Tag: cap and trade

New Obama EPA Regulations Will Create 230,000 Jobs And Cost $21 Billion

President Obama has recently submitted a jobs plan to Congress.  Unfortunately for him, the reception has been less than stellar even among members of his own party.  In typical Obama style, he is now going around Congress to start creating those jobs and is spending $21 billion to do so.

This is not a new tactic for President Obama as he has often used regulatory agencies to accomplish what he cannot get through legislatively.  For instance, Congress rejected Cap and Trade yet the EPA has implemented most of the cap and trade policies on its own.  Congress wouldn’t pass an immigration reform bill, so President Obama used an executive order to grant what amounts to amnesty.  Under this administration, the FCC has tried to put in place a new regulatory structure for the internet called Net Neutrality–again, something Congress wouldn’t pass.

The President is becoming increasingly bold about these kinds of maneuvers.  Recently while announcing exemptions from the No Child Left Behind Law, President Obama said the following:

I’ve urged Congress for a while now, let’s get a bipartisan effort, let’s fix this,” Obama said. “Congress hasn’t been able to do it. So I will. Our kids only get one shot at a decent education. They cannot afford to wait any longer. So, given that Congress cannot act, I am acting…

This is not the mindset of someone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers.

And that doesn’t even begin to address problems with the actual policy.  The regulatory burdens in this country have become so heavy and difficult, many businesses are looking for ways to move over seas to places that have a much more business-friendly environment.  Recently Coke announced it was ramping up its investments in China.  The Coke CEO, Muhtar Kent, made the following statements about his reasons for shifting more investment to China:

“Coca-Cola now sees the US becoming a less friendly business environment than China, … citing political gridlock and an antiquated tax structure. … Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chief executive, said ‘in many respects’ it was easier doing business in China, which he likened to a well-managed company. ‘You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other … They’re learning very fast, these countries … In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment’. …”

“Kent argued that US states did not compete enough with each other to attract businesses while Chinese provinces were clamouring to draw investment from international companies.

There are a growing number of business owners and investors who have publicly stated their unwillingness to invest or expand due to the uncertainty in the regulatory field and with the nation’s economy.  Back in February, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee heard directly from small business owners about the devastating impact the tsunami of Obama Administration regulations is having on their ability to grow and create jobs.

“The cost of regulation incurred by all businesses is eventually passed on to the consumer and our workforce.  Regulatory costs require business owners like me to devote more time and resources to government compliance, which means less capital devoted to investment and job creation.

“If regulatory burden continues to grow we, along with all other private sector companies, will no longer be able to compete in the world market.  Jobs will not be created and new businesses will not be formed.  You will suffocate the system that has produced everything we enjoy today.  It is that simple.”

It’s time for Congress to stand up to the President and take back its Constitutional authority.  Rep. Geoff Davis and Sen. Rand Paul are proposing legislation that will do exactly that.  Called the REINS Act, H.R. 10 will require major regulations (defined as regulations that have more than a $100 million impact on the economy among other things) to be voted on by Congress before they have the force and effect of law.

Alabama Representatives Spencer Bachus, Jo Bonner, Mo Brooks and Martha Roby have already signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, along with Senator Jeff Sessions in the Senate.  We ask you to encourage Representatives Robert Aderholt, Mike Rogers and Terri Sewell to sign on as well, along with Senator Richard Shelby.  Congressional Switchboard 202-224-3121

New EPA Regulations Will Make Your Power Bill Go Up

Earlier this month, the EPA announced the implementation of new pollution standards–standards which will result in higher electricity costs for consumers in more than two dozen states.  The rule, called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will require power plants in the eastern half of the U.S. to make major reductions in soot and smog by forcing them to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide by 73% and nitrogen oxide by 54% from 2005 levels by 2014.

The time table for the requirements has caused some concern in the industry:

The EPA rule has generated anxiety in the coal industry partly because some of its emissions targets will take effect in January, a timetable that the companies say gives them too little time to prepare.

A spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based Southern Co., one of the nation’s largest coal-burning utilities and a critic of the proposed version of the EPA rule, called the agency’s compliance deadlines “unreasonable, unnecessary and disruptive.”

The end result of the new regulations–your electricity bill will go up.

Note:  This is not the first time the EPA has set policy essentially going around Congress and the legislative process.  When President Obama could not get Cap and Trade through Congress, he turned to the EPA to impose it through regulations.  Now, the EPA has decided to set new pollution standards and they’ve got a plan to get them in place:

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) believes that U.S. EPA has worked out a nifty way to make an end run around both Congress and the federal regulatory process when it wants to implement a new rule that may be politically sensitive.

All the agency has to do is get some green group to sue over some aspect of the desired rule, he said. Then EPA can roll over in the ensuing legal battle and head right to settlement proceedings, claiming it was “forced” by the court system and consent decrees to initiate the new rulemaking. It is a path devoid of both messy public comment periods and political accusations over whether EPA is moving unilaterally.

President Obama To Release More Strategic Petroleum Reserves

Today’s Morning Bell from The Heritage Foundation covers President Obama’s decision to release more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.

When it comes to making bad energy policy decisions, President Obama is a pro. Yesterday was no exception when the Obama Administration announced it would release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This is part of an agreement with the International Energy Agency (IEA) to put a total of 60 million barrels on the market in the next 30 days. Another 27 nations will make up the other half of the oil needed.

President Obama and the IEA first explained this irresponsible action by noting a supply disruption as a result of the war in Libya. However, this disruption does not justify the depletion of the SPR, and the Administration doesn’t have the legal rationale, either. The White House slightly changed its tune late yesterday when Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters it was meant as protection against increasing gas prices over the summer driving season.

Unfortunately, the President has a long history of poor decisions when it comes to energy policy.  From his support for Cap and Trade to his stand on domestic drilling, he has put in place policies that cause energy prices to rise for all Americans.

AFP Releases Paper On How The EPA Can Impose Cap and Trade

Americans for Prosperity has released a new paper detailing how the EPA can circumvent the democratic process and force cap and trade on Americans.

According to their press release:

The paper—entitled: Of Elephants and Mouseholes: How EPA Could Revive Cap-and-Trade—examines the statutory structure of the Clean Air Act and identifies two existing programs that EPA could contort to enact a GHG cap-and-trade program. The paper also includes a discussion of how cap-and-trade allows the EPA’s regulations to reach much further and accomplish more expansive goals than the Clean Air Act was ever designed to cover. The paper is online here.

Read more: http://americansforprosperity.org/102510-afp-releases-paper-detailing-how-epa-could-force-cap-and-trade-against-public-wishes#ixzz13Qs2ZAgB

Energy Legislation Will Hurt, Not Help Alabama Families

In an op-ed for the Birmingham News, Executive Director Brooklyn Roberts discusses the negative implications of cap and trade for Alabama families:

Energy Legislation Will Hurt, Not Help Alabama Families

Alabama families should expect to fork out an extra $125 per month if lawmakers in Washington have their way and pass what’s called the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

This bill, which barely made it through the U.S. House of Representatives late last month, will likely be voted on by the Senate before the end of this one.

The legislation, known as ACES, gambles with the future of our country’s energy availability by imposing unrealistic, renewable energy mandates on energy producers and requiring those producers who cannot meet government mandates to pay for carbon credits. Referred to as “cap and trade,” the bill is definitely no ace-in-the-hole for Alabama.  Read More…