Energy Tax Prevention Act

Last updated
Energy Tax Prevention Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleEnergy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
Codification
Acts amended Clean Air Act
Legislative history
United States Supreme Court cases
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

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 gases to address climate change. On April 7, 2011, the bill passed the House by a vote of 255 to 172. The bill died in January 2013 with the ending of the Congressional session.

Contents

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. [1] [2]

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 gases to address climate change. [3] 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 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. [4] 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. [5]

Proposed changes

If passed, this bill would have amended several core components of the 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. [6]

The Act said that the Administrator of the EPA may take no action involving the consideration of greenhouse gases as pollutants or contributing factors to climate change. It also said 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...” [6] This means that, as greenhouse gases would no longer be considered to degrade the quality of air, sources would not be required to obtain 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." [6] The Act also listed a number of prior agency actions that would have been "...repealed and shall have no legal effect." [6] 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.

Legislative history

The House bill was sponsored by Representatives Fred Upton (R–6th MI) and Ed Whitfield (R–1st KY). [7] Co-sponsors included Representatives Steve Scalise (R–1st LA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R–5th WA), and Greg Walden (R–2nd OR). [8] The bill was introduced on March 3, 2011. [9] An identically worded bill was authored and introduced into the United States Senate by Senator Jim Inhofe (R–OK) and cosponsored by Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker (R–MS) and Marco Rubio (R–FL). [7] [10] [11]

On March 8, 2011, in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Congressmen presented five eminent academic climatologists who defended the scientific consensus that global warming is largely the result of human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Republican Congressmen presented two witnesses who said that the reasons for global warming were unclear. [12] On March 10 the Act advanced out of the subcommittee on a voice vote. [13] 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 (D–12th GA), Jim Matheson (D–2nd UT), and Mike Ross (D–4th AR). [14]

On March 30 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a cost estimate that said “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.” [15] 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.” [16]

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.” [16] 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." [16] 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." [16] 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).” [17] 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 US President Barack Obama said he would veto any bill that prevented the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. [7] [18]

On April 6 in House floor debate Upton summarized his intentions for introducing this bill saying, "The only environmental impact may be to ship our jobs to countries with no environmental protections at all, so, ... at the end of the day the EPA climate regime is all economic pain and no environmental gain." Henry Waxman (D–4th CA), Ranking Member in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce said "...climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities, not put our heads in the sands." [19] On April 7, 2011, the bill passed the House by a vote of 255 to 172. [20] [21] [22] No Republican opposed it; 19 Democrats supported it. [23] The next day it was received by the 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.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Environmental Protection Agency</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent executive agency of the United States federal government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carol Browner</span> American environmentalist and lawyer (born 1955)

Carol Martha Browner is an American lawyer, environmentalist, and businesswoman, who served as director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2011. Browner previously served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2001. She currently works as a Senior Counselor at Albright Stonebridge Group, a global business strategy firm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen L. Johnson</span> American politician

Stephen Lee Johnson is an American politician who served as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President George W. Bush during the second term of his administration. He has received the Presidential Rank Award, the highest award that can be given to a civilian federal employee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lisa P. Jackson</span> American politician: EPA administrator

Lisa Perez Jackson is an American chemical engineer who served as the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2009 to 2013. She was the first African American to hold that position.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007</span> United States law

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007, is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress, it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Even though Rahall was 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill, it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007. After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007 and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007, in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States</span> Climate changing gases from the North American country

The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person. However, the IEA estimates that the richest decile in the US emits over 55 tonnes of CO2 per capita each year. Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source. In 2020, 27% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 24% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 11% from agriculture. In 2021, the electric power sector was the second largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 25% of the U.S. total. These greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change in the United States, as well as worldwide.

United States vehicle emission standards are set through a combination of legislative mandates enacted by Congress through Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments from 1970 onwards, and executive regulations managed nationally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and more recently along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These standard cover common motor vehicle air pollution, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions, and newer versions have incorporated fuel economy standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental policy of the United States</span> Governmental action to protect the environment

The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Years Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.” Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA, the world's “environmental Magna Carta”.

New Energy for America was a plan led by Barack Obama and Joe Biden beginning in 2008 to invest in renewable energy sources, reduce reliance on foreign oil, address global warming issues, and create jobs for Americans. The main objective for the New Energy for America plan was to implement clean energy sources in the United States in order to switch from nonrenewable resources to renewable resources. The plan led by the Obama Administration aimed to implement short-term solutions to provide immediate relief from pain at the pump, and mid- to- long-term solutions to provide a New Energy for America plan. The goals of the clean energy plan hoped to: invest in renewable technologies that will boost domestic manufacturing and increase homegrown energy, invest in training for workers of clean technologies, strengthen the middle class, and help the economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Air Act (United States)</span> United States federal law to control air pollution

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.

To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Clean Energy and Security Act</span> Proposed United States climate and energy legislation (Waxman-Markey); never passed

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress that would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212. With no prospect of overcoming a threatened Republican filibuster, the bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion or a vote. The House passage of the bill was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change policy of the United States</span> Overview of the climate change policy of the United States of America

The climate change policy of the United States has major impacts on global climate change and global climate change mitigation. This is because the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world after China, and is among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. In total, the United States has emitted over 400 billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses, more than any country in the world.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

The, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are currently controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. The basis for regulations was upheld in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electricity Security and Affordability Act</span>

The Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a bill that would repeal a pending rule published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 8, 2014. The proposed rule would establish uniform national limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new electricity-generating facilities that use coal or natural gas. The rule also sets new standards of performance for those power plants, including the requirement to install carbon capture and sequestration technology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Power Plan</span> United States energy plan from President Obama

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating anthropogenic climate change that was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014. The final version of the plan was unveiled by President Obama on August 3, 2015. Each state was assigned an individual goal for reducing carbon emissions, which could be accomplished how they saw fit, but with the possibility of the EPA stepping in if the state refused to submit a plan. If every state met its target, the plan was projected to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 32% by 2030, relative to 2005 levels, as well as achieving various health benefits due to reduced air pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew R. Wheeler</span> 15th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (born 1964)

Andrew R. Wheeler is an American attorney who served as the 15th administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2019 to 2021. He served as the deputy administrator from April to July 2018, and served as the acting administrator from July 2018 to February 2019. He has been a senior advisor to Governor of Virginia Glenn Youngkin since March 2022. He previously worked in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, representing coal magnate Robert E. Murray and lobbying against the Obama Administration's environmental regulations. Wheeler served as chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and to the chairman U.S. senator James Inhofe, prominent for his rejection of climate change. Wheeler is a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

References

  1. ↑ "A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy (2012)" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. May 2012. Retrieved 2017-01-25.
  2. ↑ "Appendix D: Summary of Key Climate Related Votes in Congress" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists . Retrieved 2017-01-25.
  3. ↑ "EPA Denies Petition to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles" (Press release). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003-08-23. Retrieved 2010-08-12.
  4. ↑ "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act". United States Environmental Protection Agency. December 7, 2009. Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  5. ↑ Broder, John M. (February 10, 2011). "House Republicans Take E.P.A. Chief to Task". The New York Times . p. 16. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Committee on Environment and Public Works. "Text of H.R. 910 (112th): Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (Referred to Senate Committee version)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  7. 1 2 3 Broder, John M. (April 5, 2011). "White House Promises Veto of Anti-E.P.A. Bill". The New York Times . Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  8. ↑ McCarthy, Tom (November 17, 2014). "Meet the Republicans in Congress who don't believe climate change is real". The Guardian . Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  9. ↑ Broder, John M. (March 16, 2011). "House Panel Votes to Limit E.P.A. Power". The New York Times . Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  10. ↑ Wicker, Roger (March 4, 2011). "Cochran and Wicker Cosponsor Energy Tax Prevention Act" (Press release). Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  11. ↑ Rubio, Marco (March 3, 2011). "Senator Rubio Co-sponsors The Energy Tax Prevention Act Of 2011" (Press release). Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  12. ↑ Broder, John M. (March 9, 2011). "At House E.P.A. Hearing, Both Sides Claim Science". The New York Times . p. 17. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  13. ↑ Koch, Wendy (March 11, 2011). "GOP House moves to stop EPA climate rules". USA Today . Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  14. ↑ Koch, Wendy (March 16, 2011). "House panel rejects EPA's greenhouse gas rules". USA Today . Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  15. ↑ "Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 910 Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. March 30, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  16. 1 2 3 4 "Discussion of draft GHG bill turns into CAA debate". Ogj.com. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  17. ↑ "Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution | US EPA". Epa.gov. 16 November 2016. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  18. ↑ "Heated but hollow". The Economist . 2011-02-10. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  19. ↑ "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (House of Representatives - April 06, 2011)". Congressional Record . April 6, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  20. ↑ "H.R.910 - Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011". Library of Congress. 8 April 2011. Retrieved January 24, 2017.
  21. ↑ "General Debate". C-SPAN. April 6, 2011. Retrieved January 24, 2017.
  22. ↑ "H.R. 910 (112th): Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011". GovTrack . Retrieved January 24, 2017.
  23. ↑ Tracy, Ryan (April 7, 2011). "House Votes to Stop EPA From Regulating Greenhouse Gases". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved January 25, 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.