The House of Representatives this afternoon passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a vote of 255 to 172. Nineteen Democrats voted Yes. No Republicans voted No. This is a remarkable turnaround from the last Congress when on 26th June 2009 the House voted 219 to 212 to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Fred. Upton (R-Mich.), the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and thereby put a potentially huge indirect tax on American consumers and businesses. Coal, oil, and natural gas produce carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, when burned. Those three fuels provide over 80% of the energy used in America. Thus regulating carbon dioxide emissions essentially puts the EPA in charge of running the U. S. economy.
This is just the first step in stopping the Obama Administration’s attempt to raise energy prices . The House bill now heads to the Senate, where yesterday an attempt to add the Energy Tax Prevention Act (introduced in the Senate as S. 482 by Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma) as an amendment to another bill was defeated on a 50-50 vote. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s amendment would have required 60 votes to be attached to S. 493. Four Democrats joined 46 Republicans in voting for the amendment–Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Senator Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote No.
The strong House vote in favor of the Energy Tax Prevention Act should build new momentum to pass it in the Senate later this year. Of course, the White House has already issued a veto threat, which shows that President Obama is not interested in creating new jobs and restoring prosperity to America. Congress has now rejected cap-and-tax resoundingly, but the President still hopes to achieve through backdoor regulation his goals of skyrocketing electric rates and gasoline prices at the $10 a gallon European level.
The Senate is expected to vote on S. 520, a bill to repeal the 45 cents per gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC). The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.). Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) have also introduced S. 530, which would limit the VEETC to “advanced biofuels,” thus ending the subsidy for conventional corn ethanol. S. 530 would also scale back the 54 cents per gallon ethanol import tariff commensurately with the reduction in the tax credit.
The VEETC adds about $6 billion annually to the federal deficit. Unlike many other tax credits that reduce a household’s or a business’s tax liability, the VEETC is a “refundable” tax credit. That means the VEETC is literally paid for out of the U.S. general fund with checks written by the Treasury Department. The protective tariff, for its part, prevents lower-priced Brazilian ethanol from competing in U.S. markets. It increases the price of motor fuel at the pump.
Now, you would think supporting S. 520 and S. 530 would be a no-brainer for conservative lawmakers. But some are reportedly getting cold feet. To remind them of their duty to put the general interest of consumers and taxpayers ahead of the special interest of King Corn, I offer the following observations. [click to continue…]
At The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Rubin writes: “Only a Recession Can Deliver Obama’s Energy Targets.”
Unfortunately, we have heard this song many times before. In 1973, President Richard Nixon unveiled “Project Independence” in response to the OPEC oil embargo that was triggered by the Arab-Israeli war. President Jimmy Carter called the need to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil the moral equivalent of war in response to the supply disruptions that followed the Iranian Revolution. President George Bush Jr. referred to America’s dependence on foreign oil as nothing short of an addiction.
Over the past four decades, U.S. presidents have waxed eloquent about the need to reduce the country’s dependence on imported oil. Yet the U.S. economy still relies on imports for more than 50% of the 19 million barrels of oil burned every day. As a result, the U.S. remains as vulnerable to soaring oil prices as it was during the OPEC shocks in the 1970s.
[click to continue…]
The House today votes on H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, as amended. The bill would stop EPA from ‘legislating’ climate policy under the guise of implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA), a statute enacted in 1970, years before global warming became a public policy issue.
Debate will last for one hour. The Rules Committee is allowing Democrats to offer twelve hostile amendments. Three Republican amendments to strengthen the bill (by, for example, prohibiting federal agencies from regulating greenhouse gases via the Endangered Species Act) were ruled out of order. As my colleague Myron Ebell notes, Democrats allowed Republicans to offer only one amendment on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The November 2010 elections notwithstanding, the House GOP still suffers from an acute case of minority-itis.
The most mischievous of the Democratic amendments are: [click to continue…]
There is an ongoing ethanol spat between Senator Coburn (R-OK) and Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. The dispute is over conservative support for a bill that would repeal the ethanol tax credit, which has the effect of raising an industry specific tax. Americans for Tax Reform comes down hard on any effort to increase taxes. The Wall Street Journal added their two cents in favor of Senator Coburn:
Our readers know Mr. Norquist as the plucky author of the no-new-taxes pledge, which has helped to make tax increases a red line in Republican politics. In a letter to Mr. Coburn, a deputy of Mr. Norquist writes: “Repealing the ethanol credit is the right thing to do, but other taxes must be reduced in the same legislation by at least this much to prevent a net tax increase.”
[click to continue…]
Obama’s Energy Funny
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 6 April 2011
Government vs. Resourceship
John Bratland, MasterResource.org, 6 April 2011
China Sees Evil of Plastic Bags
Jonah Goldberg, USA Today, 6 April 2011
Obama-Backed Tesla Sues Its Critics
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 6 April 2011
Should We Feed Hungry People, Even If It’s Bad for the Environment?
Alex Berezow, Forbes, 6 April 2011
UN IPCC: Analyst or Advocate?
Lee Lane, RealClearScience.com, 5 April 2011
GE’s Immelt: Jobs Czar from Hell
Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 4 April 2011
New Energy Economy Drubbed in Debate
Vincent Carroll, Denver Post, 2 April 2011
Renewable Energy Standards Are Unconstitutional
Paul Chesser, Washington Times, 1 April 2011
![Post image for Congressional Update: Votes Likely for Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 [Updated 5:45 PM]](http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bill-law.jpg)
The House of Representatives is scheduled to debate and vote on final passage of H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. The Rules Committee is allowing the Democrats to offer twelve amendments to weaken or gut the bill. (It is worth recalling that on 26th June 2009, the Democrats allowed only one Republican amendment and couldn’t even provide an accurate copy of the bill, since 300 pages had been added in the middle of the night, but the new sections hadn’t been put in their proper places in the 1200 page bill that had been released four days before.) No Republican amendments to strengthen to the bill will be allowed. The rule can be found here. It is quite possible that the vote on final passage will be delayed until tomorrow.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled votes on amendments offered by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-MT), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) amendments to S. 493, a re-authorization bill for small business subsidies, for some time after 4 PM today. The McConnell amendment is the Senate version of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482. The other amendments are attempts to give some ground without blocking EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions permanently (that is, until Congress authorizes such regulations). This shows how far the debate has shifted. It appears that the three straddling amendments may each get fifteen to thirty votes. It appears that the McConnell amendment (#183) will get 51 or perhaps even 52 votes, but will not be adopted because it is not a germane amendment and therefore requires 60 votes to survive a point of order. All 47 Republicans are expected to vote for it plus Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Maybe one more Democrat, such as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could of course still change his mind.
[click to continue…]
I’ve been an outspoken opponent of the EPA’s war on Appalachian coal production. See here, here, here, and here.
In particular, I’ve sought to shine a spotlight on the EPA’s outrageous crackdown on saline effluent from surface coal mines. The EPA argues that this salty discharge is an illegal violation of the Clean Water Act, because it harms an order of short-lived insects known as the mayfly. The science suggests that the total number of insect species doesn’t decrease downstream of surface mines, as hardier insects readily assume the niche vacated by the mayfly. Nonetheless, the EPA alleges that the loss of the mayfly alone is sufficient to violate the Clean Water Act’s narrative (qualitative) water quality standards. The mayfly is not an endangered species.
A year ago, the EPA issued guidance for quantitative salinity water quality standards, effective immediately. According to one mining engineer, they set the bar so low that you couldn’t wash a parking lot without violating the Clean Water Act. Remember, the President had campaigned on a promise to “bankrupt” coal; this was the fruition of that promise. Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson conceded that new surface coal mine permits in Appalachia were unlikely under the terms of the April guidance.
[click to continue…]
I’m contributing to a lawsuit, filed by the American Tradition Institute, against Colorado, alleging that the State’s green energy production quota, known as a Renewable Electricity Standard, is an unlawful violation of the Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Read all about it here.
The House of Representatives is scheduled to debate and pass H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, on Wednesday. The Senate could also vote this week on an amendment offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that is identical to the Senate version of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482. H. R. 910 was introduced by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton. S. 482 was introduced by Senator James M. Inhofe, Ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Here are talking points I prepared for Freedom Action on the legislation.
- This is a debate about who has authority to decide our nation’s regulatory policies—Congress or autonomous executive agencies. The first sentence of the first article of the Constitution should be determinative.
- H. R. 910 / S. 482 is not about what Members think about climate science. It is about whether they think that using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is the proper policy.
- Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and in fact explicitly rejected an attempt in the debate over the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to add such language to the Act. H. R. 910 / S. 482 pre-empts regulation until Congress authorizes it.
- Cap-and-trade legislation failed in the 111th Congress, yet the Environmental Protection Agency is now trying to achieve the same result through a regulatory end-run around Congress.
- H. R. 910 / S. 482 does not in any way restrict or change the Clean Air Act’s regulation of air pollution. It instead restores the Act to achieve Congress’s original intent.
- The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding. The Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.
- Regulating greenhouse gas emissions is an indirect tax on energy. By raising energy prices, it will make consumers poorer and manufacturing and transportation more expensive, thereby destroying jobs; and it will likely result in perpetual economic stagnation. A 2010 study published by Harvard University’s Belfer Center concluded that meeting President Obama’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would require a gasoline price of $7-9 a gallon. President Obama said in 2008 that under his plan, “…electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
- EPA claims that it will implement its regulations in a reasonable way that minimizes costs. The Tailoring Rule (which overturns explicit language in the Clean Air Act) is offered as evidence of EPA’s reasonableness. However, EPA cannot determine the outcome of the many lawsuits that have been filed by environmental pressure groups to require faster and deeper emissions reductions.
- The Clean Air Act is a complicated set of interlocking regulatory mechanisms. The logical outcome is that the courts will require EPA to set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The entire world will then be out of attainment for carbon dioxide levels. A NAAQS gives EPA almost unlimited power to deny permits for new and operating facilities in non-attainment areas.
- H. R. 910 / S. 482 pre-empts the major vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Air Act. However, there are others: Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, common law nuisance lawsuits, etc. Congress should block these other routes to unauthorized regulation through amendments to H. R. 910 or through future legislation.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org