carol Coles, assistant to the city manager.
Lewis was supposed to be on a panel that will address the chromium-6 issue before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The panel will include representatives for water supplies in Virginia and Wisconsin, a public health professor from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.
Lewis will be allowed to submit comments to the committee, although he can't be there in person, said Carol Coles, assistant to the city manager.
EPA HURTING JOBS IN THE HEARTLAND
Tuesday February 1, 2011
President Obama's executive order on regulatory reform calls for an examination of existing regulations. But what about those in the pipeline? More specifically, what about the mass of EPA rules hovering over coal-fired power plants throughout the Midwest? What about their affect on people's jobs and livelihoods? On this, the President says nothing.
Such inattention will be costly-and this is not mere opinion but now conventional wisdom. Whether it's Credit Suisse, FBR Capital Markets, the Brattle Group, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or ICF Consulting-all conclude that EPA's proposed and soon-to-be proposed regulations could force 30 to 75 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity to shut down, starting in 2013.
Put another way, that's the potential elimination of more than 20 percent of America's coal fleet, along with thousands of jobs throughout the middle of the country. And this is not counting potential EPA rules to reduce carbon emissions.
Such inattention will be costly-and this is not mere opinion but now conventional wisdom. Whether it's Credit Suisse, FBR Capital Markets, the Brattle Group, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or ICF Consulting-all conclude that EPA's proposed and soon-to-be proposed regulations could force 30 to 75 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity to shut down, starting in 2013.
Put another way, that's the potential elimination of more than 20 percent of America's coal fleet, along with thousands of jobs throughout the middle of the country. And this is not counting potential EPA rules to reduce carbon emissions.
WSJ: New Fight Breaks Out on Nuclear Dump Site
Monday January 31, 2011
WASHINGTON-Republican lawmakers are trying to revive plans for a nuclear-waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, setting up a showdown with the Obama administration over its efforts to abandon the site last year.
In a separate effort, also aimed at re-starting the Yucca Mountain project, state officials in South Carolina and Washington are preparing to go to court in March to challenge the administration's actions.
The moves highlight an energy-policy dilemma for the Obama administration. President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address listed nuclear power among the "clean energy" technologies the government should promote. But the proposal to develop a permanent nuclear-waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas, faces strong opposition from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
The nuclear-power industry, meanwhile, supports the Yucca project. Radioactive waste is currently stored at dozens of locations around the country for lack of a permanent repository.
Both South Carolina and Washington are home to large collections of Cold War-era nuclear waste, and members of Congress representing these radioactive sites, including Rep. Doc Hastings (R., Wash.) are leading the effort to revive the Yucca Mountain facility. They argue that a 1982 law prohibits the administration from abandoning the Yucca Mountain project, which Congress designated as the nation's first nuclear-waste repository.
In a separate effort, also aimed at re-starting the Yucca Mountain project, state officials in South Carolina and Washington are preparing to go to court in March to challenge the administration's actions.
The moves highlight an energy-policy dilemma for the Obama administration. President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address listed nuclear power among the "clean energy" technologies the government should promote. But the proposal to develop a permanent nuclear-waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas, faces strong opposition from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
The nuclear-power industry, meanwhile, supports the Yucca project. Radioactive waste is currently stored at dozens of locations around the country for lack of a permanent repository.
Both South Carolina and Washington are home to large collections of Cold War-era nuclear waste, and members of Congress representing these radioactive sites, including Rep. Doc Hastings (R., Wash.) are leading the effort to revive the Yucca Mountain facility. They argue that a 1982 law prohibits the administration from abandoning the Yucca Mountain project, which Congress designated as the nation's first nuclear-waste repository.
Tulsa World: Inhofe's new allies on ethanol issue surprising
Monday January 31, 2011
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe's efforts on ethanol have provided unlikely allies for the Oklahoma Republican perhaps best known to such groups for calling man-made global warming a hoax.
"Unholy alliance" is how Inhofe described the development in an interview.
In the past, some environmental groups now coming down on the side against ethanol have not been shy when it came to taking on Inhofe, especially on the global-warming issue.
He even suggested that some may be too embarrassed to "come out of the closet" and announce their support of his efforts publicly.
"Unholy alliance" is how Inhofe described the development in an interview.
In the past, some environmental groups now coming down on the side against ethanol have not been shy when it came to taking on Inhofe, especially on the global-warming issue.
He even suggested that some may be too embarrassed to "come out of the closet" and announce their support of his efforts publicly.
WSJ Strassel: Cap and Trade Returns From the Grave
Friday January 28, 2011
Cap and trade is dead. Long live cap and trade.
The president presented his new, conciliatory face to the nation this week, and his State of the Union was as notable for what it didn't include as what it did. He uttered not one word about global warming, a comprehensive climate bill, or his regulatory attempts to reduce carbon. Combined with his decision to give the axe to controversial climate czar Carol Browner, political analysts took all this as further proof that Barack Obama was moving to the middle, making nice with Republicans.
Snort. Guffaw. Chortle.
Listen carefully to Mr. Obama's speech and you realize he spent plenty of it on carbon controls. He just used a different vocabulary. If the president can't get carbon restrictions via cap and trade, he'll get them instead with his new proposal for a "clean energy" standard. Clean energy, after all, sounds better to the public ear, and he might just be able to lure, or snooker, some Republicans into going along.
The president presented his new, conciliatory face to the nation this week, and his State of the Union was as notable for what it didn't include as what it did. He uttered not one word about global warming, a comprehensive climate bill, or his regulatory attempts to reduce carbon. Combined with his decision to give the axe to controversial climate czar Carol Browner, political analysts took all this as further proof that Barack Obama was moving to the middle, making nice with Republicans.
Snort. Guffaw. Chortle.
Listen carefully to Mr. Obama's speech and you realize he spent plenty of it on carbon controls. He just used a different vocabulary. If the president can't get carbon restrictions via cap and trade, he'll get them instead with his new proposal for a "clean energy" standard. Clean energy, after all, sounds better to the public ear, and he might just be able to lure, or snooker, some Republicans into going along.
E&E; News: Inhofe says trimming highway bill will help appease GOP
Thursday January 27, 2011
Amid calls for greater investment in infrastructure and a long-term renewal of the surface transportation reauthorization, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the only way to sell a highway bill to his Republican colleagues would be to pare it back and cut waste.
Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that anything that is not related to transportation needs to be cut from the bill. He said pet projects like Capitol dome repairs and recreational bike paths make up about 3 percent of the current bill -- an unacceptable number considering that it draws from the cash-strapped Highway Trust Fund.
Inhofe suggested at a full committee hearing on transportation investment that the legislation be taken back "to the way it was originally where we had the highway trust fund and people who paid to use our highways." He added, "Confine it to maintenance, construction, bridges, highways, then that would be sellable to the conservative members of the community. It's a hard thing to do, and I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this."
Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that anything that is not related to transportation needs to be cut from the bill. He said pet projects like Capitol dome repairs and recreational bike paths make up about 3 percent of the current bill -- an unacceptable number considering that it draws from the cash-strapped Highway Trust Fund.
Inhofe suggested at a full committee hearing on transportation investment that the legislation be taken back "to the way it was originally where we had the highway trust fund and people who paid to use our highways." He added, "Confine it to maintenance, construction, bridges, highways, then that would be sellable to the conservative members of the community. It's a hard thing to do, and I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this."
Inhofe Previews Obama State of the Union: President Should Address the Flood of Regulations Coming From EPA - They Threaten Jobs and Job Creation
Tuesday January 25, 2011
Hello, I am Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma.
Tonight, the President will be delivering his State of the Union Address, and he will speak about bringing the nation together. I applaud him for this effort. This is an important message, especially in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson. We continue to pray for the victims, and for the full and speedy recovery of Gabby Giffords.
The President will also focus on jobs, and various approaches to get Americans back to work. I hope the President addresses the flood of regulations coming from EPA - put simply, they threaten jobs and jobs creation.
The President could find common ground with Republicans if he pledges to bring those rules back into balance. Right now, they pose a dangerous threat to the competitiveness of manufacturers and small businesses, particularly in America's Heartland.
In just two years, the Obama Administration has put every institution that has made America great under attack. Whether it's the military, health care, ag, or financial sector, each thinks they are the only ones feeling the brunt of the Obama Administration's liberal agenda. In fact, it's all of them.
I will say here very clearly: if the President doesn't heed calls for change in his regulatory policies, then Congress will have to change them.
We will start with EPA's backdoor attempt to impose cap-and-trade taxes on consumers and employers. The President failed to pass this agenda in Congress-too many members understood its destructive costs and negligible benefits. Now he's using the EPA and the Clean Air Act to make it happen. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) once referred to EPA's global warming agenda as "a glorious mess." He was right.
EPA regulation could cover 260,000 office buildings, 150,000 warehouses, 92,000 health-care facilities, 71,000 hotels and motels, 51,000 food-service facilities, 37,000 churches, and 17,000 farms. And what is the result? By EPA's estimates, global mean temperature would drop about one-hundredth of a degree by 2100.
The cost-benefit analysis here is fairly straightforward. And so is the answer to this glorious mess: repeal it.
Tonight, the President will be delivering his State of the Union Address, and he will speak about bringing the nation together. I applaud him for this effort. This is an important message, especially in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson. We continue to pray for the victims, and for the full and speedy recovery of Gabby Giffords.
The President will also focus on jobs, and various approaches to get Americans back to work. I hope the President addresses the flood of regulations coming from EPA - put simply, they threaten jobs and jobs creation.
The President could find common ground with Republicans if he pledges to bring those rules back into balance. Right now, they pose a dangerous threat to the competitiveness of manufacturers and small businesses, particularly in America's Heartland.
In just two years, the Obama Administration has put every institution that has made America great under attack. Whether it's the military, health care, ag, or financial sector, each thinks they are the only ones feeling the brunt of the Obama Administration's liberal agenda. In fact, it's all of them.
I will say here very clearly: if the President doesn't heed calls for change in his regulatory policies, then Congress will have to change them.
We will start with EPA's backdoor attempt to impose cap-and-trade taxes on consumers and employers. The President failed to pass this agenda in Congress-too many members understood its destructive costs and negligible benefits. Now he's using the EPA and the Clean Air Act to make it happen. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) once referred to EPA's global warming agenda as "a glorious mess." He was right.
EPA regulation could cover 260,000 office buildings, 150,000 warehouses, 92,000 health-care facilities, 71,000 hotels and motels, 51,000 food-service facilities, 37,000 churches, and 17,000 farms. And what is the result? By EPA's estimates, global mean temperature would drop about one-hundredth of a degree by 2100.
The cost-benefit analysis here is fairly straightforward. And so is the answer to this glorious mess: repeal it.
