WSJ Outlines Biden Admin’s Backdoor Climate Agenda

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial March 18 discussing the Biden administration’s “backdoor” plan to advance climate regulations. As the editorial outlines, it appears that the Biden EPA plans to use the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to move forward with climate regulations in order to avoid the political costs of voting on any such regulations in congress. 

Some history

In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) the Supreme Court ruled that the law’s general definition of the term “pollutant” covered greenhouse gases, but the Court didn’t tell the EPA how to regulate carbon dioxide under the law. This set the stage for the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding, which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare. 

In the wake of the endangerment finding, green groups pressured the Obama EPA to include carbon dioxide as a criteria pollutant and to set National Air Ambient Quality Standards for it. Because carbon dioxide doesn’t produce any direct negative effects on public health, Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson advised against the idea of regulating it as a criteria pollutant. Instead, the Obama EPA used its Clean Power Plan to try to force states to reduce emissions from power plants. However, the Clean Power Plan was eventually blocked by the Supreme Court. 

The New Plan

The climate lobby now appears to have a scheme underway by which it will use a replacement ozone rule to regulate carbon dioxide. The Biden administration has tapped Joe Goffman, a former Obama EPA official, to oversee NAAQS as principal deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial explains:

“Emails obtained by Chris Horner at Energy Policy Advocates, which were shared with us, show Democratic AGs in 2019 consulted Mr. Goffman, then at Harvard Law School, on using the NAAQS to regulate CO2. Mr. Goffman connected the AGs to former EPA officials and environmental attorneys. As his new EPA profile slyly explains, Mr. Goffman at Harvard ‘led a team of attorneys and communications specialists providing information and analysis to stakeholders, government decision-makers and the media.’

Consultants referred by Mr. Goffman told the AGs that regulating CO2 as a criteria pollutant wouldn’t fly. But they proposed using ozone NAAQS as what one called a ‘backdoor.’ Fossil fuel combustion, motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions contribute to ozone. So the EPA could make states reduce CO2 emissions by tightening ozone standards. States might have to outlaw natural gas-powered appliances, gas stations and internal combustion engines to meet stricter ozone standards.”

On January 19th, sixteen Democratic AGs challenged the EPA’s current ozone NAAQS in a one paragraph lawsuit that says the current standards are “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious and therefore must be vacated.” With Joe Goffman now in place in Biden’s EPA, it appears their goal is to construct a replacement ozone rule that would provide de facto regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. 

In short, it appears as though Democratic AGs, green groups, and a top EPA official are working in unison to impose the Green New Deal on states through the backdoor because, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, “they know they can’t pass it through the front in Congress.”

CLEAN Future Act Puts Ratepayers On The Hook For EV Infrastructure

In early March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) introduced the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. The bill aims to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with an interim target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels no later than 2030.  

Taken as a whole, the bill would impose overbearing regulations on the production of our most reliable energy sources, which would raise costs on energy consumers and destroy jobs in the energy industry. Here, I want to focus on one particular section of the bill that aims at encouraging the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations in the name of environmental justice. Here is the summary language for the relevant section of the CLEAN Future Act:

“Sec. 435. STATE CONSIDERATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING.

Amends PURPA section 111(d) to require states consider authorizing measures encouraging deployment of electric vehicle charging stations; allowing utilities to recover from ratepayers’ investments that further deployment of electric vehicle charging networks; and excluding from regulation as electric utilities entities selling electricity to the public solely through electric vehicle chargers.”

Under rate-of-return regulation, utilities are allowed to recover their cost to do business and earn a guaranteed return on invested capital. Under this system, there is little incentive for the utility to reduce operating costs. As long as the rate-of-return is above the cost of debt, the rate base can be inflated by spending more capital than is necessary. If passed, the CLEAN Future Act would allow utilities to rate base the construction of electric vehicle charging stations, meaning that the cost of these charging stations will be passed on to utility customers as a whole. 

As we have noted elsewhere, EVs are already heavily subsidized and those subsidies are costly, unnecessary, and unfair. Electric vehicles are mainly subsidized through tax credits, which are the result of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049) and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These provide federal income tax credits for new qualified electric vehicles of up to $7,500. 

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the majority of people who claim the electric vehicle tax credit earn a much higher income than the national average. As the report notes:

“In 2016, 57,066 individual taxpayers claimed $375 million in plug-in EV tax credits. EV tax credits are disproportionately claimed by higher-income taxpayers. Most of the tax credits (78%) are claimed by filers with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or more, and those filers receive an even higher proportion (83%) of the amount of credits claimed. About 7% of credits claimed, and 8% of the total amount of credits, were on returns where the taxpayer’s AGI exceeded $1 million.”

That same report found, based on estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, that under current law tax expenditure (forgone revenue) for the plug-in EV tax credit would be $7.5 billion between 2018 and 2022. 

In other words, American taxpayers are already spending billions of dollars to subsidize electric vehicles that are mostly being purchased by high-income earners. On top of that, this new bill would ensure that the costs of building out EV infrastructure will be paid by utility ratepayers in the form of higher electricity prices. This follows a familiar pattern where policies that are enacted in the name of ‘environmental justice’ disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals while the costs are passed on to everyone else.

The Unregulated #28: Tom and Mike Discuss Biden’s Remarks on the American Rescue Plan

Tom and Mike sit down to discuss Biden’s remarks on the American Rescue Plan as well as the Andrew Cuomo scandals and the petition to recall Gavin Newsom.

Links:

Subscribe to AEA’s ‘In The Pipeline” daily energy newsletter

Remarks by President Biden on the American Rescue Plan

Biden Tells the Nation There is Hope After a Devastating Year

Fauci CNN Interview

Gavin Newsom Recall: National Democrats Rally Behind California Governor.

Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand call on Cuomo to resign over the sexual harassment scandal.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo accuser speaks with investigators for 4 hours.

Dingell to propose $4.5 billion annually for electrification infrastructure.

Key Vote NO on Haaland Confirmation

While Biden’s nominees for various energy and economic positions have been awful, Rep. Haaland may be the most extreme. Her wholehearted opposition to the invaluable practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), her advocacy for the “30×30” movement, which would exclude most of the federal lands from productive use, and her endorsement of the Green New Deal make her unfit to lead the department.

Haaland hails from New Mexico, the epicenter of America’s thriving oil and gas production, and earned a 0% as a member of Congress on our Energy Scorecard. That means she actively opposes domestic energy production and seeks to drive up energy prices while inhibiting America’s energy security. Supporting her in this role should be political suicide and we’re making that crystal clear with today’s vote alert. These aren’t threats, these are facts.

Any Senator who casts a vote in support of Haaland is voting against American energy and will be forced to explain to their own constituents that they are directly responsible for rising energy prices and why foreign nations like China, who controls the rare earth mineral market required for renewable energy manufacturing, is in control of our energy future, not us.

AEA Issues Energy Scorecard Vote Alert for DOI Nominee Deb Haaland


Senators casting votes in support of Rep. Haaland for Interior Secretary will earn a negative mark on AEA’s Energy Scorecard.



WASHINGTON DC (March 15, 2021) – Today, the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, issued a vote alert to members of the U.S. Senate that the organization would be scoring the confirmation vote of Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM) as the next Secretary of Interior. AEA’s Energy Scorecard has two primary audiences – voters and lawmakers – and its purpose is to highlight activity around the most important energy-related votes and legislation in Congress.

Last month, AEA issued a series of questions exposing poor judgment and actions by Haaland and a history of unscientific commentary on climate change and opposition to domestic energy production. Tapping America’s vast energy resources on federal lands has proven to keep energy prices affordable and increased our nation’s energy security.

A vote in support of Haaland, who opposes safe and responsible domestic energy development, will result in a negative mark on a Senator’s Energy Scorecards.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement ahead of the vote:

“While Biden’s nominees for various energy and economic positions have been awful, Rep. Haaland may be the most extreme. Her wholehearted opposition to the invaluable practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), her advocacy for the “30×30” movement, which would exclude most of the federal lands from productive use, and her endorsement of the Green New Deal make her unfit to lead the department.

“Haaland hails from New Mexico, the epicenter of America’s thriving oil and gas production, and earned a 0% as a member of Congress on our Energy Scorecard. That means she actively opposes domestic energy production and seeks to drive up energy prices while inhibiting America’s energy security. Supporting her in this role should be political suicide and we’re making that crystal clear with today’s vote alert. These aren’t threats, these are facts.

“Any Senator who casts a vote in support of Haaland is voting against American energy and will be forced to explain to their own constituents that they are directly responsible for rising energy prices and why foreign nations like China, who controls the rare earth mineral market required for renewable energy manufacturing, is in control of our energy future, not us.”


Federal policies impacting energy production on America’s public lands hit Haaland’s home state of New Mexico particularly hard, where $2.8 billion in revenue is derived from oil and gas production. At least half of New Mexico’s oil and gas production occurs on federal lands, and the revenue generated from oil and gas funds almost 40% of the state’s budget. Furthermore, President Biden’s Interior Department initiated a 60-day suspension of new oil and gas drilling permits on Jan. 21, which if remained permanent is estimated to result in 72,818 fewer jobs annually. Lost wages would total $19.6 billion, economic activity would decline $43.8 billion, and tax revenues would drop $10.8 billion by the end of Biden’s first term. Western governors, including Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), have voiced concern about federal decisions that overwhelmingly impact western states.

On Friday, AEA urged U.S. citizens who support affordable energy to contact their senators and urge a No vote on Haaland. After votes are cast, AEA will use its Energy Scorecard to highlight those that vote for and against Haaland. Americans deserve an Interior Secretary who has a record of seeking a balanced approach to federal lands activities and who supports energy security.


Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please email AEA’s Press Office: [email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #27: Tom and Mike discuss environmental justice with Dr. David Kreutzer

Tom and Mike are joined by IER’s Senior Economist Dr. David Kreutzer. They discuss the social cost of carbon, environmental justice, and Dr. Kreutzer’s forthcoming paper on climate economics. Tom and Mike also discuss H.R. 1 and the Nation Guard at the Capitol.

Links:

Subscribe to AEA’s ‘In The Pipeline” daily energy newsletter

Mike’s latest column at the Washington Times

Biden sued by 12 states over climate executive order: ‘Enormous expansion of federal regulatory power’

Read the Senate’s full coronavirus aid package bill

Capitol Police ask for about 2,000 National Guard troops to stay to protect Congress

Senators float a price on methane to curb U.S. oil, gas emissions

The Unregulated Podcast #26: Tom and Mike on the Fall of King Cuomo and the Resurgence of the Carbon Tax

On this episode of Unregulated Tom & Mike throw the script out the window. Taking on the Cuomo fan club, going over the latest DOE chief’s unbelievable gaffes, Murkowski’s recent betrayal of Alaskans, the fall of Neera Tanden, what’s going wrong with the trade groups nominally created to defend energy producers, and more.

Links:

Subscribe to AEA’s ‘In The Pipeline” daily energy newsletter

Mike’s latest column at the Washington Times

GERALDO RIVERA & DAN BONGINO | GOV. ANDREW CUOMO TO STEP DOWN AMID SCANDALS | SEAN HANNITY

Jennifer Granholm Discusses The U.S.’s Energy Infrastructure on NPR

Postal Service sidetracks Biden EV plan

las·si·tude (noun) a state of physical or mental weariness; lack of energy

Top 10 Questions for Mallory & McCabe

Promoting former Obama officials with a history of failed policies will not unite America.


WASHINGTON DC (March 3, 2021) – Today, the American Energy Alliance (AEA) issued ten suggested questions for today’s Senate Environment & Public Works Committee confirmation hearing for Brenda Mallory to serve as Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Janet McCabe to become the Deputy Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CEQ advises the President and develops policies on environmental justice, federal sustainability, public lands, major infrastructure projects including pipelines and highways, and the U.S. EPA is responsible for the protection of human health and the environment. Combined, the two serve as critically important bodies impacting America’s energy and environmental issues. 

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement ahead of the hearing:

“It seems that President Obama is enjoying his third term as the revolving door between the green left lobby and Democratic administrations continues to swing widely with respect to these two Biden nominees. Considering their roles in the execution of former President Obama’s ‘America last’ energy policy – especially the disastrous so-called Clean Power Plan – this duo is set up to do some serious damage if confirmed. I urge the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee to ask some very serious questions before deciding whether to confirm these two individuals.”

5 Questions for Brenda Mallory:

  1. During your tenure under the Obama’s administration, you reported to newly installed domestic “climate czar” Gina McCarthy. There are a number of legal and policy concerns with the unaccountable role of these czars, including constitutional issues around the Appointments clause, specific statutory limits on their role (which provide limited, delegated authority to agencies and strict transparency requirements on White House/interagency role), unwillingness to provide Congressional testimony, FOIA applicability, and ethics requirements.
    • Could you explain in your own words your view of these czar positions and how you plan to interact with Ms. McCarthy?
  1. According to publicly available tax records, your current employer, the Southern Environmental Law Center, between the years 2008-16 received approximately 41 grants totaling $10,750,000.00 from foundations requesting the law center attack coal and promote renewable energy under the guise of climate change. 
    • With this kind of paid advocacy in your history, how do you intend to remain impartial, fair and objective?  Will you recuse yourself on any matters connected to these foundations or the law center, which is currently involved in litigation on CEQ’s 2020 NEPA modernization rule?
  1. The Biden administration appears fond of the term environmental justice. 
    • In your own words, could you please define what environmental justice means? Could the term be misused, abused, or altered to achieve a premeditated outcome?  Do you believe that energy companies intentionally target specific communities and seek to take advantage of them?  If so, how?
  1. The Trump administration enacted several positive, commonsense regulatory reforms that promoted American energy development. However, the Biden administration has pledged to undue of the previous administration’s work as much as possible. 
    • Do you believe there are any actions the Trump administration took or regulations implemented that shouldn’t be changed? If so, which ones?
  1. In an executive order aimed at tackling climate change, President Biden directed federal agencies to “eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as consistent with applicable law.” Mr. Biden also said he would ask Congress to end the $40 billion in fossil fuel subsidies through legislation. 
    • Do you know which subsidies President Biden was referring to since the fossil fuel industry receives tax deductions rather than tax subsidies, and many of the industry’s tax deductions are federal law? 

The estimated amount that the Production Tax Credit that funds wind power will cost taxpayers $40.12 billion from 2018 to 2027, making it the most expensive energy subsidy under current tax law, though the solar investment tax credit is giving wind competition for that honor. 

Do you think the President is confused, and if so, would it be your responsibility to educate him on this matter? 

5 Questions for Janet McCabe:

  1. Roll Call, a Washington-DC newspaper labeled you the “architect,” and in a Newsweek Op-Ed you wrote, you declared yourself the “author” of EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) under the Obama administration.  
    • Given that the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of staying the CPP, what steps will you take to ensure that the Biden administration’s replacement for the CPP will fully comply with the law?
  1. Your previous tenure at EPA was marked by approval of dozens of sue-and-settle arrangements with environmental NGOs and against states, as well as nontransparent coordination with activist groups. 
    • Will you recuse yourself on any matters connected to these foundations?
  1. Communications obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) during your previous role at EPA revealed that you were using a non-government email address to coordinate with groups involved in the regulatory process and litigation, and therefore circumvented recordkeeping requirements by the federal government.  
    • Why should Members of Congress or the American people trust you this time? Can you pledge to this committee that you will not engage in this sort of effort to avoid transparency? 
  1. China has a virtual monopoly on the processing of rare earth elements that are needed for high tech (smartphones and laptops), defense equipment, and so-call “green” energy technologies. It not only produces the majority of rare earth elements, but it has the most rare earth reserves. China’s market dominance enables it to control prices and put pressure on challengers that threaten its ‘Made in China 2025’ strategy to create a vertically integrated supply chain encompassing mining, magnets, and high-tech manufacturing. 
    • Do you believe China is mining these minerals in an environmentally responsible way? Do you believe the U.S. needs to move to regain control of its industrial future to implement these “green” energy policies? Or should it maintain reliance on China?
  1. In 2010, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives but failed in the Democratic-controlled Senate. 
    • If a cap-and-trade bill or carbon tax bill is passed by this Congress, what form do you think the tax should take: Is it an emissions tax, a fuel tax or a production tax?
    • Which greenhouse gases are covered? Which sources (if any) are exempt?
    • Ultimately, who pays the tax and how would the revenue be spent?

The confirmation hearing for Brenda Mallory and Janet McCabe is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am EST on March 3, 2021 in the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.


Additional Resources:

The Unregulated Podcast #25: Tom And Mike Are Joined By Phil Kerpen To Discuss The Latest COVID Developments And More

On this episode of Unregulated Tom & Mike are joined by Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, as they discuss the latest COVID-19 lockdown measures, political gaffes in the age of Zoom, the resurgence of carbon tax proposals, and recap what went wrong in Texas and what it means for the rest of the country’s grids.

Links:

Subscribe to AEA’s ‘In The Pipeline” daily energy newsletter

Schumer on the ‘true’ failure in Texas

5 board members of Texas utility grid operator ERCOT quit. They all live out of state

Oakley, CA school board members caught on tape mocking parents who desperately need their kids back in the classroom

Follow Phil Kerpen on Twitter

Follow American Commitment on Twitter

Learn more about American Commitment

Dr. Fauci’s vaccine limitation announcement

Key Biden aide said pandemic was ‘best thing that ever happened to him’, book says

Bill Gates says reducing greenhouse emissions to zero is “bigger than anything humanity has done to date”

Romney: ‘I’m very open to a carbon tax’

John Kerry says Earth has 9 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis: “There’s no faking it on this one”

Key Vote NO on Granholm Confirmation

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to oppose the nomination of former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm for Secretary of Energy.

One of the main roles of the Department of Energy is managing the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funding and loans. The Biden administration has pledged to increase this spending even further. Thus, Granholm’s record of funding and advocating failed green-energy companies and even awarding millions in state contracts to a felon convicted of embezzlement should be disqualifying. Granholm’s tenure as governor is a long record of distributing billions of dollars in state and federal subsidies to “alternative” energy companies in the name of creating jobs or industries that failed to materialize. This record of failure and mismanagement does not merit an upgrade to a role that will oversee much vaster amounts of spending.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on confirmation for the Granholm nomination for Secretary of Energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.