Content deleted Content added
→Context: add |
m link [hH]ydrofluorocarbon |
||
(32 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Proposed US legislation}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = Energy Tax Prevention Act
| fullname = Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
| acts amended = [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]]
| leghisturl = https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/910
| introducedin = House
| introducedby = [[
| introduceddate = March 3, 2011
| committees = [[United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce|Energy and Commerce]]
Line 12 ⟶ 13:
| passedvote1 = [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll249.xml 255-172]
| SCOTUS cases = ''[[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency]]''
| enacted by =
| effective date =
| signedpresident =
| unsignedpresident =
| vetoedpresident =
}}
'''Energy Tax Prevention Act''', also known as '''H.R. 910''', was a 2011 bill in the [[United States House of Representatives]] to prohibit the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) from regulating [[greenhouse gas]]es to
The House vote on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 was one of five key votes on climate in the House, and one of ten in Congress, from the period 2003 through 2011, according to the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] and the [[League of Conservation Voters]].<ref>{{cite web |title=A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy (2012) |date=May 2012 |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/a-climate-of-corporate-control-report.pdf
|publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] |accessdate=2017-01-25 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Appendix D: Summary of Key Climate Related Votes in Congress |publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] |accessdate=2017-01-25 |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/corporate-climate-appendix-d.pdf}}</ref>
==Proposed changes==▼
If passed, this bill would have amended several core components of the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] (CAA). Title III of the CAA would have been amended to have the term “greenhouse gas” include: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change.<ref name="The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: Full Text §2(b)(3).">{{cite web|author=Committee on Environment and Public Works |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-910 |title=Text of H.R. 910 (112th): Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (Referred to Senate Committee version) |website=GovTrack.us |date= |accessdate=2017-01-23}}</ref>▼
The Act said that the Administrator of the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] may take no action involving the consideration of [[greenhouse gas]]es as pollutants or contributing factors to [[climate change]]. It also states that, “[nothing] shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to part C of title I …or considered an air pollutant for purposes of title V...”<ref name="The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: Full Text §2(b)(3)."/> This means that, as greenhouse gases would no longer be considered to degrade the quality of air, sources would not be required to ascertain a permit to emit. These permits require sources of pollution to complete a registration process in order to lawfully be able to emit anything considered to be a pollutant. Going along with this, it would no longer be required to report emissions of greenhouse gases."<ref name="The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: Full Text §2(b)(3)." /> The Act listed a number of prior agency actions that would have been "...repealed and shall have no legal effect."<ref name="The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: Full Text §2(b)(3)." /> Essentially this Act would have reversed the decision rendered by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in ''[[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency]]'', which gave the EPA the power to regulate carbon dioxide.▼
==Context==
In 2003, the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) determined that the EPA lacked authority under the [[Clean Air Act]] (CAA) to regulate [[carbon dioxide]] and other [[greenhouse gas]]es to address [[climate change]].<ref>{{cite press release |title=EPA Denies Petition to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles |publisher=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] |url=http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/fb36d84bf0a1390c8525701c005e4918/694c8f3b7c16ff6085256d900065fdad |accessdate=2010-08-12 |date=2003-08-23 }}</ref> Twelve US states as well as US territories, major cities, environmental groups, and others petitioned in federal court to overrule the EPA decision. On April 2, 2007 the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in ''[[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency]]'' said [[Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act|the CAA authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases]] as air pollutants. In December, 2009 the EPA issued its "Endangerment Finding," which found that greenhouse gases threaten health and welfare.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a |title=Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act |accessdate=January 25, 2017 |date=December 7, 2009 |publisher=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] }}</ref> In January, 2011 the EPA implemented permitting for sources of greenhouse gases.▼
{{see also|Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act}}
On February 9, 2011 in a hearing before the [[United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce]] Republican Congressmen said the science underpinning the EPA's regulatory effort was a hoax, questioned the EPA's interpretation of ''Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency'', and said the Obama administration would cost American jobs. EPA Administrator [[Lisa P. Jackson]] said cleaning up the environment would improve health and create jobs.<ref>{{cite news |last=Broder |first=John M. |title=House Republicans Take E.P.A. Chief to Task |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 10, 2011 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/science/earth/10emissions.html |accessdate=January 22, 2017 |page=16}}</ref>▼
▲In 2003, the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) determined that the EPA lacked authority under the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] (CAA) to regulate [[carbon dioxide]] and other [[greenhouse gas]]es to address [[climate change]].<ref>{{cite press release |title=EPA Denies Petition to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles |publisher=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] |url=http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/fb36d84bf0a1390c8525701c005e4918/694c8f3b7c16ff6085256d900065fdad |accessdate=2010-08-12 |date=2003-08-23 }}</ref> Twelve US states as well as US territories, major cities, environmental groups, and others petitioned in federal court to overrule the EPA decision. On April 2, 2007, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in ''[[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency]]'' said
▲On February 9, 2011, in a hearing before the [[United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce]] Republican Congressmen said the science underpinning the EPA's regulatory effort was a hoax, questioned the EPA's interpretation of ''Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency'', and said the Obama administration would cost American jobs. EPA Administrator [[Lisa P. Jackson]] said cleaning up the environment would improve health and create jobs.<ref>{{cite news |last=Broder |first=John M. |title=House Republicans Take E.P.A. Chief to Task |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 10, 2011 |url=
On March 30, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that, “estimates that enacting this legislation would save $57 million in 2012 and about $250 million over the 2012-2016 period, assuming that appropriations in those years were reduced accordingly.”<ref name="Congressional Budget Office, Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 Cost Estimate. March 30, 2011.">[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billreport.xpd?bill=h112-910&type=cbo] {{dead link|date=January 2017}}</ref> This savings is calculated by taking into consideration the amount of money spent by the EPA in its effort to regulate GHG emissions. However, “Republicans on the committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee argued that trying to limit carbon emissions would cost US businesses $300-400 billion/year and discourage hiring of new employees.”<ref name="Nick Snow, Discussion of draft GHG bill turns into CAA debate, Oil and Gas Journal. February 21, 2011.">{{cite web|url=http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display.articles.oil-gas-journal.general-interest-2.government.20100.february-2011.discussion-of_draft.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html|title=Discussion of draft GHG bill turns into CAA debate|website=Ogj.com|accessdate=2017-01-23}}</ref>▼
▲==Proposed changes==
In response to this, [[Lisa P. Jackson]], the acting Administrator for the EPA, argued that the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act has stimulated the US environmental technologies industry has led to an increase in revenue. "In 2008, that industry generated nearly $300 billion in revenue and $44 billion in exports.”<ref name="Nick Snow, Discussion of draft GHG bill turns into CAA debate, Oil and Gas Journal. February 21, 2011."/> She continued on saying, “Yesterday, the University of Massachusetts and Ceres released an analysis finding that two of the updated CAA standards EPA is preparing to establish … will create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years."<ref name="Nick Snow, Discussion of draft GHG bill turns into CAA debate, Oil and Gas Journal. February 21, 2011."/> She also brought attention to the effects that the CAA has on society by stating, "in 2010 alone, EPA's implementation of the CAA saved more than 160,000 US lives, avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced US productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept US children healthy and in school."<ref name="Nick Snow, Discussion of draft GHG bill turns into CAA debate, Oil and Gas Journal. February 21, 2011."/> Supplementing this, on March 1, 2011, the EPA released a report that estimated, “…the direct benefits from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are estimated to reach almost $2 trillion for the year 2020, a figure that dwarfs the direct costs of implementation ($65 billion).”<ref name="EPA, Second Prospective Report 1990-2020. March 1, 2011.">{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2-2.html |title=Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution | US EPA |website=Epa.gov |date= |accessdate=2017-01-23}}</ref> The saving reported here are mainly due to the estimated reduction of early deaths caused by pollution. These findings are based upon already observed trends.▼
▲If passed, this bill would have amended several core components of the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] (CAA). Title III of the CAA would have been amended to have the term “greenhouse gas” include: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, [[sulfur hexafluoride]],
▲The Act said that the Administrator of the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] may take no action involving the consideration of [[greenhouse gas]]es as pollutants or contributing factors to [[climate change]]. It also
==Legislative history==
The House bill was sponsored by Representatives [[Fred Upton]]
On March 8, 2011, in a hearing before the [[United States House Energy Subcommittee on Energy|Subcommittee on Energy]] of the [[United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce|House Committee on Energy and Commerce]], Democratic Congressmen presented five eminent academic climatologists who defended the [[scientific opinion on climate change|scientific consensus]] that [[global warming]] is largely the result of [[Human impact on the environment|human activities]] like the burning of [[fossil fuel]]s. Republican Congressmen presented two witnesses who said that the reasons for global warming were unclear.<ref>{{cite news |title=At House E.P.A. Hearing, Both Sides Claim Science |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html |last=Broder |first=John M. |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 9, 2011 |page=17 |accessdate=January 22, 2017}}</ref> On March 10 the Act advanced out of the subcommittee on a voice vote.<ref>{{cite news |date=March 11, 2011 |title=GOP House moves to stop EPA climate rules |first=Wendy |last=Koch |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/03/gop-house-epa-greenhouse-gas/1 |accessdate=January 25, 2017}}</ref> On March 15 the Act advanced out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on a 34 to 19 vote. All Republican committee members voted in favor, along with three Democrats: [[John Barrow (U.S. politician)|John Barrow]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–12th [[Georgia (U.S. state)|GA]]), [[Jim Matheson]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–2nd [[Utah|UT]]), and [[Mike Ross (politician)|Mike Ross]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–4th [[Arkansas|AR]]).<ref>{{cite news |date=March 16, 2011 |title=House panel rejects EPA's greenhouse gas rules |first=Wendy |last=Koch |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |accessdate=January 25, 2017 |url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/03/house-panel-epa-greenhouse-gas/1}}</ref>
On April 5, 2011 US President [[Barack Obama]] said he would veto any bill that prevented the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.<ref name=nyt20110405>{{cite news |title=White House Promises Veto of Anti-E.P.A. Bill |url=https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/white-house-promises-veto-of-anti-e-p-a-bill/ |first=John M. |last=Broder |date=April 5, 2011 |accessdate=January 22, 2017 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref name="Heated but Hollow; The Environment, The Economist. February 12, 2011.">{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/18114709 |title=Heated but hollow |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |date=2011-02-10 |accessdate=2017-01-23}}</ref>▼
▲On March 30
On April 6, 2011, Rep. Upton summarized his intentions for introducing this bill saying, "…at the end of the day, the EPA climate regime is all economic pain and no environmental gain. It will cause severe economic harm and promote no environmental good. This extreme regulatory agenda must be stopped in its tracks –and that’s exactly what H.R. 910 would do."<ref name="The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, House Floor: Statement of Fred Upton. April 6, 2011.">[http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/Upton040611.pdf] {{dead link|date=January 2017}}</ref> On April 7, 2011 the bill passed the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] by a vote of 255 to 172.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/910/text |title=H.R.910 - Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 |accessdate=January 24, 2017 |publisher=[[Library of Congress]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?298825-2/house-session&start=9510 |publisher=[[C-SPAN]] |title=General Debate |date=April 6, 2011 |accessdate=January 24, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[GovTrack]] |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr910 |title=H.R. 910 (112th): Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 |accessdate=January 24, 2017}}</ref> The next day it was received by the [[United States Senate|Senate]] and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill died with the ending of the two-year Congressional session, in January 2013.▼
▲In response to this, [[Lisa P. Jackson]], the acting Administrator for the EPA, argued that the
▲On April 5
▲On April 6
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
* [https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/910 H.R.910 - Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011] at the [[Library of Congress]]
* [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr910 H.R. 910 (112th): Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011] at [[GovTrack]]
* [https://congress.gov/congressional-record/2011/04/06/house-section/article/H2350-4 Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (House of Representatives - April 06, 2011)] in the ''[[Congressional Record]]''
* [http://scorecard.lcv.org/roll-call-vote/2011-249-global-warming-pollution Global Warming Pollution House Roll Call Vote 249] on the National Environmental Scorecard of the [[League of Conservation Voters]]
[[Category:United States environmental case law]]
[[Category:Climate change policy in the United States]]
[[Category:United States Environmental Protection Agency]]
[[Category:Proposed legislation of the 112th United States Congress]]
|