Energy Tax Prevention Act: Difference between revisions

==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repealed and shall have no legal effect."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.▼

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.▼

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>▼

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>▼

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 &#124; 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.▼

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 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.▼